The reason there were even any slave states to secede is because slavery was a perfectly legal, cherished, American institution. Slavery only became “wrong” when it led to secession. If it were morally reprehensible in the North, as it was in the South, I would have expected the U.S. to have done away with it BEFORE it led to civil war.
So yes, the metric used to gauge the wrongness of slavery is secession. Otherwise, the Union would have outlawed slavery in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware; or, better yet, outlaw all slavery upon Independence. But The U.S. didn’t want to do that.
Playing word games and shifting the goalposts is not appropriate behavior. The statement you quoted said nothing about the number of slaves in “the Confederacy.” It referred to the number of slaves in “the South.” That is an accurate statement and your attempt to bypass it appears to be a deliberate effort to derail the thread.
Aside from simply not making sense, your claim about when slavery became “wrong” is historically inaccurate.
Slavery was outlawed long before the Civil War:
1771, Massachusetts, (overruled by Governor appointed by King George)
1780, Pennsylvania (Gradual)
1783, Massachusetts (Total)
1783, New Hampshire (Gradual)
1784, Connecticut (Gradual)
1784, Rhode Island (Gradual)
1787, Northwest Territories (Total)
1799, New York, (Gradual)
1802, Oho (Total)
1804, New Jersey (Gradual)
1820, Maine (Total)
The the 1808 ban on importation,the 3/5 Compromise, the Missouri Compromise, and many other acts were the result of opposition to slavery within the U.S. It was recognized as “wrong” long before secession, although there was not sufficient political support to abolish it.
No one here has said that. This is a straw-man interpretation solely of your own imagining.
Secession was wrong, and doubly so because it’s sole purpose was to maintain slavery.
The suppression of the revolt was not premised upon ending slavery, nor continuing it.
Why? The votes weren’t there. The U.S. was making minor steps forward, but the most they could do was to limit the admission of any new slaves states. The constitution limits the power of the government. The Thirteenth Amendment could not have passed before the war occurred.
Again, hogwash. No one is holding this view but you.
In any case, I exposed your logical fallacy, where you substituted the converse of a statement for the statement itself. You asked to have your error explicated, and I did that.
That is exactly the point. Slaves in The South, if we are not talking about the Confederacy, are in the U.S. Everything that happened from the Atlantic coast to Texas happened in the U.S. Treatment of slaves in The South was treatment of slaves in the U.S.
ANDY also referred to “the 11 southern states.” Is he not using “the South,” “the Confederacy,” and “the 11 southern states” interchangeably? If he isn’t, then he’s the one playing word games.
I have no idea which goalposts I’ve shifted. If this is the wrong place to ask for clarification, let me know.
History is convenient to ignore, just as this country changed in 20 years on the subject of same sex marriage it had changed in the country as a whole on slavery.
The historical documents don’t lie, history is quite clear where succession was directly due to and attributed to the movement from the north to abolish slavery.
By changing the discussion from “the South” to “the Confederacy” you are trying to change the discussion. I do not believe that you are unaware of the game you are playing. There were always more slaves in the South than in the North. The Confederacy was founded with the intent of preserving that slavery, (even though there was no actual attempt by the North to abolish it in the South). References to the Confederacy indicate the treasonous rebellion intended to preserve a phenomenon that was not currently under attack. Claiming that the U.S. had more slaves than the Confederacy is playing a word game when no one claimed that the South had more slaves than the U.S.
Actually, the chattel slavery present in the U.S. until the 13th Amendment was pretty much of a home-grown situation. The UK had indentured servitude, but it was the American colonies that began passing laws to prevent indentured slaves from gaining freedom after their service period had ended and then ruled that blacks imported from Africa were to be permanent slaves. Britain followed a similar path in the Caribbean, but our form of slavery originated here.
The unique version in the Americas was still started with the Portuguese and Queen Elizabeth I’s charter of John Hawkins. It was not similar to indentured servitude on the British isles. The fact that we took it to another level does not change the fact that most of that was established while we were under British control.
It does not reduce the moral realities of it, just that it existed.
Yes, the guy who is almost never serious, particularly when he posts his one liners and lack of proper capitalization. I can’t even read his posts without hearing them in a sarcastic tone of voice.
To be clear, the time period between the first “official” chattel slavery in Virginia, to the declaration of independence was ~135 years, not very far off the distance in time we are from the civil war. And even before then it was effectively chattel slavery and fully with the crowns knowledge and support.
Lest anyone misapprehend my position in this thread, or my personal feelings on the flag, I heartily endorse this act of civil disobedience. Now that is some powerful moral suasion.
I think I’m fine with this sort of vandalism of such a symbol on government property, as long as it’s completely non-violent towards anyone or anything besides the flag. Very occasionally, in my mind, such acts are morally acceptable, and I think this is one of those times.
Hmm, his position seems obvious to me. The “vigilante” taking down of the flag hurt no one but showed her conviction. It was a statement rather than an edict from corporate headquarters.
Though I am confident that if she was in charge of anything she would have issued an edict. Lol.
eBay is perfectly within it’s rights to ban sales. My argument is that it is wrongheaded and counterproductive. There is no element of persuasion in it. It is, rather, a strong-arm approach to the problem, and it is that type of thing which tends to generate backlash and entrenchment, the opposite outcome from what I’d imagine they desire.
As for today’s act of civil disobedience, I am all for civil disobedience because it calls attention to a wrong. That black woman climbing that pole shows how hurt she is by that flag in a way that conscientious people will recognize (and in a way that shouting at them won’t).
Hope that clears things up as to where I’m coming from.
Back in my foolish youth, I tried to chop down a cross that was upon a hilltop. I thought it was public land, and for First Amendment reasons, I objected.
Damn fool me: it was private land! (And I klutzed it up anyway, and failed to fell the doggone thing. That puppy was anchored in a big cement foundation, and was way too thick for me and my little George Washington hatchet!)
Today, I’m much more conservative, and prefer to let the legislative and judicial systems do what needs doing.
Still, I agree with you that this is far from a major offense against the peace, and that since the “victim” is “We the People” collectively, it’s nowhere near as bad as if they had ripped it off someone’s front porch, or car, or jacket. It just seems bad timing, to take this audacious and illegal approach, right at the time when the legislature was taking up the issue in the proper manner. Sort of as if Grant had ordered a last bombardment at Appomattox, even while Lee was walking over with intent to surrender. It smacks of bad sportsmanship, if nothing else. Give the guys the honor of hauling down their own flag.
This isn’t a hill I want to die on; it just doesn’t feel right to me.
And I have to say that after arguing with you earlier in the thread about the nature of moral suasion, I have to agree with you 100% on this one. This is the very essence of civil disobedience. No one is more pro law & order than I am. I obey laws that no one else bothers to obey. But civil disobedience by its very nature means breaking the law when that is what your conscience dictates, and being willing to risk the appropriate penalties. Taking down a flag hurts no one and damages no property. But it makes a powerful statement.
This was the fourth time in the past two days that I cried at a news item, and the one that most caught me by surprise:
[ul]
[li]Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the marriage equality case[/li][li]President Obama’s remarks on that decision[/li][li]President Obama singing Amazing Grace[/li][li]The Confederate flag being taken down[/li][/ul]
I don’t see this as vandalism, myself. Nothing was damaged (well, possibly the pole itself picked up some minor scratches) and Newsome calmly surrendered to police, after putting nobody at physical risk except herself.