I’ve become much less impressed by the “states rights” argument since it was pointed out to me that the South didn’t have any problem with the Federal government and its power over the states when it came to the Dred Scott decision and the Kansas-Nebraska act. They only had a problem with it when it threatened to take their slaves away. And no one points out any other examples of States Rights than the ability to enforce slavery. Saying that the Civil War was about States’ Righjts and not about slavery smacks of post-war revisionism.
I don’t see the Rebel Flag (let’s call it that, to avoid confusion and pedantry) as a particularly onerous symbol myself, but I might feel differently if I were black.
I have one - it isn’t a flown conferderate flag though.
On July 2, 1863, the First Minnesota fought at Gettysburg. 262 men fought, 215 of them were casualties. The captured the colors of the 28th Virginia.
That flag is not often on display - time and light have taken its toll, but it is right now in the Minnesota History Center. At one time some Virginians asked for their flag back. They sued and lost.
We went to the History Center last week, it was one of the few things I took my kids over to and explained.
The following snippets talk about the causes of the Civil War. I will underline what I believe is apllicable.
As I said before in my earlier post, the bottom underlying cause was was power. Slavery was a part of that, a big part, but still it was about power. Who controls the Senate? Who controls the White House? Who calls the shots? That is what the Civil War was really about. Power.
You’re kind of missing a big point here: the major reason the South was worried about the shift in the balance of power was that it would make it more difficult to preserve legal slavery.
Look at this contemporary map. Then consider what the economy of the Midwest was based on during the Civil War period.
Agriculture!
The free agrarian states had just as much reason to fear the increasing power of the urbanized states of the East Coast, in terms of their own diminishing influence; for some reason, though, they remained part of the Union during the Civil War. I don’t think I need to spell out the reason why - it was because they didn’t care for slavery, or at least didn’t care to go to war to defend it.
The idea that ownership of the spoils of war can be transferred between states, rather than nations, is a novel one to me. YMMV.
And it’s been argued that Lincoln “said” that in a letter to Horace Greeley, intended for publication, meant to get agreememnt from interests that were themselves more interested in preserving the Union than stopping slavery. Lincoln had other comments, before and after this one, that make his real position on slavery more clear than this one comment, which is frequently abstracted out of context.
I can’t answer that question and googling is getting me nowhere. I remember it was contentious and needed to be settled in court (which Wikipedia and the searching I did confirms). And at the time Ventura was the Governor of Minnesota - which gave some juicy quotes (“come and get it.”) But I would think that your point that the spoils of war cannot be transferred between states may fall apart if Virginia was at that point in time, part of the Confederacy.
I haven’t read the entire thread, and I apologize for that because I know how frowned upon that is on this board, but I’d like to make an observation:
What flag was being flown when American soldiers were handing out blankets intentionally infected with small pox? How is the current American flag any less racist, is my meaning?
Jeez, is it really necessary to explain in every Civil War thread that yes, slavery was the cause of the war? I feel like there should be a sticky thread at the top of each forum that contains the Confederate articles of secession .
Assuming you’re asking that question honestly rather than just being disengenuous, there’s a huge difference between a flag which has been the symbol of a nation for 200+ years, during which that nation has done some horrible things (after all, slavery was legal under the US flag for four score and seven years), but also done some wonderful things; and a flag which was the symbol of a nation which existed for 4 years only and whose entire purpose of existence* was to maintain an institution of incredible evil and cruelty.
The California state flag? I don’t know. I assume your question is rhetorical.
I happen to agree that the Confederate flag is not necessarily a symbol of racism, but to answer your question, those who consider the Confederate flag to be a symbol of racism do so because it is their belief that the flag would never have existed if the South had not wanted to perpetuate slavery. IOW, it is a racist icon because it represents a racist ideology, and nothing else. The other flags you mentioned do not.
At times like these, I wish I weren’t so strapped for cash. It’d be a hoot to publically steal their thunder by making an even larger Confederate flag, just so they couldn’t claim to have the “world’s largest” anymore. Then maybe they’d feel obliged to respond by commissioning an even bigger one, and so on, like a political iconography version of “Dueling Banjos.” I think it’d be hilarious.
Or to erect “The Biggest Flags in the World” theme park just down the road with record setting flags of all nations and clubs.
One of the old bubbas was interviewed on some talk show and kept asking “Why is it okay to fly the Black Panthers flag but not the Confederate flag?” He asked this about three times. I’m trying to determine if I’ve ever seen a Black Panthers flag. Only one or two images come up on google.
