Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 118

Thread: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

  1. #1
    Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder Member Steppe Merc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    7,907

    Default Stars and Bars (Confederate Flag) - Is it acceptable?

    My dad and I last night was watching a documentry about Lynyrd Skynyrd last night. For those of you that might not know, Skynyrd was a Classic Rock band from the south, and the leader in particular, Ronnie Van Zant, was a proud Southerner. They always played with a huge Confederate Flag (the flag of the Southern states that secceeded from the Union, for any non Americans, if you were wondering) in the back, hanging up. They were far from racists, as they played with and loved black musicians and their music. They were also not ignorant rednecks, as they got involved with Carter's presidential campaign, and along with the Allman Brothers and other Southern groups, helped him raise money.

    Now, my dad and I were just talking. He said that although he loved their music and thought they were good people, they were wrong for playing with the Stars and Bars behind them. He knew the true meaning of the flag- that of states rights, and of Southern pride. But he rightfully pointed out that it had and still is thought of as a racist symbol, and by using it, they allowed people to misinturpret them, and even though they didn't mean it, it gave more fuel to racists.

    I said that I thought it was good that they played with it. They were trying to reclaim the true meaning of the flag, and they shouldn't allow people to use it just as a symbol of hate. If people misinterpreted their meaning, it's not their fault, it's the people's ignorance that is at fault. I mentioned the Swastika, and how it was originally a religous symbol in many many cultures. If someone were to use that symbol in the orginal meaning, I would be fine with it.

    My Dad said that the public perception overpowers the original meaning. He knew that they didn't mean it in a racist way, and he knew where I was coming from, from a historical matter. But to prevent more harsh feelings, such contreversial symbols shouldn't be used, regardless of the intended meaning, because of how they would be used.

    What do you all think? What is more important; the intended message of a symbol or the way that symbol is percieved? Sorry for using such an American example, but it's what we were debating about, and I'm not sure if there as many polorizing, misinterptred symbols such as the Confederate Flag.
    Last edited by Steppe Merc; 06-19-2005 at 23:17. Reason: Made title more obvious

    "But if you should fall you fall alone,
    If you should stand then who's to guide you?
    If I knew the way I would take you home."
    Grateful Dead, "Ripple"

  2. #2
    Viceroy of the Indian Empire Member Duke Malcolm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Dùn Dèagh, the People's Republic of Scotland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
    Posts
    2,783

    Default Re: Stars and Bars (Confederate Flag) - Is it acceptable?

    Isn't the confederate flag a mix of St Andrew's cross and St Patrick's cross? Doesn't it symbolise the states of the confederacy and the people's origins?
    It was not theirs to reason why,
    It was not theirs to make reply,
    It was theirs but to do or die.
    -The Charge of the Light Brigade - Alfred, Lord Tennyson

    "Wherever this stone shall lie, the King of the Scots shall rule"
    -Prophecy of the Stone of Destiny

    "For God, For King and country, For loved ones home and Empire, For the sacred cause of justice, and The freedom of the world, They buried him among the kings because he, Had done good toward God and toward his house."
    -Inscription on the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior

  3. #3
    Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder Member Steppe Merc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    7,907

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Exactly. It means Southern pride and states rights, not racism. Many people believe that the Civil War was fought about slavery, which I believe is incorrect. But many think it means racism and slavery, because of the use of it by the KKK and other racist organizations.
    For example Southern Carolina flys the Confederate Flag. I don't see a problem with it, but many people do, either because they think it symbolizes racism and white supremacy, or because they know people will think it symbolizes that.
    Last edited by Steppe Merc; 06-19-2005 at 17:50.

    "But if you should fall you fall alone,
    If you should stand then who's to guide you?
    If I knew the way I would take you home."
    Grateful Dead, "Ripple"

  4. #4
    zombologist Senior Member doc_bean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Riding Shai-Hulud
    Posts
    5,346

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
    Exactly. It means Southern pride and states rights, not racism. Many people believe that the Civil War was fought about slavery, which I believe is incorrect.
    It was fought over states rights, most importantly, the right to own slaves. I find the whole states right thing a nice way of rewriting history.

    What other state right were they fighting for ?
    (Besides, they left the Union before Lincoln was ever sworn in.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
    But many think it means racism and slavery, because of the use of it by the KKK and other racist organizations.
    For example Southern Carolina flys the Confederate Flag. I don't see a problem with it, but many people do, either because they think it symbolizes racism and white supremacy, or because they know people will think it symbolizes that.
    Ah South Carolina, a state that had a senator that until a few years ago had a senator that had actively opposed the civil rights movement (really, some fun speeches that man had given), one that even went as far as to run for president so he could keep 'state rights'.


    Now honestly, I don't really have a problem with the confederate flag. I think it is a symbol that can stand for the south, and not stand for all the negative things associated with it. However, I don't like revisionism. States rights were/are important, it's too bad they got used for excusing racism so often.
    Yes, Iraq is peaceful. Go to sleep now. - Adrian II

  5. #5
    Chief Sniffer Senior Member ichi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,132

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    A guy on my Federal crew had a Stars n Bars bandana, which he wore as a doo rag, under his hardhat. During a break when he took off his hard hat I told him to get that gaudy seditious crap off his head. Why he asked, so I told him that was a flag of rebellion against the USA, the greatest country, and that it was the flag of a lost cause. To which he replied that the US was indeed great, and could have been better had the South won the War of Northern Aggression.

    So I asked him if he had ever heard of the Macedonians. Who? They were an ancient Mediterranean people who eventually got dominated by the Greeks. Many Macedonians became slaves of the Greeks. I told my guy that he was a Macedonian slave, wearing the old Macedonian flag while in the service of the Greeks.

    He walked around all day muttering under his breath.

    Its an ugly flag, symbolizing not States Rights but armed rebellion, and has racist overtones as well.

    ichi
    Stay Calm, Be Alert, Think Clearly, Act Decisively

    CoH

  6. #6

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    that flag is the Confederate battle flag.

    Why? you may ask, well, because the actual flag of the Confederacy was very similar to that of the Union and in the first few engagements this caused a great deal of confusion.

    Saying that the Civil War was about slaves and their lack of rights is naive.
    You do know that the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to say about slaves that were owned in Union states...

  7. #7
    zombologist Senior Member doc_bean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Riding Shai-Hulud
    Posts
    5,346

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
    You do know that the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to say about slaves that were owned in Union states...
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln
    "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
    That's nothing ?
    Yes, Iraq is peaceful. Go to sleep now. - Adrian II

  8. #8

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    that's only about rebel states:

    all slaves held "within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States" will be freed.

    Edit: good point, I misread that. Hah.

    Anyway, it's still interesting to see how late this came about, after several years of war, for it to be the main reason for the war.

    Edit (again): having re-read that again it definitely sounds like it's only against rebel states.

    So if that's all you have then yes, that's nothing about non-rebel states.
    Last edited by Taffy_is_a_Taff; 06-19-2005 at 19:18.

  9. #9
    Forever British Member King Ragnar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The only place that matters: Britain
    Posts
    749

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    It is the KKK's fault that the flag is seen as a sign of racial agression.
    Vote For The British nationalist Party.
    Say no to multi-culturalism.

  10. #10
    |LGA.3rd|General Clausewitz Member Kaiser of Arabia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Munich...I wish...
    Posts
    4,788

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Just because it can be used as a rascist symbol doesn't mean it is. The Swastika is religious in some cases, thats why it shouldn't be banned totally. The Hammer of Thor is religious to some people, but it's also a skinhead symbol. Almost anything can be interpeted as rascist, doesn't mean we should ban it.
    Oh, and the 1st Confederate Flag was very union like, the 2nd looked like a white flag when it was in still winds, and the 3rd was the most liked cause it was the most recognizable (I have one in my room, on my wall right below a pic of jeff davis).

    Why do you hate Freedom?
    The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.

  11. #11
    Forever British Member King Ragnar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The only place that matters: Britain
    Posts
    749

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    The swastika was originally used by the Teutonic order wasn't it?
    Vote For The British nationalist Party.
    Say no to multi-culturalism.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Skynyrd is a great band and there doesnt seem to be anything wrong with southern pride.

    Southerners should be proud that they fought for what they believed in and their way of life. The flag represents that pride.

    Some blacks will find a racial element in anything - you just have to ignore them.

  13. #13
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Edit (again): having re-read that again it definitely sounds like it's only against rebel states.
    It was only against the rebel states . Slaves owned by Union states were not freed by it. That American history 101 even back when I went to school.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  14. #14

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Gawain: forgive me, I'm a foreigner who never received U.S. history 101.

    Glad to see that I had initially read it correctly.

    Damn Belgians.

  15. #15
    Viceroy of the Indian Empire Member Duke Malcolm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Dùn Dèagh, the People's Republic of Scotland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
    Posts
    2,783

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    has slavery been banned in Union states?
    It was not theirs to reason why,
    It was not theirs to make reply,
    It was theirs but to do or die.
    -The Charge of the Light Brigade - Alfred, Lord Tennyson

    "Wherever this stone shall lie, the King of the Scots shall rule"
    -Prophecy of the Stone of Destiny

    "For God, For King and country, For loved ones home and Empire, For the sacred cause of justice, and The freedom of the world, They buried him among the kings because he, Had done good toward God and toward his house."
    -Inscription on the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior

  16. #16
    |LGA.3rd|General Clausewitz Member Kaiser of Arabia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Munich...I wish...
    Posts
    4,788

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by King Ragnar
    The swastika was originally used by the Teutonic order wasn't it?
    Ancient Samnites I beleive

    Why do you hate Freedom?
    The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.

  17. #17
    The Orgs Prophet of RATM Member IrishMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Somewhere in the defensive area of a soccer field, slaughtering puny strikers.
    Posts
    903

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    Just because it can be used as a rascist symbol doesn't mean it is.
    Yup I got the Maltese Cross in my car, and everyone always is like: Are you a Nazi?, because they associate it only with the iron cross. People who are ignorant of history and a certain symbol's past automatically associate it with popular culture. Just like people think i'm a nazi for having an ancient crusading symbol in my car. Silly.
    When ignorance reigns life is lost.

    War is norm, Fight the War, Screw the norm!

  18. #18
    zombologist Senior Member doc_bean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Riding Shai-Hulud
    Posts
    5,346

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    The wording of the Emancipation Proclamation isn't exactly clear. I never got US history 101 either.

    But:

    Article XIII.

    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
    The amendment was ratified in 1865, two years after the EP, so slaves were freed everywhere (in theory anyway).

    from wikipedia:

    Lincoln staunchly opposed the expansion of slavery into federal territories, and his victory in the 1860 presidential election further polarized the nation. Before his inauguration in March of 1861, seven Southern slave states seceded1 from the United States, formed the Confederate States of America, and took control of U.S. forts and other properties within their boundaries. These events soon led to the American Civil War.
    So seriously, if it wasn't slavery, then why did the Confederacy segregate ?
    Yes, Iraq is peaceful. Go to sleep now. - Adrian II

  19. #19
    probably bored Member BDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Britain
    Posts
    5,508

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
    Ancient Samnites I beleive
    Plus Buddhists use it a lot. Or used to at any rate.

  20. #20
    The Orgs Prophet of RATM Member IrishMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Somewhere in the defensive area of a soccer field, slaughtering puny strikers.
    Posts
    903

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    They were mad over many many things, such as slaves counting 3/5th's of a man in taxing I beleve, the south wanted slaves not to count at all, and other such slave related issues. Also they felt as if the government was not responsive to their needs and special issues. Finally in other cases they just really hated the north in general, and they felt that the north was trying to take away their lifestyle.
    When ignorance reigns life is lost.

    War is norm, Fight the War, Screw the norm!

  21. #21
    Oni Member Samurai Waki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Portland, Ore.
    Posts
    3,925
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by ColdKnight
    Yup I got the Maltese Cross in my car, and everyone always is like: Are you a Nazi?, because they associate it only with the iron cross. People who are ignorant of history and a certain symbol's past automatically associate it with popular culture. Just like people think i'm a nazi for having an ancient crusading symbol in my car. Silly.
    One of my teachers in Highschool was from Macedonia (actually Yugoslavia when she left) and whenever people would wear an "Independent" Skateboard Trucks Shirt with an Iron Cross she would get angry. I asked her why she didn't like the T-Shirt and She said That when the Nazis took over Yugoslavia many of SS soldiers there wore the Iron Cross over the Swastika, mostly because the Swastika was already a well used symbol by the Greek Orthodox in the Region. One day her entire family was confronted by a couple of SS soldiers and Her Grandmother and Grandfather tried to protect their children, both of them were shot right in front her father's eyes, and three of his brothers shot as well. He was then transported to a Concentration Camp, the SS kept calling him "Slavic scum" when he was in fact Greek from Thessalonikki. When he arrived at the Concentration Camp they poured Acid Down his throat, and beat him half to death. After a year of working in the Camp he was released by Soviet Troops.
    I told her that the Iron Cross was no longer a symbol of Nazi oppression, she shrugged and told me "Do you think the families of former black slaves here, are still afraid of the Confederate Flag?" I replied "No. But it still symbolizes that atrocity."

  22. #22
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    The amendment was ratified in 1865, two years after the EP, so slaves were freed everywhere (in theory anyway).
    Well you just proved my point. The amendment freed the slaves not the emancipation proclomation.

    So seriously, if it wasn't slavery, then why did the Confederacy segregate ?
    Segregate or leave the union?
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  23. #23
    zombologist Senior Member doc_bean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Riding Shai-Hulud
    Posts
    5,346

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
    Well you just proved my point. The amendment freed the slaves not the emancipation proclomation.
    Owkay, still doesn't mean the civil war wasn't about slavery


    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
    Segregate or leave the union?
    You see a difference ?
    Why did they leave the union ? If you prefer that question.
    Yes, Iraq is peaceful. Go to sleep now. - Adrian II

  24. #24
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    You see a difference ?
    You dont? Segregation is seperating the races. It has nothing to do with leaving the union.

    Why did they leave the union ? If you prefer that question.
    Because they believed more in states rights and a smaller federal governent and thought that the Republicans were taking away those rights. Sort of the reverse of what we have today.

    Causes of the American Civil War

    The South, which was known as the Confederate States of America,
    seceded from the North, which was also known as the Union, for many
    different reasons. The reason they wanted to succeed was because there
    was four decades of great sectional conflict between the two. Between
    the North and South there were deep economic, social, and political
    differences. The South wanted to become an independent nation. There
    were many reasons why the South wanted to succeed but the main reason
    had to do with the North’s view on slavery. All of this was basically
    a different interpretation of the United States Constitution on both
    sides. In the end all of these disagreements on both sides led to the
    Civil War, in which the North won.

    There were a few reasons other then the slavery issue, that the
    South disagreed on and that persuaded them to succeed from the Union.
    Basically the North favored a loose interpretation of the United
    States Constitution. They wanted to grant the federal government
    increased powers. The South wanted to reserve all undefined powers to
    the individual states. The North also wanted internal improvements
    sponsored by the federal government. This was more roads, railroads,
    and canals. The South, on the other hand, did not want these projects
    to be done at all. Also the North wanted to develop a tariff. With a

    high tariff, it protected the Northern manufacturer. It was bad for
    the South because a high tariff would not let the south trade its
    cotton for foreign goods. The North also wanted a good banking and
    currency system and federal subsidies for shipping and internal
    improvements. The South felt these were discriminatory and that they
    favored Northern commercial interests.

    Now the main reason for the South’s secession was the Slavery
    issue. Basically the South wanted and needed it and the North did not
    want it at all. The South was going to do anything they could to keep
    it. This was the issue that overshadowed all others. At this time the
    labor force in the South had about 4 million slaves. These slaves were
    very valuable to the slaveholding planter class. They were a huge
    investment to Southerners and if taken away, could mean massive
    losses to everyone. Slaves were used in the South as helpers in the
    fields in the cultivation of tobacco, rice, and indigo, as well as
    many other jobs. The South especially needed more slaves at this time
    because they were now growing more cotton then ever because of the
    invention of the cotton gin. Cotton production with slaves jumped from
    178,000 bales in 1810 to over 3,841,000 bales in 1860. Within that
    time period of 50 years the number of slaves also rose from about
    1,190,000 to over 4,000,000. The plantation owners in the South
    could not understand why the North wanted slavery abolished that bad.
    Southerners compared it with the wage-slave system of the North. They
    said that the slaves were better cared for then the free factory
    workers in the North. Southerners said that slaveowners provided
    shelter, food, care, and regulation for a race unable to compete in
    the modern world without proper training. Many Southern preachers
    proclaimed that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible. But after the
    American Revolution slavery really died it the North, just as it was
    becoming more popular in the South. By the time of 1804 seven of the
    northern most states had abolished slavery. During this time a surge
    of democratic reform swept the North and West. There were demands for
    political equality and economic and social advances. The Northerners
    goals were free public education, better salaries and working
    conditions for workers, rights for women, and better treatment for
    criminals. The South felt these views were not important. All of
    these views eventually led to an attack on the slavery system in the
    South, and showed opposition to its spread into whatever new
    territories that were acquired. Northerners said that slavery revoked
    the human right of being a free person. Now with all these views the
    North set out on its quest for the complete abolition of slavery.

    When new territories became available in the West the South
    wanted to expand and use slavery in the newly acquired territories.
    But the North opposed to this and wanted to stop the extension of
    slavery into new territories. The North wanted to limit the number of
    slave states in the Union. But many Southerners felt that a government
    dominated by free states could endanger existing slaveholdings. The
    South wanted to protect their states rights. The first evidence of the
    North’s actions came in 1819 when Missouri asked to be admitted to the
    Union as a slave state. After months of discussion Congress passed the
    Missouri Compromise of 1820. This compromise was legislative measures
    that regulated the extension of slavery in the United States for three
    decades. Now the balance of 11 free states and 11 slave states was in
    trouble. Maine also applied for statehood in 1819, in which it was
    admitted as a free state. To please the South, slavery would be
    prohibited forever from Louisiana Purchase territories north of 36°
    30'. Southern extremists opposed any limit on the extension of
    slavery, but settled for now. Missouri and Maine were to enter
    statehood simultaneously to preserve sectional equality in the Senate.
    For almost a generation this Compromise seemed to settle the conflict
    between the North and South. But in 1848 the Union acquired a huge
    piece of territory from Mexico. This opened new opportunities for the
    spread of slavery for Southerners. But the distribution of these
    lands in small lots speeded the development of this section, but it
    was disliked in the South because it aided the free farmer than the
    slaveholding plantation owner. So now Congress passed the Compromise
    Measures of 1850 during August of 1850. It dealt mainly with the
    question of whether slavery was to be allowed or prohibited in the
    regions acquired from Mexico as a result of the Mexican War. This
    compromise allowed abolition of the slave trade in the District of
    Columbia and admission of California as a free state. Another part of
    the compromise was the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which provided for
    the return of runaway slaves to their masters. But many free states in
    the Union passed personal liberty laws in an effort to help the slaves
    escape. Many Northerners set up underground railroads where the
    runaway slaves could hide and get food and be directed to Canada for
    freedom. This angered many Southerners. This compromise also said that
    the territory east of California given to the United States by Mexico
    was divided into the territories of New Mexico and Utah, and they were
    opened to settlement by both slaveholders and antislavery settlers.
    This measure outdated the Missouri Compromise of 1820. All these
    compromise measures resulted in a gradual intensification of the
    hostility between the slave and free states. Again another law was
    passed in 1854. It was called the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It authorized
    the creation of Kansas and Nebraska, west of Missouri and Iowa and
    divided by the 40th parallel. It repealed the Missouri Compromise of
    1820 that had prohibited slavery in the territories north of 36° 30',
    and stated that the inhabitants of the territories should decide for
    themselves the legality of slaveholding. This act was sponsored by the
    Democratic senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. He hoped to
    simplify construction of a transcontinental railroad through these
    states rather than through the southern part of the country. The
    removal of the restriction on the expansion of slavery ensured
    southern support for the bill, which was signed into law by President
    Franklin Pierce on May 30, 1854. This act split the Democratic party
    and destroyed the Whig party also. The northern Whigs joined
    antislavery Democrats to form the Republican party in July 1854. A
    conflict developed in Kansas between proslavery settlers from
    Missouri and antislavery newcomers who began to move into the
    territory from the northeastern states. This was what known as
    "Bleeding Kansas." There were also many people in the North known as
    abolitionist s who made the South look very bad. The abolitionists
    played a major role in shaping the views of many Northerners. These
    people were fully against slavery and its expansion and most of the
    time took matters into their own hands to get their point across.
    Some of the most famous abolitionists were William Lloyd Garrison of
    Boston, Wendell Phillips, who in 1836 gave up his law practice because
    he couldn’t support the United States Constitution, James G. Birney of
    Ohio who gathered all anti-slavery forces into one unit called the
    Liberty Party and Frederick Douglass, who was an escaped slave who
    became a black editor.

    The last main conflict that led to succession was during the
    presidential election of 1860. The newly formed Republican party
    nominated Abraham Lincoln on principles that opposed the further
    expansion of slavery. Now with Lincoln being elected the South really
    felt that expansionism was being threatened, and because expansion
    was vital to the survival of slavery they also felt their way of life
    was being threatened. Because slavery was such a important part of
    Southern society, the South felt that they could not survive without
    it. Now they felt there was nothing more they could do. They were
    convinced that they should make a bid for independence by succeeding
    rather then face political encirclement. It was all described when a
    Southern man said "We have at last reached that point in our history
    when it is necessary for the South to withdraw from the Union. This
    has not been our seeking...but we are bound to accept it or
    self-preservation." This was officially the end and now the South
    wanted to succeed. Lincoln said that succession was illegal and said
    that he intended to maintain federal possessions in the South.

    Southerners hoped the threat of succession would force
    acceptance of Southern demands, but it did not. Finally the day came
    on Dec. 20, 1860 when South Carolina adopted an ordinance of
    succession. The other states to follow and succeed were: Mississippi
    on Jan 9, 1861, Florida on January 10, Alabama on Jan 11, Georgia on
    January 19, Louisiana on January 26, and Texas on February 1. On
    February 4 delegates from all these states met in Montgomery, Alabama
    where they drafted a constitution for the Confederate States of
    America. This outraged the North and what was led to the Civil War.

    Many different efforts were made to save the Union and prevent a
    war. James Buchanan believed the Constitution did not allow the North
    to take any action against the South. An effort was made on February
    4th by the Virginia Legislature who called a conference of the states
    at Washington D.C. Representatives were sent from 7 slave and 14 free
    states. An amendment was passed saying Congress could never interfere
    with slavery in the states. But it was not ratified by the necessary
    number of states and was forgotten when the Civil War began.

    The existence of slavery was the central element of the conflict
    between the North and South. Other problems existed that led to
    succession but none were as big as the slavery issue. The only way to
    avoid the war was to abolish slavery but this was not able to be done
    because slavery is what kept the South running. But when the South
    seceded it was said by Abraham Lincoln that "A house divided against
    itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure
    permanently half slave and half free." Because slavery formed two
    opposing societies, and slavery could never be abolished, the Civil
    War was inevitable." These were all the reasons why the South seceded
    from the Union and there was really no other way to avoid succession
    because the North and South had totally opposing views.
    You see it wasnt that simple. This battle continues to this day with the big government side still winning and us losing more and more of our rights. Hopefully someday the south will rise again.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  25. #25
    zombologist Senior Member doc_bean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Riding Shai-Hulud
    Posts
    5,346

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
    You dont? Segregation is seperating the races. It has nothing to do with leaving the union.
    seg·re·ga·tion (sgr-gshn)
    n.

    1. The removal of certain parts or segments from a whole or mass.
    But I'm not a native English speaker (you probably noticed already ) I admit it wasn't the best choice of words.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
    Because they believed more in states rights and a smaller federal governent and thought that the Republicans were taking away those rights. Sort of the reverse of what we have today.


    You see it wasnt that simple. This battle continues to this day with the big government side still winning and us losing more and more of our rights. Hopefully someday the south will rise again.
    I'm sorry, I read the whole article, it said slavery was the main issue. There were other 'complaints' but the war was not started over them.
    Besides didn't the Senators have enough power to stop any of those other problems ? Or at least limit their impact ?

    I never said the south was wrong to hang on to slavery. I mean, I am opposed to it of course, but like the article said, conditions for the workers in the North weren't much better. And racism didn't end with slavery. It might have gotten worse because white people carried a grudge. Regardless of any of the motives, the war was about slavery.
    Yes, Iraq is peaceful. Go to sleep now. - Adrian II

  26. #26
    Insomniac and tired of it Senior Member Slyspy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,868

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    The South felt that the soon-to-be-formed Western states would side with the federal government and thus be the final nail in the coffin for Southern influence and, indeed, representation in the government of the US. Thus they feared an anti-slavery federal government which would abolish slavery and cripple the economy of the Southern states, which were entirely reliant on cash crops (especially cotton) for their prosperity. Unfortunately for them the Civil War, chaotic and protracted as such wars are, could not be won for the South. They lacked the level of industrialisation to compete, had an unwilling workforce (especially after the Emancipation) and foreign buyers of cotton found cheaper, safer and more reliable sources elsewhere (namely India). So their economy and way of life collapsed anyway.

    The Proclaimation of Emancipation was a weapon of war, a way to weaken the South from within and it worked. The sentiments however were, I believe, sincere.

    Gawain's article was quite good though the description of slaves as "helpers in the fields" was amusingly understated.
    "Put 'em in blue coats, put 'em in red coats, the bastards will run all the same!"

    "The English are a strange people....They came here in the morning, looked at the wall, walked over it, killed the garrison and returned to breakfast. What can withstand them?"

  27. #27

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Doc Bean:
    when I wrote it was not about "slaves and their lack of rights" it was basically a less than clear way of me writing that the war was not about the rights(and lack thereof) of slaves.

    It wasn't. The practice of slavery was one of many issues but the actual issue of slaves' conditions had relatively little to do with it.


    Sorry if I wasn't clear.


    Edit: does anybody know the proportion of freed slaves who ended up as screwed over sharecroppers once their freedom was granted? I just ask as I bet the living conditions of many slaves did not increase significantly, maybe even decreased, after emancipation.
    Last edited by Taffy_is_a_Taff; 06-19-2005 at 22:47.

  28. #28
    zombologist Senior Member doc_bean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Riding Shai-Hulud
    Posts
    5,346

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
    Doc Bean:
    when I wrote it was not about "slaves and their lack of rights" it was basically a less than clear way of me writing that the war was not about the rights(and lack thereof) of slaves.

    It wasn't. The practice of slavery was one of many issues but the actual issue of slaves' conditions had relatively little to do with it.


    Sorry if I wasn't clear.
    Owkay


    Quote Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
    Edit: does anybody know the proportion of freed slaves who ended up as screwed over sharecroppers once their freedom was granted?
    99% of those who didn't move to the North ?
    Those who moved to the North probably got screwed by other people. Although I think those states must have been a lot better for a former slave to live in.
    Yes, Iraq is peaceful. Go to sleep now. - Adrian II

  29. #29
    Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder Member Steppe Merc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    7,907

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Edit: does anybody know the proportion of freed slaves who ended up as screwed over sharecroppers once their freedom was granted?
    Almost all, I believe.

    The Proclaimation of Emancipation was a weapon of war, a way to weaken the South from within and it worked. The sentiments however were, I believe, sincere.
    Exactly. It was just done to allow the North to free the Southern slaves. It was well into the war, and if Lincoln cared about blacks, it would have been done at the start. And he didn't touch those slaves owned by the border states, because he knew he needed them. As much as I hate slavery and racism, and believe that the Confederates were wrong, I do not believe for a minute the North cared about blacks. Lincoln himself was looking into sending blacks to Africa and out West, I believe.

    (Besides, they left the Union before Lincoln was ever sworn in.)
    Well not quite. The first bunch because he was elected. I believed they tried and negiotate with him, but he refused. I may be incorrect, however. The rest succeeded after Fort Sumter.

    And from what I understand, many of the soldiers did indeed believe it was about states rights. You think any of the soldiers gave a damn about slavery? Very few slave owners, other than generals actually fought. I do know that many were drafted, and thus didn't have a choice, but from what I've read the ones that did choose to fought didn't like the Yanks telling them what to do.

    And Lynyrd Skynyrd didn't use the flag in a states rights way, just as a symbol of Southern pride. I mentioned that because that is one of the other interpretations.

    And the Swatstika was used all around the world. Romans used it, Buddhists, many cultures did. Indeed, the Europa Barbaroum mod was debating whether or not to include the swatsika in our mod as decoration on the shields etc on our units. It was present in many places, and obviously didn't have anything to do with Nazis, but we had to decide whether or not to include it, and risk having it assumed that it somehow had to do with Nazis.

    Its an ugly flag, symbolizing not States Rights but armed rebellion, and has racist overtones as well.
    Armed rebellion, yes. States rights, possibly. I fail to see how it has any more racist overtones than the American flag. And what of Southern pride? My guess is that you wouldn't approve of it used in that manner either, but just checking, as that was how it was used in the example my Dad and I were talking about.
    Just out of curosity Ichi, what is your position on that of the swastika, if used one of it's many original contexts? Should it be banned if someone would find it offensive, regardless of the fact that the way it is being used has nothing offensive about it?

    Some blacks will find a racial element in anything - you just have to ignore them.
    I know you weren't being racist, but not just blacks. People of all groups can see insult in anything.

    99% of those who didn't move to the North ?
    Those who moved to the North probably got screwed by other people. Although I think those states must have been a lot better for a former slave to live in.
    This is true. Most who moved to the North moved to cities, and had hard time getting jobs, as well as faced persecution of other ethnic groups. For example, numerous Irish and other ethnic groups in New York rioted about fighting for blacks (which they weren't...), and with blacks (which they were) and went around killing black people and burning stuff.
    Last edited by Steppe Merc; 06-19-2005 at 23:13.

    "But if you should fall you fall alone,
    If you should stand then who's to guide you?
    If I knew the way I would take you home."
    Grateful Dead, "Ripple"

  30. #30
    The Orgs Prophet of RATM Member IrishMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Somewhere in the defensive area of a soccer field, slaughtering puny strikers.
    Posts
    903

    Default Re: Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

    Quote Originally Posted by doc_bean
    Those who moved to the North probably got screwed by other people. Although I think those states must have been a lot better for a former slave to live in.

    Actually for a small few years, when the reconstruction was ongoing. Former slaves enjoyed political power and were even senators and such. So actually it wasn't all that bad, untill the troops left and the power was regained by the former slave owners and estate owners.

    Also intrestingly enough the poor white sharecroppers and such were actually almost in the same boat as the slaves. Sometimes even worse, because they had nowhere to escape to. While they were free they were basically treat as slaves.
    Last edited by IrishMike; 06-20-2005 at 00:48.
    When ignorance reigns life is lost.

    War is norm, Fight the War, Screw the norm!

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO