Confederate flag causing a flap in SC

[quadraginta]

What in the world are you talking about?

The original USA was a nation that incorporated slavery as a significant component of its economy and law.

So was the CSA.

If you want to try to tell me that the Civil War was a war over the issue of slavery in the South, you're going to have to take it elsewhere. Obviously, it was not, since (a) the key issue under debate at the time was the expansion of slavery into the West, (b) the North had made no moves against slavery in the South at the time of the war, and continued with that pattern for quite some time after the war began, and (c) the Emancipation Proclamation caused widespread civil unrest and military defection in the North.

<snip some more garbage apologetics>

OTOH, we have this opinion from a dude who was there at the time.

Savannah, Ga. March 21, 1861.


...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

...

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

...

 

[ponderingturtle]

What in the world are you talking about?

The original USA was a nation that incorporated slavery as a significant component of its economy and law.

So was the CSA.

So you contest that the CSA was founded specificially to perpetuate slavery? What caused the rebellion of the south then? They said at the time that it was about slavery but clearly they do not know what they were talking about.

If you want to try to tell me that the Civil War was a war over the issue of slavery in the South, you're going to have to take it elsewhere. Obviously, it was not, since (a) the key issue under debate at the time was the expansion of slavery into the West, (b) the North had made no moves against slavery in the South at the time of the war, and continued with that pattern for quite some time after the war began, and (c) the Emancipation Proclamation caused widespread civil unrest and military defection in the North.

I am not claiming that they were rational about it, but they specifically were afraid that slavery would be abolished. Look at what they said when states succeeded it was about slavery. You are simply delusional to think otherwise.

Yes it was about states rights, they were afraid that their right to own blacks would be threatened. That was the driving reason behind their actions.

The difference is simply that no aspect of slavery was an issue in the rift between Britain and the American colonies.

And that is an important distinction.

From your statements it seems I'm expected to believe that the Founding Fathers' support of slavery was somehow less eggregious because no one challenged them to a war over the issue of its expansion.

Of course we can have no idea how strongly they would have supported or opposed it. It was a very different time and economy then. But by it not being an issue that was contested it is hard to pick say that it is a symbol of the view.

And there is no other clear symbol for Southern identity. A Molly Hatchet poster won't cut it. The St. Andrew's cross is what we're left with. And folks who are raised first and foremost (as I was) to see it as a symbol of the South, and only later learn about its history and the Civil War, it remains a symbol of today's South, regardless of what it used to stand for, just as the Stars and Bars stands for America today, regardless of what kind of government or policies it used to represent, whether that be slavery or killing Indians or invading Mexico in order to get more land.

And southern identity is then defined by their starting a war to perpetuate slavery.

 

[Drachasor]

If you want to try to tell me that the Civil War was a war over the issue of slavery in the South, you're going to have to take it elsewhere. Obviously, it was not, since (a) the key issue under debate at the time was the expansion of slavery into the West, (b) the North had made no moves against slavery in the South at the time of the war, and continued with that pattern for quite some time after the war began, and (c) the Emancipation Proclamation caused widespread civil unrest and military defection in the North.

However, the South WAS convinced Lincoln was going to try to end slavery. First by stopping its expansion, and then using the greater number of non-slave States to end it everywhere. That was a major factor in the cause of the Civil War despite how it was decidedly an incorrect view of Lincoln.

In the end it cannot be denied that the Civil War was all about Slavery. If there was no slavery in the USA at the time, then it never would have happened.

 

[ponderingturtle]

OTOH, we have this opinion from a dude who was there at the time.

Like that guy knows anything about the south.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Probably because it hadn't been chosen specifically to represent the solidarity of segregationists and other unrepentant bigots when the laws of the land started treating blacks the same as other human beings.

When someone shoves a sharp stick in your eye are you going to listen to them complain that you aren't objecting to any of the other sticks that happen to be lying around?

And that gets back to the point I responded to ...

The claim by Sarge, that ...it's initial use ( the battle flag ) was universally racist ..

To which I replied .. " ...much occurred over the decades to make it the racist symbol it is today .. "

 

[Piggy]

OTOH, we have this opinion from a dude who was there at the time.

Not OTOH at all.

The North accepted the same principle, in law and practice.

The claim that they were coming for the South was as common as "the liberals are coming for your guns" is now. But the North wasn't in fact attempting to abolish slavery in the South. The legal battleground was the West.

 

[Drachasor]

Not OTOH at all.

The North accepted the same principle, in law and practice.

The claim that they were coming for the South was as common as "the liberals are coming for your guns" is now. But the North wasn't in fact attempting to abolish slavery in the South. The legal battleground was the West.

And the Jews weren't the cause of Germany's problems, but that doesn't mean the Nazi Swastika isn't a symbol of antisemitism.

Just because a group believed something that's false doesn't mean the symbols they create to represent themselves aren't symbolic of it. Fundamentally, the South believed it was fighting to preserve slavery. That's why the left the Union and that's what their cause was primarily about. The Confederate Flag represents that.

 

[Piggy]

So you contest that the CSA was founded specificially to perpetuate slavery? What caused the rebellion of the south then? They said at the time that it was about slavery but clearly they do not know what they were talking about.

The CSA was founded specifically to perpetuate a political structure that included slavery. (As was the USA.)

The states they were splitting from had not threatened to attempt to enforce any end to slavery in the existing slave states, and had an established legal policy of recognizing, even cooperating to enforce, the Southern slavery laws. (Similarly, the British Empire condoned slavery.)

The proximate cause of the war was expansion of slavery in the West , which was not only aligned with pro/anti-abolitionist sentiments, but also with political alliances and power. (Here's the difference. There was no analogous issue in the American Revolution.)

Nevertheless, public sentiment in the South was fired up by a campaign of language which claimed that the North was intent on abolishing slavery in the South as one strategy in a greater scheme to subjugate the Southern states.

The CSA staunchly defended slavery, in the South and in the West.

The Union opposed expansion of slavery, and eventually came to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

So... it seems rather arbitrary to single out the CSA because they went to war over the issue of expansion of slavery, when it's a pretty good bet that the Founding Fathers would have defended slavery militarily if the Crown had decided to attempt to abolish it in the colonies. It would have been at least as important an economic issue as taxation.

If the early US flags aren't symbols of hate, well....

 

[Piggy]

And the Jews weren't the cause of Germany's problems, but that doesn't mean the Nazi Swastika isn't a symbol of antisemitism.

Just because a group believed something that's false doesn't mean the symbols they create to represent themselves aren't symbolic of it. Fundamentally, the South believed it was fighting to preserve slavery. That's why the left the Union and that's what their cause was primarily about. The Confederate Flag represents that.

There are important differences here.

The swastika was the central symbol of Nazism, and never evolved into a symbol of contemporary Germany.

And the St. Andrew's cross was not an official emblem of the CSA. It is much more widely used today than it was during the Civil War, most commonly as a symbol of the contemporary South.

Of course, in the intervening time, the SAC has been overtly used by some very violent and dangerous bigots, as has the swastika.

So yes, the SAC can indeed symbolize the actual 1860s Confederacy, which fought to expand slavery into the West and whipped up public fervor with threats of the abolition of slavery.

And it can symbolize the Klan and other hate groups.

But in the minds of a lot of people, especially young people, that's all history book stuff and it's really about being Southern today. Naive, yeah, but that's the way it is.

And in the minds of other folks it's about refusing to believe that their ancestors were bad people, and anger at others who try to insist that they agree that they were.

It's just not simple.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Piggy,

I will buy into the pride in heritage thing when large numbers of southern blacks start flying this famous KKK emblem over their houses. I grew up in the south and remember naively thinking that 'the south will rise again' was just pride in one's region. Then I heard those charming folks from The White Citizens Council singing outside my grammar school the year it was going to be desegregated....To the tune of Battle Hymn of the Republic... "Glory glory segregation. We don't want no integration...", ... His truth is marching on was replaced with "the south will rise again".

I was ten. And it shook the scales from my eyes. They weren't talking about building up the region (with emphasis on "region" of the country) but using it as a call to arms.

You know full well that the battle flag was co-opted by the Klan. Living in the region for generations, you also know full well that there are many blacks who are very proud of their southern rural roots, their culture, their families and their upbringing. Yet they're not flying the stars and bars Confederate battle flag.

Why is this only a symbol to white people?

 

[Pup]

If you want to try to tell me that the Civil War was a war over the issue of slavery in the South, you're going to have to take it elsewhere. Obviously, it was not, since (a) the key issue under debate at the time was the expansion of slavery into the West, (b) the North had made no moves against slavery in the South at the time of the war, and continued with that pattern for quite some time after the war began, and (c) the Emancipation Proclamation caused widespread civil unrest and military defection in the North.

The issue of ending slavery in the South was a late-comer to the game. (Yes, there were abolitionists, North and South, but they lacked traction.)

First, let me ask, are you claiming the above, despite having read the official declarations of secession that the various southern states published, giving their reasons for seceding? How about period magazine and newspaper articles published in the south at the start of the war and before the war, talking about Lincoln's house divided speech and what he was really saying?

Because I'd be really surprised if you'd read all that, and still held the above opinion.

I see others have already given us Stephens' cornerstone speech and covered some of the same ground.

It's just way too easy to show that southerners, even before they seceded, were absolutely concerned that once Lincoln and the Republicans got power, they wouldn't stop until they emancipated all the slaves and ended slavery everywhere in the U.S.

Lincoln and most northerners denied it and tried to reassure the south, despite their noisy abolitionist minority, so I'd agree that northerners didn't generally think the war was about freeing slaves until later.

But the southern viewpoint was different and, ironically, future events showed their assessment of the situation was pretty much correct, right from the start. I think the southern fire-eaters don't get enough credit for their accurate predictions. They knew secession was their last chance to avoid emancipation.

Here's DeBow's Review, an influential southern magazine published in New Orleans, December 1860, arguing about what Lincoln, and his cronies like Seward in the new Republican party, were really planning to do, once they got in power:

http://books.google.com/books?id=QCIoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA798

Mr. Lincoln may proclaim his intention to enforce the fugitive slave law, but he is bound down by the acts of his party, and will find it impossible... Mr. Lincoln said at Springfield, Illinois, on the 17th June, 1858: "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."

But we need not rely upon this. The platform of the [Republican] party, solemnly erected in Convention at Chicago, introduces the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are of right free, and independent, and equal, in such unmistakable relation to the subject of slavery in the territories, and, of course, to slavery in itself, as leaves no earthly doubt that negroes were included in the category. No logician, under all the circumstances, could draw a different interference.

[The article, available at the link, then quotes a few excerpts from northern newspapers to support its point, building up to one from the Pittsburg Post:]

"The question has been fairly put to the people of the free States, and, as far as public sentiment has reached us, they have, by large majorities, decided that negro slavery is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States, and that it must be extinguished..."

[The southern author says the end of slavery is what the south will face if it consents to "the yoke of an abolition government" and concludes with a quote from a fellow southerner:]

The ruin of the South, by the emancipation of her slaves, is not like the ruin of any other people... It is the loss of liberty, property, home, country--everything that makes life worth having. And this loss will probably take place under circumstances of suffering and horror unsurpassed in the history of nations. We must preserve our liberties and institutions under penalities greater than those which impend over any people in the world.

For good measure, here's the Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina, which includes this plain reason:

On the 4th March next, this [Republican] party will take possession of the Government. It has announced... that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

All the states' declarations of secession are online, and worth reading.

And there is no other clear symbol for Southern identity.

Are you saying it's a clear symbol of Southern identity, in general? In other words, would a black southerner consider it just as much a symbol of his cultural heritage as a white southerner? Because it's funny, one doesn't see southern black people flying it so much, even if they're proud of their regional identity.

 

[Piggy]

And southern identity is then defined by their starting a war to perpetuate slavery.

I hate to have to say this, but that's a profoundly ignorant statement.

And I hate to have to say this even more, but college football teams and defunct boogie bands are much more defining to Southern identity at the moment than anything having to do with the Civil War.

 

[This is The End]

If you want to try to tell me that the Civil War was a war over the issue of slavery in the South, you're going to have to take it elsewhere. Obviously, it was not <snip>

The US Civil War was most definitely about slavery.

 

[Piggy]

I will buy into the pride in heritage thing when large numbers of southern blacks start flying this famous KKK emblem over their houses. <snip> Why is this only a symbol to white people?

It's obvious why it's not a symbol of Southern identity for the vast majority of black Southerners. (Some do fly it and wear it, tho.)

But it's not generally, say, liberal arts faculty at UGA or GA State who are into the whole Southern identity thing, at least not the Rebel Flag variety of it.

It's largely a white culture phenomenon, for reasons that should be apparent to anyone.

 

[This is The End]

Because I'd be really surprised if you'd read all that, and still held the above opinion.

I wouldn't.

ETA: ...be surprised.

 

[Piggy]

The US Civil War was most definitely about slavery.

Absolutely.

 

[This is The End]

Absolutely.

OK I guess I am surprised after all.

 

[Piggy]

First, let me ask, are you claiming the above, despite having read the official declarations of secession that the various southern states published, giving their reasons for seceding? How about period magazine and newspaper articles published in the south at the start of the war and before the war, talking about Lincoln's house divided speech and what he was really saying?

Because I'd be really surprised if you'd read all that, and still held the above opinion.

I see others have already given us Stephens' cornerstone speech and covered some of the same ground.

It's just way too easy to show that southerners, even before they seceded, were absolutely concerned that once Lincoln and the Republicans got power, they wouldn't stop until they emancipated all the slaves and ended slavery everywhere in the U.S.

Let me ask you this....

Go listen to GOP talking points for a week. Not the campaign stuff, but the current elected leadership in power. Listen to what these guys say. Then come back and tell me how much of it you think they believe when they go home, and how much of it is rhetoric that's necessary to get votes.

When you've done that, then come back and let's analyze the rhetoric of the mid-1800s.

 

[Piggy]

OK I guess I am surprised after all.

It definitely was about slavery and all the attendant issues, but it wasn't about slavery in the South, which was not actually threatened (despite the stump rhetoric) but rather slavery in the new states in the West.

ETA: There's a popular revisionist history in the South, tho, which does deny that slavery was a proximate cause for the war. You'll find that kind of thing in the foyer at Maurice's. But a lot of people buy into it, which is what allows them to actually buy into the "Heritage Not Hate" theme.

 

[This is The End]

Let me ask you this....

Go listen to GOP talking points for a week. Not the campaign stuff, but the current elected leadership in power. Listen to what these guys say. Then come back and tell me how much of it you think they believe when they go home, and how much of it is rhetoric that's necessary to get votes.

When you've done that, then come back and let's analyze the rhetoric of the mid-1800s.

So you're basing your opinion on psychically knowing what people "truly" believe, not only now, but 200 years ago?