The Confederate Flag

[Emsworth]

I voted NO, but only because of it as a Free Speech issue. Certainly individuals have the right to wear/have any flag they want.

However, I would say that I disapprove of the (Confederate) flag at State Legislatures. Yes, the state of S.C. can do what it wants, but I think it's wrong. The CS Flag is divisive symbol that only represents part of the population--not only does it offend many blacks, it does not carry any positive meaning for anybody whose ancestors lived either in the North or overseas at the time of the Civil War.

I also find it amusing that people who wear/have CS Flags say it is a symbol of "States Rights", yet most of them would turn around and support a Federal Marriage Amendment that would limit the powers of the states to define marriage.

But the problem is that if a marriage is lawful in one state, all other states would, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, have to recognize it.

[angus]

I voted NO, but only because of it as a Free Speech issue. Certainly individuals have the right to wear/have any flag they want.

However, I would say that I disapprove of the (Confederate) flag at State Legislatures. Yes, the state of S.C. can do what it wants, but I think it's wrong. The CS Flag is divisive symbol that only represents part of the population--not only does it offend many blacks, it does not carry any positive meaning for anybody whose ancestors lived either in the North or overseas at the time of the Civil War.

I also find it amusing that people who wear/have CS Flags say it is a symbol of "States Rights", yet most of them would turn around and support a Federal Marriage Amendment that would limit the powers of the states to define marriage.

But the problem is that if a marriage is lawful in one state, all other states would, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, have to recognize it.

nclib,
I had relatives who fought against old glory in world war one.  I imagine many patriotic americans did.  Does that mean the US flag shouldn't fly just because of that?  of course not.  your argument is specious.  

emsworth,
I think that's at the heart of the amendment debate.  why not amend the constitution to make it neat and tidy?  a federal solution to interstate relations.  I think it's a bad idea.  limit rights.  set precedent.  anyway, one of the worst reasons to amend the constitution is to win votes.

[??????????]

I believe it was in the long run correct to abolish slavery. The manner in which it was done I disagree with. A slow method over 20-50 years would have had much less of a detrimental effect on the economy of the south.

So, freedom of blacks is less important than the economy of the South?

A lot of the problems the south had was due to the way the slaves were "liberated". A slow freeing would have not flooded the economy of the south w/jobless people. Blacks had quite a few freedoms on the plantation. And I believe racism wouldn't have gotten as vile if it had been a slow process.

[angus]

I believe it was in the long run correct to abolish slavery. The manner in which it was done I disagree with. A slow method over 20-50 years would have had much less of a detrimental effect on the economy of the south.

So, freedom of blacks is less important than the economy of the South?

A lot of the problems the south had was due to the way the slaves were "liberated". A slow freeing would have not flooded the economy of the south w/jobless people. Blacks had quite a few freedoms on the plantation. And I believe racism wouldn't have gotten as vile if it had been a slow process.

values internalized are solid.  enforced values are resented.  nobody knows whether the 13th amendment would have been passed if those legislatures in rebellion weren't required to sign it in order to get back in the club.  or even if would have been necessary, given that slavery was becoming less fashionable around that time.  Hell, even Brazil freed its slaves around 1888.  besides, it's all historical speculation, and racism now exists even in those states whose legislatures emancipated slaves long before the secession, and isn't a pecularly american phenomen anyway.  

[Tomyboy]

StatesRights:

Are you sayig that the Emancipation proclamation should have been delayed?

 Slavery was a terrible institution that treated blacks as sub-human.  I think the Confederate flag is an ugly reminder of it. It represents hate and bigotry.

[??????????]

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave! If you read it you will laugh and see that it was a political ploy to keep Britian and France out of the war. I believe a slow emancipation spread out over 30-50 years would have had less of an economic shock on the Southern economy. To say that all of slavery was "horrific" is a ridiculous statement based on all heart and no fact. To say the Southern Flag is all about racism and hate would be turning a blind eye to all the atrocities committed by the US Government under Old Glory.

[angus]

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave! If you read it you will laugh and see that it was a political ploy to keep Britian and France out of the war. I believe a slow emancipation spread out over 30-50 years would have had less of an economic shock on the Southern economy. To say that all of slavery was "horrific" is a ridiculous statement based on all heart and no fact. To say the Southern Flag is all about racism and hate would be turning a blind eye to all the atrocities committed by the US Government under Old Glory.

That is correct.  I hate to admit this, but the lack of historical understanding among Americans is apalling.  We get made fun of for that and we deserve it.  I usually don't side with those who pick on our public schools, but when I do, it isn't for fun, it is to try to improve them.  The first state to free its slaves was Massachusets in 1780, followed by CT in 1784, NY in 1799, etc.  By around 1820 those states in which the climate wasn't conducive to profit-worthy slavery had forced slaveowners to relinquish their slaves.  Some offered reasonable compensation, others didn't.  The thirteenth amendment freed the remaining slaves.  The emancipation proclamation was a carefully worded document written to ensure that no slaves were actually freed, but in order to get France, England, Prussia, etc., to stop sympathizing with the CSA.  It was sleazy in the sense that Bush's connecting Iraq to the terrorists attacks in 2001 was sleazy, but it seemed to have worked.

[??????????]

My only argument is that releasing 15 million people who are jobless into a population of 25 million and probably
8-9 million are looking for paid work would be devastating to any economy. If today 100 million people were dropped into the US all at once and looking for work our economy would be devastated and poverty would soar. My only positive belief about Lincoln is that if he lived I strongly believe slavery would have been ended gradually over a extended period of time.

[Ben.]

I am afraid I agree with States Rights... the end to slavery was done in the worst possible way, a gradual emancipation process would have been best, the Emancipation proclamation its self merely freed slaves in the regions which where openly in revolt against the United States Government… however morally slavery should have been ended immediately really… that said looking at it in the long term both morally and economically a more drawn out gradual process of emancipation would probably have been best however with a long war and the re-election of Lincoln over McClellan in 1864 this option was really never available…      

[angus]

I am afraid I agree with States Rights... the end to slavery was done in the worst possible way, a gradual emancipation process would have been best, the Emancipation proclamation its self merely freed slaves in the regions which where openly in revolt against the United States Government… however morally slavery should have been ended immediately really… that said looking at it in the long term both morally and economically a more drawn out gradual process of emancipation would probably have been best however with a long war and the re-election of Lincoln over McClellan in 1864 this option was really never available…      

it wasn't politically expedient.  lincoln may have been viewed as a moron by the NYT, the Democrats, and many of his comtemporaries, but he is viewed now largely to have been a shrewd politician.  If he had made noises about freeing slaves in Maryland, DC, Delaware, Kentucky, or Missouri, there would have been political problems.  He may not have been reelected, etc.  By saying, "I won't free slaves in areas which I have some authority, but I'll write a paper saying slaves are free in areas in which I have no authority to enforce that" but doing it a bit more diplomatically with better speechwriters, it guaranteed foreign governments wouldn't send money and troops to aid the CSA, lest they suffer politically in their own nations.  Very shrewd, indeed.

13th-15th amendments combined to creat several million citizens in haste, no doubt.  And it was one of the few instances where new citizens flocked politically to the GOP.  In almost every other instance where the market was flooded with millions of new citizens, the went politically with the democrats.  But we have discussed this in other threads.  Interesting nevertheless, that the GOP was so shrewd politically.  They still are, in many ways.

[Chiahead]

StatesRights:

Are you sayig that the Emancipation proclamation should have been delayed?

 Slavery was a terrible institution that treated blacks as sub-human.  I think the Confederate flag is an ugly reminder of it. It represents hate and bigotry.

The flag does not represent hate and bigotry...the flag was a symbol of Southern Independence, it wasn't a symbol of Hey!  We are keeping our slaves...It was just a symbol of your not telling us what to do, just like "Don't tread on me"  The South have eventually banned slavery anyway...it was just the North was telling them to end slavery without any consideration on what it would do to their plantations.

I'm not saying slavery should have continued a day longer, but if there would have been more compansion for plantation owners, a war might have been prevented.

[© tweed]

This poll wins the award for 'most lopsided'

[Brambila]

The northerners were much more racists than the southerners. The southerners considered the slaves fully human, while the notherners only considered them 1/5 human (the 3/5ths decleration was made to please both the southerners and northerners). The southerners actually used to baptize their slaves, and brutality was very uncommon. The northerners did not consider the slaves as equals at all, and didn't want to have anything to do with them.

The northerners really wanted to keep the southerners an agricultural society- and they succeeded. They put the southerners in a very awkward position, forcing them into independence. This gave the northerners an excuse to attack the south to keep the south an agricultural society so that they wouldn't compete with the north.

As a matter of fact, the Vatican sided with the south because the northerners were so power-hungry and racist.

So no, the confederate flag is not a symbol of racism- it's a symbol of how the south was abused by the north, and prevented the south from being what it truly was.

[KEmperor]

The northerners were much more racists than the southerners. The southerners considered the slaves fully human, while the notherners only considered them 1/5 human (the 3/5ths decleration was made to please both the southerners and northerners). The southerners actually used to baptize their slaves, and brutality was very uncommon. The northerners did not consider the slaves as equals at all, and didn't want to have anything to do with them.

The northerners really wanted to keep the southerners an agricultural society- and they succeeded. They put the southerners in a very awkward position, forcing them into independence. This gave the northerners an excuse to attack the south to keep the south an agricultural society so that they wouldn't compete with the north.

As a matter of fact, the Vatican sided with the south because the northerners were so power-hungry and racist.

So no, the confederate flag is not a symbol of racism- it's a symbol of how the south was abused by the north, and prevented the south from being what it truly was.

Wow.  Talk about reactionary southern propaganda.

[angus]

This poll wins the award for 'most lopsided'

there was a 93-3 vote in the senate yesterday on extending a ban on internet tax.  do a poll on that if you want a lopsided poll  

[Lunar]

Woaaah, slow down there.  Freedom is better than slavery, even if those in the free society are racist.

I believe the true difference is this:

-Northerners professed to love the race but were racist whenever they had contact with an individual African-American.

-Southerners were racist against the group but were significantly better when dealing with the slaves personally.  Many of them were reared with a Black nanny etc.  This simply came from so much contact with them.

The whole country was racist then, don't you try and justify what the South did.   The war was fought over the State's right to decide slavery, a society that would sacrifice millions of lives to keep this is RACIST.

[??????????]

So, Lunar you belive that whole war was fought over slavery? Why do you deny the facts that preceded slavery? Such as unfair export tariffs and unfair taxes on the south? Don't you think they had a valid complaint that very little of their tax money sent to Washington was being used to build up THEIR infrastructure? Do you really think it's fair to judge the 1860s South by todays standards? If the north had so much compassion for the black race then why did the abolishonist movement represent only about 5% of the Northern population? If the South was into slavery so much why were slaves only owned by 2% of southerners?

[Beet]

Oh please.

1607- first permanent colony founded in Virginia.
1861- South secedes.
1877- end of reconstruction.
2004- today.
Total years, history of the Southern United States: 397 (I am going to Jamestown for the quadricentennial ).
Total years, Civil War & Reconstruction total: 16 (4%)

I dont mean to sound crude, but 96% of the South's history was not defined by this civil war crap. Who cares what the civil war was fought over- its over. Anyone still for shooting each other?

[??????????]

Maybe 4% but from 1776 or earlier up until 1860 WAS a build up to the Civil War. Disagreements between the North and South almost broke apart the constitutional convention.

[Beet]

Maybe 4% but from 1776 or earlier up until 1860 WAS a build up to the Civil War. Disagreements between the North and South almost broke apart the constitutional convention.

This build up was the result of geographical-economic differences between North and South whose consequences go a long way towards defining the differences between the regions, of which the civil war was one side affect, but certainly not the only one. These geographic-economic forces lasted up until the 1960s, when the civil rights movement & exit of blacks to the North deprived the Southern economy of cheap labor & incentivized it to retool away from its agrarian focus. Coincidentally it was at this same time that America was moving away from an industrial to an information economy. The results have been a blessing for most of the South.

[??????????]

I dont mean to sound crude, but 96% of the South's history was not defined by this civil war crap. Who cares what the civil war was fought over- its over. Anyone still for shooting each other?

Though you say it is a small 4% and I agree that is a small percent the south HAS been defined by the civil war. Over 300k Southerners died in that war. Wounds run deep and take a LONG time to heal. If we are still like this in another 100 years then I can agree with you. But I still believe the war has an effect on those living. I mean most of us are only 2-3-4 Generations out of the war. I know some people whos' grandaddy fought in the war. I mean 140 years is really not a long time in the collective conscience of a few million. The way the south was decimated during and after the war and the way it was just left that way left a bad impression on those who lived through it. The so called "Reconstruction" reconstructed very little. Farming is a way of life whether one has a good or bad opinion of it. Though you say the changes have been a blessing on some points of that I would disagree. I think the many of thousands of farmers who have lost their livelyhood would disagree. Some may see the South as "behind" somehow, but I think that is to THEIR standards. Each region of the nation is different and diverse. What is good for New England might not be good for the west coast or the heartland.

[Lunar]

So, Lunar you belive that whole war was fought over slavery?

The primary issue was the fear of government infringement on a state's right to decide whether to have slavery.  Sure, other things such as the Tariff of Abominations and the infrastructure stuff also hurt but that wasn't what caused South Carolina to secede after Lincoln was elected.

Do you really think it's fair to judge the 1860s South by todays standards?

No, but I can compare them to the 1860's North through my modern viewpoint.

If the north had so much compassion for the black race then why did the abolishonist movement represent only about 5% of the Northern population?

The abolishonist movement was simply not very powerful.  It's like judging the amount of people who care about the environment by the number of members in the Sierra Club.  However, if you really want to look at the numbers for who supported slavery and who was against its expansion I would look at the election results in 1860.  The states that voted for Republican ticket,  basically a reincarnation of the Free Soil party, were against slavery.

Like I said though, the entire society was racist.  The North and the South had different types of racism and it seems many in this thread are trying to skew the horrid things the South did and glorify them.

If the South was into slavery so much why were slaves only owned by 2% of southerners?

Ah.  It really depends on what parts of the South you are averaging in and what year you do it.   The information I have says 36% in 1830 26% in 1860 however.   A couple more sources verify the 26% number.  However, your point is still correct about the vast majority of Southerners not living on plantations (most of the slave owners were smaller ones).  BUT the majority of Southerners supported slavery, minus areas like Appalachia which were more rebellious and did not share the Southern culture.

[??????????]

Plantation Owners were the Hollywood movie stars of today. A lot of southerners strived to be planters.

[Lunar]

Yes, that's a good point.  The reason why many supported slavery was because they dreamed of becoming rich.

I looked into it and I see where you get your very low number for percentage of slave ownership.  Your number simply took the number of whites who owned slaves and divided them by the total white population.  The problem is that not many children or adult women owned slaves, and also some non-whites owned slaves as well.  

The much better indicator is household ownership.

[??????????]

Yes, but I still believe that the majority of the soldiers fought against a threat, whether real or percieved. They believed they were doing an honorable thing and that is why I respect what they did. I have no problem going to their grave markers and dedicating monuments to them and their spouses. I have no problem going out and reenacting the battles. Most of us in Southern heritage societies know that our flag has been hijacked by racial groups but we are very weak to really do anything about it. The sad fact is that the U.S. flag is used more by the Klan and the Neo-Nazis then the CS Flag is ever used.