The Instigator
Donovan1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Robkwoods
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

The backlash against all symbols, names, and places relating to the Confederacy are unnecessary.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Robkwoods
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 398 times Debate No: 83840
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Donovan1

Pro

This backlash since the shooting of nine African Americans at a South Carolina Church this past summer is unprecedented, without merit or justification and is a very dangerous movement in and of itself in regards to its consequences and it's reactionary, Politically Correct organization.
Robkwoods

Con

The shooting of 9 christian negros by a white racist in South Carolina has sparked justifiable rage amongst the local community and nation. The symbols, names, and places relating to the Confederacy are the cause of the young white racist's descent to hate. These anti-union and often anti-not white symbols placed at government institutions is a constant reminder that the government does not believe this nation is, one, under 17 bars and 50 stars.

vote Con!
Debate Round No. 1
Donovan1

Pro

It is justified towards the Battle Flag which has since come down from next to the Confederate Memorial on State House grounds.(Of which the flag I believe was padlocked so it couldn't be lowered unless the legislature said so) But their call to rename everything named for them parks, schools, streets among others and to Sandblast monuments and tear them down and even go so far as grave desecration relating to Mr. Forrest. It is an attempt to erase a part of Southern history into nothing on top of a biased education of the war which only teaches the Northern View. This also has very modern implications. The South has consistently according to military demographics made up close to half of our nation's all volunteer force at exactly 41.2 percent. That being said I've seen stories of Southerners leaving the military due to this policy.Also those that support it are denying my and others rights to celebrate those brave soldiers who fought and died largely for their homes. (Slavery was a political issue and the Confederacy had slavery yes, but only 6 seceded over the specific reason of slavery and 4 seceded over Lincolns call for force against the others and Florida never gave a reason but it's assumed to be one or both.) We have a very moral right to celebrate out history as we Southerners are the only section of Americans who have been invaded, conquered, robbed and looted our homes burned and put under military occupation. Now you will be correct in saying slavery is evil. But let's broaden that aspect, all states voluntarily joined our Union and may voluntarily leave it. It was an accepted fact then and it is now. The reasons it is legal and Constitutional are cited in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Tenth Amendment and many examples prior to 1860. So a state or Confederation of states attempting to leave withing their rights are forced back at bayonet point and under military occupation. Ask yourself if the South has not effectively been made slaves themselves? (This is to explain reasons as to the why of causes for celebration.)
Robkwoods

Con

Losers of war are often erased from history. The Confederacy should feel lucky to have as much history left as it does. To relate Southern history with confederate history is baffling. The only real connection between confederate history and southern history is that the confederacy just happened to be made up of southern states. Oppressing the Confederacy strictly to the history books is justified.

The south can have their history without the black mark left by constitutional liberals of the day. I can guarantee you most of the 41.2% could care less about confederate history. They are proud to be from there, but are aware of the implications of a government implicitly supporting an ideology, that not all people are granted inalienable rights. Military service is completely voluntary anyone can leave at anytime, barring a few rare occasions.

The confederacy wanted slavery so bad that instead of giving up the right to own another human, they went to war. Sounds like pretty progressive ideology to me. The Union wanted to stamp out slavery from this land, because this land was born from the ideology that all are created equal. I would say the Union had the moral justification to use bayonet point.
Debate Round No. 2
Donovan1

Pro

I would argue the Union wanted to keep slavery in light of their decisions before the war. One instance before the war after 7 states had seceded was the Corwin Amendment. It passed an almost strictly Northern Congress and was ratified by 2 states Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois (Although Illinois was of questionable validity it's still considered ratified) the amendment reads in full, "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." Furthermore I would attest slavery had next to nothing to do with the war itself. Lincoln described his Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure to keep England and France out of the fight as they were very close to joining this giving the CSA it's independence. Second, the Morrill Tariff was to be reinstated in 1860 after the panic of 1857 which I believe was the first world wide depression. The Morrill Tarrif was largely aimed at the south which was 60% of the economy at the time and import heavy and according to Frank Taussig, a historian on tarriff in the US says the South was paying about 80% of the tax revenue. But that aside I was speaking of the southerners percentage in the military not as a ideological plea, but as a testament that no matter how slandered and hated we are we still do more than our share of blood for wars which are increasingly stalemated or useless to begin with. But as for the slavery issue in pertains to its commodity in the south hardly anyone owned slaves and most worked alongside them if they did. As for the Government's stance on it as well as the military, the Confederate military leadership (in a majority if the records are true about the meeting with Patrick Cleburne) decided emancipation was necessary and just. Most of the southern generals were for emancipation though the Confederate Congress didn't care enough to do so. It can also be argued that Jefferson Davis had plans for emancipation later down the line for his quote on slavery, " The slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline, and thus be made unfit for slavery. And as soon as he becomes unfit for slavery, the master will no longer desire to hold his as a slave." That quote indicates he wanted to educate and free slaves later on and had plans to do so. He also was known for adopting a black boy named Tim into his family and not as a slave. There were many thousands of free blacks in the south as is proven by state records. I will end with this, if you take a people's history and steal their symbols, you have sown the seeds of your own destruction as is witnessed throughout history.
Robkwoods

Con

I would argue that a large percentage of people did not want slavery. In fact the Mason-Dixon line is the line in the sand between free and slave states. It is a representation of the difference in ideology. This is not to say that the Union was any less racist than the south. But we are not here to debate that. I have 6 states seceding after the election of Lincoln; his platform was no new slave states.
Maybe slavery wasn't the main purpose, but it kind of was. The Cotton business was booming for the South, it was their one trick pony. People, generally, don't take to kindly to you messing with their livelihood; or for the Union, freedom. Notably the Union tried different legislation to make slavery unprofitable; it was an opportunity for industry to innovate. I wonder if private industry could have prevented a war? There was opportunity for an entrepreneur to step in; there were several instances to improve upon. We had the cotton gin, which greatly increased the processing of cotton. Yet no one tried to innovate the gathering. Sadly, I think much of the south was too dumb, literally, to do so. The economic difference between slave states and free states is astronomical. Education, income, standard of living, etc were better in free states. Free states were a glowing example of how to be a successful state.
Plans for emancipation later, really? Why not now? Politician are good talkers. Doing and saying are two different things, and often have very different outcomes. There were thousands of free blacks in the south, many also owned slaves and fought on the side of the confederacy. Slavery was a culture in the south.

All this history is irrelevant to whether the backlash against symbols of the confederacy are justified.
At the heart of the confederacy was the want to deny others freedom under the veneer of states' rights. States' rights are irrelevant in the wake of people's rights; in this arena states don't have rights people have rights
"I will end with this, if you take a people's history and steal their symbols, you have sown the seeds of your own destruction as is witnessed throughout history." When has this been true? History does not need to be on public display and supported by public funds ( involuntarily, I might add) to be prevalent the minds of individual who subscribe to it.
"The slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline, and thus be made unfit for slavery. And as soon as he becomes unfit for slavery, the master will no longer desire to hold his as a slave." This is a false cause to assume that because someone was a slave that they will be unsuited for life once freed. This reeks of progressive ideology.
Confederate history and Southern history are not mutually exclusive.
My previous point is sustained.
"there are implications [to] a government implicitly supporting an ideology." The blacklash (hahaha) is justified. These symbols are owned and protected by a government whose constitution is in direct conflict with the Confederacy.
These symbols can be kept and maintained by private institutions, I am okay with that.
Debate Round No. 3
Donovan1

Pro

I apologize for getting sidetracked but for these kinds of issues, it's not easy to stay on track because of how intertwined the history and causes of the war relate to today and the current situation. But let's return to the present, my point for this post will be the dire consequences that could arise from such an action. The Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virgina has been taken down their mission accomplished. But yet they still continue their assaults upon the graveyards and monuments especially. Blacklivesmatter is an example of one of the groups of antagonists that promote such behavior. They deface monuments with impunity and burn the honored flag and stomp it into the ground. But after, if ever they were to get rid of everything named for the Confederacy and be succesful in taking down all the monuments and banishing the flags to museums and private ownership, they will look for another target surely to vent themselves upon. I already have seen similar groups doing that to the American flag, the burning and whatnot. The basic premise of this post is that they go after the symbols of the Confederacy for the evil of slavery and the associated controversies. But how long until they go into a complete turn about and go rampaging on the United States symbols. What happens when they call for sandblasting Mount Rushmore or tear down or deface statues of Washington or Jefferson. The biggest problem with this is that it's all based on the ideology of Political Correctness, which in my opinion, is basically institutionalized censorship. Look at the major groups that advocate social justice reform BLM or the modern feminists are a good example. BEM censors any blacks who dare to criticize them, or drown out and abuse others with their 'peaceful' protests such as the incident at a college library recently. Or with their mass riots over shootings thus interrupting the due process of law with violence and vandalism. Then there's the modern feminist movement who is really in many cases more of a superior to movement. (note I'm not prejudiced against these movements but only citing the most prominent examples that came to mind.) But such behavior is volatile and dangerous to personal liberty, and if left to go on uninhibited may cause severe damage. Again I will reference the incident at the College Library. It was done with such fervor that the administrator was afraid to act as can be seen in his very careful wording and slow response. They in effect almost nullified the campus and administrators authority. Now that is the end of this post for round 4.
Robkwoods

Con

"If we take the widest and wisest view of a Cause, there is no such thing as a Lost Cause, because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause. We fight for lost causes because we know that our defeat and dismay may be the preface to our successors" victory, though that victory itself will be temporary; we fight rather to keep something alive than in the expectation that it will triumph." ~T.S. Eliot
I believe your slippery slope will fail in the face of individuals like yourself.

Their anger is justified to them. To say that it is not is merely to apply the same silencing they do.

That is all I have, for this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Donovan1

Pro

Well I'm not quite sure how to respond to this one so I will consider this a conclusion round summarizing each of our points to make it clearer to readers.

1. It is destructive to an entire regions history and to the men who died fighting for their homes.

2.There could be very dire consequences in the future due to the usage of institutionalized censorship.

3.It is largely reactionary and had little to no bearing on the nation before the events of last summer.
Robkwoods

Con

1 These anti-union and often anti-not white symbols placed at government institutions is a constant reminder that the government does not believe this nation is, one, under 17 bars and 50 stars.
2 Losers of war are often erased from history. The Confederacy should feel lucky to have as much history left as it does.
3 Confederate history is not Southern history.
4 Blacklash is justified. This is still funny to me.
5 These symbols are owned and protected by a government whose constitution is in direct conflict with the Confederacy.
6 Their anger is justified to them. To say that it is not is merely to apply the same silencing they do.

M'urica. Thanks for the lively debate.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Robkwoods 11 months ago
Robkwoods
Thanks man, you were a great opposition! Definitely a fun debate!
Posted by Donovan1 11 months ago
Donovan1
You did well rob best debate I've had in awhile
Posted by Robkwoods 12 months ago
Robkwoods
I am trying to provide the best "otherside" I can think of.
Posted by Donovan1 12 months ago
Donovan1
Well it depends on the way you look at it. The battle flag never was a symbol of racism until the 1900s under the Dixiecrats. But what angers me is the hatred towards it while somewhat justifiable for the racists of the 1900s actions and their usage of the flag it on no grounds should be meant to dishonor all those men who died under it who largely by an extreme majority never owned slaves in the first place.
Posted by Robkwoods 12 months ago
Robkwoods
I am actually with the Pro on this, however, I don't think he coming from a good side of things. Which is the only reason I accepted this debate.
Posted by Dkice4 12 months ago
Dkice4
While I do agree with Pro, I would like him to know that hatred toward the battle flag is unnecessary too. The KKK used the American flag during the 1920s. Anything said against the Confederate flag, can be said about the American flag. Also, when the Civil War ended, Confederate leaders could not be put in jail or hung for treason. The reason for this, is because they did what the colonists did, and it wouldn't hold up in court. Northern aggression caused thousands and thousands of lives to be lost.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Forever23 11 months ago
Forever23
Donovan1RobkwoodsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11PZ6T18E5gt-9a7na_ngdOIv2tymLnSdOZXXwPhyzic/edit. If you have any more questions, contact me.