The Confederate flag

[lancelot]

The argument that it represents slavery is silly. This is the national flag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Starsnbars.png

This is what represents slavery.

Personally, I dont even believe that is the case. The flag (all flags?) represents a nation. A nation which happened to be pro-slavery.

I dont think I have ever heard anyone say the Flag of Brazil represents slavery, which was also a slave antion at the time.

To suggest the flag 'represents' slavery was/is Union spin to give their war a moral justification.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Your country would not exist, either would Europe.

FOR TERRA!!!

America will still exist....I will make sure of that just tell me who I need to kill......



Just joking

[The_Doctor]

Continental drift will destroy America and it's culture will continue to change until it is unrecognisable to today's people.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Continental drift will destroy America and it's culture will continue to change until it is unrecognisable to today's people.

Let me clear this up for you. Americans will never allow us to die out, unless we take down all 6 billion people in the world with us (or however many people at the time). It is in our blood to remain free, and an opressive world government is just another evil Stalinist plot conjoured up by the left wing of the world to destroy good, American, conservative values. You shall not suceed.

[Louis VI the Fat]

an opressive world government is just another evil Stalinist plot conjoured up by the left wing of the world to destroy good, American, conservative values. You shall not suceed.

It is already vying with another quote of yours for a place in my sig...

[Ice]

Nothing wrong with it all. We live a free land, go on right ahead if you want to.

[m52nickerson]

The argument that it represents slavery is silly. This is the national flag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Starsnbars.png

This is what represents slavery.

This is the battle flag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Battleflag.png

Representing the bravery and valour of those who died.

I never knew that. Nice.

[Ice]

Let me clear this up for you. Americans will never allow us to die out, unless we take down all 6 billion people in the world with us (or however many people at the time). It is in our blood to remain free, and an opressive world government is just another evil Stalinist plot conjoured up by the left wing of the world to destroy good, American, conservative values. You shall not suceed.

[AntiochusIII]

Let me clear this up for you. Americans will never allow us to die out, unless we take down all 6 billion people in the world with us (or however many people at the time). It is in our blood to remain free, and an opressive world government is just another evil Stalinist plot conjoured up by the left wing of the world to destroy good, American, conservative values. You shall not suceed.

AHHHHH!!! YOU, YOU!!!MY MASTER PLAN!!! MY EMPIRE! MY LIFE'S WORK!!!!! MY CONSPIRACY!!!YOU EXPOSED IT ALL!!!!

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Yes people should be allowed to display it, it may be distasteful, but when did that ever stop people? Also I don't agree that it is a symbol of southern pride, but still option number one.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yeah, the "Confederate flag" refered to is ususally the Confederate battle flag. I guess I don't have a problem with it - but I don't hold it up with a whole lot of honor.

The people who fought under that banner betrayed their country. Some of them even broke their oath to defend their country to fight under that flag. I still respect Robert E. Lee even though he did that, but I may just respect Grant more.

Incidentally, New Jersey was the first state to answer Lincoln's call for volunteers (if I remember correctly).

[Ace of Spades]

I just think it's really stupid when I see people who have lived their entire lives in the Northeast put the Confederate flag on their cars for some reason.

EXACTLY!! I live in PA and I hate to so these so-called "rebels" with the Stars & Bars all over their car, house, etc. Other than that, I have no problem with it at all. It's a part of U.S. history.

[Lemur]

I hate to be the one to point it out, but this poll is missing the essential "gah" option. And this is definitely a Gah issue.

Look, it's a free country, and if you'd like to paint a swastika on your head, nobody's got a legal recourse to stop you. However, freedom doesn't mean freedom from consequences, so you'd better suck it up like a big boy if folks think you're endorsing plantation economics, rebellion, secession and slavery when you fly the confederate battle flag. You're free to flog whatever symbol you like, just don't go crying if other citizens exercise their free speech to tell you you're a twit.

The whole issue is extreme Gah. I spent a week in Beaumont, Texas, visiting with a friend's family. They were black, the area we were in was entirely black, and yet I saw several trucks sporting the battle flag. The first pickup-truck with shotgun rack and confederate flag I saw was driven by a big, friendly-looking black guy. Clearly the symoblism is more confused, or involved, or nuanced, or something, but way past this Lemur's threshold of understanding.

[Redleg]

I. I spent a week in Beaumont, Texas, Clearly confused way past this Lemur's threshold of understanding.

Yes indeed Beaumont has always been a little confusing for most outsiders... .

[Red Harvest]

The argument that it represents slavery is silly. This is the national flag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Starsnbars.png

This is what represents slavery.

This is the battle flag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Battleflag.png

Representing the bravery and valour of those who died.

No, it is not silly. As has been said, the Confederate symbols themselves carry that possible interpretation simply because that was the basis for secession.

[Divinus Arma]

I used to see the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism.

That was when I was educated via the public school system.


Now I recognize the South, and the civil war for that matter, in a totally new light. The civil war was about state's rights first and slavery second.


The Confederate States were every bit as patriotic and American as the North. Maybe even more so.


Read a few books outside the public education system and you learn a thing or two about a thing or two.

[The_Doctor]

Let me clear this up for you. Americans will never allow us to die out, unless we take down all 6 billion people in the world with us (or however many people at the time). It is in our blood to remain free, and an opressive world government is just another evil Stalinist plot conjoured up by the left wing of the world to destroy good, American, conservative values. You shall not suceed.

Where did I say "opressive world government" and "Stalinist plot". And where did I say "destroy good, American, conservative values".

My idea is that there will be city states that have their own council to look after the city and they will send representives to a big global council that will look after the planet as a whole.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I used to see the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism.

That was when I was educated via the public school system.


Now I recognize the South, and the civil war for that matter, in a totally new light. The civil war was about state's rights first and slavery second.


The Confederate States were every bit as patriotic and American as the North. Maybe even more so.


Read a few books outside the public education system and you learn a thing or two about a thing or two.

You can take revisionism too far. Southern states were ok with reducing states' rights where it protected their rights to own slaves, forcing northern states to return runaway slaves and not allowing them to free slaves of southern "visitors". The "states' rights" they fought for was the right to secede because they felt their way of life, and slave ownership was an integral part of this, was threatened by a republican president. The North did not initially fight to free slaves, but to prevent succession, so as far as the North was concerned, the fight, initially, was about states' rights. As time went on, the attitude to slavery hardened. The South was fighting to maintain slavery, and a consequence of their defeat, slavery was abolished.

Was the civil war a fight between slave-owners in the south and slave-emancipators in the north? No. It was much more complicated than that. Not all of the Union wanted to free slaves, in fact when the war started, probably only a minority wanted this. Many Confederate soldiers, including Lee, did not support slavery, but fought out of a sense of patriotic feeling for their state. A big cause of the war was mutual distrust and cultural difference between the two factions, but at the root cause of the distrust and the heart of the cultural differences you find slavery. The civil war was about slavery; maybe not slavery pure and simple, but slavery none the less, and the way the war ended meant an end to slavery.

[JAG]

The argument that it represents slavery is silly. This is the national flag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Starsnbars.png

This is what represents slavery.

This is the battle flag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Battleflag.png

Representing the bravery and valour of those who died.

Actually the stars and bars WERE used at the start of the war as a battle flag and even during a hell of a lot of the war. The reason it was changed for battle was because it was too similar to the stars and stripes and caused a lot of friendly fire.

Just thought I'd get that in, coz I am a pain in the ass.

[Red Harvest]

I used to see the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism.

That was when I was educated via the public school system.


Now I recognize the South, and the civil war for that matter, in a totally new light. The civil war was about state's rights first and slavery second.


The Confederate States were every bit as patriotic and American as the North. Maybe even more so.


Read a few books outside the public education system and you learn a thing or two about a thing or two.

I've done a lot of reading on this subject--and quite a bit about the causes in recent months. The war wasn't about States Rights. It was about slavery. States Rights was merely a tool being used to try to protect slavery.

Where it gets complex is that the Union for the most part was not fighting to abolish slavery. It was fighting to preserve the Union and to prevent the formation of a hostile state on its border. The deciding factor in concluding the cause of war is who caused the crisis and started the war. The Union did not initiate the fight, the South did. If a person starts a fight with you, the fight is over whatever that person picked the fight over. The South seceeded because the nation voted for a candidate who refused to EXTEND slavery to other territories. (Hardly "State Rights.") Lincoln hadn't actually done anything yet. The South saw slavery as threatened since new slave states would not be admitted. The South wanted to override other states sights and continue to have over representation. The South's "States Rights" were not directly threatened.

The North was far from a monoculture, it was several regions with various views as bases for its economy, and very different views among its members about slavery. However, the cultural differences that developed between Southerners and the rest of the nation were caused largely by slavery. A sense of racial superiority was necessary to maintain and justify the peculiar institution of slavery. Unfortunately, this self delusional arrogance and institutionalized racism fed on itself. Over time it extended to a feeling of social, moral, and even racial superiority over "Yankees." There was a haughty disdain for the factory workers, tailors, etc of the North. (Ironically, I've read that linguistically the Southern drawl developed/was influenced by communications between West African slaves and their masters.) It should be pointed out that secession was rejected in a number of counties in the Southern states: places like Jefferson Texas, Vicksburg, MS, West Virginia, East Tennessee, Northern Arkansas, etc. These areas differed in that they were not slave driven economies (and a number of them were trade dependent.) Unfortunately for the South, slave holders held most of the political offices and were wealthier on average, and had more power. About 30+% of Southern households owned slaves.

[Azi Tohak]

I've done a lot of reading on this subject--and quite a bit about the causes in recent months. The war wasn't about States Rights. It was about slavery. States Rights was merely a tool being used to try to protect slavery.

And I've done a lot of reading on the subject and the war was about Pumpkins! HA!

Everyone views the causes of the war differently, and believing that the war was about slavery is a nice salve to egos of people who think war must be fought for just reasons. Believing it was about slavery means that you don't have to accept any part of the antebellum South as good or respectable. You can just dismiss the whole ideology and never consider that maybe the South was right in wanting freedom from what it considered a government opposed to its interests, or the encroachment of Northern interests.

To be honest, and mind, I know the source, but the book by Shaara the Killer Angels (and movie Gettysburg) had a great quote in it. I don't have the book so I know I won't get this perfect, but what that Scottish former Segeant said: 'I fight to prove that no man is born better than I.' I REALLY like that. That is why I believe I would have fought for the Union. I will never accept royalty.

Azi

[Zharakov]

Who cares weather it symbolizes slavery?

Geuss what, the Russian flag today can symbolize the opression of the people around 100 years ago... Do we complain? No.


Abraham Lincolin was almost a dictator. He silenced any news paper that supported your south. He enforced martial law in more then a few states. He kept several POWs in prison for many years after the war was over.

Your south was fighting not for the right to own slaves, but for basic state rights. Slaver was not a total issue untill your Battle of Gettysburgh and the Emancipation Proclimation *Spelling*.

My sister has told me that your schools and many historians are biasd against your south... It is not a fair layout for your south...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

State's rights, yes, but at the expense of the Union. Traitors.

Azi - I agree just about completely. And that Scot was actually Irish, (named Kilrain) but the quote was close enough. I have the book somewhere, but you got the gist of it. Brilliant book, good movie.

[Strike For The South]

My sister has told me that your schools and many historians are biasd against your south... It is not a fair layout for your south...

I love this man

[PanzerJaeger]

I love this man

Not in the South you dont!

[Zharakov]

Why would they not love me in your south?

I am a soft and loveable Russian grizzley...

[lancelot]

The people who fought under that banner betrayed their country. Some of them even broke their oath to defend their country to fight under that flag. I still respect Robert E. Lee even though he did that, but I may just respect Grant more.

That is not true.

Every soldier/officer AFAIK, resigned their US commisions (as was their right)(making them private citizens again) before joining the CS army. So I dont see how they broke any oaths.

The view of the states (in my understanding) was very different to how it is seen now. Each state more of a nation unto itself that banded together for diplomacy with the wider world. So in effect, every man was more loyal to his home 'nation'

Besides, if you think it legitimate that british colonies declare independence from the UK then I really dont see how anyone can claim that states with the right to self-determination somehow betrayed the union.

[Red Harvest]

Who cares weather it symbolizes slavery?

Geuss what, the Russian flag today can symbolize the opression of the people around 100 years ago... Do we complain? No.

That's nice, but this isn't Russia. We are not accustomed to gulags, purges of millions of our own citizens, feudalism and strongmen as our historical heritage.

Abraham Lincolin was almost a dictator. He silenced any news paper that supported your south. He enforced martial law in more then a few states. He kept several POWs in prison for many years after the war was over.

Wow, that certainly justifies enslaving 4 million people for life... Lincoln was only what the South made him. They forced war on them, and he did what was needed to win. He wasn't planning to maintain more authority than needed, which is what clearly separates him from despots and dictators.

Actually, there were quite a few newspapers that were left running despite their Southern leanings and scathing articles about Lincoln and the war. Some were shut down. There were a number of papers shut down because they were abolitionist before the war--often at local hands. It was a different age.

Considering there was a civil war and guerrilla activity and open revolt martial law was required in some areas, DUH! When local authorities no longer have control, martial law is used.

Your south was fighting not for the right to own slaves, but for basic state rights. Slaver was not a total issue untill your Battle of Gettysburgh and the Emancipation Proclimation *Spelling*.

Wrong. Slavery was THE issue. It was why the South seceeded. The economic system of the South was built on slavery, and much of its wealth was tied up in the value of slaves. Any *perceived* threat to slavery was an attack on the whole Southern economy and livelihood.

South Carolina was the first to secede. Lincoln said he would not allow the spread of slavery to the territories (Federal authority...not "States Rights.") South Carolina said that if Lincoln was elected it would seceed. It did so and the others followed. Lincoln had not even taken office when states began seceeding. States rights was a tool for maintaining slavery. And has been pointed out, Southern states had no problems stomping on the States Rights of others to strengthen slavery.

For the North, the war was not about slavery, it was about preserving the Union. Ironically, once the South seceeded, slavery was doomed, since it no longer had its built in constitutional protections. The Emancipation Proclamation was a tool of war, and a very successful one. You have fallen into the trap of so many before you, claiming the war was not about slavery because that is not why the North went to war. It IS why the South seceeded, and it is why the South went to war. The South initiated the war, therefore the war was about slavery.

The simplest test of all is this one: Would there have been an American Civil War without slavery? The answer is, no.

My sister has told me that your schools and many historians are biasd against your south... It is not a fair layout for your south...

That is inaccurate. First, quite a few schools are in the South and "Southern pride" is not something to tread on lightly. What the schools do tend to focus on is slavery's evils, which is good since slavery was so at odds with the basic tenets of the foundation of this nation. A surprising amount of the historical literature is pro-Southern but most authors strive for balance. There is a great deal of respect for the Southern military achievements. I have a large collection of Civil War books and ironically the three most biased books I have are "pro-Southern." These are ones that try to gloss over atrocities and deny them, etc. The tone in these three books is completely biased.

[Red Harvest]

Everyone views the causes of the war differently, and believing that the war was about slavery is a nice salve to egos of people who think war must be fought for just reasons.

Really? I thought that was what the "noble" State Rights argument was for. To make it sound like the South was fighting for a more noble cause than preserving slavery. Would the South have seceeded for States Rights? No, it seceeded to protect slavery. The order of secession votes aligns very well with the percentage of slaves in each state...that is no accident. Nor is it an accident that slave states less dependent on slavery did not secede.

Individuals fought for their own reasons, not for or against slavery for the most part. You need to be able to separate the individual from the nation/state.

Believing it was about slavery means that you don't have to accept any part of the antebellum South as good or respectable. You can just dismiss the whole ideology and never consider that maybe the South was right in wanting freedom from what it considered a government opposed to its interests, or the encroachment of Northern interests.

One need only look at the facts and timelines to establish *why* the war started. Any society based on slavery is going to have a hard time presenting itself as "good or respectable" in modern light. That doesn't mean the people were evil, even if they adopted a practice now seen as evil. It doesn't mean they didn't have worthwhile culture. However, there is no getting around the elephant in the living room: an economy based on slavery with 30+% of household's owning slaves. To ignore this would prevent understanding of the South and what motivated it. That is why folks go grasping for "states rights" to explain secession. They want to ignore the elephant.

The South was wrong in wanting to preserve slavery above all else, and at any cost. When you look at the politics of the time the South believed that about of 1/5th of the national population should be able to dictate terms to the rest of the nation. The nation voted differently on the matter...

[Don Corleone]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, and keep saying it every time somebody rehashes this topic. My opposition to the Confederate flag has nothing to do with race or PC. It is the war banner of a people who by their own admission iniated a conflict with the USA, and subsequently lost.

We can argue all we want about who really did what when, the first shot fired was by PT Beauragard's troops (Confederates) on Fort Sumter. They could have employed diplomacy (or looked to a 3rd party such as the French, the British or the Spanish to act as their emissary). They could have blockaded the fort, preventing troops from coming to shore but allowing it to be resupplied. They did not do this. They struck the first blow, and therefore, it's disingenous for sympathizers then and now to claim they were defending their homes.

I have a lot of respect for the people of the south and their veterans. But they were dead wrong in declaring war on the USA, and as the symbol of a failed armed rebellion, the Confederate battle flag should be a relic of the past. Waving it around today, in my mind, implies a disloyalty to the USA.

Has nothing to do race in my mind, though.