The Confederate "Rebel" Flag and it's Meaning and Usage

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Skeleon:
Meanings change. I certainly wouldn't carry around the flag of the old German empire. Oh, sure, it's all about grandeur, discipline, efficiency, ambition, etc., great values, eh? But these days the flag is associated with far-right Neo-Nazi groups who use it in lieu of the swastika; in part because it shares the colour scheme with the Nazi flag and also because it stands in clear opposition to the modern German flag that was part of democratic student protests and uprisings against aristocratic authority. So, no, I certainly don't follow the argument that it's nostalgic or stands for particular virtues these days. I consider it (and the Confederate flag here) as tainted by history. Sure, you can display it. But I don't think I would want to and I don't think you should want to, either.


I have to agree. While i can kind of get the whole pride in your home thing, it's foolish to fly a symbol so tainted by history. I get that there were black people who fought for the Confederacy but it still doesn't change the fact that the Confederacy supported the single most vile institution in American history. I was born in Georgia and, if the confederacy had won, chances are good I would be a slave instead of a Grad Student right now. Should I see a Confederate flag, a rare site in Ohio and PA where i live, I'm more than likely going to avoid the area and people flying it. The thing makes me uncomfortable.

One could say the civil war was about states' rights...the right to own slaves to be precise. From these texts it seems pretty clear that the issue of slavery is what caused the war: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

I tend to associate the "confederate flag" with southern pride and some rather romanticised history. I don't necessarily view the flag as racist or anything- the meaning of symbols changes through time.

Karthak:
One could say the civil war was about states' rights...the right to own slaves to be precise. From these texts it seems pretty clear that the issue of slavery is what caused the war: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Not quite... That's what caused the Southern secession. The war was more about maintaining the Union.

OT: On the flag, it's just a case of intention vs interpretation.
Just because you intend to display it as taking pride in being from the South, doesn't mean people won't interpret is as being something other than racist. Similarly, just because you interpret the displaying of the flag as being racist, doesn't mean the people who hang it are racist.

OneCatch :

Lil devils x:

That is the thing though, the North had no intention of freeing the slaves and also many exceptions were allowed to have slaves after the war. That is what is often misunderstood. Lincoln addressed this directly: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."-Abraham Lincoln Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861

It was an unintended consequence of the war, and a very good strategic move for the North to be able to secure a win, but not their intention for the result of the war. That was not what they were trying to accomplish. This is more of a gray area rather than a "good vs bad". It is good that it was abolished, but that doesn't make the North any more chivalrous with their intentions.

Another Lincoln quote (admittedly post war):

"It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."

The whole debate over whether the north intended to free the slaves is debatable in the extreme.
We aren't ever going to know if Lincoln actually meant the quote that you posted, or was just trying to avert war. We aren't going to know if he freed the slaves out of expedience, or actually believed they deserved limited suffrage after the war, as per my quote. Hell, it's possible that he actually changed his mind!

But regardless of the union's original intentions, they did free the slaves and were moving towards better things, and the confederate states still fought for years to retain slavery.
Just because the people the confederates fought were (and this is arguable) 'nearly as bad' doesn't morally absolve the confederacy of the fact that it enslaved millions!

I guess the North should be changing their flags as well?
"A central fact obscured by post-Civil War mythologies is that the northern U.S. states were deeply implicated in slavery and the slave trade right up to the war.

The slave trade in particular was dominated by the northern maritime industry. Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of all U.S. slave voyages. The DeWolfs may have been the biggest slavers in U.S. history, but there were many others involved. For example, members of the Brown family of Providence, some of whom were prominent in the slave trade, gave substantial gifts to Rhode Island College, which was later renamed Brown University.

While local townspeople thought of the DeWolfs and other prominent families primarily as general merchants, distillers and traders who supported ship-building, warehousing, insurance and other trades and businesses, it was common knowledge that one source of this business was the cheap labor and huge profits reaped from trafficking in human beings.

The North also imported slaves, as well as transporting and selling them in the south and abroad. While the majority of enslaved Africans arrived in southern ports-Charleston, South Carolina was the largest market for slave traders, including the DeWolfs-most large colonial ports served as points of entry, and Africans were sold in northern ports including Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Newport, Rhode Island."
http://www.tracesofthetrade.org/guides-and-materials/historical/northern-involvement-in-the-slave-trade/
How about they just give back the wealth they accumulated on the backs of slaves? I am sure those families who have suffered from this would greatly appreciate and find extremely useful the massive wealth accumulated in New York, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania at the expense of their families. Just because the North found a new means to enslave the populace from their wealth they accumulated on the backs of slaves via economic slavery that still exists today, does not mean that they are absolved from their wrongdoing as well. I am sure the families would find the reinbursement of the wealth that was gained at their expense far more useful than someone taking down a flag.

Superlative:

Skeleon:
Meanings change. I certainly wouldn't carry around the flag of the old German empire. Oh, sure, it's all about grandeur, discipline, efficiency, ambition, etc., great values, eh? But these days the flag is associated with far-right Neo-Nazi groups who use it in lieu of the swastika; in part because it shares the colour scheme with the Nazi flag and also because it stands in clear opposition to the modern German flag that was part of democratic student protests and uprisings against aristocratic authority. So, no, I certainly don't follow the argument that it's nostalgic or stands for particular virtues these days. I consider it (and the Confederate flag here) as tainted by history. Sure, you can display it. But I don't think I would want to and I don't think you should want to, either.


I have to agree. While i can kind of get the whole pride in your home thing, it's foolish to fly a symbol so tainted by history. I get that there were black people who fought for the Confederacy but it still doesn't change the fact that the Confederacy supported the single most vile institution in American history. I was born in Georgia and, if the confederacy had won, chances are good I would be a slave instead of a Grad Student right now. Should I see a Confederate flag, a rare site in Ohio and PA where i live, I'm more than likely going to avoid the area and people flying it. The thing makes me uncomfortable.

No, you wouldn't. Slavery was already on its way to dying due to economic realities of the era. Slavery was no longer cost effective and had stopped being cost effective before the war started. Egyptian cotton was rapidly causing the price of cotton to drop.

In fact that's a major cause of conflict between the north and the south of the period: The north is shifting into gear in the lead up to the industrial revolution, whereas the south is still stuck in a agricultural system that is rapidly becoming more expensive to maintain then it is producing wealth. The north is also rapidly growing as far as infrastructure goes.

In part this is due to immigration. The north is more palatable as far as temperature and weather goes to the sensibilities of most Europeans who had immigrated over before the American Revolution, and in this period ( http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/ellis-island/immigration-1840-60.jpg ) you get a major influx of Irish, english, and Germans, who are used to weather more common in the North rather then the hot and humid weather in the south; the main immigrant port is also in the north.

Due to the limited infrastructure of the time, you simply don't get people leaving the cities as much. This is prior to the big push west and before the rail system extended into the south.

The idea that slavery as an institution would've survived past the 1860's anyway is a laughable one from both an economic and political standpoint, and it's part of a myth perpetuated about the south, the economics, and the people within it. In fact I continue to maintain to this day that the south is far less racist then the north, since the north never had to intermix and mingle the two races like the south did. Detroit is probably a huge prime example of this, and it's explored in the book Detroit: An American Autopsy ( http://www.amazon.com/Detroit-American-Autopsy-Charlie-LeDuff/dp/1594205345 ).

There's an old saying about racism between black and whites: "In the south, the man professes to hate the race but admits to liking the individuals. In the north, the man professes to love the race but hates the individuals."

There are certainly people in the north and south who disliked slavery on a moral level. But for the most part, it was a fight of economics and power.

Ugh. There's some serious whitewashing going on in here...

Frission:
Ugh. There's some serious whitewashing going on in here...

If you want to talk about " white washing" you should look at how Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of US slave voyages. When you actually look at how NY gained it's wealth, it is pretty damn disgusting. Honestly in my eyes that does not belong to those holding it now, it belongs to those whose backs it was earned on.

And then of course there was how the North treated Native Americans:

1861: Civil War Begins: Many tribes, including the 5 civilized tribes ( Now living in Oklahoma territory) sided with the Confederacy, which promised to respect Indian Sovereignty in return for indian support. After the end of the war, the US government punished the 5 civilized tribes by forcing the tribes to give up land.

1862: Homestead Act, Dakota Wars
1864: Sand Creek Massacre
1866: The Battle of One hundred Slain
1867: Treaty of Medicine Lodge
1868: Battle of Washita River
http://www.authentichistory.com/diversity/native/hb3-plainstimeline/
Oh it goes on from there.. The whitewashing I see is from those trying to make it out to be " north = good/ south = Bad when the truth is far from that. The Union carried out many atrocties and humanitarian Crimes and should own up to their actions as well. To single out the flag of one army saying it is " tarnished" and absolve the flag of the other is extreme whitewashing when you actually look at their actions here.

Well, when I see someone fly it I think 'Boy, I just bet they support gay rights, feminism, a scale back of nuclear weapons, and civil liberties'.

No, I assume until otherwise corrected that they are overly nationalistic christian conservatives. Yes, that's a prejudice based on an unfair stereotype, but that's the message that flag sends to me.

The sort of people who engage in that sort of historical/regional romanticisation tend as a rule to be fairly conservative and lack a certain political self awareness.

If I'm honest, I'm not a fan of flag flying in general for precisely those reasons. Outside of international sporting competitions that kind of overt, almost aggressive, display of nationalism makes me uneasy.

ClockworkPenguin:
Well, when I see someone fly it I think 'Boy, I just bet they support gay rights, feminism, a scale back of nuclear weapons, and civil liberties'.

No, I assume until otherwise corrected that they are overly nationalistic christian conservatives. Yes, that's a prejudice based on an unfair stereotype, but that's the message that flag sends to me.

The sort of people who engage in that sort of historical/regional romanticisation tend as a rule to be fairly conservative and lack a certain political self awareness.

If I'm honest, I'm not a fan of flag flying in general for precisely those reasons. Outside of international sporting competitions that kind of overt, almost aggressive, display of nationalism makes me uneasy.

Yea, it is kinda like when they fly the american flag and I think about how they support gay rights, feminism, are anti war, and civil liberties...Oh yea, They killed our unarmed gays first in battle and still persecute them so we have to hide and shelter them from them, tried to force our women to take the mans name when the man has always taken the womans name, they send us rotten food and new bibles, tie us to chairs and make us read the bible aloud, imprison our people for refusing to fight, imprison our people from trying to protect their children from those coming to steal them and force them to read bibles and poison our people with their uranium mining to make their nukes and go bomb the crap out of goat farmers somewhere.... yea they really are a " beacon of inspiration" for the world eh?

Keep in mind this was the US Federal government responsible for these things, actions done under the US flag, not the confederates.

Bentusi16:

No, you wouldn't. Slavery was already on its way to dying due to economic realities of the era. Slavery was no longer cost effective and had stopped being cost effective before the war started. Egyptian cotton was rapidly causing the price of cotton to drop.

Not only that, but I have 2 words for people that think slavery was going to stick around much longer: Steam Tractor.

Because lets be completely frank/honest, as a person trying to feed his family and sell his crops to make money, what would you rather have. Someone you need to feed, give a home, keep a watch on in case he tries to escape/kill you, who may be rather miffed at you because you are in-slaving him, and in all honest will be treated the same as a horse in almost every way...............or a machine that will ALWAYS do what its told (BECAUSE its a machine), and the only thing you have to pay for about it is a one time price for the tractor, and then some coal (which is cheap) when you run it.

Ill give you a hint. Its the one that does all the work today.

Lil devils x:

ClockworkPenguin:
Well, when I see someone fly it I think 'Boy, I just bet they support gay rights, feminism, a scale back of nuclear weapons, and civil liberties'.

No, I assume until otherwise corrected that they are overly nationalistic christian conservatives. Yes, that's a prejudice based on an unfair stereotype, but that's the message that flag sends to me.

The sort of people who engage in that sort of historical/regional romanticisation tend as a rule to be fairly conservative and lack a certain political self awareness.

If I'm honest, I'm not a fan of flag flying in general for precisely those reasons. Outside of international sporting competitions that kind of overt, almost aggressive, display of nationalism makes me uneasy.

Yea, it is kinda like when they fly the american flag and I think about how they support gay rights, feminism, are anti war, and civil liberties...Oh yea, They killed our unarmed gays first in battle and still persecute them so we have to hide and shelter them from them, tried to force our women to take the mans name when the man has always taken the womans name, they send us rotten food and new bibles, tie us to chairs and make us read the bible aloud and poison our people with their uranium mining to make their nukes and go bomb the crap out of goat farmers somewhere.... yea they really are a " beacon of inspiration" for the world eh?

Keep in mind this was the US Federal government responsible for these things, actions done under the US flag, not the confederates.

My perception has nothing to do with the things done under each flag. Heck, I'm British, we are pretty strong contenders for the title of shittiest things done under it.

But the confederate flag is connected to the stereotype of southern conservative christian tea-partiers. In the same way that the St. George cross used to be associated with neo-fascists, because a couple of decades ago, those where the people who predominately flew it. The St. George flag has been slightly rehabilitated in that it now suggests football fans rather than racists (not mutually exclusive of course).

When I think of the sort of people who would fly the British flag outside of the Olympics, I think of Daily Mail and telegraph reading Ukip supporters, terrified of immigrants. When I think of people who fly the Saltire, I think of SNP supporters, badgering everyone about the economic arguments for independence. When I think of people who fly the Welsh Dragon, I don't think of anything, because it's only Wales, bless them.

This is all rather prejudicial and bigoted of me, which is of course why I revise my opinion after actually interacting with such people, but I can't help my initial impression based on their desire to display those symbols.

BOOM headshot65:

Bentusi16:

No, you wouldn't. Slavery was already on its way to dying due to economic realities of the era. Slavery was no longer cost effective and had stopped being cost effective before the war started. Egyptian cotton was rapidly causing the price of cotton to drop.

Not only that, but I have 2 words for people that think slavery was going to stick around much longer: Steam Tractor.

Because lets be completely frank/honest, as a person trying to feed his family and sell his crops to make money, what would you rather have. Someone you need to feed, give a home, keep a watch on in case he tries to escape/kill you, who may be rather miffed at you because you are in-slaving him, and in all honest will be treated the same as a horse in almost every way...............or a machine that will ALWAYS do what its told (BECAUSE its a machine), and the only thing you have to pay for about it is a one time price for the tractor, and then some coal (which is cheap) when you run it.

Ill give you a hint. Its the one that does all the work today.

Here's some more words for you. Factory. Sweatshop. Industrial revolution. More slaves today than at any point in human history.

The demise of one specific role where slaves were traditionally used in the South would not have meant the demise of slavery considering the upcoming industrialization of the West and the role low paid workers played in it..

BOOM headshot65:
Not only that, but I have 2 words for people that think slavery was going to stick around much longer: Steam Tractor.

I'm pretty sure it would still be cheaper to have a steam tractor run by a slave than a paid employee.

Industrialisation of agriculture caused labour to move to manufacturing jobs. There would undoubtedly have been factory bosses happy to use slave labour; the only reason it didn't happen was that abolition preceded industrialisation.

Because lets be completely frank/honest, as a person trying to feed his family and sell his crops to make money, what would you rather have. Someone you need to feed, give a home, keep a watch on in case he tries to escape/kill you, who may be rather miffed at you because you are in-slaving him, and in all honest will be treated the same as a horse in almost every way...............or a machine that will ALWAYS do what its told (BECAUSE its a machine), and the only thing you have to pay for about it is a one time price for the tractor, and then some coal (which is cheap) when you run it.

Historically slaves have rarely been owned by breadline farmers, and I suspect that the USA was no different. They were more usually owned by major landowners, and the moderately wealthy might sometimes have one or two.

ClockworkPenguin:

Lil devils x:

ClockworkPenguin:
Well, when I see someone fly it I think 'Boy, I just bet they support gay rights, feminism, a scale back of nuclear weapons, and civil liberties'.

No, I assume until otherwise corrected that they are overly nationalistic christian conservatives. Yes, that's a prejudice based on an unfair stereotype, but that's the message that flag sends to me.

The sort of people who engage in that sort of historical/regional romanticisation tend as a rule to be fairly conservative and lack a certain political self awareness.

If I'm honest, I'm not a fan of flag flying in general for precisely those reasons. Outside of international sporting competitions that kind of overt, almost aggressive, display of nationalism makes me uneasy.

Yea, it is kinda like when they fly the american flag and I think about how they support gay rights, feminism, are anti war, and civil liberties...Oh yea, They killed our unarmed gays first in battle and still persecute them so we have to hide and shelter them from them, tried to force our women to take the mans name when the man has always taken the womans name, they send us rotten food and new bibles, tie us to chairs and make us read the bible aloud and poison our people with their uranium mining to make their nukes and go bomb the crap out of goat farmers somewhere.... yea they really are a " beacon of inspiration" for the world eh?

Keep in mind this was the US Federal government responsible for these things, actions done under the US flag, not the confederates.

My perception has nothing to do with the things done under each flag. Heck, I'm British, we are pretty strong contenders for the title of shittiest things done under it.

But the confederate flag is connected to the stereotype of southern conservative christian tea-partiers. In the same way that the St. George cross used to be associated with neo-fascists, because a couple of decades ago, those where the people who predominately flew it. The St. George flag has been slightly rehabilitated in that it now suggests football fans rather than racists (not mutually exclusive of course).

When I think of the sort of people who would fly the British flag outside of the Olympics, I think of Daily Mail and telegraph reading Ukip supporters, terrified of immigrants. When I think of people who fly the Saltire, I think of SNP supporters, badgering everyone about the economic arguments for independence. When I think of people who fly the Welsh Dragon, I don't think of anything, because it's only Wales, bless them.

This is all rather prejudicial and bigoted of me, which is of course why I revise my opinion after actually interacting with such people, but I can't help my initial impression based on their desire to display those symbols.

The US flag is connected with genocide carried out against the tribes of the first nations and our present day imprisonment, yet is promoted widely and found acceptable. The atrocities carried out under the US flag are far worse than those carried out under the confederate flag, however, it is the one considered " tarnished". I have not seen a Tea partier carry the confederate flag, however, I have seen them carry US Navy Jack.
image
That is actually a US flag, not a confederate flag.

EDIT: When you google " tea party flag" The virgina flag does not even come up:
http://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+flag&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&oe=&rlz=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=B1txUbfQKYiQ9QTk4oHACw&biw=1280&bih=855&sei=DFtxUeyTO4rq8wS9oYAw

Edit2: Oh there is one wayy down at the bottom, underneath all those US "dont tread on me flags". The US "don't tread on me" flags are what the tea party primarily uses. The main flags seen at Tea party events are US flags.

Lil devils x:

The US flag is connected with genocide carried out against the tribes of the first nations and our present day imprisonment, yet is promoted widely and found acceptable. The atrocities carried out under the US flag are far worse than those carried out under the confederate flag, however, it is the one considered " tarnished". I have not seen a Tea partier carry the confederate flag, however, I have seen them carry US Navy Jack.
image
That is actually a US flag, not a confederate flag.

EDIT: When you google " tea party flag" The virgina flag does not even come up:
http://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+flag&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&oe=&rlz=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=B1txUbfQKYiQ9QTk4oHACw&biw=1280&bih=855&sei=DFtxUeyTO4rq8wS9oYAw

Edit2: Oh there is one wayy down at the bottom, underneath all those US "dont tread on me flags". The US "don't tread on me" flags are what the tea party primarily uses. The main flags seen at Tea party events are US flags.

Well, I stand corrected regarding the tea-party association. My bad.

The US Flag, represents the USA, so it is associated with whatever the current actions of the USA are, and the implications of flying it change accordingly. I have already stated that I find flag waving in general indicative of an unsubtle and potentially dangerous type of political mindset. But in general, flying the US flag means that they either support the modern USA, or are just making the "I'm proud of this place because this is the place I'm in" sentiment. It does not indicate that they support all historical action taken by the USA.

The Confederate flag, by contrast, is attached to a historical South, and its associations therefore do not change much in line with the behaviour of the actual South. Rather, it becomes an independent symbol, and it's meaning is characterised by the behaviour of the people who fly it. They tend to be right wing Christian conservatives (as indeed do a lot of people who glorify aspects of the US history, such as the founding fathers etc.)

Historically, far worse things where done under the Union Flag, than under the St. George Flag. However, I am more comfortable with people waving the Union flag than the George one, because the people flying the union flag are saying they are proud to be (modern) British. The ones flying the St. George flag however are often harking back to some imaginary golden England of the past before Jonny Foreigner came and ruined it for us.

ClockworkPenguin:

Lil devils x:

The US flag is connected with genocide carried out against the tribes of the first nations and our present day imprisonment, yet is promoted widely and found acceptable. The atrocities carried out under the US flag are far worse than those carried out under the confederate flag, however, it is the one considered " tarnished". I have not seen a Tea partier carry the confederate flag, however, I have seen them carry US Navy Jack.
image
That is actually a US flag, not a confederate flag.

EDIT: When you google " tea party flag" The virgina flag does not even come up:
http://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+flag&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&oe=&rlz=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=B1txUbfQKYiQ9QTk4oHACw&biw=1280&bih=855&sei=DFtxUeyTO4rq8wS9oYAw

Edit2: Oh there is one wayy down at the bottom, underneath all those US "dont tread on me flags". The US "don't tread on me" flags are what the tea party primarily uses. The main flags seen at Tea party events are US flags.

Well, I stand corrected regarding the tea-party association. My bad.

The US Flag, represents the USA, so it is associated with whatever the current actions of the USA are, and the implications of flying it change accordingly. I have already stated that I find flag waving in general indicative of an unsubtle and potentially dangerous type of political mindset. But in general, flying the US flag means that they either support the modern USA, or are just making the "I'm proud of this place because this is the place I'm in" sentiment. It does not indicate that they support all historical action taken by the USA.

The Confederate flag, by contrast, is attached to a historical South, and its associations therefore do not change much in line with the behaviour of the actual South. Rather, it becomes an independent symbol, and it's meaning is characterised by the behaviour of the people who fly it. They tend to be right wing Christian conservatives (as indeed do a lot of people who glorify aspects of the US history, such as the founding fathers etc.)

Historically, far worse things where done under the Union Flag, than under the St. George Flag. However, I am more comfortable with people waving the Union flag than the George one, because the people flying the union flag are saying they are proud to be (modern) British. The ones flying the St. George flag however are often harking back to some imaginary golden England of the past before Jonny Foreigner came and ruined it for us.

I think much of this also has to do with what the media decides to show people in regards to what they want us to believe vs the reality of what we are dealing with.
image
image
image
image
The Clan using these things as rewards for their members do not exactly conjure up good images for the US flag as well. The singling out of images and only showing " part of the story" is the problem.
Here are the KKK flags:
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us%7Dkkk.html

Lil devils x:
/snip

You misunderstand. I have never said that the North was ever that good either. I just find it disturbing that saying the motivations of the North weren't pure, somehow redeems the South. They were both pretty terrible.

I just find it disturbing that some attempt to say that the war didn't have anything to do with slavery. That's historical revisionism. Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850's, and was a contentious issue before the secession. Was Lincoln and the whole of the North originally abolitionists? Of course not, but to say that slavery had nothing to do with the secession is absurd.

EDIT: Like Bleeding Kansas.

Bentusi16:

There's an old saying about racism between black and whites: "In the south, the man professes to hate the race but admits to liking the individuals. In the north, the man professes to love the race but hates the individuals."

Not to mention that saying's like this are bullshit. Even in Mark Twain's novels, he pretty much said that this sentiment is wrongheaded. You could like an individual even if you dislike the group, and consider yourself a superior race?

Don't make me laugh.

EDIT: The laissez faire, view that slavery would sort itself out is also wrong. Slavery was inefficient, in the long run and couldn't compete with an industrialized north, but many southerners were paranoid about illegalizing slavery. Otherwise they would lose their "edge" over the north. It's unlikely that slavery would have ended in 1860 without the civil war.

The Civil war, could have had many causes. The Growth of the Abolition Movement, Lincoln's election, Economic and social differences between the North and the South. Maybe even state rights.

Quoting:
"Everyone agreed that states had certain rights-but did those rights carry over when a citizen left that state? The Southern position was that citizens of every state had the right to take their property anywhere in the U.S. and not have it taken away-specifically they could bring their slaves anywhere and they would remain slaves. Northerners rejected this "right" because it would violate the right of a free state to outlaw slavery within its borders"

The problem when you try to discuss why the confederate flag is not that well liked out of the south is that it always brings the discussion on historical revisionism. Yes, you can still dislike the flag, knowing history.

Those who like the flag see it as a symbol of rebellion. while those who don't like it, see it as a symbol of delusions & misplaced pride.

I think of those who wave the confederate flag, like those who wave around the flag of the Soviet Union.

EDIT: No, I finally have the perfect comparison. It's as if a french national still talked about the first empire and said "France will rise again". It's a combination of anachronism and weird national/state pride.

Frission:
The Civil war, could have had many causes. The Growth of the Abolition Movement, Lincoln's election, Economic and social differences between the North and the South. Maybe even state rights.

Quoting:
"Everyone agreed that states had certain rights-but did those rights carry over when a citizen left that state? The Southern position was that citizens of every state had the right to take their property anywhere in the U.S. and not have it taken away-specifically they could bring their slaves anywhere and they would remain slaves. Northerners rejected this "right" because it would violate the right of a free state to outlaw slavery within its borders"

The problem when you try to discuss why the confederate flag is not that well liked out of the south is that it always brings the discussion on historical revisionism. Yes, you can still dislike the flag, knowing history.

Those who like the flag see it as a symbol of rebellion. while those who don't like it, see it as a symbol of delusions & misplaced pride.

I think of those who wave the confederate flag, like those who wave around the flag of the Soviet Union.

When we look at the causes of the civil war, often overlooked is the intense feud that had errupted in congress over the Morrill Tariff, and a primary issue in the elections that Year. Southern congressmen left congress over the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff

"The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was a high protective tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was a key element of the platform of the new Republican Party, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth by limiting competition from lower-wage industries in Europe. It had been opposed by cotton planters, but they had mostly left the United States Congress when it was finally passed."

"The Morrill Tariff was drafted and passed the House before the Civil War began or was even expected, and was passed by the Senate almost unchanged. Thus it should not be considered "Civil War" legislation."

When you are looking at a 70% tax on European goods directly aimed at harming the south, you cannot expect them to respond well.

Edit:
I also would like to point out that I don't like the flag. TBH I don't even like this flag:
image
because we wouldn't even have a flag if it were not for our people being force assimilated.

Its not even the Confederate flag! Its the BATTLE flag!

I'm a Southern Nationalist and that flag to me means both pride in our past but also hope for the future, that the South can be a country unto its own rights once again, free to go its own way.

Shock and Awe:
the Confederates were traitors, and they were traitors for a really shitty cause.

And I don't consider defending's ones homes and loved ones to be a shitty cause , OP. -.-
I know the Yankee propoganda is hard to overcome, but please, let me quote Lincoln himself on this one:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

The Cause that we fought for, and still fight for is State's Rights and that is what flag represents.

Imperius:
I'm a Southern Nationalist and that flag to me means both pride in our past but also hope for the future, that the South can be a country unto its own rights once again, free to go its own way.

The Cause that we fought for, and still fight for is State's Rights and that is what flag represents.

First of all, the Confederacy lost because of the State's Rights it fought for. The Confederacy, being a Confederacy, was unable to collect taxes, as such they were unable to properly arm their soldiers. They also draft dodged like the dickens. Even if the Confederacy won, it would share its fate with Saint-Domingue, which I will elaborate upon later.

Second, you Southerners prattle on and on about states rights, but never tell us which states rights the Confederacy sought to defend. Please elaborate upon all of them. Don't cherry pick.

Lil devils x:

It is strange how people take things different ways. This flag reminds me of the first time I had seen it actually displayed on the wall at my friends home. It was on the wall in his bedroom, as well as his framed great gandfathers uniform. According to his family, the war was not about slavery it was about economic supression.

Yes, suppression of an economy heavily dependent on slavery. Or rather, the fear of losing power in congress due to the ratification of "Free States" in the West, that would have likely blown more holes into the Fugitive Slave Act.

The abolition of slavery was an unintended consequence that was only done in order to win, not because they really wanted to do so. Some were actually allowed to keep their slaves after the war if they fought for the union.

Indeed. Lincoln may have had abolitionist sentiments, but he had no intention of emancipating African Americans when he was elected. The Emancipation Proclamation was a diplomatic move to keep Britain out of the war. In any event, Lincoln didn't consider us equals

I am not sure how him displaying the flag and the confederate uniform can be considered " racist" considering the guy is black. There is no "myth" of the black confederates, they are real.
http://blackconfederates.blogspot.com/
http://www.stonewallbrigade.com/articles_black_confeds.html
This guy pretty much states how the southern black confederates view this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks

Black Confederates Soldiers were real. They also weren't slaves, and this detail is very important. In the slave colonies of the Americans, there were four social classes within two castes, generally speaking. The two castes were/are White and Black. They were/are mutually exclusive and it is all but impossible to change ones caste (when people say Race is a social construct, this is what they mean). If you are born Black, you will always be Black. If you are born White, you will always be White. The Latin Americas had/have an extremely complicated Racial-caste system, but the US generally adheres to the "One-Drop Rule" or the "Common Sense" means of assigning Racial-caste. If you "look Black" to the common White man, that is what you are until death.

Each of these castes can then be further divided into two classes each. Whites could be Rich Whites, or Grand Blancs as they're called in the french colonies, and poor whites/ Petits Blancs. Meanwhile Blacks can be divided into slaves and Freemen/Creoles/Coloreds. Unlike Racial Castes, social classes can change over one's lifetime. A Grand Blanc could lose his/her fortune and a Petit Blanc could become extremely wealthy. A slave could be freed, and Freemen could be enslaved on a whim. Grand Blancs were on top, slaves were at the bottom, while the Freemen and Petits Blancs competed for acceptance from the Grand Blancs. This was the way of life in Saint-Domingue, what is now Haiti, and similar circumstances existed in Louisiana since it was also a former French Colony.

Now, knowing all this it's very easy to deduce the motive of these Black Confederates; to gain respect and rapport with the Grand Blancs, and perhaps be rewarded with freedom and plantations of their own one day. Their existence doesn't imply that the Confederacy wasn't racist, nor that the Confederacy wasn't heavily invested in slavery. Fuck, all of the Americas are racist, and all of the Western World profited from slavery. Only that they did what they believed was in their best interest at the time. And what they believed was that by fighting on behalf of the Confederacy, they would be accepted by White Confederate High Society. Likewise, Black soldiers in the Union believed that they could win their acceptance and freedom in the US by fighting against the Confederacy. They would have failed, of course, just as the Freemen of Saint Domingue failed to win acceptance from the Grand Blancs time and time again. They ultimately joined the much larger slave caste to all but eliminate the White population on the island and create the first Black Republic. In truth, Black Confederates rarely saw battle. The 1st Louisiana Guard was disbanded almost immediately, and the Confederate Congress considered armed Black men in uniform an affront to the principles of the CSA and a potential threat to the new nation. There were some free soldiers, of course, but most Black "Contribution" to the Confederate effort was, as your second link states, thanks to slaves and not willing participants. Hell, they got themselves "captured" on purpose much of the time.

Frission:

Lil devils x:
/snip

You misunderstand. I have never said that the North was ever that good either. I just find it disturbing that saying the motivations of the North weren't pure, somehow redeems the South. They were both pretty terrible.

I just find it disturbing that some attempt to say that the war didn't have anything to do with slavery. That's historical revisionism. Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850's, and was a contentious issue before the secession. Was Lincoln and the whole of the North originally abolitionists? Of course not, but to say that slavery had nothing to do with the secession is absurd.

EDIT: Like Bleeding Kansas.

Bentusi16:

There's an old saying about racism between black and whites: "In the south, the man professes to hate the race but admits to liking the individuals. In the north, the man professes to love the race but hates the individuals."

Not to mention that saying's like this are bullshit. Even in Mark Twain's novels, he pretty much said that this sentiment is wrongheaded. You could like an individual even if you dislike the group, and consider yourself a superior race?

Don't make me laugh.

EDIT: The laissez faire, view that slavery would sort itself out is also wrong. Slavery was inefficient, in the long run and couldn't compete with an industrialized north, but many southerners were paranoid about illegalizing slavery. Otherwise they would lose their "edge" over the north. It's unlikely that slavery would have ended in 1860 without the civil war.

.
Machines were better means of production than slave labor at the time, and in the process of banning slavery the act would strip many land owners of their means of production and their wealth, leaving them with no industrial infrastructure to replace it and compete with the north. The idea of slaves as property, and such act being illegal within the union itself in certain countries set the conflict on tracks in the first place, the difference being the way it could have turned out.

TheIronRuler:

Frission:

Lil devils x:
/snip

You misunderstand. I have never said that the North was ever that good either. I just find it disturbing that saying the motivations of the North weren't pure, somehow redeems the South. They were both pretty terrible.

I just find it disturbing that some attempt to say that the war didn't have anything to do with slavery. That's historical revisionism. Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850's, and was a contentious issue before the secession. Was Lincoln and the whole of the North originally abolitionists? Of course not, but to say that slavery had nothing to do with the secession is absurd.

EDIT: Like Bleeding Kansas.

Bentusi16:

There's an old saying about racism between black and whites: "In the south, the man professes to hate the race but admits to liking the individuals. In the north, the man professes to love the race but hates the individuals."

Not to mention that saying's like this are bullshit. Even in Mark Twain's novels, he pretty much said that this sentiment is wrongheaded. You could like an individual even if you dislike the group, and consider yourself a superior race?

Don't make me laugh.

EDIT: The laissez faire, view that slavery would sort itself out is also wrong. Slavery was inefficient, in the long run and couldn't compete with an industrialized north, but many southerners were paranoid about illegalizing slavery. Otherwise they would lose their "edge" over the north. It's unlikely that slavery would have ended in 1860 without the civil war.

.
Machines were better means of production than slave labor at the time, and in the process of banning slavery the act would strip many land owners of their means of production and their wealth, leaving them with no industrial infrastructure to replace it and compete with the north. The idea of slaves as property, and such act being illegal within the union itself in certain countries set the conflict on tracks in the first place, the difference being the way it could have turned out.

As others have said, industrialisation would not have made abolition inevitable. It might have changed what work the slaves where put to, but it would not have resulted in abolition on it's own.

This can be evidenced by the treatment of workers in Industrial Europe. If they could have stripped away any more rights for their workers, they would have done. There where several mills in the area I live which got into trouble because it got out that their treatment of workers was practically equivalent to slavery anyway (they lived on site and where paid in tokens only redeemable at the mill, and where basically utterly dependant on it. The only real difference was that they could technically leave.)

I don't think it is unrealistic to think that industries in a country which could treat it's workers as property, would do so.

ClockworkPenguin:

TheIronRuler:

Frission:

You misunderstand. I have never said that the North was ever that good either. I just find it disturbing that saying the motivations of the North weren't pure, somehow redeems the South. They were both pretty terrible.

I just find it disturbing that some attempt to say that the war didn't have anything to do with slavery. That's historical revisionism. Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850's, and was a contentious issue before the secession. Was Lincoln and the whole of the North originally abolitionists? Of course not, but to say that slavery had nothing to do with the secession is absurd.

EDIT: Like Bleeding Kansas.

Not to mention that saying's like this are bullshit. Even in Mark Twain's novels, he pretty much said that this sentiment is wrongheaded. You could like an individual even if you dislike the group, and consider yourself a superior race?

Don't make me laugh.

EDIT: The laissez faire, view that slavery would sort itself out is also wrong. Slavery was inefficient, in the long run and couldn't compete with an industrialized north, but many southerners were paranoid about illegalizing slavery. Otherwise they would lose their "edge" over the north. It's unlikely that slavery would have ended in 1860 without the civil war.

.
Machines were better means of production than slave labor at the time, and in the process of banning slavery the act would strip many land owners of their means of production and their wealth, leaving them with no industrial infrastructure to replace it and compete with the north. The idea of slaves as property, and such act being illegal within the union itself in certain countries set the conflict on tracks in the first place, the difference being the way it could have turned out.

As others have said, industrialisation would not have made abolition inevitable. It might have changed what work the slaves where put to, but it would not have resulted in abolition on it's own.

This can be evidenced by the treatment of workers in Industrial Europe. If they could have stripped away any more rights for their workers, they would have done. There where several mills in the area I live which got into trouble because it got out that their treatment of workers was practically equivalent to slavery anyway (they lived on site and where paid in tokens only redeemable at the mill, and where basically utterly dependant on it. The only real difference was that they could technically leave.)

I don't think it is unrealistic to think that industries in a country which could treat it's workers as property, would do so.

This is absolutely true. In fact, the use of slaves in industry was more lucrative than free labor in almost all circumstances. So can we lay this whole "The Industrial Revolution to the Rescue" meme to rest and admit that myself and others like me would be in some cancer inducing factory assembling Ipads? (Well, assuming the Confederacy wouldn't end up like Saint-Domingue).

ClockworkPenguin:

TheIronRuler:

Frission:

You misunderstand. I have never said that the North was ever that good either. I just find it disturbing that saying the motivations of the North weren't pure, somehow redeems the South. They were both pretty terrible.

I just find it disturbing that some attempt to say that the war didn't have anything to do with slavery. That's historical revisionism. Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850's, and was a contentious issue before the secession. Was Lincoln and the whole of the North originally abolitionists? Of course not, but to say that slavery had nothing to do with the secession is absurd.

EDIT: Like Bleeding Kansas.

Not to mention that saying's like this are bullshit. Even in Mark Twain's novels, he pretty much said that this sentiment is wrongheaded. You could like an individual even if you dislike the group, and consider yourself a superior race?

Don't make me laugh.

EDIT: The laissez faire, view that slavery would sort itself out is also wrong. Slavery was inefficient, in the long run and couldn't compete with an industrialized north, but many southerners were paranoid about illegalizing slavery. Otherwise they would lose their "edge" over the north. It's unlikely that slavery would have ended in 1860 without the civil war.

.
Machines were better means of production than slave labor at the time, and in the process of banning slavery the act would strip many land owners of their means of production and their wealth, leaving them with no industrial infrastructure to replace it and compete with the north. The idea of slaves as property, and such act being illegal within the union itself in certain countries set the conflict on tracks in the first place, the difference being the way it could have turned out.

As others have said, industrialisation would not have made abolition inevitable. It might have changed what work the slaves where put to, but it would not have resulted in abolition on it's own.

This can be evidenced by the treatment of workers in Industrial Europe. If they could have stripped away any more rights for their workers, they would have done. There where several mills in the area I live which got into trouble because it got out that their treatment of workers was practically equivalent to slavery anyway (they lived on site and where paid in tokens only redeemable at the mill, and where basically utterly dependant on it. The only real difference was that they could technically leave.)

I don't think it is unrealistic to think that industries in a country which could treat it's workers as property, would do so.

.
Their industry relied on slave labor and it was mainly agrarian, as opposed to the more industrialized north. I didn't argue anything to the contrary of what you said.

Imperius:
I'm a Southern Nationalist and that flag to me means both pride in our past but also hope for the future, that the South can be a country unto its own rights once again, free to go its own way.

Shock and Awe:
the Confederates were traitors, and they were traitors for a really shitty cause.

And I don't consider defending's ones homes and loved ones to be a shitty cause , OP. -.-
I know the Yankee propoganda is hard to overcome, but please, let me quote Lincoln himself on this one:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

The Cause that we fought for, and still fight for is State's Rights and that is what flag represents.

I don't mean the Soldiers, when I say the cause were shitty. I said already I have only the utmost respect for them. I am referring to the leaders and the politicians that were in charge of the whole fiasco. As for the war being all about "states rights" thats true. It just so happens one of them was the right to hold your fellow man in bonds as if he were cattle. To say that Slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War is utterly foolish and the worst kind of revisionism.

Shock and Awe:

Imperius:
I'm a Southern Nationalist and that flag to me means both pride in our past but also hope for the future, that the South can be a country unto its own rights once again, free to go its own way.

Shock and Awe:
the Confederates were traitors, and they were traitors for a really shitty cause.

And I don't consider defending's ones homes and loved ones to be a shitty cause , OP. -.-
I know the Yankee propoganda is hard to overcome, but please, let me quote Lincoln himself on this one:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

The Cause that we fought for, and still fight for is State's Rights and that is what flag represents.

I don't mean the Soldiers, when I say the cause were shitty. I said already I have only the utmost respect for them. I am referring to the leaders and the politicians that were in charge of the whole fiasco. As for the war being all about "states rights" thats true. It just so happens one of them was the right to hold your fellow man in bonds as if he were cattle. To say that Slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War is utterly foolish and the worst kind of revisionism.

Absolutely. Of course slavery was a major issue, but to the south it was a matter of economics, not a moral one. The Souths entire economy was built on agricultural slave labor. All of it. In fact, even after the war, and even to this day, a large chunk of the economy is still based on agriculture. There isn't a lot of heavy industry in the south with the exception of the gulf oil stuff and the coca-cola factory.

When we say 'state rights' we're referring to slavery and tariffs and various other economic things

But the opposite side happens as well, anti-whitewashing or blacklisting or something that wants to turn the entire south into slavering beastmen monsters who got their jollies off on torturing slaves. I like my history to be clean in the sense that I just want what happened to the best of our knowledge. I don't want a slant.

I work at a museum. The land I work on, was once worked by the hands of slaves. One of the buildings we reconstructed was, after its original use (a print house, first south of Massachusetts!) was used as a slave quarters. Am I proud of that? No. But I acknowledge it and see it for what it is. Morally reprehensible, but a sign of the times and something I cannot erase from history. And most of our business is schools, and we don't talk about slavery because their in fourth grade and you get into slavery on like, 6-8+.

I refuse, absolutely refuse, to sit here and judge the people of today by the history, because if that were the case I would say 'nuke the world and lets start over with amoebas'. I can acknowledge and understand the past without clinging to it in hate or pride. And I can understand very well that the meaning of symbols changes over times, and that different symbols mean things to different peoples.

image

Case in point. I bet the first thing you thought was 'KKK'.

Well, they're Spanish priest. In Spain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capirote

I also just stole that example and 'Think about it' from a college sociology teacher.

The kneejerk reaction is to associate the flag with hate filled racism, but further down, it becomes a bit more apparent as to the perspective of those who use it. The American Civil War was a war between States' Rights and the powers of the Federal Government, and the flag to those who fly it represents the power of the state, the power of the individual, regardless of whatever the talking heads of DC say. That being said they were fighting for the particular right to own slaves, so I'd rather not fly it even though I prefer the authority of states' rights.

Lil devils x:

BreakfastMan:
I think that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism and bigotry. If someone walks in wearing a confederate flag, I automatically assume they are a racist/white supremacist. Basically, it means the same thing as a burning cross to me.

So if it is a black man in a confederate uniform waving it around they are a white supremacist? seriously? This guy disagrees with being taken as such.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks
So does my friend and his family.

The economic suppression, state's rights, war of northern aggression argument is complete bullshit and only used by those ignorant of history.

edited

Hafrael:

Lil devils x:

BreakfastMan:
I think that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism and bigotry. If someone walks in wearing a confederate flag, I automatically assume they are a racist/white supremacist. Basically, it means the same thing as a burning cross to me.

So if it is a black man in a confederate uniform waving it around they are a white supremacist? seriously? This guy disagrees with being taken as such.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks
So does my friend and his family.

The economic suppression, state's rights, war of northern aggression argument is complete bullshit and only used by those ignorant of history.

Sherman should have been allowed to burn the whole south to the ground.

Pardon moi? I hope that last bit was a joke. However you feel about the war in general or what punishment is appropriate for the leaders of the Confederacy, there is no argument for laying the homes and livelihoods of innocent people to waste with no cause other then your dislike for them.

Never seen a southern flag displayed for southern independence and strength.

I however have seen it displayed as a means of sticking it to the man, which in my opinion is not the same as independence. It also meant to show pride in the south though that term is not meant to be used in parallel with the civil war or the classic southern gentleman. Southern pride in the modern since is meant to be more of a term of endearment towards ignorance and malice towards those different from you.

More often it's meant to be a fuck you hearkening back to the fame of the dukes of hazard and cause controversy so you can be a "rebel" without being a hippie. Of course it's inherently racist and was flown by the losing side of a battle but there has been some movement in the past couple decades to rehabilitate it's image and this rehabilitation is what makes me think less of the people that put it on the back of their trucks or put it on their shirts. It can be displayed without showing this fuck you to authority, it can be part of a collection or maybe applied aesthetically but often that's not the case.

The southern flag should honestly be tantamount to the swastika the only difference is the atrocities defended by people flying the southern flag happened before the existence of the flag for the most part. Slavery is permanently linked to the southern flag as the holocaust is linked to the swastika. Trying to have one without the other is fool hardy at best or shows how much apathy someone has for other's opinions at worst.

Agema:

BOOM headshot65:
Not only that, but I have 2 words for people that think slavery was going to stick around much longer: Steam Tractor.

I'm pretty sure it would still be cheaper to have a steam tractor run by a slave than a paid employee.

A common misconception. Slavery was actually quite expensive and inefficient. Sharecropping proved wage-slavery is much more profitable, and the slaves have much more motivation.

Shock and Awe:

Pardon moi? I hope that last bit was a joke. However you feel about the war in general or what punishment is appropriate for the leaders of the Confederacy, there is no argument for laying the homes and livelihoods of innocent people to waste with no cause other then your dislike for them.

You're right, that was in poor taste. I was in a particularly bad mood earlier this morning.

Hafrael:

I'm pretty sure it would still be cheaper to have a steam tractor run by a slave than a paid employee.

A common misconception. Slavery was actually quite expensive and inefficient. Sharecropping proved wage-slavery is much more profitable, and the slaves have much more motivation.

I don't believe it is a misconception at all. Well respected economists have written well regarded books pointing out that slavery has pretty much always been economically successful. Well, for the slave-owners, anyway.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked