kiffa said:
I had McPherson’s Battle Cry Of Freedom* handy. I can’t get to my Foote books right now (they are behind an immense pile of crap that I’d have to climb over), but it’s possible he could have cited the figure as approximately seventhousand (7,000) dead and you misread it as seventythousand (70,000).
It’s worth noting that the Stars and Bars, in its modern usage, is a blatant racist affront. It wasn’t part of any state flag, and it flew nowhere, after the civil war. It sprung up all over the south (particularly over state capitals) in response to the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s. As such, it represents a legacy not of southern pride but of oppression and hatred. It should not be flown over state buildings for the same reason that a swastika should not be flown over state buildings in Germany.
I went to the olympics in Atlanta 4 years ago, my first time in the south. Maybe I’m naive, but I was shocked to find there were monuments to civil war generals there. Could you imagine if they tried to raise a statue of Himmler in Germany?
Waging a war of secession for the right to own other humans is downright shameful.
First a correction: The CSA Battle Flag was not first made popular by “Gone With the Wind”, as it was already prominent in the very popular and very racist silent movie “Birth of a Nation” (1916) which glorified the KKK and demonified the freed slaves.
Then, if it truly is the Battle Flag of the CSA, why should it now fly from government buildings in the South or constitute part of southern state flags? Wouldn’t it be better to choose another symbol than that of a horribly bloody war of nearly 140 years ago? And in times in which it would seem important to bring all members of American (southern) society together, why choose a symbol that alienates/angers great portions of the populace? Isn’t that a bit silly? After all, as already has been stated, many of these flags were created in the 50s in support of the continuation of southern apartheid.
The North also profited immensely from the international trade in Africans. Its industries – shipbuilding, sail making, iron foundries, sawmills, and rum distilleries were an integral part of the trading triangle between
Europe, Africa, and North America.
Northern businessmen were involved in shipping the cotton and running the mills that produced cotton fabric, providing wealth for a few and jobs and products for many more. The North was in no way in a hurry to abolish slavery, and in fact the Congress in Washington, DC passed a gag law that forbid abolitionist appeals from even being read before congress.
So I would have to agree with the post about the “American” flag or “Old Glory” as some would call it. I never thought of it in this light before, until reading some of the previous post, but exactly what flag is it that we can fly that does not in some way remind us of the injustice of slavery? How does the Confederate Flag represent slavery any more than Old Glory or the flags of England, Holland, France or any of the other European countries that participated in the Slave trade.
Just a thought.
If truly and innocently for no other reason, because it has often been directly used as a symbol of hatred towards the former slaves and their decendants.
I read recently Shaara’s book about the Mexican War. He might have mentioned the correct figure which I messed up. Anyway, many of the Civil War military leaders won their stripes in the Mexican War. Shaara’s the guy who wrote several Civil War historical novels - I believe he finished his father’s book as well. One of them wrote the book that the movie Gettysburg is based on. I am not a real Civil War buff, any war for that matter, but I find the American Civil War to be especially moving.
IMHO
the civil war was not about slavery, but states rights vs federal rights. Who had the power. I believe that it was ment (by the founding fathers) that the states (and ultimatly the people) should have the rights to regulate what goes on in their areas.
I think when the north won the civil war, the United States of America was overthrown and a new federal system was imposed, one which greatly oversteps it’s power orginally granted and doesn’t mind wipeing it’s butt with the constution.
remember
the victors are the ones who write history
also I think:
the CSA should have been allowed to seperaate, Ft. Sumpter should have been surrendered to the CSA by the USA.
The battle flag is a symbol of states rights and displayed to honor those who defended it.
And all this from a ‘dam yankee’
anyone have a link to the real confed. flag (not the battle flag)
Now quickly addressing the slavery issue, black white issue, and discrimination issue.
Slavery we are taught is wrong, but I can’t help to notice that all throughout history slavery was present (even today it goes on) and I can’t help to think that it allowed society to advance. Yes it must suck the big one to be a slave but it might have been necessary to get us to this point, it might not, I don’t know? Is it right or wrong, again I don’t know, The Bible instructs us to love our brothers, but that doesn’t rule out ownership, can anyone out there point out a quote from the Bible that makes slavery wrong, if so please do?
Slaves were not always black. the word slave comes from Slavs:
slave [1] (noun)
[Middle English sclave, from Old French or Medieval Latin; Old French esclave, from Medieval Latin sclavus, from Sclavus Slavic; from the frequent enslavement of Slavs in central Europe] from AOL keyword dictionary >slave
Slaves were just diffrent groups of people who were singularly or colectivally conquered. The people who took slaves might have been attacking or defending from an attack - here is where the moral issue lies. Blacks were just the most recent to be in this loop. Making a connection between the CSA and slavery to me is a nonissue except that the CSA allowed them while the USA banned them (only in states that they no longer controlled?).
Modern day discrimination is more about diffrences then a holdout of slavery. people like to deal with there own kind. There are many discriminatory ‘clubs’ out there, in fact my wife subscribes to one, ‘Long Island Womens Network’, they discrininate against anyone who is not a woman from LI by refering work to other members before looking to outside sources - is this fair? is life fair? did anyone tell you is would be?
kiffa said,
To which MysterEcks apparently seriously replied,
What do you mean by “this”? Are you denying that the North had a wage-based industry? Do you think marriages were dictated to Northern wage-earners by their employers? If you think there is any validity to the epithet “wage slavery”, or that not having a right to vote is as bad as being a slave, you are sorely mistaken.
k2dave said,
Check out our thread on this very topic:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=25651
If “the victors are the one who write history,” then why are there so many people who don’t know that the South seceded specifically to protect slavey?
Do you really not know if slavery is wrong?
What do you mean by
I think you are trying to make some reference to the Emancipation Proclamation, the security blanket of all the traitor-apologists. Why is the Emancipation Proclamation so important to you people? Slavery was illegal in all non-seceding states with the exceptions of Ketucky, Maryland, Missouri and Delaware. Why are these states more important than all the free states put together? The Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery in the entire U.S. in 1865 … is the period between the E.P. and the 13th really so damning?
Is this really the deal? Are you people saying that the North deserves no credit for opposing slavery because they didn’t oppose it stridently enough (by seceding from the South, as Garrison wanted), and saying that the South deserves no blame for slavery even though they seceded and started a war to protect it? Or do I have to reprint Libertarian’s quotes from the other thread?
Really, my penultimate sentence should read, “Are you people saying that Northerners deserve no credit for opposing slavery because they didn’t oppose it stridently enough (by seceding from the South, as Garrison wanted**?** Or what?), and saying that Southerners deserve no blame for slavery even though they seceded and started a war to protect it?”
Apologies for the hijack. As you may have guessed, I am less than enthralled by the flag issue. I am much more concerned with stamping out false legends about the Civil War.
The north doesn't deserve credit for fighting to war to end slavery. The north did not go to war to end slavery they went to war to protect the union. Southerners back then do deserve the blame for slavery. But they share the blame with the northern states who dealt with them and all those who agreed to the 3/5ths compromise.
Marc
I hope everyone did follow the links that Libertarian supplied. The Mississippi Secession is unequivocal. Other than its opening and closing paragraphs the other 19 points all refer to slavery.
The states rights argument was a means to an end. The slaveowners were trying to protect the basis of their wealth.
What wealthy person does not try to protect the basis of their wealth? Hell, that is all the Cali drug cartel is doing when they murder Columbian officials. If I were wealthy, I would sure as hell try to protect the source of my wealth—wouldn’t you?
Slave owners were in the minority in the South, just as factory owners were in the minority in the North. On both sides, the majority of the population was indifferent to slavery.
The southern states believed they had the constitutional right to secede. Acting on that belief, they did secede and formed the Confederate States of America. The Federal government refused to recognize that secession and sent troops into the field to force the reunification of the United States—hence the phrase “The War of Northern Agression.”
Whatever one wishes to call the War, slavery was not the “official” reason for either secession or the use of force to prevent secession. Slavery became a rallying cry for the Federals just as States Rights became a rallying cry for the Confederacy. Neither side could afford to admit that the War Between the States was being waged soley because of economic considerations. Just as most wars are, basically.
And speaking of economics, once the Federal government imposed a draft, people with adequate funds could pay a fee and be excused from that draft. IIRC something over 100,000 northern men who were eligible for the draft did just that. The expression “A rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight” came from that practice, I believe. And let us not forget the anti-draft riots that raged in most major northern cities, particularly in New York. The fact that working men were willing to rebel against the law mandating a draft should tell us something about the enthusiasm they had for fighting a war for any damn purpose, much less to free slaves. If the federal government had not imposed a draft, I doubt they could have fielded much of an army at all.
That is equally true of those who are anti “confederate flag” and particularly true of you.
Is this supposed to be sarcastic? I certainly don’t think that murder is acceptable.
[/quote]
**On both sides, the majority of the population was indifferent to slavery.
[/quote]
**
This is not my understanding of the situation. Where did you learn this?
**
I have not disputed the constitutionality of the Secession. I am willing to believe that the actions of the Southern states were legal. My statement is that this was just a means to an end.
OK. I am willing to accept this interpretation. Of course, the Confederacy was leaving the Union in order to perpetuate its backwards culture—hence the phrase “The War of Southern Regression.”
Why have you put quotation marks around “official”? Could this be because these were not the “real” reasons?
Asserting that states could secede does not explain why they did secede. Look at the links that Libertarian posted in the other thread. Follow the link here that I reposted. These documents show that slavery WAS the issue. Can you refute this interpretation?
Slavery was part of the war. States’ rights was part of the war. Secession was part of the war. Sectionalism was part of the war. Power, wealth, greed, hatred. All part of the war.
It’s never just about one thing. The war wasn’t all about slavery, or power, or wealth, or economics, it was a whole melange. If you think the entire Southern half of the nation could unify on a single issue and go to war on it, I invite you to try to get a committe of twenty people to agree on lunch. Every day. For four years.
Same problem with people saying the flag is ONE thing.
The key to understanding is to realize that it’s NOT simple. The flag is as many things as there are people, the war was about many more things than I’ve listed.
**
I have to agree with you. Well, I don't have to but I'm feeling reasonable right now. That's why I agreed with Carolina removing the flag from the capital house and moving it to a memoral. It seemed to me a fair compromise that respected all parties involved.
I have to admit the Confederate Battle Flag doesn't stir up any strong emotions in me. It does however make me think of the Civil War and how brutal the fighting and suffering was for both the blue and the gray. But then to be perfectly honest the Swastika doesn't stir up what I'd call strong emotions either. I do see it as a symbol of fascism and all sorts of evil things.
Bottom line is I feel rather disconnected from history. I understand that I need to know where we’ve been to understand where we are now. And although I am passionate about learning history I just don’t get angry about it.
Marc
–Dammit, Thrill, you made me pull out my copy of “Birth” of a Nation" and review it. 17 minutes into the film the camera card announces “The First Flag of the Confederacy baptised in glory at Bull Run.” What is displayed to the crowd is the origional Stars and Bars. This flag had red stripes top and bottom with a middle white stripe and a blue union. The music scored during this scene is “The Bonny Blue Flag” which was also a flag of the South but does not appear here.
Now let’s go to Al Sumrall, author of “Battle Flags of Texans in the Confedracy”…
This is the flag that was named “The Stars and Bars”
although many people today misuse the name in describing the generic depictions of the blue cross red fielded flag often just as erroneously referred to as “the” battle flag today.
Moving on…
29 minutes into “Birth” Henry Walthall makes his famous battlefield rush cramming the flagstaff into a Union cannon. The flag used here is the Third National, which was a variation of the “Stainless Banner.”
Griffith got his flags right. Remember, when “Birth” came out there were still Civil War veterans alive who had very good memories of what they fought under.
Having said that, the blue cross red fielded flag does make a few appearances. So do several other company flags of both North and South.
Carry on.
Yes, I particular refer to the “moving” scenes towards the end of the film in which the flag in question (we all know which one) is glorified in blood. I saw the film two years ago, but can’t remember any more detail, perhaps you can help with that.
Otherwise, like I have already said, it’s more of a question of what the flag truly represents today, and how it alienates and hurts the feelings of a large number of the citizens of the states involved.
2sense asks if I was being sarcastic about murder being acceptable to protect wealth. I would not rule out murder, not if the entity trying to deprive me of my wealth was doing so in defiance of law. This presupposes that any act of taking a human’s life is “murder.” Certainly it was sarcastic to refer to the Cali cartel in the way I did.
As to people being indifferent to slavery, I base that on the fact that most people in the South did not own slaves and yet they did not rise up in moral outrage to put an end to slavery. Nor did most of the people in the North rise up to put an end to slavery. So at the very least they did not care and at the most, they gave tacit approval to the institution of slavery. The majority of people on either side of the question simply had no strong feelings either way.
2sense does not dispute the legality of secession but claims secession occurred as “a means to an end.” Well, of course secession occurred as a means to an end. I don’t think I ever said it was done on a whim and for no reason. The point is that secession was constitutional in the view of the Southern States.
2sense is pleased to refer to the “backwards culture” of the Confederacy and he is further pleased to coin the phrase “The War of Southern Regression” in opposition to my use of the phrase “The War of Northern Agression.” He agrees the secession was constitutional but still seems satisfied of the legality of the Federal invasion of the South—it is hard for me to see how we can have it both ways.
In the view of the Confederacy, the Federal Government invaded a sovereign nation: The Confederate States of America. The citizens (most at least, not all) of the Confederacy took to arms to repel an invasion. It was just that simple–wouldn’t you fight against an invader who was out to impose his will on you? Forget the high-minded ideals and deal with the facts. You support your government. You don’t own slaves and never expect to. You are just an average citizen going about your business when suddenly you are confronted by an armed force that has been sent to impose a foreign set of values on you whether you like it or not. You are told that if you do not immediately roll over and submit to the invading force that your property will be destroyed, your family will be driven out to survive as best they are able and you yourself will be killed on the spot. What the hell would you do in such a situation? I would fight until I could fight no more and that is what the average citizen of the Confederacy did.
I put quote marks around the word “official” because neither side ever said that slavery was the cause of the war. When the hell has the average citizen ever been informed of the “real” reason for most of the wars that have occurred?
I would suggest (and this is not original with me) that the resentment felt by the South for years after the War was due not to the War itself but to reconstruction. That is another debate entirely.