"Modern Day controversy in Dixie" Topic

link

It was on private property, so, yeah, they can fly the Confederate battle flag, if they want.

Doesn't make them any less idiotic.

The plain fact is, like it or not, that flag was appropriated by racist thugs and murderers decades ago. To pretend otherwise is specious at best.

There are many other Confederate flags that could be flown that carry far less negative baggage, such as the Bonnie Blue Flag, or they could design their own new flag that didn't incorporate the battle flag.

But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

Sadly we can't do much about idiocy on either side of the question.

Funny how the issue is never about the fact that the flag also stands for trying to break apart our Union. It is a flag of rebellion. The same people who will go out a cheer for this big Confederate flag will, on the Fourth of July, take pride in their great patriotism to the United States.

Sadly we can't do much about idiocy on either side of the question.

What exactly do you see as the other side?

Ah, the American version of the swastika, except for the fact that more American military personnel were killed by people under the stars and bars than under the swastika.
Notice anything about the ethnicity of the flag raisers in the photo?

Neojacobin,

True, especially when we are told, right here on TMP, that soooo many blacks fought for the Confederacy.

"Funny how the issue is never about the fact that the flag also stands for trying to break apart our Union. It is a flag of rebellion. The same people who will go out a cheer for this big Confederate flag will, on the Fourth of July, take pride in their great patriotism to the United States."

Well yea…we lost and reconciled ourselves to being part of the Union and defending it with every ounce of our being. Since the war ended the South has constantly provided a number of troops to the US military totally out of proportion to our size in the population.

It is very easy to reconcile being proud of one's southern past and being in love with America.

As for it being the American version of the swastika…what a load of garbage. The Confederacy didn't run extermination camps, it wasn't socialist, and it never represented a single political party.

Heritage not hate…

watch out boys this is dog house bait…

> The Confederacy didn't run extermination camps

The difference between those and running a plantation is a matter of degree, neither is something to be proud of.

Dn Jackson,

Appreciate what you wrote. But, wouldn't you admit that if one is proud of their Southern past ie "We weren't wrong for seceding and are proud of the Confederacy" that really then does not equal what you said "well yea…we lost." How can one be proud of trying to break up the Union and slavery as "heritage" when not being able to say what we fought for was wrong. That is my point. Yes, many Southerners have fought and died for their country, thus proving the love for their country, since then, so why can't many Southerners simply say that "The Cause" was wrong?

I feel the need to point out that the American flag is a flag born of rebellion and the clear intention to break away from the whole. Just ask our former countrymen across "the pond."

Interesting choice that they played Amazing Grace at their ceremony. Considering it was written by a reformed slave trader.

21eRegt,

True, but then Americans don't sit here and sing "God Save the Queen", waves the British flag or remember the "good times" before the Revolution.

True, though I've often thought that had I been alive then I would have been a Tory. And there were those forced to flee to Canada who continued to say "God Save the King/Queen" and longed for the lands they had been forced to leave (or make a to them morally unacceptable compromise). I'm just saying that like all countries we have our history of rebellion. Heck, the Whiskey Rebellion forced the call up of 13,000 militia just 10 years after the essential end of our only successful rebellion.

My view is simply that as a northerner I don't see the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of hate in it's original form and purpose. It has what has come since that has detracted and perverted the original symbol of rebellion. But perhaps you are correct that the two are now inseparable. Much like the Swastika that has been around for 3000 years but now is indelibly linked to a regime of genocide.

PC is all in the eyes of the beholder.

On this side of the Atlantic we are even more unfortunate – the flag of England, the cross of Saint George, has been appropriated by racist thugs, such as the British National Party…

There are many people here who are proud – or as I do, hope – that their ancestors fought for Parliament in the English Civil Wars (or The Great Rebellion as Clarendon called them) who have no problem being loyal to and supporting the country today, albeit ruled over by a monarchy. So I don't see anything odd about Southerners in the USA behaving similarly.

"> The Confederacy didn't run extermination camps

The difference between those and running a plantation is a matter of degree, neither is something to be proud of."

I beg to differ. In the 19th century we were transitioning to a modern world. Slavery was still accepted in the Western world at the beginning of the century:

Slavery was outlawed for Scottish coal miners in 1799
Spain outlawed it in 1811
Canada 1819
Greece 1822
Mexico 1824
British Empire in 1838
Sweden 1847
Hawaii 1852
Russia 1861 (serfs)
Dutch colonies 1863
United States 1865
Portugese colonies 1869
Puerto Rico 1873
Ottoman Empire 1882
Brazil 1885
Cuba 1886
Ethiopia 1942
China 1906
Iraq 1924
Qatar 1952
Tibet 1959
UAE 1963
Mauritania 1982

Slavery was not considered wrong by everyone in 1861, by some yes, by some no. By modern standards slavery is an evil that cannot be allowed, not everyone felt the same at the time.

However, no one anywhere in the 1940s thought rounding up Jews, Gypsies, mentally retarded people, Slavs, etc and killing them was acceptable.

There is a massive difference between them and to try and compare the south with Nazi Germany is laughable.

Inkaputa,
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. To most Southerners the Civil War wasn't about maintaining slavery, it was about defending their country. Remember, until the war the union was still considered a collection of sovereign states that agreed on common defense and a few other 'group projects'. Several states, Virginia included, had specifically written in that they retained the right to leave the Union when they ratified the Constitution.

The south was richer than the north, but kept seeing itself losing political power and money to the north. Slavery was the root cause of the war by making the two areas so different from each other, but loss of political power was the proximate cause.

Once they lost and reconciled themselves to the changes in the status quo, southerners became loyal Americans who love their country.

On this side of the Atlantic we are even more unfortunate – the flag of England, the cross of Saint George, has been appropriated by racist thugs,

And of course the Stars and Bars never were! Oh hang on, there was that bunch with the bedsheets over their heads what were they called again?

"The reason why we're here is to honor the soldier. We don't see it as a slavery issue."

Said the man in the article – That's probably because none of your antecedents were slaves, would be my response.

My apologies for painting the Confederate-Nazi analogy with too broad a brush. However, race hatred was fundamental to both systems, and it played out in a number of ways during the ACW. During Lee's second invasion of the North his army rounded up any free blacks they found and sent them south to enslavement and probale death. African-American soldiers captured by the Confederates were massacred on several occasions, and the rise of the Klan after the war was spurred by die-hards who refused to recognize the outcome of the war or the constitutional amendments that threatened the established social order in Dixie.
Every time I hear the loathsome euphemism "War of Northern Aggression" it conjures up the Dolchstoss legend that Hitler exploited so skillfully on his rise to power.

Great points, Dn Jackson.

Now, can we PLEASE nuke this one, Bill & Co.?

Agreed: this will never end well.

The race card being played on this earth in this current time by so many countrys is of a far greater concerne than them flying a historical flag as its original intent whether viewed as rite or wrong at this current time. None the less it is still of historical value as of any other historical symble, and to erase their very existence from are past due to political correctness is to erase are histories life lessons and are doomed to their repeat.

The civil war did not begin over the issue of slavery ie, the border states retained the rite to harbor the institution of slavery to stay in the union and the imancipation proclomation was only used after the battle of Antietam as a much needed political boost for the North. In my honest opinion the whole thing stunk from the get go when it was once writin as all men are created equal exept for (African) people in this country. This created a diversity in economic offsets that were intollerable to the industrial North who did not have free labor as the South.

"We are ready none the less"

"American version of the swastika", really? The term "nazi" is thrown around very loosely. I wonder if people really understand what the nazis did when they compare other groups they don't agree with to them.

DN Jackson is correct that slavery was not comdemed by everyone in the 19th Century (many places in Africa only outlawed it in the 20th Century).

To many people try to put 21st Century values when looking at 19th Century moral and social views. Foolish behavior.

If you want to compare slave owners in the 19th Century to 20th Century nazis, you should look to the Brazilians. The slaves in South America died in huge numbers due to disease. That is the closests you will find for comparision to death camps, not plantations in the American South.

I don't have any problem with people displaying the Confederate Battle Flag. The link of the flag to hate groups is because those groups stole the flag for thier own use. If people want to fly it for their heritage and ancestors, go ahead.

My ancestors wore blue (5 of them), 1 KIA, 1 POW.

Also, I've got Ameican Indian blood in me, should I be upset about seeing the Stars and Stripes? American Indians had a much higher death rate to Federal forces than Black slaves did on Southern Plantations.

Neojacobin – when you bring up the "ethnicity of the flag raisers" do you also notice the "ethnicity" at Nation of Islam rallies? Or do you give those groups a pass.

Your statement is to paint all those at that event as racists, with no facts to back up your views.

To blindly label that group in the same class as neo-nazi or klan hate groups is a childish reaction to an event you don't like. I remember several years ago that the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled Confederate Re-enactors as armed hate groups that need to be watched. Tolerence only for the things you support, everyone else is wrong.

It seems to beg the question, are we responsible for the "sins(?)" of our Fathers ? I'm really an outsider on this type of discussion, since my Grandparents came over from Europe(Italy). They did not land in "The New World" until the very late 1800s. So am I to blame for the very violent past of my far distant Roman ancestors ? Did I have ancestors who were in the Roman Legions or Senate … Or were they freed slaves … that were not born in Italy at all ? Unfortunately the unanswered questions and predilections from the ACW still lingers … and it appears will continue for some time …

It seems to beg the question, are we responsible for the "sins(?)" of our Fathers ?

Not at all. But the fact remains that the battle flag has been appropriated by racist thugs and murderers to this day. It's not like the sins associated with that flag ended in 1865.

And sins in quotation marks, with a question mark. Really? Setting aside whether slavery is considered a sin, I think murder still counts, whether in the name of slavery or, more recently, white supremacy.

No … the quotation marks and (?), were there to highlight the fact that the "sins" for some are not preceived as the "sins" of others … "Ah … there is the rub !" And no doubt save for very few parts of the world today, Slavery is concidered very BAD, whether you call it a "sin" or not … I'm sure the Eastern Europeans that run "White Slavery Sex rings" don't preceive or care if it is a "sin" … Most people know slavery in any or all forms is WRONG. Another case of Man's inhumanity to Man … So take that for what you personally believe it is worth …

I remember several years ago that the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled Confederate Re-enactors as armed hate groups that need to be watched.

Absolutely not true. I'm a member of the SPLC, and I know that they do not list Confederate reenactors as a hate group, armed or otherwise. Some Neo-Confederates, yes, but no reenactors.

Provide a citation, please.

Living in NE Ohio, I still find it somewhat interesting, that I see the Stars & Bars in the back window of some pick up trucks …

I agree that the Confederate Battle Flag has been appropriated by racist thugs and murderers. That might be the goal of this group to reclaim the flag, the arguement of "heritage not hate".

For an interesting story on murdering hate groups, a Black man in PA wore a KKK robe with the sign:

"The KKK KILLED 3,446 BLACKS IN 86 YEARS. BLACK ON BLACK MURDERS SURPASS THAT NUMBER EVERY 6 MONTHS."

Here's the link:
link

Which has exactly nothing to do with this discussion, unless I read between the lines of your post.

Yes, it's a tragedy, but it's not germane.

32,367 Americans died in traffic accidents in 2011, but that also has nothing to do with this discussion.

The article on the Confederate reenactors was in the Southern Poverty Law Centers magazine. Would have to have been 2007 or 2008 publication, as I remember reading it in my old work building, we moved in 2009.

I thought the article was very funny as the author described the Confederate reenactors as "armed un-reconstructed neo-confederate sympathizers". That was the term he used.

It reminded me of commie propaganda where political officers would describe the enemy as "counter revolutionary bourgeoisie, industrial capitalists and oppressors of the masses".

The author went on to say that Federal reenactors were OK, because they did not represent an organization that advocated for the overthrow of the government. He further stated that these groups fly the Confederate battle flag (I forget what he called it) and carried weapons.

He associated Confederate reenactors to racists hate groups. Giving the oppinion that they should be closely watched and prevented from being allowed to use public lands. Federal reenactors COULD use public lands.

I kept the magazine for awhile, because it was so funny to read how nervous this guy was over reenactors.

As for the other article, I mentioned it only as a reference to the racist thugs and murderers using the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of hate. When the KKK (carrying the Confederate flag or not) is mentioned everyone believes they are the biggest danger to the minority community. It deflects from addressing more pressing issues and dangers facing minority families.

Dn Jackson,

If I may, I would have to disagree with you. The facts don't support much of what you are arguing. Such as:

"Wasn't about maintaining slavery, it was about defending their country."
First, look at the Declaration of causes for Secession by the various states. Virtually every reason was based on slavery. The seven states that first seceded sent commissioners to the remaining eight slave states still in the Union. Their speechs and writings are available and they pushed race control, protection of slavery and fear of race mixing as reasons to secede.
You can find the letters of common soldiers and regimental newspapers from Southern units and they quite often speak of needed to defend slavery as an institution. I get tired of this old argument "Most southerners did not own slaves so it wasn't about slavery." First, the most recent stats show that up to 40-50% of all Southerners owned or benefitted from slavery. Second, just because certain whites in the South did not own slaves does that mean they believed in Abolition? Believed in race equality? Did not fear race mixing if slavery ended? Or would not have wanted to own slaves if they could have? I will never be a millionaire but I sure believe in capitalism.

Example: Kansas territory was open to be decided as being a slave state or free state. large numbers of Southerners came into Kansas for the land and to support expanding slavery. They had very few slaves, came as families and yet voted overwhelming to have Kansas become a slave state. Why if slavery meant nothing to them?

Also, I would question the idea of defending their homes. From what? The North had made no claims of how they were going to take their lands or wealth ect. They did not invade to loot and murder. The South left to protect slavery. Further let's remember it was the South that seceded, not the North, and it was the South that fired on Fort Sumter, not the North. Finally, what does say about the over 100,000 white male southerners from the states that seceded that fought for the Union? They did not want to defend their homes?

You stated, were a "collection of sovereignty states that agreed on common defense and a few other group projects." That is the premise of Calhoun's compact theory of government. A theory, not a absolute constitutional fact held by all. Daniel Webster gave an excellent debunking of this theory in the Hayne-Webster debate. Also, at the secession conventions for the lower south a number of delegates that did not favor seccession, including Howell Cobb, senator of Georgia, argued that this theory was wrong and impossible to implement.

"The South was richer than the North, but kept seeing itself losing political power and money to the North. Actually, this is the other way around. In agriculture the North outproduced the South in every area except in cotton and tobacco. Industrial output was solidly Northern as was the commercial trade. The North also outnumbered the South in population. Yet, the South controlled the government. They controlled the Supreme Court (5-4), the Senate and often the White House. They also were the dominate wing of the Democratic party so that even Northern Democratic presidents sympathized with the South. The South blocked a transcontinental railroad, a Homestead Act, and higher tariff, all popular issues in the North. Along with the possible expansion of slavery, this fact is what helped create the Republican Party. They would not bow to the South and would fight for Northern views. It was the North that was frustrated by Southern influence ie The Slave-Power Conspiracy.

Finally you note, "Southerners beame loyal Americans who love their country." If so, why don't Southerners then admit the truth. That the war was about slavery and the South seceded to protect that instution. I am fine if you want to say that many good men fought for a wrong cause, but if loyal, one should then state that secession was wrong, it was right that our country was not broken apart and it is good the war ended slavery.

I thought the article was very funny as the author described the Confederate reenactors as "armed un-reconstructed neo-confederate sympathizers". That was the term he used.

I'd like to know if they were reenactors, or if they were members of a Neo-Confederate group who were also reenactors. If the latter, I have no problem at all labeling them a hate group.

Regardless, that was the author's opinion. The SPLC as an organization hasn't labeled any group of reenactors as a hate group.

If I may refer to the ECW again, I don't think anyone here would demand that reenactors of Parliament's forces in that war, or anyone else whose ancestors fought for, or supported, Parliament's cause must, if they claim to be loyal citizens of Britain today, admit that Parliament's armed opposition to King Charles I was 'wrong'.

Situations change; many who feel it was right to take up arms against an absolutist monarch then, would not believe it right to take up arms against a democratically elected government, albeit one still headed by an hereditary monarch, today.

If one takes the view that rebellion against a lawful government is ipso facto always wrong, then it becomes rather difficult to justify the events of 1775 onwards, does it not?

Ironically, had the Colonies remained loyal to the British Crown, or had the Patriots been defeated in the war, slavery would have been abolished far sooner in North America, and with far less blooodshed!

It is, indeed, 'good that the war ended slavery' – but a pity that the morality of slavery that led the South to secede has clouded the issue as to whether secession per se was legitimate or not. If you declare that the Civil War decided that, you are simply saying that might is right…

Inkpaduta,
No offense, but you just Dowdafied my statement. You took a partial quote out of context to set up a straw man for your argument. What I said was, "To most Southerners the Civil War wasn't about maintaining slavery, it was about defending their country." Not what you wrote, "Wasn't about maintaining slavery, it was about defending their country."

This quote is a great example of 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics' "First, the most recent stats show that up to 40-50% of all Southerners owned or benefitted from slavery." I'd be willing to bet 40-50% of Northerners 'benefitted' from slavery as well since cotton was bought from the south and was grown with slave labor.

"Daniel Webster gave an excellent debunking of this theory in the Hayne-Webster debate." That's a great argument, except for the fact that several states, including Virginia, specifically reserved the right to leave the Union when they ratified the Constitution. I would say that the act of doing that pretty much means Webster was wrong.

Actually, the south was losing power through the early 19th century. In 1860 a Republican was elected president without appearing on a single southern state ballot. Being agricultural rather than industrial they were remaining rural and losing population while the north was becoming increasingly urban and thus gaining majority in the House of Representatives. The areas were slavery could expand and with it Southern influence were gone, the desert southwest would never support the system and would certainly become more like the north, so they would soon lose parity the Senate. Essentially by 1860 the south would have to do whatever the north wanted. They could not maintain control or equality within the government.

And yes, it is good we lost. Had we won the war it's not hard to imagine the 20th Century being very different than it was. With North America divded into multiple small republics what would have happened in Europe in WWI or WWII?

Dn,

I may not have quoted exactly what you said, however you still stated that a majority of Southerners felt it wasn't about slavery, thus my points are still valid.

I doubt very highly that 40-50% of Northerners owned slaves or benefited from slavery, you would to supply fact for that. However, that is beside the point. Northerners do not make the claim that the war was not about slavery.

Finally, you are mistaken on the Virginia Constitution. When sent to the states for ratification the Founding Fathers made its passing unconditional. No states could add or subtract from the document. Virginia did add the idea of secession as a suggestion for amendment. If they had ratified the Constitution with this condition as fact then it would have been invalid.

To further muddy the waters, I saw a blue flag with a white star in the middle flying on a pole in front of one of my neighbor's houses. That too was a rebel flag during the ACW … again … I live in NE Ohio … interesting …

My unit uses the Hardee's Corps flag for the most part.