Have you ever met a Black Confederate?

Question

Throughout America's history, there have been occasions where the notion of confederacy (States having rights that the Federal Government cannot interfere with or control) has been used as a sort of cover for institutionalized racism. In some cases, Federalism (the notion that the Supreme Court could wield the power of the Federal Government to control individual states and the residents therein) has been used to combat such gross misconduct. In discussions with Liberals (whom I view as Half-Hearted Communists), this fact is used as some sort of 'catch all' arguement in favour of more Federalism in every possible circumstance. The attitude I sense from these people is, 'well, if you are not FOR federalism, you must be FOR racism'. This is, in my opinion, a silly notion. If I take a stick off of a tree and poke you in the eye with it, is the stick bad? Of course not, the stick is merely a tool which I have made use of to my own ends. I think heavy handed federalism works the same way.

The balance of power is a tool, to be used at the discression of humans. In cases where the Supreme Court has decided to write law, Federalism was not a friend to the minority, the intent with which it was used was. What I am saying is, Confederacy isin't wrong, RACISM is. At any rate, what if the tables had been turned? What if the Supreme court had decided to use its APPOINTED (as opposed to ELECTED) power to institutionalize racism, as it did in the original Dredd-Scott decision? Who would the people have to go to? Who could we hold accountable? The highest court in the land was established to manage HOW the laws work, not to write the laws. With that in mind, I will say, Confederacy (even with the Civil War) has shed less innocent blood than Communism, which is the logical extension of Federalism (otherwise known as Liberalism). In the case of America, Confederacy was not to blame, Racism was.

Piper Cub: The Commerce clause does not allow the Supreme court to interpret the constitution, it allows Congress to manage matters of Interstate commerce. That means, Maryland can't print it's own money, or impose a higher tax for goods arriving from Wisconsin. It has NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court.

CrazyJ: I never thought or stated that there was never a good reason for some form of Federalism, and I will agree that the Federal Government provides a level of consistency throughout the states. That is what allows 50 states and a million different locales to act as a nation. What I am getting at has more to do with what I would think of as unnecessary Federal Interferences that can never be avoided by an American in America. Three examples that come to mind for me right now are: Roe vs Wade, Dredd-Scott (the original, which proves the Supreme Court is not in any way infallable), and the ever increasing entitlement situation. For you true hippies, there is also the National Defense. Liberals always oppose it by attacking the military, but you forget that it too is a Federal program, a power granted to the Administration, and funded by Congress.

One last thing: During times of Slavery, I could try to make my way to the local underground railroad and have some hope of freedom or death. Right now, It looks like I will spend the rest of my life paying an inordinate amount of money to the Federal government. This is the same government that lost 24 BILLION dollars about 5 years ago. This is also the same government that is considering the idea of Nationalized healthcare on top of Welfare and disability. Of course, the Libs out there love to associate these programs with blacks, but I live in an international community, and most of the people I know who 'take advantage' of such programs are white or Latino. Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but I just tell it like I see it. What's more important, NONE of the people I see using these programs demonstrate what I would call an 'undeniable need'. More often than not, it's simply a case of 'failure to take responsibility'.
This is Federal, it's unescapeable. It is modern Slavery.

Answer 1

It always has. States rights makes as much sense,if not more than Central Federal Gov;t.

The Confederate Gov't is less guilty of racism based mainly on the fact that the instituion of racism has had Federal sponsoship from its beginning through now.

The acquistion of 37 states by the means of genocide, theft, lying, usury, slavery, etc says it all.

Answer 2

No, but if there are any black people living in Switzerland they are confederates because the Swiss central government is a confederacy that has lasted around 600 years.

I don't see anything wrong with a Federal system as long as the central government stays within it's constitutional limits which ours does not. The problems we have today can be traced back to the lines crossed by Lincoln during the civil war.

Further compounding the problem are the constitutional amends adopted since the civil war which have increased the power of the central government, such as the popular election of senators, which changed senators from being represenatives of the states to being a second house of represenatives. The other was the amendment which allowed Congress to levy direct taxes on the citizens, such as the income tax.

Answer 3

As a liberal, it really doesn't even occur to me to bring up FDR when arguing over the merits of federal programs. Personally I think it would depend on specific examples on whether Federalism or Conderacy should win out. For example, I don't think confederacy is a good idea when it comes to voting, especially during federal elections. We need a clean consistant system free of corruption instead of a patch work of easily manipulated county voting sites, often negatively influenced by one or two companines with an agenda.

On the other hand, I don't like it when the federal government overrides a state decision that they have no business dealing with, such as the legalization of marijuana in certain states for example.

So I guess to me it depends on what the tools of federalism and confederacy are being used for. I think the biggest problem I have with both confederacy and federalism is when a handful of individuals can manipulate such a situation to their own advantage against the public good. Which one is better for a particular situation should always take that into account.

BTW, communism does in no way equal liberalism. Liberals are strong advocates of personal freedoms, communisms are against personal freedoms.

Answer 4

Nice stick analogy...
Due to a decline in racism among voters, especially the rising, more liberal generation, it has become exponentially difficult for governing bodies to get away with "institutionalized racism," not to say it doesn't happen. Unfortunately, ever since that nasty little Civil War, the term "Confederate" has had more connotations than simply one that supports states' rights. The states do hold a decent bit of power under the Constitution (which the Supreme Court is obliged to interpret for the federal government- darn Commerce Clause).
Whats the question, again? Have I ever met a black Confederate? Um, maybe? Somehow, the common conceptions regarding that particular title make it seem a bit unlikely to meet someone who would publicize that part of their political beliefs.

Answer 5

I agree. 99 percent of all Liberal/Socialist arguments are based on name calling tactics, and coersion. Political correctness is a very effective tool. The tactics of the left only last so long, it's kind of like a hit single in the charts, so they just talk louder and louder and keep repeating the same thing (mantra) until it becomes common knowledge. Global warming, Impeach Bush, all that is not based on any logic, it's all emotionalism. They may feel that there's some logic behind it, but they use tactics that discredit them. This is harmful to a good dialogue about the issues, and it's also causing the conservatives to emulate the liberals, like Rush Limbaugh, and Anne Coulter, they use tactics to ridicule the Liberal mindset. They are correct that the mindset is absurd, but they should not use the same tactics, (both of them defend Republican policy at any cost too.)
All the Confederate soldiers are dead now, but there were Black people on both sides of the war. The slave issue was part of the reason for the Civil war, but the issue was over States rights. The Confederate states were wrong about slaves, so they lost the war, but the Confederate issue itself was a legitimate claim. The states willingly entered into the union, and had the right to leave the union. Because of the slavery issue, the Union states took the higher ground and took over. Thankfully Slavery was over, but now we have a centrally controlled Government, that is acting like an Empire, and the States are Colonies, that's what the war for independence was fought over.

Answer 6

Actually yes there were blacks in the confederate army. The war had almost nothing to do with slavery but had to do with states rights and the economy. The decision to free the slaves came latter in the war after the North was afraid it was losing

Answer 7

Heavy handed ANYTHING is the same way...whether it's federalism, liberalism, conservativism....too much of anything can be a bad thing...the trick is to find the right balance.

Answer 8

There were blacks who fought for the confederacy. One black classmate from north carolina told me he flies the confederate flag because it represents his southern culture

Answer 9

I think I agree with you but I'm not sure I truly understand. But, it sounds right to me.

Answer 10

You make zero sense, lib basher...