I can't get my head around why it flies over South Carolina's capitol building.

I figure my lack of understanding is cultural. What am I missing about the "Southern heritage" debate?

I can understand, kind of, the generalised states rights "fuck you" inherent in having the flag flying at the best of times. But not lowering it seemed like a big fuck you to the families of the people who had been killed.

*rollseyes*

Instead of a rehearsed "all to blame" knee-jerk, can we please acknowledge the lion's share of the blame so that we may empirically conclude that it was the fucking North that was responsible not simply for trying to force their values and policies on the South but also defy the constitution and start a ridiculous war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives just so Lincoln wouldn't have to say he let the union dissolve?

Also, Southern culture was not nearly as overtly supremacist as modern armchair historians would have us believe. While the South had the most slave owners, they could hardly be associated with the common Southern man. The reality is that slavery was out the door anyway. On that note, Lincoln wasn't even averse the idea of letting it continue as long as the succession was put to an end--a proposal that was refused of course.

The very existence of the Confederate flag defies the idea of a federal monopoly over the states. That's the only reason the left truly hates that flag.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibited the Confederate government from restricting slavery in any way:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Article IV, Section 2 also prohibited states from interfering with slavery:

"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

Perhaps the most menacing provision of the Confederate States Constitution was the explicit protection Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3 offered to slavery in all future territories conquered or acquired by the Confederacy:

"The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."

This provision ensured the perpetuation of slavery as long and as far as the Confederate States could extend it's political reach, and more then a few Confederates had their eyes fixed on Cuba and Central and South America as objects of future conquest.

But everyone is lowering that flag, to half-mast. The shooter could have been flapping that flag about like a hanky, and it doesn't matter: the country mourns the deaths by lowering its standards to half-mast.

Contrary to what you have said, there's no "magic" to the evidence of a relationship between the Confederate flag and the shooter.

So, the Confederate constitution itself contemplates slavery as a federal institution and one which could be extended through territorial acquisition. So, I guess, if the Confederate army had acquired, I don't know, Rhode Island (from memory of a train ride in 2010, north of NY but south of Boston, so my example is improbable), then slavery could be practiced there without inhibition from the Confederate government. Legally, that doesn't sound like slavery was on its way out.

Practically, I assume the English blockade on slave ships wasn't super effective, and that the economics of a slaving nation are lucrative. But I don't know the reality of that, and you didn't embellish on your position of the causes of a decline in slavery in the South pre-Civil War.

Nothing otherwise to say on this post: I am in the position of not having an opinion through lack of knowledge on the history and causes of the war. What you say is interesting and doesn't seem improbable.

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments - Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms:

"ARTICLE 1 - His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were - separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May, 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860

I can't get my head around why it flies over South Carolina's capitol building.

I figure my lack of understanding is cultural. What am I missing about the "Southern heritage" debate?

The flag is also known as "the Stainless Banner" and was designed by William T. Thompson, a newspaper editor and writer based in Savannah, Georgia, with assistance from William Ross Postell, a Confederate blockade runner.[1][2][4][5][6][7] The nickname "stainless" referred to the pure white field which took up a large part of the flag's design, although W.T. Thompson, the flag's designer, referred to his design as "The White Man's Flag".[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] In referring to the white field that comprised a large part of the flag's design elements, Thompson stated that its color symbolized the "supremacy of the white man":




Second national flag
(May 1, 1863 – March 4, 1865[17]), 2:1 ratio

Second national flag, also used as the Confederate navy's ensign, 1.5:1 ratio

• As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.
  
  —William T. Thompson (April 23, 1863), Daily Morning News[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

So Fedzilla knows that it's not the end all be all of American government.

The real question here is why Haley is pulling a Pence and capitulating to Obama and friends' social engineering tactics.

Back in the 70s and 80s the Confederate Flag just meant, at least to us Northern Kids, "the South" or "Rebel": Dukes of Hazzard, Skynyrd even Tom Petty all sported the flag in a harmless, non racial, sense.

I respect the viewpoint of people that still feel it means that.

Still, sometimes symbols get co-opted to the point where the general meaning has been corrupted and the "negative" connotation is too widely accepted for it to be worthwhile to keep arguing about the original, benign, meaning.

(See, for example, the Roman salute and the Swastika).

I've thought the Confederate flag might be at that point for a while now.

It's worth noting that prior to World War II, U.S. citizens used to pledge to the American flag in a similar "Roman" or "Seig Heil" position of the arm. To eliminate any similarity to the Nazi salute, the position was changed to the right hand over the heart.

I just want to point out that the two guys on this board actually from the south have said that the flag on state grounds in SC was put there as a racist symbol and should be taken down.

I just want to point out that the two guys on this board actually from the south have said that the flag on state grounds in SC was put there as a racist symbol and should be taken down.

I don't have time to post at length right now, but I just wanted to point how much I admire the finesse of your approach.

As the resident Southern local, you can invoke authority on the matter to squash non-Southern dissent, but your previous post still leaves enough legroom to attribute "flat out racism" to any other Southern posters who might disagree with your point of view.

Masterful way to stack the deck. Certainly better than Iggy's copy/paste strategy (which I didn't bother to read).

So the south became a republican stronghold about the time the democrats adopted civil rights into their party correct?

I just want to point out that the two guys on this board actually from the south have said that the flag on state grounds in SC was put there as a racist symbol and should be taken down.

That copy/paste job was of the SC declaration of secession. Thanks for proving the point that you guys will gladly ignore the documented history when it does not jive with your imagined historical narrative.

It's been interesting seeing at least some of the GOP modify it's stance on this issue. I think it boils down to a case of the their old base not being big enough for the republican party any more.

there were a number of factors in the switch and I doubt anyone will agree on one root cause. the beginnings of the neoconservative movement with goldwater most likely broke republicans of their inclination toward government spending (at least pertaining to social programs), and the nascent leftist neoliberal movement that took hold among democrats favored way more federal-level intervention in both social and fiscal matters than I think many in the south were comfortable with.

there were a number of factors in the switch and I doubt anyone will agree on one root cause. the beginnings of the neoconservative movement with goldwater most likely broke republicans of their inclination toward government spending (at least pertaining to social programs), and the nascent leftist neoliberal movement that took hold among democrats favored way more federal-level intervention in both social and fiscal matters than I think many in the south were comfortable with.

Yep, he was the first southern elected to President in a long time.

Of course if you look at actual spending by the parties the GOP rhetoric on fiscal matters ends up being bs. And while a root cause can be debated for the south turning republican, I think it would be hard to argue race didn't play a significant factor. This topic for example shows that.

Or just clarifying that the pissed off Fred Savage from Cali shouldn't be bolstering up 'Southern Heritage' when he ain't got none.

That copy/paste job was of the SC declaration of secession. Thanks for proving the point that you guys will gladly ignore the documented history when it does not jive with your imagined historical narrative.

Still, being a Democrat it blows apart your assertion. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until the 90's that Mississippi elected its first Republican governor since reconstruction. And the Southern states were split for Clinton in both elections in the 90's. Not much of a stronghold there.

it's also important to look at the fact that while nice little red/blue dichotomies make for tidy and convenient narratives when briefly glancing at the whole country, they're almost insulting oversimplifications when you're trying to understand the cultural nuances of a single state or even an entire region. sometimes, we have to speculate on such matters just to account for how the polarity of how entire regions voted flip-flopped in such a short span of time, but there's just way too much differentiation even within the same party within the same span of time to be able to lump everyone into red=this, blue=that. not to mention that nowadays, when you look at actual voting records and campaign funding, there's next to no qualitative functional difference between the two big parties anyway.

If you are talking absolutes, no it isn't. But I guess I consider Minnesota a reliably democrat stronghold even though we've had quite a few republican govs. Ones I even thought governed well. Still at the heart of this matter, it is the south and it is the republicans fretting about what to do now about the flag that rose up after desegregation. Maybe in a 100 years they'll get caught up to where the democrats are now?

Your arrogance is astounding.

Confederate Flag Purge Goes Nuts Almost Immediately, Hits Harmless Strategy Games: Apple Store, Amazon drop products that are clearly not about upholding racist or segregationist views

Confederate Flag Purge Goes Nuts Almost Immediately, Hits Harmless Strategy Games: Apple Store, Amazon drop products that are clearly not about upholding racist or segregationist views

I would disagree about the difference between the two parties. Gotta remember a couple of years ago I couldn't marry the person I loved. That changed because of the democratic party. That may not seem like a big deal to you but consider how much you value your marriage and how you would view a party that fundraised off of making your marriage illegal. Big difference!

Yeah, the banning of Confederate flag merchandise is just another example of caving in to political correctness. I think it's better to acknowledge history, the good with the bad, than to ban it, and thus erase the lessons learned by preserving it.

That simply isn't true WB. Hillary argued on the senate floor against changing the constitution so that it would have an anti-gay clause in it when she was a senator. Very well documented and easy to find if you want to check it out. It is true that she had been on record about marriage being for one man one woman but her actions against amending the constitution doesn't equal a republicans who went much further than saying voicing opposition against marriage equality. I can marry who I love because of democrats like Hillary and Obama.

Clinton as I pointed out and you ignored is on record as arguing on the senate floor against the republican push to change the constitution to include a ban on gay marriage years ago. It's well documented who said and did what WB. It seems you are already trying to muddy the waters but go ahead and try naming one presidential candidate on the republican side that argued against the anti-gay amendment?

...go ahead and try naming one presidential candidate on the republican side that argued against the anti-gay amendment?

And on this issue...



I already offered a list of prominent conservatives who are openly relieved that the gay marriage issue is off the table, and that the US Supreme Court's ruling a few days ago gives them cover to drop the issue. Even though a minority of Republican candidates such as Marco Rubio and Mike Huckabee still press the issue, while most have ceased to make it a priority.
....

Do you two really need to debate gay marriage on this thread too?

But none of that matters to you because you're "on the sidelines". And that is exactly the kind of safe, soft headed "For-I-wasn't-a-Jew" attitude born of the fear of being viewed as an extremist. Pleas crawl out of your own ass.

If we were free, instead of having negro suffrage, we would have negro slavery. Instead of having the United States government, we would have the Confederate States government.

Confederate flag gets 'Dukes of Hazzard' yanked: TV Land has pulled the 1980s-era comedy Dukes of Hazzard from its lineup because it featured a car — called The General Lee — that prominently displayed the flag on the roof.

I can see the wisdom in pulling it down from government buildings. However, much like banning Civil War games, this type of crap is re-goddam-diculous.

More from my heritage of defiance. How fucking dare the federal government oppress my people so...

I still want to get back to this topic, but it's been so long that I've lost most of the context and the immediate criteria upon which I was operating. Maybe I'll get back to it later on in the week.

That being said, Iggy's latest response doesn't require further context for me to adequately respond to it:



Neither you nor Doc can operate under the premise that robbing the states of their rights by military force constituted a social high ground taken by the North when Lincoln wasn't actually pushing for the abolition of slavery to begin with. From the get go, the conflict initiated by the North was motivated by a desire to keep the tangent culture(s) of the Southern states within the political and economic sway of the North through Federal bondage. You can (erroneously) attempt to push the narrative that the South was motivated by slavery if you prefer, but you can neither passively nor actively claim that the North's aggression was an act of beneficence directed at the slaves.

...succeed from the union...

I am edgy as fuck. No one is as edgy as I.

But you just made my point, that the Union was not moved by a pure and principled motivation to abolish slavery, and was perfectly open to continuing slavery if it would restore the Union.

So the argument that Union= principled liberators, and Confederacy= evil racist preservers of slavery just doesn't wash. As I said above, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in Confederate states, not the ones in the Union who belonged to Lincoln's political benefactors.
And far from a principled hard line to abolish slavery, Lincoln was perfectly willing to continue slavery to end the war, and let Lincoln's allies keep their slaves.

I'm not sure why you think the Union's motives were principled, while you condemn only the South as motivated by slavery, when both had slaves (though far less in the North) and the North was perfectly willing to abide slavery as a bargaining chip to end the war their way.

That post was only supposed to be a brief paragraph.....

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHICS


The United States had become a nation of two distinct regions. The free states in New England, the Northeast, and the Midwest[6] had a rapidly growing economy based on family farms, industry, mining, commerce and transportation, with a large and rapidly growing urban population. Their growth was fed by a high birth rate and large numbers of European immigrants, especially British, Irish and Germans. The South was dominated by a settled plantation system based on slavery; there was some rapid growth taking place in the Southwest (e.g., Texas), based on high birth rates and high migration from the Southeast; there was also immigration by Europeans, but in much smaller number. The heavily rural South had few cities of any size, and little manufacturing except in border areas such as St. Louis and Baltimore. Slave owners controlled politics and the economy, although about 75% of white Southern families owned no slaves.[7]

Overall, the Northern population was growing much more quickly than the Southern population, which made it increasingly difficult for the South to continue to influence the national government. By the time the 1860 election occurred, the heavily agricultural southern states as a group had fewer Electoral College votes than the rapidly industrializing northern states.
Abraham Lincoln was able to win the 1860 Presidential election without even being on the ballot in ten Southern states. Southerners felt a loss of federal concern for Southern pro-slavery political demands, and their continued domination of the Federal government was threatened. This political calculus provided a very real basis for Southerners' worry about the relative political decline of their region due to the North growing much faster in terms of population and industrial output.

In the interest of maintaining unity, politicians had mostly moderated opposition to slavery, resulting in numerous compromises such as the Missouri Compromise of 1820 under the presidency of James Monroe. After the Mexican–American War of 1846 to 1848, the issue of slavery in the new territories led to the Compromise of 1850. While the compromise averted an immediate political crisis, it did not permanently resolve the issue of the Slave Power (the power of slaveholders to control the national government on the slavery issue). Part of the Compromise of 1850 was the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which many Northerners found to be extremely offensive, and required that Northerners assist Southerners in reclaiming fugitive slaves.

Amid the emergence of increasingly virulent and hostile sectional ideologies in national politics, the collapse of the old Second Party System in the 1850s hampered politicians' efforts to reach yet another compromise. The compromise that was reached (the 1854 Kansas–Nebraska Act) outraged many Northerners, and led to the formation of the Republican Party, the first major party that was almost entirely Northern-based. The industrializing North and agrarian Midwest became committed to the economic ethos of free-labor industrial capitalism.

Arguments that slavery was undesirable for the nation had long existed, and early in U.S. history were made even by some prominent Southerners. After 1840, abolitionists denounced slavery as not only a social evil but a moral wrong. Activists in the new Republican Party, usually Northerners, had another view: they believed the Slave Power conspiracy was controlling the national government with the goal of extending slavery.[8] [9] Southern defenders of slavery, for their part, increasingly came to contend that black people benefited from slavery.

American opinions on the Confederate flag haven’t changed much in 15 years, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.
Most whites still see the flag as a symbol of Southern pride.
African-Americans see the symbol as racist.

A massacre last month by an alleged white supremacist in South Carolina has prompted the U.S. to re-examine the Confederate flag’s place in history. The flag still flies over the South Carolina capitol, although legislators in the conservative state believe they have enough votes to remove the divisive symbol from state grounds.

Yet some 57 percent of Americans still feel the flag represents Southern pride, the CNN poll shows.
In 2000, 59 percent of Americans voiced the same view.
On the other end, 72 percent of African Americans see the Confederate battle flag as a racist sign.

Race plays an obvious role in how people view the flag. Education also has a major role in how people view the divisive symbol. From CNN:
“Among whites with a college degree, 51 percent say it's a symbol of pride, 41 percent one of racism.
Among those whites who do not have a college degree, 73 percent say it's a sign of Southern pride, 18 percent racism.”

The Confederate flag has clear ties to hate groups, and historical records don’t support that the secessionist movement was about anything other than a fight to maintain slavery.

The Alabama governor recently brought down the flag from state grounds. And major retailers like WalMart, eBay, Amazon and Etsy have attempted to eliminate the emblem from stores.

Organizations like NASCAR have also asked fans not to fly the flag, offering them the chance to swap Confederate flags for an American flag.

You know they've done new polling in the past seven years, right? Or, is this just to keep dodging the fact that Trump did exactly what you cried along with and at him to "locker her up" about because it is okay when the guy you like does it or liberal conspiracy/media or whatever? Suck it up, buttercup.