Confederate Flag

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

As far as the NAACP is concerned, they have publicly stated that it won’t be “over” until it has been completely taken town and stored in a museum.

To paraphrase them, “This ‘compromise’ was no compromise.”

And “Georgia, you’re next. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!”

[DocCathode]

I was born in Virginia. I am a middle class white male.
I am also a Jew. No one ever burned a cross on our lawn. But there was always a quiet, polite sort of hatred. There were countless reminders that we were outsiders. That is what the General Lee means to me. Whatever virtues the Confederacy had, it was built on slavery and hatred. The Stars and Stripes may be the symbol of a nation that has seriously screwed up, but the whole idea of the US is that we can improve our nation by exercising our freedom.

To sum up Star Spangled Banner=We screwed up but we’re trying to fix things

Stars and Bars=Damn Union had no right to free those niggers.

I realise some people will be offended by the n word. I’m offended in the same way by the Coonfederate flag

[LouisB]

I realise some people will be offended by the n word. I’m offended in the same way by the Coonfederate flag

I hope your misspelling of “Confederate” was simply a typo.

[DocCathode]

The misspelling of Confederate is strictly a typo
It has no meaning beyond that. I apologise for any confusion caused by it. There might be typos in this message too. Please ignore them

[2sense]

I think I see part of the problem. I am willing to concede that the invasion was illegal. I am OK with this because (1) legal is not the same thing as moral, and (2) I don’t support the Constitution so I am not bothered by its being flaunted. I could even be convinced that this is true (if you wished to open another thread), and it still doesn’t affect my position that the Confederacy was acting in an immoral fashion by separating from the Union in order to further slavery.

Thanks for your explanation about “people being indifferent to slavery”.
My own thoughts are that the presure for ending slavery was coming from somewhere. Under the Constitution, given the restrictive nature of the amendment process, a regional grouping of states are well postitioned to resist changes. I think it more likely that the number of people who favored abolition was growing.

I would like to thank you for allowing me to use my “The War of Southern Regression” quote. I have been waiting a while for the opportunity.

I’d just like to point out that the “high-minded ideals” and “foreign set of values” we are discussing relate to slavery. I think that it is unjustified. Do you agree?
I also think that my characterizing the culture that rested on the slave’s back as backwards is a mild reproach.

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 still don’t get your point here. You stated:

*Whatever one wishes to call the War, slavery was not the “official” reason for either secession or the use of force to prevent secession. *

You seem to believe that an official reason is not to be believed. Yet you also seem to be asserting that since slavery was not the official reason then it can not be the cause of the war. It appears to me that you are believing the official reason. Am I missing something?

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. *

I would enjoy this debate as well, again if you would care to start a new thread.

[MysterEcks]

Boris B said (to me):

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?

Actually, I was talking about blacks in particular. (I suppose I didn’t make that clear, but then neither did kiffa.) What I mean by “this” in responding to the statement:

Don’t forget that the Confederacy supported an economic system that contradicted the American value of “fair wages for a fair days work”, espoused democratic principals that were based on race, severely restricted freedoms [movement, education, marriage for a large percentage of the population]

is that blacks in the North were treated like shit, even if they weren’t owned outright. They were not free to work in all jobs, and they were not paid the same as whites. (One of the abiding ironies of the Civil War was when black troops were eventually accepted into the Union armies, but paid less than their white counterparts.) Blacks were not allowed to vote in most places. I’ve never researched it, but I really doubt blacks were free to take advantage of the educational opportunities afforded to whites…granted that in some places there weren’t many educational opportunities to begin with. Maybe they could legally marry whites–I don’t know if there were actually laws against it–but I doubt it would have increased their life expectancy. There were entire stateswhich passed laws against free blacks moving in (including Illinois, as I recall).

Also, let’s remember that we are not really talking about the “North” here–we are actually talking about the Union states, the states which didn’t attempt to leave the United States. Some slave states remained loyal…and, for that matter, I believe slavery was legal in the District of Columbia. (You may recall that the Emancipation Proclamation was written such that it did not apply to loyal states.) It would therefore be accurate to say that not only did the conditions kiffa described apply to the Union states as well as the Confederate states, but so did outright slavery. The Union states were no doubt better for blacks than the Confederate states, but it was a matter of degree rather than real freedom.

k2dave said:

IMHO the civil war was not about slavery, but states rights vs federal rights. Who had the power.

It began as a dispute over who was going to control federal power–historically, that had been the Southern slave states, but the growth of the rest of the country had diluted that control. In essense, the South got pissed that they weren’t allowed to be in charge anymore, stamped their little feet, and tried to take their ball and go home. It wasn’t about slavery as such, though that was the most visible component. (And the one most open to black-and-white/good-and-evil interpretation, which you’d think would be a warning all by itself.)

When the war broke out, the Union aim was not to abolish slavery–it was nothing more or less than to preserve the Union. Eliminating slavery came to be a tool to use against the Confederates–and it was a foreign policy weapon, too–but that was later.

But as for “states rights”…it was the Civil War that elevated the federal government to supremacy over the states in the first place. If the secessionists were trying to defend “states rights,” they’d have been better off all shooting themselves in the head in 1859. For that matter, insofar as they were defending slavery, they managed to kill it off for good. If these people had been in charge of the Revolution, we’d still be eating eels and mash.

So to tie this back into the whole flag thing…what the Confederate battle flag really represents is complete and utter failure.

2sense said:

I don’t support the Constitution so I am not bothered by its being flaunted.

Yeah? Then I guess the logical question is what doyou support?