South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[paulhutch]

And I'll bet those stores carry books that have that accursed flag displayed right on the cover! Burn them, I say!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/politics/confederate-flag-national-park-service-sales/

The service is asking vendors to remove products that solely feature the flag as a symbol, like a Confederate flag pin or belt buckle.

Gifts and souvenirs that include the flag -- a book with the Union and Confederate flags on the cover, for instance -- would remain because, Kupper said, it puts the Confederate flag "in the context of history."

 

[dudalb]

IMO, you missed the mark as (coming from someone that grew up in the "occupied land") the American Civil War was an economic clash (first and foremost) that used slavery as a focal point, after the fact since President Lincoln's first motive was to "preserve the Union". Why? The north actually needed the south's wealth as it dwarfed the rest of the country (1861) making the CSA as the fifth wealthiest country on the planet.

A political solution was not in the cards, per the radical republicans as a military conquest would not only quell the south's political power (how many POTUS, pre-1861 were from the south?) but allow them to extraappropriate much, if not all of the wealth from below the M/D line. That's what "reconstruction" was really all about, a kleptocratic feeding frenzy.

Now that you understand this was a forcible entry situation with the end game of "wealth redistribution" perhaps you will have a better understanding of the underlying animosity that exists to this very day.

Botton line is simply this...since 04/1861, the USA is a country held together...by strict military force, period.

There may be hope as it has only taken ~800 years for the Irish and English to begin a reconcillation.

Really drinking the Neo Confederate Kool Aid, are'nt we?

 

[Yuchi1]

Dr. Malonee stated on more than one ocassion (~40 years ago) the BBF belonged in museums and not on car tags. His family had been in South Carolina since the mid-1700's.

 

[Yuchi1]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg[/qimg]


Really drinking the Neo Confederate Kool Aid, are'nt we?

Apparently, your flavor has a bit of taint to it?

 

[Polaris]

I think too many people ignore the whole "secession" aspect, and act as if that is irrelevant. In fact, it is the whole thing. In fact, it is true that the war was caused by secession, and the (initial) goal of the north was not to end slavery, but to preserve the union. Of course, the only reason the union was fractured was because the south was afraid they were going to lose slavery and therefore tried to quit, and the union was having none of it.

The best way I've ever heard it put was that the Civil War (at least at first) wasn't fought to end slavery, but it was absolutely fought over slavery.

 

[dudalb]

You should have provided the links to the documents...

No matter - an article on The Atlantic web site has them all. It makes for a rather depressing read.



I can top that - Apple has removed almost ALL apps that had the flag from their App Store - including at least one well regarded Civil War strategy game .

While on one hand this illustrates the danger of depending on only one source for software, on the other this seems to be a situation where a scalpel was needed instead of a nuke...

That is my only fear, that some idiot would go overboard and remove games and books that feature the Confederate flag on the cover or box.

And some idiot, of course, did.

I quibble with Ultimate General Civil War being well regarded,though..it got middling reviews from the wargaming press and is not nearly as well regarded as "Scourge Of War;Gettysburg" or the Sid Meier Civil War games.

 

[dudalb]

Apparently, your flavor has a bit of taint to it?

Come on, ya gotta do better then that around here.....

 

[pgwenthold]

The best way I've ever heard it put was that the Civil War (at least at first) wasn't fought to end slavery, but it was absolutely fought over slavery.

Something like that. The north didn't fight to end slavery, but the south fought to preserve it.

 

[luchog]

IMO, you missed the mark as (coming from someone that grew up in the "occupied land") the American Civil War was an economic clash (first and foremost) that used slavery as a focal point, after the fact since President Lincoln's first motive was to "preserve the Union". Why? The north actually needed the south's wealth as it dwarfed the rest of the country (1861) making the CSA as the fifth wealthiest country on the planet.

And what was the reason that the South was such an economic powerhouse? Oh, that's right, it was SLAVERY; it was the fact that they had an almost unlimited source of nearly free labour, something no other country who did not engage in the slave trade had. And the primary cost of production at that time was... let's see... oh right, it was labour.

The Confederacy was a collection of states whose economies were based on slavery. Trying to frame this as an economic conflict completely ignores the fact that the entire foundation of the South's economy was chattel slavery. That is why the South fought so hard to keep slavery, and why nearly all of the Confederate states articles of secession explicitly stated that slavery was the reason they (unlawfully) seceded. Recognizing the humanity and equal rights of slaves destroyed the entire basis for their boom economy; they had a huge vested interest in maintaining the sub-human status of their chattel.

And it's not like it was an economic benefit to all the non-slaves of the southern states. Much like the modern situation, the vast majority of the wealth in the south was sequestered in the hands of a very small number of elites who were wealthy enough to own large plantations, and the slaves needed to work those plantations. It was these elites who formed much of the government of the Southern states, and pandering to them was the reason for the secession; which was not done with a popular vote, but a unilateral declaration by bought-and-paid-for politicians.

 

[Mumbles]

That is my only fear, that some idiot would go overboard and remove games and books that feature the Confederate flag on the cover or box.

And some idiot, of course, did.

I quibble with Ultimate General Civil War being well regarded,though..it got middling reviews from the wargaming press and is not nearly as well regarded as "Scourge Of War;Gettysburg" or the Sid Meier Civil War games.

Yeah, that's clearly going too far. You could argue the that one particular flag did't represent the CSA, and I'd agree...but games don't need to be realistic.

Let's keep it 100, the flag is often used wrongly, but that's not a reason to dump games, artwork, or whatever. What we're saying is that it shouldn't be honored over state capitols.

 

[Checkmite]

And I'll bet those stores carry books that have that accursed flag displayed right on the cover! Burn them, I say!

Actually the Park directive specifically exempts items which include the flag in a clearly historical context - like books, posters, educational materials and the like, and things like games, postcards, and models which include the flags of both armies. Only stand-alone Confederate-flag-kitsch is being removed.

 

[kookbreaker]

Please tell me they removed the XXXXLarge T-shirts that say "Lee surrrendered, I didn't!".

 

[Polaris]

Something like that. The north didn't fight to end slavery, but the south fought to preserve it.

Correct - it was at the heart of the reasons for the war. The professor whose statement I paraphrased was directing it at the dishonest argument that the Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery, it was about states' rights and preserving the union. This was an argument I heard personally in social studies during K-12, by several teachers.

 

[Checkmite]

Please tell me they removed the XXXXLarge T-shirts that say "Lee surrrendered, I didn't!".

I don't think the National Parks ever carried anything that ridiculous...I haven't been to any in a long time but from what I remember, most of the relevant stuff was miniature flags, things like coffee mugs and key-chains and playing cards and so forth that would contain a Confederate flag, usually along with that particular battlefield's name/logo. There were typically both Union and Confederate "editions" of these items.

 

[Yuchi1]

And what was the reason that the South was such an economic powerhouse? Oh, that's right, it was SLAVERY; it was the fact that they had an almost unlimited source of nearly free labour, something no other country who did not engage in the slave trade had. And the primary cost of production at that time was... let's see... oh right, it was labour.

The Confederacy was a collection of states whose economies were based on slavery. Trying to frame this as an economic conflict completely ignores the fact that the entire foundation of the South's economy was chattel slavery. That is why the South fought so hard to keep slavery, and why nearly all of the Confederate states articles of secession explicitly stated that slavery was the reason they (unlawfully) seceded. Recognizing the humanity and equal rights of slaves destroyed the entire basis for their boom economy; they had a huge vested interest in maintaining the sub-human status of their chattel.

And it's not like it was an economic benefit to all the non-slaves of the southern states. Much like the modern situation, the vast majority of the wealth in the south was sequestered in the hands of a very small number of elites who were wealthy enough to own large plantations, and the slaves needed to work those plantations. It was these elites who formed much of the government of the Southern states, and pandering to them was the reason for the secession; which was not done with a popular vote, but a unilateral declaration by bought-and-paid-for politicians.

You took the long way however, did make my point in that it (war) was in fact, economic in basis. The idea that slaves were a low-cost commodity is an oft used fatal flaw. In ~1860 the average slave cost ~$2,400 to purchase.* Indexed to today's dollar (3% CPI) would approximate to ~$86,400, and at ~2X the cost of human labor today, hardly a bargain.

BTW, why did the south even have an army if (as you say) it was only the elite involved in the process?

* http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dp3cb/how_much_did_slaves_in_america_cost_in_todays/

 

[ponderingturtle]

Correct - it was at the heart of the reasons for the war. The professor whose statement I paraphrased was directing it at the dishonest argument that the Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery, it was about states' rights and preserving the union. This was an argument I heard personally in social studies during K-12, by several teachers.

That is not exactly wrong. It is just that the specific right in question was the right to own slaves, and keep them in any state in the union regardless of local laws.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You took the long way however, did make my point in that it (war) was in fact, economic in basis. The idea that slaves were a low-cost commodity is an oft used fatal flaw. In ~1860 the average slave cost ~$2,400 to purchase.* Indexed to today's dollar (3% CPI) would approximate to ~$86,400, and at ~2X the cost of human labor today, hardly a bargain.

BTW, why did the south even have an army if (as you say) it was only the elite involved in the process?

* http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dp3cb/how_much_did_slaves_in_america_cost_in_todays/

Depends on how long you amortize the expenditure over. And of course that was after the importation of slaves had been outlawed thus reducing the supply of new slaves.

 

[jimbob]

For WWII recreation, the Nazi's had the better, cooler uniforms.

In the CW, the North had better uniforms (Dark Blue > Light Blue).

ETA: We were talking about this at lunch and a colleague said that this is what such stories always reminded him of...

 

[Yuchi1]

Depends on how long you amortize the expenditure over. And of course that was after the importation of slaves had been outlawed thus reducing the supply of new slaves.

The slave population had reached a point to where importation was not a requirement which of course, meant the ships registered out of New England had to find other cargo to haul.

 

[Polaris]

That is not exactly wrong. It is just that the specific right in question was the right to own slaves, and keep them in any state in the union regardless of local laws.

That's where the dishonesty came in - the claim that, for the CSA, the reason for secession was "states' rights" specifically as opposed to slavery.

The proponents of that argument tend to be thinly-disguised (if disguised at all) fans of the Confederacy, and use it to pretend they are supporting something more than a bloody rebellion designed to continue slavery forever.