Republicans and the Confederate Flag

[Kalt]

blacks never complained about the Arkansas State flag, especially while Clinton was their governor. The arkansas flag is very similar to the “stars and bars” Confederate flag; in fact, one of the stars on the arkansas flag officially symbolizes the state being a member of the Confederacy. Considering Blacks love clinton, and have never once complained about him not changing the Arkansas, flag, they should all be estopped from complaining when republican governors don’t change their respective confederate-memorializing state flags.

[Spoke]

While it is obvious that the Arkansas flag is based very loosely on the Confederate flag, the old Georgia flag incorporated the Confederate flag in toto. Not surprising that it would be one of the first targets of people wanting to remove symbols of the Confederacy from official display.

And by the way (for about the billionth time on this board) the flag we’re talking about is not the Stars and Bars, but the Confederate battle flag.

[Kalt]

ah, yer right re: stars and bars. My mistake.

I think the Arkansas flag is pretty blatant in its similarities to the confederate (battle) flag. While there are a few other state flags more blatant, most state flags make absolutely no reference to the confederacy. If you’re gonna go after one of the state flags, go after all of them, not just the 1 or 2 most blatant ones. Consistency is really important when trying to make a statement.

Blacks who complain about the georgia flag should also be complaining about the arkansas flag. So long as that one star in the middle of the arkansas flag represents Arkansas’ membership in the Confederacy, it should be insulting to blacks. Plus, clinton is no longer governor so they don’t have to be afraid of offending him.

[bordelond]

*Originally posted by Kalt *
So long as that one star in the middle of the arkansas flag represents Arkansas’ membership in the Confederacy, it should be insulting to blacks.

So how should a black person feel about their black great-grandfather being an at-will soldier in the Confederate Army?

[Kalt]

Embarrassed, surely.

[bordelond]

*Originally posted by Kalt *
**Embarrassed, surely. **

Why?

While the odd racist may have appropriated the Confederate battle flag as an expression of hate, that is not the beginning and the end of the flag’s meaning.

Directly connecting the Confederate battle flag to the institution of slavery and the subjugation of blacks is erroneous, IMHO. The Civil War was not fought to maintain the then-dying institution of slavery. States’ rights was the issue at hand.

[bordelond]

bump.

My last post has a false time on it.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

It’s those Yankee hamsters.

[Spoke]

bordelon:

While I would agree wholeheartedly that the Confederate flag has different meanings to different people, and that not everyone who displays the flag has racist intent, I dont think you’re going to get very far trying to argue that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.

What was the primary right in the bundle of “states’ rights” with which the Southern states were concerned? The war was fought primarily to protect the institution of slavery.

Now it is fair to point out that the average soldier didn’t own slaves, and wasn’t fighting (from his perspective) to preserve slavery, but rather to defend his home territory from invasion. However, there is no reasonable question that but for the slavery issue, the war would not have been fought.

So while I would argue that most people who fly the flag do not mean to convey a racist sentiment, it is not unreasonable for blacks (or anyone else) to make the mental connection between the flag and slavery.

For a sizeable portion of the population the flag does symbolize slavery. That fact makes it an unfit symbol for a Southern state. A state flag should not alienate a large segment of the people it is supposed to represent.

Fly the flag yourself, if you wish (and I would understand your non-racist reasons for wishing to do so), but don’t attach it to the state house.

*spoke-

(…who had one great-great-grandfather killed at Antietam, a great-grandfather crippled at Gaines Mill, and another great-grandfather who fought until Appomattox, all in service of the Confederacy…)*

[Spoke]

(“bordelond,” I meant)

[MEBuckner]

*Originally posted by bordelond *
Directly connecting the Confederate battle flag to the institution of slavery and the subjugation of blacks is erroneous, IMHO. The Civil War was not fought to maintain the then-dying institution of slavery. States’ rights was the issue at hand.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. – from the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." – from the Georgia secession declaration

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. – from the Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. – from the Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other – though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution – African slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind – from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just – but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal. – from the “Cornerstone Speech”, given by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at Savannah, Georgia on March 21, 1861

The slave states believed in “states’ rights” to maintain slavery, but not “states’ rights” to give freedom to fugitive slaves, or to prevent slave owners from bringing their slaves with them to free states.

[Walloon]

MEBuckner, bravo!

[Johanna]

MEBuckner, those are undeniably damning quotes testifying to the whole basis of the Confederacy as defending slavery, the blatantly racist declarations by Vice-President Stephens in particular. It makes a powerfully conclusive refutation against the Confederate apologists of today who try to cover up this fact. Thank you for posting these quotes for Dopers to save and use as needed, as long as willful ignorance needs to be eradicated. Where did you find all these quotes?

[David_B]

spoke- began this thread by noting:

Will the association of Republicans with the flag re-energize black voters (who stayed away from the polls in droves in GA)?

I’m just wondering – why did black voters stay away? I mean, if this guy kept pushing the Confederate flag issue, didn’t that energize them at all?

[Spoke]

DavidB wrote:

I’m just wondering – why did black voters stay away? I mean, if this guy kept pushing the Confederate flag issue, didn’t that energize them at all?

He was very cautious about where he pushed the flag issue. For example, it did not appear in his televised ads at all. It was mostly pushed by direct mail to voters in rural counties, who received fliers that said “REMEMBER WHO CHANGED YOUR FLAG!” In speeches before rural voters, he was more low-key. He would mention the issue, simply saying something like “People ought to have a right to vote on their flag.” The Confederate-minded knew what he meant.

Meanwhile, the press fell down on the job, I think. The issue was under-reported during the campaign. If I had to guess, I’d guess the Democratic-leaning Atlanta paper was afraid to report the issue for fear of energizing rural voters to turn Republican. But by NOT reporting it (or by UNDER-reporting it, I should say), they left an issue off the table which might have energized black voters.

Then, too, the weather on election day was a problem. We had torrential downpours during peak voting hours, which tends to suppress voting by people who are not really excited about an election. Confederate-minded voters were excited enough about the election to stand in the rain. Black voters were not, IMHO.

[Spoke]

(And I was hoping you’d come along with your cites, MEBuckner. Thanks for that.)

[bordelond]

I concede that the Civil War was fought over slavery, among other issues.

[MEBuckner]

I had actually never heard of any of these “smoking guns” concerning the South’s motives for secession until within the last few years. I never really thought the cause of the Civil War was anything but slavery, but even after graduating from college, I would have made a basically circumstantial case: the way slavery was the subject of repeated disputes and crises before the war (the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, “Bleeding Kansas”), or the obvious fact that only slave states seceded or even contemplated secession.

Some time in the mid-1990’s, I went and looked up the text of the Confederate Constitution, in reaction to the common Confederate apologist claim that “the Confederate Constitution banned the African slave trade”–this is often said as if the only provision in the Confederate Constitution was the banning of the African slave trade. This was before I knew where to find stuff on the web, so I went to the public library and actually looked at the text of the C.S. Constitution and, sure enough, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America is very forthright in guaranteeing slavery, not only in using the word “slaves” where the U.S. Constitution uses euphemisms, but also in going beyond the antebellum U.S. Constitution to provide positive guarantees for slave owners in several places. (And of course the African slave trade had already been banned, in accordance with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, antebellum U.S. federal law, and the will of the international community, most notably the British Empire. The C.S. Constitution did nothing new with its ban.)

(Geek that I am, this was all in order to write a letter to the editors of the World Almanac, objecting to their one-sentence throwaway characterization of the Confederate Constitution. Next year, that passage was changed.)

I had still never heard of the so-called “Cornerstone Speech”. Someone mentioned in a piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, either an op-ed or a letter to the editor, that the Vice President of the Confederacy had called slavery the “cornerstone” of the new would-be nation’s government. Naturally, I had to check this out–I mean, did he really say that? Was it “taken out of context”? IIRC, it was in the course of researching the Cornerstone Speech that I also found out about such things as the four state secession declarations, as well as assorted other statements where the Confederates made it perfectly clear what they were about. Of course, serious scholars had known about these things for over a century, but it was all news to me. The fog of apologist evasions and half-truths and outright lies can be pretty thick at times. It can lead reasonable people to conclude “Well, there must be something to what the Confederate apologists were saying–I suppose the causes of Southern secession must have been ‘complicated’.”

There is no real question why the slave-holding states–that is how they characterized themselves, as often as not–chose to secede in 1860. They seceded to protect slavery. The Southern cause was the protection of an economic system–of forced, unfree labor; of a political system–in which some people had no political rights; of a social system–in which people of one “race” were held to be superior to those of another “race”. Every other dispute between the South (the slave-holding states) and the North (the non-slave-holding states) either grew out of slavery or was of comparatively little importance

(I put up a rather snide “pop quiz” on this subject on the Web, which is actually based on a post I made to a thread here. A very good page on the subject is the Causes of the Civil War page maintained by Jim Epperson, a mathematics professor at the University of Alabama; it reproduces lots of primary source documents, and is where I always link to for the “Cornerstone Speech”. Finally, Yale Law School’s Avalon Project is a great resource for primary source history documents of all kinds, and includes the four secession declarations and the provisional and permanent Confederate Constitutions in its Confederate States of America section.)

[MEBuckner]

Oh, and as to the Confederate flag: It’s often argued that the Confederate flag, or its incorporation into this or that state flag, is wrong because it’s used by modern day white supremacists, or because when some state legislature voted to incorporate it into the state flag or fly it over the state capitol, they were really making a statement about segregation. Well, maybe and maybe not. Mississippi’s flag has included the Confederate flag since the 1890’s, so it obviously wasn’t adopted as a reaction to Brown v. Board of Education. But, whether or not the symbols of the Confederacy should be associated with the KKK or Southern resistance to de-segregation, they obviously have to be associated with the Confederacy itself. And the Confederacy itself was founded for the preservation and defense of slavery.

[Avalonian]

Wow… I feel like I’ve just had a great American History lesson. Sincerest thanks, MEBuckner!

Like you, I never really doubted that the Confederacy was founded to protect slavery, but I had never read their founding documents, either. Certainly quells much of what the apologists would say! Thanks again.