What does the Confederate Flag mean to you?

[Gustaf]

The discussion seems to have strayed off-topic...since the Confederacy and its flag always have been held together by slavery and segregation as their main rallying cry, it's hard for me to view the flag as anything different than that.

That is a horrible misrepresentation of the truth.  My family has proudly flown the Confederate flag since the end of Reconstruction and they were never slaveholders or segregationists.  My family was one of the first in the South (and I believe the first in North Carolina) to intermarry.  And, guess what, they still fly the flag.  My family was a part of the underground railroad.  And guess what, they still signed up to fight in the war.  My family paid for hired blacks to work on the their farm.  And guess what, they paid them the same wage they paid the whites.

My view is simply this. The Confederate flag represented teh Confederacy. The Confederacy was founded to save slavery (and most inhabitants there voted for a pro-slavery candidate). Southern political leaders using the confederate flag and States Rights rethoric has clearly been mostly concerned with race issues. See Thurmond and Wallace. Now, I know that the actual Civil War is somewhat different and that state loyalties played a big part there (as it did with Lee, for isntance). My point is not that Soutehrners are racist, but that the confederacy was by and large founded on racism.

That simply is not true.  For instance, in the Largest slave owning parts of Georgia and Kentucky, Bell, who was a compromise candidate, won by pretty hefty margins, or at least places a solid second.

Many Generals, on both sides are quoted as having stated some variation of what U.S. Grant himself said:

"If I thought this war were being fought over slavery, I would resign my commision right now and go home".

The war was fought over several issues: difference of economies, difference of life styles, difference of social views, difference of views on government, different philosophies on life.  Slavery was used as a scapegoat issue, on both sides, leading up to the war as a means of expressing each sides distaste for the other. 

The war was not fought over white superemacy.  It is a documented fact that, in rare instances, freed blacks in the South acctually owned slaves of their own.  This was accepted practice and no one ever said that blacks did not have a right to own indians, mallateos or even fellow blacks as slaves.

It is true that Southerns had a very paternalistic attitude towards blacks, but the South was a very paternalistic society as a whole, whether you are talking about blacks or whites and continues to be so to this day.

As a pretty late reply to this...

As I've stated, I know the Civil War was not about slavery. I never claimed that. It does however seem to me that secession was triggered by the issue of slavery. I don't really view Bell as tha tmuch of an anti-slavery candidate, I thought he just wanted to partially prevent it from spreading, or something like that?

I'm thankful for your general vote of confidence, even though it didn't extend to this matter. I'm not saying that SOuthernness is about slavery. But it does seem to have been a large part of the identity in fact, and I consider that important, perpetuated by Southerners themselves. Look at Thurmond and Wallace. I consider their campaigns fundamentally racist. It seems to me that the waving of the confederate flag has largely been associated with that. It's kind of like saying, and I'm not comparing it in any other way, mind you, "I'm waving the Swastika because I approve of Hitler's road building, many Germans did that and were not anti-semites". It certainly holds a lot of truth, but I don't really but it. 

[GOP = Terrorists]

As I've stated, I know the Civil War was not about slavery.

Yes it is.  It is 100% about slavery.  However it is often explained as economics or states rights but those economic issues and states rights issues are DIRECTLY about slavery.  Anyone who says the civil war isn't about slavery is delusional.  The Republican party was founded on the idea of halting slavery.

[J. J.]

As I've stated, I know the Civil War was not about slavery.

Yes it is.  It is 100% about slavery.  However it is often explained as economics or states rights but those economic issues and states rights issues are DIRECTLY about slavery.  Anyone who says the civil war isn't about slavery is delusional.  The Republican party was founded on the idea of halting slavery.

Actually, through most of the war, slavery was legal in those states (or parts of states) not in rebellion.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As I've stated, I know the Civil War was not about slavery.

Yes it is.  It is 100% about slavery.  However it is often explained as economics or states rights but those economic issues and states rights issues are DIRECTLY about slavery.  Anyone who says the civil war isn't about slavery is delusional.  The Republican party was founded on the idea of halting slavery.

Actually, through most of the war, slavery was legal in those states (or parts of states) not in rebellion.

That was for strategic reasons to keep the border states (MO, KY, WV, MD, DE) on the Union side. It would't have done much good to take the idealistic approach and have them join the Confederacy.

[Q]

It means "please slash my tires" up here.

Your opinions would result the same way down here, thankfully!

I don't believe that they would, States.  Southerners are far nicer people than the tundra-dwellers of the Northeast.

[J. J.]

As I've stated, I know the Civil War was not about slavery.

Yes it is.  It is 100% about slavery.  However it is often explained as economics or states rights but those economic issues and states rights issues are DIRECTLY about slavery.  Anyone who says the civil war isn't about slavery is delusional.  The Republican party was founded on the idea of halting slavery.

Actually, through most of the war, slavery was legal in those states (or parts of states) not in rebellion.

That was for strategic reasons to keep the border states (MO, KY, WV, MD, DE) on the Union side. It would't have done much good to take the idealistic approach and have them join the Confederacy.

I don't dispute that, but the war was not over slavery.  I believe the Fugitive Slave Law survived longer than Stonewall Jackson did.

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

As I've stated, I know the Civil War was not about slavery.

Yes it is.  It is 100% about slavery.  However it is often explained as economics or states rights but those economic issues and states rights issues are DIRECTLY about slavery.  Anyone who says the civil war isn't about slavery is delusional.  The Republican party was founded on the idea of halting slavery.

Actually, through most of the war, slavery was legal in those states (or parts of states) not in rebellion.

That was for strategic reasons to keep the border states (MO, KY, WV, MD, DE) on the Union side. It would't have done much good to take the idealistic approach and have them join the Confederacy.

WVA wasn't a border state. It wasn't even in existence until 1863 and it was created on constitutionally questionable grounds through coercion of the eastern counties of that state.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Freeing the slaves wasn't a smart thing.

[adam]

A symbol of the south's inability to get over the Civil War. To me, it's the same as the Gore 04 08 signs mean.

[Nym90]

Both 1 and 2.

I don't really care about symbols, but I can certainly see both sides of the debate over this flag. I don't think it should be flown at governmental buildings, as shouldn't the flag of any other country other than the United States.

[Virginian87]

Easily Option 1.  I don't agree with Option 2 at all.  Only the KKK used the Confederate flag with the intent of placing it in the racial argument.  Actually the Sons of Confederate Veterans has requested several times that the Klan stop using the flag in its imagery.  Most people you see in the South with a Confederate flag are just proud of their Southern heritage; they're not on their way to a lynch mob.  I myself have a Confederate flag at home, and I treat it has a heritage symbol.

To say that the Confederate flag is on par with the Nazi swastika is completely bogus.

[angus]

To say that the Confederate flag is on par with the Nazi swastika is completely bogus.

namely because the latter was the official symbol of a legitimate and recognized government, while the former was the symbol of a failed rebellion against my country.

still, I agree largely with you.  when I see folks, whether in California or Mississippi or anywhere else, with their battle flag I always get the impression that it's a matter of great pride to them that their ancestors battled against the Great Satan.  Though they are often shat-upon and derided, those hicks recognized the US imperialism and over-reaching long before anti-USA sentiment became fashionable in most of the world.  Let's not forget that.  Problem is, Uncle Sam is my uncle.  And this is probably true of most forumites.  (except those foreigners who post here.  And those hardcore rebels still fighting the US Civil War)  And we yanks don't take too kindly to folks bashing our country.  Especially those who have actually waged war against it.  So Al Quaeda, the Nazis, and the Confederate States of America are a hard sell to true American patriots.  Know what I mean?

[opebo]

To say that the Confederate flag is on par with the Nazi swastika is completely bogus.

namely because the latter was the official symbol of a legitimate and recognized government, while the former was the symbol of a failed rebellion against my country.

still, I agree largely with you.  when I see folks, whether in California or Mississippi or anywhere else, with their battle flag I always get the impression that it's a matter of great pride to them that their ancestors battled against the Great Satan.  Though they are often shat-upon and derided, those hicks recognized the US imperialism and over-reaching long before anti-USA sentiment became fashionable in most of the world.  Let's not forget that.  Problem is, Uncle Sam is my uncle.  And this is probably true of most forumites.  (except those foreigners who post here.  And those hardcore rebels still fighting the US Civil War)  And we yanks don't take too kindly to folks bashing our country.  Especially those who have actually waged war against it.  So Al Quaeda, the Nazis, and the Confederate States of America are a hard sell to true American patriots.  Know what I mean?

Some of us are neither foreigners nor Southerners, and yet we do not share your assinine patriotism, angus.  One can simultaneously dislike both the US and the 'confederacy' - there is only a subtle difference in character anyway.

[angus]

that's actually a good point opebo. 

my original post in this thread about voting "other" stands because I was answering the question subjectively:  the truest meaning of the saint andrews cross design with stars battle flag (which I think we're talking about, as opposed to the actual confederate flag), represents one thing and only one thing:  make battle against united states.  I was only trying pointing out here that virginian's remarks confirm the notion of the people I've met in say mississippi and florida about the battle flag.  Then again, I have had the impression that many californians and minnesotans who fly the battle flag for example do not have the same notion attached to it, and I think this perception (though I can't really speak for the patrons of bars in the desert) was related to the subtle point virginian was also making.  Like nym, I don't care for symbols either and often rant about the mentality of bumper-sticker people.  still, you're right that yankee jingoism isn't justification for anything.  I wasn't saying it was.   And in any case wouldn't compare the symbol of a failed rebellion with that of a movement that held captive a continent for a decade, except to point out that they both are Enemies of the State to gringos, and strictly from a patriotic gringo point of view both are associated with the deaths of american fighting men.  Not the best marketing symbolism at the moment given our current situation.   

[Olin D. Johnston]

It's a proud emblem of Southern heritage.

[Virginian87]

It's a proud emblem of Southern heritage.

Thanks for your input and welcome to the forum.  It's good to have another Southern Democrat here with common sense.

[opebo]

It's a proud emblem of Southern heritage.

[angus]

It's a proud emblem of Southern heritage.

"...and gladly wolde he teche and gladly lerne."
  --Chaucer


Welcome Olin.  Don't let opebo get to ya.  He apparently has an enormous dick, and occassionally makes a funny joke, but he's generally harmless.

Peace and Love.

[jerusalemcar5]

Obviously it is a sign of treason, agression, terror, mass slaughter, and racism.  Anyone who disgarees should check a history book.  You can't change the meaning of the flag.  It shall always be the Confederate flag and stand for everything the Confederate states stood for.

[Virginian87]

Obviously it is a sign of treason, agression, terror, mass slaughter, and racism. 

You obviously know nothing about Civil War history and the era leading up to it.  Then you would realize that the secession of the South was not directly caused by slavery, but was more based on a different interpretation of the rights of the States in the Constitution.

[Boris]

Obviously it is a sign of treason, agression, terror, mass slaughter, and racism. 

You obviously know nothing about Civil War history and the era leading up to it.  Then you would realize that the secession of the South was not directly caused by slavery, but was more based on a different interpretation of the rights of the States in the Constitution.

Weren't they also afraid that the sectional balance (in terms of senate seats) would strongly favor the north? The Missouri Compromise (nullified by the Dred Scott case), pretty much guaranteed that as westward expansion continued, the north would pick up more states than the south.

This sectional balance upset was further exemplified by the Lincoln victory in election 1860, despite receiving only 39% of the vote (in a four way race). And 39% was all he needed. Even if a single candidate had gotten 61% of the vote, Lincoln would've still won due to his PV majorities in the electorally significant states.

[jerusalemcar5]

Obviously it is a sign of treason, agression, terror, mass slaughter, and racism. 

You obviously know nothing about Civil War history and the era leading up to it.  Then you would realize that the secession of the South was not directly caused by slavery, but was more based on a different interpretation of the rights of the States in the Constitution.

What was the state right they wanted?  The right to slavery.  Please don't pretend that slavery didn't cause it and that the confederates were racist pigs.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obviously it is a sign of treason, agression, terror, mass slaughter, and racism. 

You obviously know nothing about Civil War history and the era leading up to it.  Then you would realize that the secession of the South was not directly caused by slavery, but was more based on a different interpretation of the rights of the States in the Constitution.

Your revisionism doesn't fool us.

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

Obviously it is a sign of treason, agression, terror, mass slaughter, and racism. 

This thread isn't about the American flag.

[Speed of Sound]

Obviously it is a sign of treason, agression, terror, mass slaughter, and racism. 

This thread isn't about the American flag.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^