The Confederate battle flag

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by pjohns, Jul 1, 2020.

  1. Grau

    Grau Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    9,035
    Likes Received:
    4,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Re:
    Thanks for the recording of an actual Civil War veteran who clearly stated that he & the rest of the South did not fight to protect slavery, they fought for states' rights.

    I don't know what more evidence any rational person needs to convince them that the Civil War was not about slavery than words right from an actual participant of and eyewitness to that tragic event.

    It is additionally noteworthy that Lincoln did not oppose the Corwin Amendment which protected "domestic institutions" (i.e. slavery) from Federal intervention.
     
    ArchStanton likes this.
  2. Xyce

    Xyce Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2019
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You want a primary source that is was not completely about the preservation of slavery?

    Okay.

    Let's go with Georgia.

    "
    The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.
    "
    Is this paragraph about slavery? Yes.

    "
    Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.
    "

    Is this paragraph about slavery? Yes.

    "
    While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.
    "
    Is this paragraph about slavery? Mostly. But it transitions into how the North has taking advantage of the South by seeking "profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests [of the South."

    "
    Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.
    "

    Is this paragraph about slavery? No. This paragraph talks about the growing scope of the Treasury and how the public, including the South, has to pay for this expansion.

    "
    But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
    "

    Is this paragraph about slavery? No. This just continues with the theme of an expanding federal government.

    In summary, Georgia was talking about the expansion of the federal government and how the manufacturing North was economically crippling and taking advantage of the agricultural economy of the South: it was not completely about slavery. But I grant you that slavery was surely a leitmotif in the various Confederate States' declarations for succession (at least the ones I read), because the abolition of slavery was a leitmotif of the political discussion of the time. But slavery was a right under the penumbra of the Constitution. In fact, there was a Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution. And the Fugitive Slave Clause explicitly demanded that those slaves who ran into the non-slave-holding territories return them: "No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." And non-slave-holding states explicitly violated the Constitution by disregarding this. And they did so with impunity. Was this the moral thing to do? Yes, but it was still unconstitutional. And one of the fundamental arguments of the CSA was that the Constitution was not empowered; it was simply words on paper:

    "
    They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
    "

    Thus more broadly the expansion of the federal government and the disregard of the Constitution solely at the expense of what would become the CSA was the reason why the CSA was created.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2020
    Grau likes this.
  3. Josh77

    Josh77 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    10,259
    Likes Received:
    6,975
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would rather die than live with either condition, so they are equal to me.
     
  4. Josh77

    Josh77 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    10,259
    Likes Received:
    6,975
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    yes! Music can be an awesome tool to bring humanity together when it is not used to spread hateful messages.
     
  5. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is not correct. Most blacks born today inherit the consequences of the Jim Crow laws which are inheritance of slavery. Which segregated neighborhoods and created lousy schools for those who lived there, along with great ones for the white neighborhoods. If you are black you are born into one of these poor neighborhoods and are condemned to assisting to a sub-par school. The environment is that of hostility against you, and is likely to push you out of good job opportunities and of receiving an education that will take improve things for you and your family compared to that of our parents, who were not educated either because they are just part of the cycle. Racist cops will be particularly aggressive against you, you are immensely more likely to land in jail than your white counterpart. But if you somehow manage to dodge all this, the best you'll do is inherit the same conditions to your children. And they will have close to zero opportunity to get out of the cycle unless they are lucky enough to land the appropriate genes that would make them the future Michael Jordan, Prince or Michael Jackson.

    What do you think they can do to break this cycle? It's not a choice. They don't choose what neighborhood they were born into or what schools they must attend. Or what their parent's education was. This is dictated by the system. And for this reason all of this is called "institutional racism"
     
  6. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah. The states' "right" to own slaves.

    This guy describes the Civil War like my son used to describe Call of Duty when he was 15.

    Obviously a 15 year old couldn't care less about slavery or any of that. They just want to play shoot-em-up
     
  7. Xyce

    Xyce Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2019
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The CSA was fighting against more than for something. They were fighting against an expanding federal government, against the clear violations of the Constitution against agricultural states, and against the growing political power of the manufacturing states.
     
    Grau likes this.
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what I said: slavery.
     
  9. Xyce

    Xyce Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2019
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, like always, you are arguing from a point of hyperbole. You argued that all blacks think that the flag means slavery, and you are arguing that the Civil War was only fought because of slavery. Nuance does not make its way into your way of thinking.
     
  10. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did not claim that "all blacks" were... anything (as proven by the fact that you couldn't quote it). I do claim that the only reason the Civil War was fought was slavery. Which, BTW, doesn't mean that I read the mind of each and every Confederate soldier and found that all of them had slavery in mind every time they fired a shot.... or even that all of them knew that they were fighting to defend slavery. Many could have had other reasons in their mind. But I would venture to say that the reason most of them fought was probably the same that white supremacists defend the confederate flag today: because they didn't want black people to be equal to them. Many (most?) felt "white supremacy" was at risk. However, even so, the only reason why we had a war was slavery. None other.

    Slavery to protect their farming (who would pick up the cotton?). Protect slavery from the north criticizing mistreatment and increasing their power by harboring and freeing escaped slaves. And against granting slaves the right to vote (did you think they would vote for southern candidates?). Protecting the "right" to own slaves as written in the Constitution. ... All of what you said boils down to slavery.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2020
  11. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What kind of people think they have a right to own other people? Yet slavery is as old as humanity and was so common in our history as a species. Thousands of years old and still exists in parts of the world.
     
  12. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see it like burning the American flag... disgusting, but legal

    what I am against though it the state sponsoring it

    had States not put Confederate Statues on State house lawns and in the center of towns during Jim Crow era, we would prob not even be talking about this today

    just take them off the State house lawns and let cities choose to remove them from their cities.... simple

    if private citizens what to wave the flag on their private land, that is on them

    "Confederate Statues Were Built To Further A 'White Supremacist Future'"

    https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/5442...e-built-to-further-a-white-supremacist-future
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2020
  13. Grau

    Grau Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    9,035
    Likes Received:
    4,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Apparently, you didn't listen closely to or understand the recording.

    Since your only frame of reference is a silly video game and the inclinations of a 15 year old son, I see little point in trying to change a mind polluted by such a simplistic myth as the Civil War was about slavery.

    Meanwhile, please try to name one instance in which an industrialized state has not tried to exploit or conquer a nearby agrarian state for its natural resources.

    History is replete with examples of industrialized states going far and wide to exploit agrarian regions. It's called Colonialism and the North was simply after cheaper, nearby natural resources to feed its factories.
     
    ArchStanton likes this.
  14. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am really not convinced that this had to do with a desire for a "white supremacist future," so much as it had to do with an anger over the so-called "Reconstruction Era" (about a decade following the end of the Civil War), in which the South felt oppressed by the North. (Ironically, John Wilkes Booth actually thought--somehow--that he was striking a blow for the South, when he assassinated Abraham Lincoln. But if that had never happened, the horrendous Reconstruction Era, as it actually unfolded, would probably never have happened. "With malice toward none, with charity for all," were Lincoln's words, in his Second Inaugural Address. And, although Andrew Johnson was not a vindictive man, he was weak; and the so-called "Radical Republicans"--the virtual analogue to today's Democrats--controlled him.)

    Oh, I realize that most of these statues were erected long after the Reconstruction Era--many in the early part of the twentieth century--but that anger remained.
     
  15. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. You misunderstood the recording. This guy was a 15 year old who took a gun to fight. Not a confederate politician, or strategist or.... anybody who would have a clue in any possible way why the Civil War was fought.

    What the f... hell does that have to do with any of this?

    Do you read what you write before you hit send?
     
  16. Grau

    Grau Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    9,035
    Likes Received:
    4,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Re:
    He was not 15 years old when he made the recording and clearly stated that the South did not fight to preserve slavery.
    He was near the end of his life and had plenty of time to evaluate the true causes of the war to which he was an eyewitness.
    He was there and alive during and after the war. You weren't.


    Re:
    You're the first person I've had to explain this to.

    The North was far more industrialized than the agrarian (agriculture based) South.

    History is replete with examples of industrialized States seeking to invade, occupy and exploit agrarian States for their natural resources.

    While there were multiple causes, the Civil War (aka the War of Northern Aggression) was simply another example of an industrialized State preying on an agrarian State for financial and strategic gain.

    I simply asked you to name an exception to that rule and, apparently, you cannot.
     
  17. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump is creating a new anger in the public that will lead to their removal imo
     
  18. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He describes the Civil War as he saw it when he was a 15 year old. Which is when he fought it.

    I doubt he had the least bit of interest in doing that, but if that's your claim, quote where he says that or any evidence you have that this particular guy studied history. It would be amazing that somebody who fought to preserve an immoral practice would accept that they did. And, BTW, as I stated before: I don't think most of the actual people who fought the war were concerned about slavery. Looks to me like they were more concerned about maintaining white supremacy. Exactly like the white supremacists who use this flag as their symbol today.

    Look... this is ridiculous. You are trying to fabricate an argument about the many times debunked statement that the Civil War was somehow "not about slavery", on a tale of a guy who was as low in the ranks as you can hope to find.

    Oh, what a ridiculous argument. The concept that History is knowing names of places, dates, and things like that about when battles were fought is the fourth-grade level understanding of History.

    That was NOT why a Civil War was declared. A Civil War was declared because the South felt their plantation economy would be in danger if slavery was abolished.

    Otherwise, it's easy: show that this was even a major reason why the Civil War was fought. The type or argument "X thing happened, which was bad, therefore that was the reason for the war" is called a Post Hoc Fallacy.

    The reason was slavery among those who made the decision, and mostly white supremacy among those who fought it.

    No. It's your burden to prove that was a fundamental reason in the minds of ... anybody.... for fighting a Civil War. Start by explaining what specifically it is that created the war mentality in the south. And then how that specific act produced a declaration of war.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2020
  19. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There were people who, after the war, went back and claimed it wasn't about slavery. However, the primary documents we have leading up to secession prove that the primary cause of secession was slavery. That's why the South left. That's why they formed a new country. Slavery.

    The North and the South were both highly agrarian. Hell, the North produced more food crops than the South did.

    Horse ****. The South, BY THEIR OWN ACCOUNT, left over slavery. And what financial gain? The primary form of taxation at the time were tariffs . . . and the tariff in effect when the South seceded was one that was written by the South. The South had already won the tariff dispute, and the North was paying more in tariffs than the South was.

    None of the seceding states mentioned the above as a cause for secession. They did, however, repeatedly state that slavery was their primary concern in seceding.
     
  20. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In what way did the North (which, again, was also agrarian) exploit the natural resources of the South? Why did these states prefer to refer to themselves as the "slave states" rather than just calling themselves the "agrarian states"? Why do none of the primary sources from this time period mention this exploitation of natural resources? Hell, part of the reason the South would always get up in arms about tariffs is that they wanted the Northern states to buy MORE of their natural resources rather than buying the same resources from overseas.

    I don't know how this is possible, but this is actually even worse than most of your Holocaust denial arguments.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2020
  21. Gdawg007

    Gdawg007 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I feel like what you are saying almost makes sense...except it relies on ignorance and motivated reasoning to work.

    A flag is a symbol. The flag of the US represents something and may mean different things to different people, but it's a symbol of the country that's instantly recognized. Symbols are tied to values. And values are what make countries unique. The Confederate battle flag was tied to values. And those values included slavery based on race. So anyone displaying that flag, knowingly or not, is showing a symbol of those values.
     
  22. Grau

    Grau Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    9,035
    Likes Received:
    4,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Re:
    If you had listened to the entire recording, you would have heard the same Confederate Veteran describe life in post war South, the choices made by the "Negros" and and even more severe restrictions of states' rights which was one of the primary causes of the Civil War in the first place.

    Re:
    Again, you must not have listened to the entire recording because the Confederate Veteran made it clear that neither he nor his fellow soldiers were fighting for slavery. Toward the end of the recording, he stated emphatically that they were fighting for states' rights.

    Re:
    Are you kidding? People in the North including Lincoln, were just as concerned about preserving white supremacy as anyone in the South.

    "Lincoln’s Promotion of White Supremacy"

    EXCERPT "Lincoln was, indeed, a white supremacist. In his 1858 debate with Sen. Steven Douglas, Lincoln maintained, “And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” CONTINUED(1)

    Re:
    How many Southerners do you think owned plantations and how many Southerners owned slaves? According to one source (2), the percentage of all American families who owned slaves was 7.4%. That means that over 90% of Southern families did not own slaves and that slavery could not has been as much a factor in the cause of the Civil War as is commonly portrayed in school books and MSM.

    It is not my contention that slavery was not a factor as a cause for the Civil War but that slavery was just one of many causes for the American Civil War.


    (1)"Not the Great Emancipator: 10 Racist Quotes Abraham Lincoln Said About Black People"
    https://atlantablackstar.com/2015/0...s-quotes-abraham-lincoln-said-black-people/3/



    (2). https://www.politifact.com/factchec...viral-post-gets-it-wrong-extent-slavery-1860/
     
  23. Grau

    Grau Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    9,035
    Likes Received:
    4,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    It is not my contention that slavery was not a factor in the decision of the South to succeed from the Union but that it was only one of many factors that compelled the South to withdraw from a Federal government that was largely dominated by the more populous North.

    In other words, the Civil War would have occurred with or without the issue of slavery because of cultural / regional differences dating back to the English Civil War.

    Re:
    The operative term in your quote is "food crops". That excludes some of the primary agrarian products on which the South depended such as cotton, tobacco etc.
    That doesn't change the fact that the Southern economy was more agrarian, overall, while the North was more industrialized and relied more heavily on "wage slaves" & child labor.

    The South did not withdraw from the Union over the issue of slavery because slavery was already protected under the Corwin Amendment and Lincoln had already stated:

    “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

    Even though slave labor was on the way out and temporarily safe, the reasons that the South withdrew from the Union is because they had become two essentially different countries and cultures with the more populous North absorbing immigrants from foreign countries and gaining disproportionate influence in the Federal government. The South saw no future in remaining in a union in which it was becoming a second class region.
     
  24. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was the primary cause.

    Yet the only time it ever happened was when the primary issue was slavery.

    That's because all I was pointing out was the fact that the North was also agrarian.

    As opposed to actual slavery . . . and also child labor.

    Then why did they repeatedly claim that they did?

    The Corwin Amendment was not proposed until after states started seceding . . . and it never passed.

    This was what Lincoln said AFTER secession. Before secession, he made it clear that he hoped to see slavery go extinct. South Carolina quoted him saying this as part of their declaration of causes of secession.

    Lincoln never intended to simply issue a decree to outlaw slavery, which is what he is talking about here. He's being coy, and the South knew it and called him out on it.

    His plan was to stop the spread of slavery to any new territories or states and to use compensated emancipation (think a forced slave buy-back program) in the states and territories where it existed.

    Again, the South vehemently disagreed and repeatedly said so.

    Temporarily. The South saw it as ultimately threatened by Lincoln and his party. Again, we know this because they repeatedly said so.

    That's your version. According to the South at the time, in their own words, seceded over slavery. Why do you insist on rewriting history?
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2020
  25. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't recall saying that every paragraph ever written by any state of the CSA was about slavery. Can you quote me saying that? Shall I explain what a straw man is?
     

Share This Page