Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've seen the Confederate flag referred to here in the forum as the "Traitor Flag" or the "Racist Flag".
That is a characterization that fits 100% with history and reality. Anyone that argues differently is trying to wrap their bigotry in a false narrative of cultural pride.
You probably don’t know about this unless you’re from MN or VA, but a First Minnesota private captured a VA regimental battle flag while giving the rebs a proper ass kicking on day three at Gettysburg. VA has been trying to get it back ever since and despite presidential proclamations, acts of congress, and dozens of letter writing campaigns, MN has consistently told VA to stick it, the flag is ours.
Most people in MN probably don’t know or don’t care that much, but whenever the subject pops us, most people say that as long as the flag stands for what it does, it should remain locked in the vault at the MN History Center.
Sorry, perception is reality so southerners have a perception problem. Wonder why?
If you read all of the Articles of Secession for all of the Confederate states, you will find that the one recurring theme is the preservation of the rights of white men to own black human beings. As with all wars, this one was sold to the youth who would be fighting it as something entirely different than protecting the interests of the wealthy class.
The "elites" of the south were doing what the elites do everywhere, protecting their economic-interests. The economic-interests of the south were in the production and sale of cotton to Europe, especially England and France.
The preservation of slavery was absolutely necessary, but so were low tariffs, among other things. Which is why even when the Corwin Amendment was adopted, and even when Lincoln gave the south assurances, the south still insisted on secession. The Morrill Tariff was passed, which nearly tripled tariff rates.
We all know the economic reasons for why the southern elites wanted to secede. But what were the economic reasons for the northern elites to fight a war to "preserve the union"?
The south may be the bad guys, but does that make the north the good guys? Might it be true that both sides were the bad guys?
And the "secession ordinances" didn't only mention slavery...
"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 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. 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. These 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. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
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.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began."
Abraham Lincoln was called the "rail-candidate", because he was neither for or against slavery, but only opposed the "expansion" of slavery into the new territories of the west.
He wrote... "Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove FROM; not to remove TO. New free States are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition."
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-10-2019 at 11:05 AM..
No, feel free to fly your flag and be proud of your "southern" heritage and your "southern" ancestors who lost their lives in service of the Confederacy.
What you need to STOP DOING is simultaneously demonizing the "democrat" party for being the party of racism in 2019 in reference to the 1860s. Those guys were YOUR ancestors.
Either they were your 'honorable, courageous ancestors' or they were 'evil democrat racists' yet republicans in the south today want to have it both ways at the same time.
Most Republicans in the south aren't talking about the flag or own a flag. And you assume no Democrats own flags.
The south flipped to the GOP because of transplants so your talking point that the racist Democrats were our ancestors makes no sense.
If a white racist does vote GOP, it is not because the GOP platform is similar to the racist Democrat platform back in the day.
Liberal Democrats like you want to have it both ways....you say the confederate flag and monuments to dead racist Democrats like Tillman are racist, but you don't have any problem with your party still using the Democratic Party name.
No idea. But I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "proposed amendments". The only amendment that was seriously considered, and which made it through Congress was the Corwin amendment.
The reason why I'm interested in the proposed amendments is because they provide insight into the thoughviews of the people at that time. Those amendments & resolutions reviewed by the 36th Congress represented compromises designed to avert military conflict. The largest number of compromises were in regard to Slavery or to the future expansion of Slavery.
Who wanted a War?
Slavery was the 'sine qua non' reason why the Civil War between the Slaver States of the CSA & the United States of America was fought.
Please Note: sine qua non means "an indispensable & essential action, condition, or ingredient, originally a Latin legal term for "[a condition] without which it could not be", or "but for..." or "without which [there is] nothing.
Without slavery there is no war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Both president James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln supported the Corwin amendment. And Lincoln said repeatedly that he would never interfere with slavery where it already exists. So why did the south still insist on secession?
The Slaver States would not be appeased without the expansion of slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
That summary leaves out almost all of the important parts of the CSA Constitution.
No General Welfare Clause, state oversight of federal officials who operate in their states, a "line-item veto", a complete overhaul of the commerce clause and the prohibition of the government from promoting/subsidizing any industry, the federal government cannot tax for the sake of internal infrastructure except lighthouses and improvements to harbors/rivers, the post office must pay for itself, no more "omnibus spending bills" because all spending/laws must be one bill at a time, no more "discretionary" spending at all, only a single presidential term of six years, reference to "almighty god", non-citizens cannot vote in elections, and only three states are required to start a constitutional convention.
And somewhat-strangely, they made it far easier to amend the Constitution by reducing the required number of states from 3/4ths to 2/3rds.
This has been one of the best threads on CD. I am a 1st-gen born American and imo, the Confederate flag is a flag of terrorism and anti-Americanism. Nothing more, nothing less. History reads that way and reading the posts in this thread only solidifies my views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallydude02
You do seem that flag occasionally in parts of PA, NY, and OH. Even in the border states of WV and MD you see them as well. I dislike it as well, but up here, I believe it's more of a "I want less government" or "I don't want anyone telling me what do to" than with southern pride. In fact I had a neighbor in Canonsburg, PA who had one on his porch and I asked him why. He said he does it to **** people off (mainly liberals) and has nothing to do with sympathizing with the South. He made fun of the South too, which I found ironic in so many ways. I was so glad when I moved away from that neighborhood.
It is not simply about less government, even in the North. It is holding on to an immoral culture than promoted the disrespect for and inhumane treatment of others and not wanting the government to limit that in anyway. I lived in rural PA for a year. White racists would drive past our high school (predominantly black) flying their Confederate flags yelling n******!
Last edited by ReineDeCoeur; 02-10-2019 at 11:24 AM..
I am not here to speak for anyone but me, a life long Southerner. The flag does not represent me. it does not stand for what I stand for. When I see it, I see racism and white supremacy. I see uneducated folks repeating the tired, stale line of "hurritage, not hate." They talk about their ancestors who fought for a morally bankrupt cause. My take is if the only part of the population who likes that flag are white people, then maybe there's something wrong with wht the flag stands for.
When I see it flying now, it's never outside a really nice looking house with a well kept yard and a nice house. It typically flies on the grounds of a ramshackle house or single wide where there are more cars in the weeds in disrepair than there are in the driveway. It's never on the grounds of the best or the brightest. It's at the home of Bubba and Loretta with their five fat kids in tank tops. Judgmental of me? Maybe, but only from 49 years of seeing my fellow Southern white folks.
One guy who has some mutual Facebook friends as me has a rebel flag as his profile pic. But he also has a script at the bottom of it with "United we stand" written over an American flag. I messaged him once and simply wrote, "Oh, the irony." He wrote LOL back. I'm not sure he got what I meant. SMH Maybe he did
As a lifelong southerner myself, I couldn't agree more.
'Having it both ways' is illustrated by the unreasonable & nonsensical expectation that African Americans claim the Confederate flag as 'their own' while denying the war is fought to keep them enslaved.
Orwellian:
"War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength.”
who has claimed african americans should claim the confederate flag as their own.
I grew up in the south and I never heard that.
Which proves the OP's point. It was was never all Southerners...only white Southerners.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
