The Confederate flag

**Azi Tohak** · 09-11-2005, 18:40

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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** · 09-11-2005, 22:20

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** · 09-11-2005, 23:16

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** · 09-11-2005, 23:17

Originally Posted by Zharakov

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** · 09-12-2005, 01:46

I love this man

Not in the South you dont!

**Zharakov** · 09-12-2005, 02:08

Why would they not love me in your south?

I am a soft and loveable Russian grizzley...

**Red Harvest** · 09-12-2005, 17:33

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 09-12-2005, 17:48

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

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** · 09-12-2005, 18:32

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.

**Don Corleone** · 09-12-2005, 18:39

You have the right to say anything you want to, but you do not have the right to advocate the overthrow of the Constitution through violent means. To me, that is what that flag stands for.

**Don Corleone** · 09-12-2005, 18:41

By the way, Strike for the South, you forgot 'Gah'. Thought I'd beat Ichi to the punch. It would be my vote too, as neither of the options in your poll applies to my view.

**Don Corleone** · 09-12-2005, 18:49

Do you have the right to argue for seccession? Absolutely. Do you have the right to argue for violent means to bring it about? No. That flag is a symbol of those who chose the latter route. Now, do you have the right to fly it? I suppose you do, but you shouldn't any more than you should fly a Swastika. The Confederate battle flag only flew over American soil for the brief moments of the Antietam and Gettysburg (and some assorted cavalry raids). It is not an American flag, it is the flag of a nation that initiated a war with the USA and only ended armed conflict by being beaten into total submission. Do you have the right to fly it? Sure. And I have the right to call you a traitor for doing so.