NationStates Jolt Archive

That's the name of this piece currently installed in the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science in Tallahassee, FL.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_FJIwg2jbUP4/Rf8e2pKObeI/AAAAAAAAAEY/jr1ZXAIpLNo/s320/Confederate%2BRag.jpg

I agree with it completely, even though it will no doubt offend many of my fellow southerners. Pride in any flag is questionable, since most nations have committed vast numbers of atrocities over time, but that flag doesn't have a single decent memory attached to it. It stands for slavery, for bigotry, for treason and hatred and the symbolism here is apt. The penalty for treason is death, and it's about time we southerners carried it out on the idea that our history is glorious. It's not.

I agree with it completely, even though it will no doubt offend many of my fellow southerners.
Meh.

Light in on fire? If not, I'm out of ideas.

That's the name of this piece currently installed in the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science in Tallahassee, FL.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_FJIwg2jbUP4/Rf8e2pKObeI/AAAAAAAAAEY/jr1ZXAIpLNo/s320/Confederate%2BRag.jpg

I agree with it completely, even though it will no doubt offend many of my fellow southerners. Pride in any flag is questionable, since most nations have committed vast numbers of atrocities over time, but that flag doesn't have a single decent memory attached to it. It stands for slavery, for bigotry, for treason and hatred and the symbolism here is apt. The penalty for treason is death, and it's about time we southerners carried it out on the idea that our history is glorious. It's not.
Okay...look...I agree with you...except about the treason part, but that's only because
1. I don't believe there really is such a thing as treason except with government and military officials. With civilians it doesn't make sense.
2. The death penalty should never be used. It's just as barbaric as the Confederacy.

Hell...even though I agree with you I'm finding the display somewhat disgusting...damn my ability to be sympathetic towards everyone!

I don't think it originally stood for bigotry but now... It is impossible to get the historical stains on the confederate flag out, even with OxiClean.

I don't think it originally stood for bigotry but now... It is impossible to get the historical stains on the confederate flag out, even with OxiClean.

That's a claim I've heard all my life, and I just don't buy it anymore. Bigotry was always a tenet of the Confederacy, no matter how you slice it. Slavery may not have been the sole cause of the Civil War, and it may not have even been the primary cause, but it was a cause, and to deny that is to deny fact. You don't have slavery without bigotry, without the belief that you are better than someone else and therefore deserve the power you have over them and have the right to treat them like shit as a result.

Technically speaking, isn't that he battle flag and not the flag of the Confederacy?

Technically speaking, isn't that he battle flag and not the flag of the Confederacy?

Yes, but 90% of the people who see the flag don't know the difference. It's popularly known as the Confederate flag.

That's the name of this piece currently installed in the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science in Tallahassee, FL.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_FJIwg2jbUP4/Rf8e2pKObeI/AAAAAAAAAEY/jr1ZXAIpLNo/s320/Confederate%2BRag.jpg

I agree with it completely, even though it will no doubt offend many of my fellow southerners. Pride in any flag is questionable, since most nations have committed vast numbers of atrocities over time, but that flag doesn't have a single decent memory attached to it. It stands for slavery, for bigotry, for treason and hatred and the symbolism here is apt. The penalty for treason is death, and it's about time we southerners carried it out on the idea that our history is glorious. It's not.
It certainly commands a highly visible section of the museum? Perhaps the museum is also making a political statement?

Although I am not an advocate of the death penalty, in regards to this flag, I will make an exception. :D

Yes, but 90% of the people who see the flag don't know the difference. It's popularly known as the Confederate flag.

...if that's not the real Confederate flag, what is?

...if that's not the real Confederate flag, what is?

Good luck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_flag#First_national_flag_.28.22the_Stars_and_Bars.22.29) keeping all that straight in your head.

Meh^2

Yes, but 90% of the people who see the flag don't know the difference. It's popularly known as the Confederate flag.
Figured I might as well get it out of the way before the whole thread is sidetracked on the issue. :D

Figured I might as well get it out of the way before the whole thread is sidetracked on the issue. :D
And for that, I thank you. *nods*

Good luck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_flag#First_national_flag_.28.22the_Stars_and_Bars.22.29) keeping all that straight in your head.

Oh, I see now. Actually that's very easy to understand. I can see why the battle flag was eventually adopted as the "real" flag of the Confederacy, given the same stars and bars image was on two of the three national flags and is the most easily identifiable symbol of the Confederacy. A twisted version of our own flag, if you will.
Thank you for the information, by the way.

I haven't been able to see the US Civil War in black and white (Or blue and gray) for many years now. In my youth, I was decidedly "teh confederates are teh ebil!1" but civil war is always something that will mean more in the country in which it occurred than any other.

There is not a crime of bigotry the south committed that the north was innocent of, and the cruelty and crime that accompanied the souths re-entry into the union left scars that still manifest today.

The foot-soldiers of the confederacy (probably less than 1 in 100 had ever owned a slave) fought because an army formed of a region that had been politically and economically exploiting them for years- just as their rich had done to the slaves- was now marching across their land seizing anything it thought its soldiers deserved..

I think that would make everyone from the Great state of Mississippi very angry.

It's the battle flag too... the real flag of the Confederacy was this (http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/cons/features/0200_02/csa.gif).

I agree with it completely, even though it will no doubt offend many of my fellow southerners. Pride in any flag is questionable, since most nations have committed vast numbers of atrocities over time,

Actualy the reason pride in a flag is questionable is that a flag is a piece of cloth. No matter how great the group the flag represents it remains cloth, incapable of doing anything worthy of either pride or derision. That said the flag one chooses to fly can say a lot about the individual flying it.

Actualy the reason pride in a flag is questionable is that a flag is a piece of cloth. No matter how great the group the flag represents it remains cloth, incapable of doing anything worthy of either pride or derision. That said the flag one chooses to fly can say a lot about the individual flying it.

It's never pride in the flag itself, really. It's more a case of the flag representing the ideals the person believes in, and thus when a person insults or harms the flag they see it as an insult and/or harm towards the ideals.

That said, some people do get overly attached to flags. Me, I don't. I just like the designs of some flags, though I really don't like any of the Confederate designs.

Flag of treason, racism and slavery.

There is not a crime of bigotry the south committed that the north was innocent of, and the cruelty and crime that accompanied the souths re-entry into the union left scars that still manifest today.

It's important to note that I'm not talking about the north at all in this thread--their relationship with African-Americans pre and post-Civil War is irrelevant to this debate as far as I'm concerned, because their bigotry doesn't excuse that of southerners. My concern, as a southerner, is that we as a culture have refused to come to terms with what our past stands for, and a large percentage still glorifies what is decidedly not worth glorification.

It's important to note that I'm not talking about the north at all in this thread--their relationship with African-Americans pre and post-Civil War is irrelevant to this debate as far as I'm concerned, because their bigotry doesn't excuse that of southerners. My concern, as a southerner, is that we as a culture have refused to come to terms with what our past stands for, and a large percentage still glorifies what is decidedly not worth glorification.

Aye. All too often I see southerners proudly wearing a Confederate flag button or placing a Confederate flag bumper sticker on their car or truck while loudly complaining about evil traiterous liberals, completely unaware of their own massive hypocrisy. It's disgusting and ridiculous.

Of course, you do have the occasional black supporter of a Confederate flag. I'm pretty sure there's a famous one who parades around his town every day carrying one. I don't understand how he could accept it though.

As long as they don't desecrate this car (http://www.amazon.com/Dodge-Charger-General-diecast-Hazzard/dp/B0009VIQX8), I could care less what they do with that flag.

Aye. All too often I see southerners proudly wearing a Confederate flag button or placing a Confederate flag bumper sticker on their car or truck while loudly complaining about evil traiterous liberals, completely unaware of their own massive hypocrisy. It's disgusting and ridiculous.

Of course, you do have the occasional black supporter of a Confederate flag. I'm pretty sure there's a famous one who parades around his town every day carrying one. I don't understand how he could accept it though.

It seems there's always an Uncle Ruckus (http://youtube.com/watch?v=tYsDXfY2RZU) around.

It seems there's always an Uncle Ruckus (http://youtube.com/watch?v=tYsDXfY2RZU) around.

I'm not talking about a self-hating black man, though. I'm talking about a supporter of the Confederacy who happens to be black. He doesn't hate himself. He just loves the Confederacy.

It's really a shame that the Confederate Flag was become demonized and become associated with racism and slavery. Despite those things, the Confederacy moreover stood for state rights and autonomy of constituent units, which is a relevant issue to this day.

Of course, you do have the occasional black supporter of a Confederate flag. I'm pretty sure there's a famous one who parades around his town every day carrying one. I don't understand how he could accept it though.

Blacks were being armed to fight for the Confederacy (of their own accord) as the war was ending, and arming slaves in exchange for freedom was proposed by Gen. Patrick Cleburne as early as 1863.

I'm not talking about a self-hating black man, though. I'm talking about a supporter of the Confederacy who happens to be black. He doesn't hate himself. He just loves the Confederacy.

I guess he might support other aspects of the flag and doesn't really care about the slavery aspect?

It's really a shame that the Confederate Flag was become demonized and become associated with racism and slavery. Despite those things, the Confederacy moreover stood for state rights and autonomy of constituent units, which is a relevant issue to this day.

That's my point--there's no demonizing of that flag. It was associated with racism and slavery from day one. What's wrong is to deny that association. It's inaccurate, and it does the people who venerate that flag no favors, because it allows them to escape the consequences of their past. We can't learn from history if we refuse to face the ugliness of it.

Blacks were being armed to fight for the Confederacy (of their own accord) as the war was ending, and arming slaves in exchange for freedom was proposed by Gen. Patrick Cleburne as early as 1863.

I'm fully aware of that. I just still don't understand how they can support the idea of the Confederacy when it was founded on racism and slavery. That was, after all, the main reason they seceded, so they could keep using slaves.

Vetalia: It's possible...I don't know. I think we need to hear his side of the this tale, really. Too bad he doesn't know about NationStates, eh?

That's my point--there's no demonizing of that flag. It was associated with racism and slavery from day one. What's wrong is to deny that association. It's inaccurate, and it does the people who venerate that flag no favors, because it allows them to escape the consequences of their past. We can't learn from history if we refuse to face the ugliness of it.

But isn't it also true that the North was almost equally as supportive and complicit towards the slave trade as the South?

That's my point--there's no demonizing of that flag. It was associated with racism and slavery from day one. What's wrong is to deny that association. It's inaccurate, and it does the people who venerate that flag no favors, because it allows them to escape the consequences of their past. We can't learn from history if we refuse to face the ugliness of it.

I am not denying the racist, element, but I think looking at the flag states rights and independence from a federal/central government are the most accurate associations, I mean it's not like it's swastika to a Jew or anything that bad. I feel the opposite in that those who demonize the flag are trying to draw attention from the real causation of the civil war, and the states rights issue that arose from it. Plus if we take your logic that Union flag could be associated with alot of ugly, nasty deeds since it's formation.

I'm fully aware of that. I just still don't understand how they can support the idea of the Confederacy when it was founded on racism and slavery. That was, after all, the main reason they seceded, so they could keep using slaves.


I asked my History professor that when we broached the subject a few weeks ago. Evidently, slaves, even in their political situation, had loyalty to their State, so much so that they would fight for it.

Probably very similar to the common Confederate soldier.

But isn't it also true that the North was almost equally as supportive and complicit towards the slave trade as the South?

The North has their own issues to deal with. This is a peculiarly southern tradition, and as someone who has lived all but 2 of his 38 years in the deep south, it's one that means a lot to me because I've seen what I believe are the long term effects of not facing up to our history honestly.

But isn't it also true that the North was almost equally as supportive and complicit towards the slave trade as the South?

No. The North become less and less fond of using slaves as industrialization wore on, since industrialized factories were more efficient than slave labour. That's why abolitionists began gathering so much strength in politics in the North, and why the South figured Lincoln would support the abolitionists.

South Island: Aye...it could be a case of being too close to the situation to not recognize it for what it truly is. I know that feeling all too well with personal relationships, so I could see that happening with slaves who fought for the Confederacy.

As long as they don't desecrate this car (http://www.amazon.com/Dodge-Charger-General-diecast-Hazzard/dp/B0009VIQX8), I could care less what they do with that flag.

Deal!




...well that was easy. :p

I am not denying the racist, element, but I think looking at the flag states rights and independence from a federal/central government are the most accurate associations, I mean it's not like it's swastika to a Jew or anything that bad. I feel the opposite in that those who demonize the flag are trying to draw attention from the real causation of the civil war, and the states rights issue that arose from it. Plus if we take your logic that Union flag could be associated with alot of ugly, nasty deeds since it's formation.

The union flag certainly does have its bad associations, but you're really overstating the case in defense of the flag here, simply because the states rights argument is inextricably tied up with slavery and racism. The difference between the flag of the US as a whole and the flags of the Confederacy is that I can point to good things done under the US flag--space exploration, the fighting with the Allies in the two World Wars, etc. I can't do the same for the Confederate Flag. I can't point to a single good that that flag stood for, either in its original incarnation or in the way it was resurrected in the 40s and 50s. You can't bring up that flag without racism being a prominent part of it, and to many black people, it is just as offensive as a swastika is to a Jew.

But isn't it also true that the North was almost equally as supportive and complicit towards the slave trade as the South?
Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri all stayed in the union and all had legal slavery until the thirteenth amendment.

Still, fuck the Confederate flag.

Setting aside racism for a moment;

Why do so many people worship losers? Between the Confederacy or the Nazis, I don't know who crashed and burned the hardest. What fascinates the fans of these two historical skidmarks so?

I just don't get it. :confused:

Setting aside racism for a moment;

Why do so many people worship losers? Between the Confederacy or the Nazis, I don't know who crashed and burned the hardest. What fascinates the fans of these two historical skidmarks so?

I just don't get it. :confused:

Kevin Phillips, in American Theocracy traces the roots of the lost cause back to the evangelical churches at the time. There was a change in the dogma from "god is on our side" before the war to "god is punishing us for our lack of faith" after the war. It's a neat trick, because the church has an answer for you no matter what happens, and it helps you feel like less of a loser, since it wasn't the union that beat you, but God.

For the Nazis, I got nothing. I think they're just retarded.

Between the Confederacy or the Nazis, I don't know who crashed and burned the hardest.
That would be the Nazis.

Setting aside racism for a moment;

Why do so many people worship losers? Between the Confederacy or the Nazis, I don't know who crashed and burned the hardest. What fascinates the fans of these two historical skidmarks so?

I just don't get it. :confused:

It's because many southerners, due to their genetic inferiority, believe that they were fighting the good fight for freedom and self-determination. They fought on their feet, while those "damn yankees" dug holes and shot at them with rifles. Recall the charge of the 13th Mississippi at Stones River, when the regiment charged a strong, dug in Federal position with a handful of old flintlock smoothbores (which didn't work because of rain during the previous night) and sticks.

They don't worship the fact they lost, the worship how they fought.

What fascinates the fans of these two historical skidmarks so?

You can't set racism aside, though. It's the sharing of similar ideals and prejudices that attracts people to such "skidmarks," the vast majority of the time. Can't come right out and say you don't like non-whites, and wish things could go back to when Bubba was King? Sport a confederate flag and talk about states rights. Actually proud of your prejudices and don't care who knows it? Sport the swastika. It's a way for the hateful and ignorant to feel like they belong.

But who would want to belong to a club that would have people like that as a member, I would ask.

It's because many southerners, due to their genetic inferiority, believe that they were fighting the good fight for freedom and self-determination. They fought on their feet, while those "damn yankees" dug holes and shot at them with rifles. Recall the charge of the 13th Mississippi at Stones River, when the regiment charged a strong, dug in Federal position with a handful of old flintlock smoothbores and sticks.

They don't worship the fact they lost, the worship how they fought.

Wait, what? Genetic inferiority? What is that supposed to mean?

Is anyone else finding it ironic that they're hanging the flag? You know, like how it's being lynched?

*cough*

Wait, what? Genetic inferiority? What is that supposed to mean?
I don't know, but I take a bit of offense at it as well.

Wait, what? Genetic inferiority? What is that supposed to mean?

I think his post was supposed to be ironic, i.e. making fun of those that disparage the south. You know, because the confederacy was completely righteous.

Is anyone else finding it ironic that they're hanging the flag? You know, like how it's being lynched?

*cough*

Ummm. That's kind of the point of the whole piece, Captain Obvious. :p

Wait, what? Genetic inferiority? What is that supposed to mean?

According to 2 prominant historians (one of which, ironically, started the "lost cause" movement), the reason the South lost the war was because of inferior Celtic genetic stock. The same ones that fought the English in the middle ages in one big charge, with no regard for tactics. They were oftentimes beaten, but they never thought there was something wrong with their tactics. They always thought that the enemy didn't fight honorably. The Southerners thought (and think today) that had the yankees fought like men instead of hiding in holes with rifles, they would have won.

Is anyone else finding it ironic that they're hanging the flag? You know, like how it's being lynched?

*cough*

It'd be hanging off of a tree if it was a lynching. The hanging post shows it is not a vigilante hanging but one instituted by the ones in authority. That doesn't necessarily make it any more correct, but your impression is mistaken.

Do you support the Confederacy, by the way? I'm curious because I think I've seen you post in favour of it before.

According to 2 prominant historians (one of which, ironically, started the "lost cause" movement), the reason the South lost the war was because of inferior Celtic genetic stock. The same ones that fought the English in the middle ages in one big charge, with no regard for tactics. They were oftentimes beaten, but they never thought there was something wrong with their tactics. They always thought that the enemy didn't fight honorably. The Southerners thought (and think today) that had the yankees fought like men instead of hiding in holes with rifles, they would have won.

...that...sounds...like bullshit. As far as I know the genetic stock of both southern whites and northern whites was pretty well mixed. A sense of honour has nothing to do with genetics so much as it has to do with culture. Typically the more uniform the culture the more a sense of a specific type of honour develops. Note Japan, for instance.

It's really a shame that the Confederate Flag was become demonized and become associated with racism and slavery. Despite those things, the Confederacy moreover stood for state rights and autonomy of constituent units, which is a relevant issue to this day.

It still involved Slavery and racism.

I have a cousin by the name of Cornelia Peake McDonald who wrote a diary that is still published today. One thing I remember is that she wrote her husband Angus McDonald III and friends were discussing the fact that they would be able to get the slave trade going again.

Racism was still a factor. The average soldier may have not owned slaves but he was not exactly keen on the idea of blacks being equal. There are even recorded acts of racism in the army. Nathanial Bedford Forest once executed a free black man for being caught with the union forces. One of his captains wrote to Lee demanding a transfer over what he called an unjust act. Quarter was not really given to black regiments. Even at the battle of crater white union troops turned their weapons on fellow black soldiers out fear of what the confederates would do to them after being caught with them.

The flag is a symbol of racism.....

It'd be hanging off of a tree if it was a lynching. The hanging post shows it is not a vigilante hanging but one instituted by the ones in authority. That doesn't necessarily make it any more correct, but your impression is mistaken.

Do you support the Confederacy, by the way? I'm curious because I think I've seen you post in favour of it before.

While I do not agree with slavery and I don't believe that one person is better than another simply because of skin color, or sex. However, I don't believe that the Civil War was all about slavery. The Civil War was about states right, and the power that the federal government has over state government. It was basically a federal government vs. state government war. I do support state government more than I support the federal government, mainly because the state government has more bearing on my day to day life than the federal government does. So that's where I stand on this issues.

Would the confederacy be guilty of treason if they had won?

This should only be acceptable if I can go around waving my confederate flag whenever I want.

In my opinion, when someone condones only one extreme view of a certain act/idea/etc, without allowing any room for argument for the other extreme, it's called "brainwashing." Especially when displayed to youth as the 'right' way.

No, I'm not condoning slavery or anything. I'm endorsing freedom and free-thinking.

Is anyone else finding it ironic that they're hanging the flag? You know, like how it's being lynched?

*cough*

Congratulations. You've just earned that pic a place on my hard drive.

...that...sounds...like bullshit. As far as I know the genetic stock of both southern whites and northern whites was pretty well mixed. A sense of honour has nothing to do with genetics so much as it has to do with culture. Typically the more uniform the culture the more a sense of a specific type of honour develops. Note Japan, for instance.

Not as much as you would think at this stage. The Southerners were mostly of Celtic origin, but the North was of mostly English ancestry. And since oral traditions were still very strong in the South, it was very easy to indoctrinate the next generation of Celts with the stories of valiant charges against the vile, cowardly English, where Celtic valor and skill carried the field.

It still involved Slavery and racism.

I have a cousin by the name of Cornelia Peake McDonald who wrote a diary that is still published today. One thing I remember is that she wrote her husband Angus McDonald III and friends were discussing the fact that they would be able to get the slave trade going again.

Racism was still a factor. The average soldier may have not owned slaves but he was not exactly keen on the idea of blacks being equal. There are even recorded acts of racism in the army. Nathanial Bedford Forest once executed a free black man for being caught with the union forces. One of his captains wrote to Lee demanding a transfer over what he called an unjust act. Quarter was not really given to black regiments. Even at the battle of crater white union troops turned their weapons on fellow black soldiers out fear of what the confederates would do to them after being caught with them.

The flag is a symbol of racism.....

There is something you have to understand about the life in the South pre-Civil War, Civil War, and post Civil War. You have three groups of people in the South, the blacks, rich white, and poor whites. Now the rich white is the one that owns the slaves, and after the Civil War, passes legislation like Jim Crow. The reason that the poor whites didn't want blacks to be free, and even after they were freed, oppressed, was because well, blacks are competition. The poor whites hated the competition, and they saw blacks as a threat to their jobs. So they make a deal with the rich white to keep them as slaves, and then during the Jim Crow period, to oppressed them so they wouldn't be as big of a threat. Of course the rich white was also making back door deals to the blacks as well, whatever put more money into his wallet, he'd do it.

There's a reason the Civil War was referred to as the rich's man war.

While I do not agree with slavery and I don't believe that one person is better than another simply because of skin color, or sex. However, I don't believe that the Civil War was all about slavery. The Civil War was about states right, and the power that the federal government has over state government. It was basically a federal government vs. state government war. I do support state government more than I support the federal government, mainly because the state government has more bearing on my day to day life than the federal government does. So that's where I stand on this issues.

Fair enough.

Black Forrest: You have to understand the mental mindset at the time, though. People just didn't see blacks as human then. It's stupid, as we know, but they didn't know any better. They didn't have the science we do to prove it. They didn't have the cultural upbringing that results in tolorance that we do. It's sad, but that was the mindset then. We can't hate them for it. If anything, we should pity them.

Congratulations. You've just earned that pic a place on my hard drive.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? :confused:

But isn't it also true that the North was almost equally as supportive and complicit towards the slave trade as the South?

No. One of the things that pissed the Southern states off was the fact the North was making an effort to block slavery from new territories.

Open importation of slaves was banned in 1808.

While I do not agree with slavery and I don't believe that one person is better than another simply because of skin color, or sex. However, I don't believe that the Civil War was all about slavery. The Civil War was about states right, and the power that the federal government has over state government. It was basically a federal government vs. state government war. I do support state government more than I support the federal government, mainly because the state government has more bearing on my day to day life than the federal government does. So that's where I stand on this issues.

The Civil War doesn't have to be all about slavery in order for the flag to be a symbol of racism, and that's the real topic of this thread.

And frankly, the states rights argument is a cop-out, because the primary right the states wanted to keep was the right to own slaves. You can try to expand that out to a larger philosophical point if you wish, but at least be honest about where the argument originated. States rights was inextricably linked to slavery.

Setting aside racism for a moment;

Why do so many people worship losers?



I think it's an "underdog" thing.

Between the Confederacy or the Nazis, I don't know who crashed and burned the hardest. What fascinates the fans of these two historical skidmarks so?

I just don't get it. :confused:

The Nazis burned the hardest.

I don't think you find many Germans openly hailing that past.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

-Abraham Lincoln

Interesting letter Lincoln wrote about slavery. The true idea. The civil war wasn't 'about' slavery, it was about power. The north won, so their ideas won with them.

The Civil War doesn't have to be all about slavery in order for the flag to be a symbol of racism, and that's the real topic of this thread.

And frankly, the states rights argument is a cop-out, because the primary right the states wanted to keep was the right to own slaves. You can try to expand that out to a larger philosophical point if you wish, but at least be honest about where the argument originated. States rights was inextricably linked to slavery.

Fair enough, and you know, if this was happening today, while I wouldn't support the practice of slavery, I would support the states rights to allow slavery. I'd just move to a state that bans slavery. That's why I support taking much of the power that the federal government has, and distributing it to the states. Every state is run differently, and if they were given more power, that would become more obvious, if you don't like how one state run things, then find another state that is more suited for your taste. :)

There is something you have to understand about the life in the South pre-Civil War, Civil War, and post Civil War. You have three groups of people in the South, the blacks, rich white, and poor whites. Now the rich white is the one that owns the slaves, and after the Civil War, passes legislation like Jim Crow. The reason that the poor whites didn't want blacks to be free, and even after they were freed, oppressed, was because well, blacks are competition. The poor whites hated the competition, and they saw blacks as a threat to their jobs. So they make a deal with the rich white to keep them as slaves, and then during the Jim Crow period, to oppressed them so they wouldn't be as big of a threat. Of course the rich white was also making back door deals to the blacks as well, whatever put more money into his wallet, he'd do it.

There's a reason the Civil War was referred to as the rich's man war.
But that doesn't excuse racism, and it really doesn't excuse the continued glorification of a racist symbol. If anything, that's an argument to put the flag in its proper place--the dustbin of history.

The Civil War doesn't have to be all about slavery in order for the flag to be a symbol of racism, and that's the real topic of this thread.

And frankly, the states rights argument is a cop-out, because the primary right the states wanted to keep was the right to own slaves. You can try to expand that out to a larger philosophical point if you wish, but at least be honest about where the argument originated. States rights was inextricably linked to slavery.

The origin of a subject has no bearing on its legitimacy. I'd provide an example but one is not coming to mind at the moment.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? :confused:
Yes.

But that doesn't excuse racism, and it really doesn't excuse the continued glorification of a racist symbol. If anything, that's an argument to put the flag in its proper place--the dustbin of history.

I never said it excused racism.

Yes.

Soo...which one is it?

This is the guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grady_McWhiney) that proposed the "Celtic Thesis" that I referenced earlier. If you read Attack and Die, he actually puts forward a pretty convincing argument.

It's because many southerners, due to their genetic inferiority, ....

What?

Was Washington genetically inferior? What about Jefferson?

You probably have that genetic inferiority in you.

I know I have that genetic inferiority as part of my family is from Fairfax County Virginia.

Soo...which one is it?
http://www.poolandspa.com/catalog/images/hippy.jpg

http://www.poolandspa.com/catalog/images/hippy.jpg

Fucking hippy ducks. Ruining this country.

According to 2 prominant historians (one of which, ironically, started the "lost cause" movement), the reason the South lost the war was because of inferior Celtic genetic stock. The same ones that fought the English in the middle ages in one big charge, with no regard for tactics. They were oftentimes beaten, but they never thought there was something wrong with their tactics. They always thought that the enemy didn't fight honorably. The Southerners thought (and think today) that had the yankees fought like men instead of hiding in holes with rifles, they would have won.

Care to name those "prominent" historians?

The fact the industrial North didn't already have an advantage of the agrarian South?

The argument of being Celtic is crap. How many Irish fought for the North? Some of England's most famous regiments were from the Highlands....

What?

Was Washington genetically inferior? What about Jefferson?

You probably have that genetic inferiority in you.

I know I have that genetic inferiority as part of my family is from Fairfax County Virginia.


McWhiney and Forrest McDonald were the authors of the "Celtic Thesis," which holds that most Southerners were of Celtic ancestry (as opposed to Anglo-Saxon), and that all groups he declared to be "Celtic" (Scots-Irish, Scottish, Welsh and others) were descended from warlike herdsmen, in contrast to the peaceful farmers who predominated in England. They traced numerous ways in which the Celtic culture shaped social, economic and military behavior. For example, they demonstrated that livestock raising (especially of cattle and hogs) developed a more individualistic, militant society than tilling the soil.

Attack and Die stressed the ferocity of the Celtic warrior tradition. In "Continuity in Celtic Warfare." (1981) McWhiney argues that an analysis of Celtic warfare from 225 BC to 1865 demonstrates cultural continuity. The Celts repeatedly took high risks that invariably resulted in lost battles and lost wars. Celts were not self-disciplined, patient, or tenacious. They fought boldly but recklessly in the battles of Telamon (225 BC), Culloden (1746) and Gettysburg (1863). In fact, the South lost the Civil War because Southerners fought like their Celtic ancestors, who were intensely loyal to their leaders but lacked efficiency, perseverance, and foresight.

In 1993 he argued the fundamental differences between North and South developed during the 18th century, when Celtic migrants first settled in the Old South. Some of the fundamental attributes that caused the Old South to adopt anti-English values and practices were Celtic social organization, language, and means of livelihood. It was the Celtic values and traditions that set the agrarian South apart from the industrialized civilization developing in the North.


Again, his book is pretty convincing. But, I am no expert. I am simply a curious mind.

What did the Confederate Navy do to you?

Honestly. It was a relativly inoffensive body.

Seriously though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Flag

Care to name those "prominent" historians?

The fact the industrial North didn't already have an advantage of the agrarian South?

The argument of being Celtic is crap. How many Irish fought for the North? Some of England's most famous regiments were from the Highlands....

At this time in US history, the big migrations hadn't started yet. The nation was still pretty much divided in the same genetic lines that they had been originally settled in the 18th and 19th centuries.

What did the Confederate Navy do to you?

Honestly. It was a relativly inoffensive body.
Didn't they sink merchant vessels?

What did the Confederate Navy do to you?

Honestly. It was a relativly inoffensive body.

Seriously though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Flag
Already acknowledged and pointed out. As far as I'm concerned, since the symbol was used in several of the national flags and is the commonly known symbol of the Confederacy, it works.

Didn't they sink merchant vessels?

CSS Tallahassee sunk mah schooner. :mad:

Didn't they sink merchant vessels?
I think it mostly WAS merchant vessels.
In any case, it was all right to sink merchants back in the 1860's. Everybody was doing it ;)

Already acknowledged and pointed out. As far as I'm concerned, since the symbol was used in several of the national flags and is the commonly known symbol of the Confederacy, it works.
So...why dont you just laugh at people who fly the naval jack, for displaying their own obvious lack of historical knowledge?
Hell, you could even politely correct them, inform them of their error, and proceede to explain to them the correct 'Confedereate' flag.
Or just laugh in their faces. Either one.

Again, his book is pretty convincing. But, I am no expert. I am simply a curious mind.

I will add the book to the list. However, it's still pretty lame argument. For example Nathanial Bedford Forest and his guys didn't exactly take to the highland charge.

Artillery of the time would have devastated the highland charge.

What about the fact trench warfare was introduced and used frequently by James Longstreet?

Sounds pretty wanky but I will read the book so I can bash it legitimately. :)

So...why dont you just laugh at people who fly the naval jack, for displaying their own obvious lack of historical knowledge?
Hell, you could even politely correct them, inform them of their error, and proceede to explain to them the correct 'Confedereate' flag.
Or just laugh in their faces. Either one.

Usually it's enough to just point out their blatent hypocrisy when they cry about traiterous liberals, but I suppose this would be a nice added bonus method of sorts...I think I will use it.

Usually it's enough to just point out their blatent hypocrisy when they cry about traiterous liberals, but I suppose this would be a nice added bonus method of sorts...I think I will use it.

There you go, then. A little intellectual elitism and all your problems just float away :p

The average soldier may have not owned slaves but he was not exactly keen on the idea of blacks being equal.

Same for the average Union soldier.

At this time in US history, the big migrations hadn't started yet. The nation was still pretty much divided in the same genetic lines that they had been originally settled in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Again the Industrial North had a greater advantage.

There were enough Irish in the North as well. There were immigrating before the famine of 1845....

Same for the average Union soldier.

To the argument at hand that means nothing since the argument presented was the Rebel soldier was only interested in States rights....

I will add the book to the list. However, it's still pretty lame argument. For example Nathanial Bedford Forest and his guys didn't exactly take to the highland charge.


Interestingly enough, Calvary was the only place where the Confederacy really innovated. Instead of attaching a few hundred calvary to a Brigade or Division, they concentrated them and made large calvary formations.


Artillery of the time would have devastated the highland charge.


It did, but they used it anyway. Gettysburg, Chickamauga, 1st and 2nd Bull Run, Chancellorsville, Pea Ridge, Perryville, and Wilderness are all battles where the Confederacy made massive charges against an opponent. Some were successful, most were not. The Federals used these tactics as well, but not nearly as often or in such scale as their Southern counterparts. And, interestingly enough, Artillery counted for a very small portion of casualties in a civil war battlefield. The rifled Musket was much more deadly.


What about the fact trench warfare was introduced and used frequently by James Longstreet?


Longstreet was Dutch/English. And it was mostly Lee and Beauregard that really used Trench Warfare in the east. At this time, IIRC, Longstreet was still jacking around in Tennessee. And it really was forced on Lee. When Grant failed to disengage after Wilderness like his predecessors had, Lee knew he couldn't keep making attacks. One of the few times a Confederate general really innovated.

To the argument at hand that means nothing since the argument presented was the Rebel soldier was only interested in States rights....

Who cares? Most were only there becasue they were drafted anyway.

Again the Industrial North had a greater advantage.

There were enough Irish in the North as well. There were immigrating before the famine of 1845....

The North also faced several disadvantages. Many new recruits had never picked up a musket before. They lost nearly 40% of their Officer corps, and the ones that did stay were forced to stay in the Regular Army until 1862. Many new units were trained by volunteer officers that had absolutely no military experience, and were just as lost as the enlisted men when it came to drill. Supply was also a huge problem. Most Southern volunteers could at least bring a smoothbore musket to last until proper rifles could be distributed in number, the Northerners could not. It wasn't until 1863 that some units got weapons, and some Northern units went through the whole war with Flintlock Muskets of 1812 fame.

If anything, I think the flag has lost its original meaning. You can paint it however you like, but if this flag is such a symbol of hatred and racism, why do we see it everywhere? Why do major clothing maufacturers make t-shirts and hats smothered in Confederate design? Why do rednecks have Confederate bumper stickers on their trucks? Why isn't there mass African-American outrage?

Simply put, it's been accepted. It has been accepted as a part of southern culture. Sure, it may have been associated with slavery and racism in the past, but it's not anymore or else mainstream America wouldn't have accepted it. The people who wear Confederate apparel aren't racist, and that's the end of it.

I work with African-Americans. Paul, Adrian, George, Zeke. And we live in an area where the confederate flag is everywhere. And guess what? They don't care. They don't give a fuck. Is it right? Maybe not. But it's taken on a different meaning, and you can either choose to accept it or not. Either way, it isn't going to go away.

Longstreet was Dutch/English. And it was mostly Lee and Beauregard that really used Trench Warfare in the east. At this time, IIRC, Longstreet was still jacking around in Tennessee. And it really was forced on Lee. When Grant failed to disengage after Wilderness like his predecessors had, Lee knew he couldn't keep making attacks. One of the few times a Confederate general really innovated.

Two different designs. The army still had maneuverability in the early part of the war. By the end of war at Petersburg, for example, the defenses were static in design.

Two different designs. The army still had maneuverability in the early part of the war. By the end of war at Petersburg, for example, the defenses were static in design.

Yes, the war had changed by then. After Wilderness, Lee knew he could not hope for one decisive battle like he had before. He couldn't expend his manpower to force the Federal forces to retreat. He needed to preserve his forces as much as possible. And so static defenses in the east came to be.

And armies had maneuverability throughout the war. In the West, for example, warfare was mostly unchanged from the early days. It was still a matter of trying to outmaneuver your enemy and get them to fight you in preferential conditions. Static defenses were not often used in the west, and definitely not to the scale as in the East.

If anything, I think the flag has lost its original meaning. You can paint it however you like, but if this flag is such a symbol of hatred and racism, why do we see it everywhere? Why do major clothing maufacturers make t-shirts and hats smothered in Confederate design? Why do rednecks have Confederate bumper stickers on their trucks? Why isn't there mass African-American outrage?

Simply put, it's been accepted. It has been accepted as a part of southern culture. Sure, it may have been associated with slavery and racism in the past, but it's not anymore or else mainstream America wouldn't have accepted it. The people who wear Confederate apparel aren't racist, and that's the end of it.

I work with African-Americans. Paul, Adrian, George, Zeke. And we live in an area where the confederate flag is everywhere. And guess what? They don't care. They don't give a fuck. Is it right? Maybe not. But it's taken on a different meaning, and you can either choose to accept it or not. Either way, it isn't going to go away.

Actually, like I discussed earlier, the flag is more of a symbol of a persons stupidity and lack of knowledge about their supposedly cherished 'southern heritage'.
Unless its on a boat, which I think its TECHNICALLY illigal. Not enforced though, kinda like running up the ol' jolly roger.

Someone once tried to get me to buy a belt-buckle with the confederate flag... as a person of color I was more than a little off-put

Even better way to use the flag:

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/1confederate_1933_3893585

Its kind of sad that as humans, we have allowed our selves to degenerate into a state where a symbol of the past continues to hurt our feelings. Simply put, we have become wimps. (oh i can't wait to be flamed for this one:rolleyes: )

Seriously though. A confederate flag is just that...a flag. The flag itself caused no murders, but yet we have people upset and crying over the fact of other people flying it.

Do we see any other animals doing this? I mean, do you see cock roaches protesting outside Raid factories because the symbol of Raid promotes the killing of cock roaches? Seriously, we need to grow up and realize that symbols are just that- symbols. Symbols do not kill, do no maim. Its people that do all that. Be upset with the people that do those evil things, not symbols. Its just silly.

That would be the Nazis.

Well, the Nazis put on a pretty good show, but ultimately, they never stood a chance because they were led by a maniac who was more concerned about loyalty than military talent from his generals. As time went by, and skill was replaced b cronyism, it became easy to see the damage done to the Nazi war machine.

The COnfederacy, however, never stood a chance because they jumped the gun. They had some of the greatest military generals of the time, but in their arrogance, they attacked Fort Sumter and began the conflict with the North before they could establish stronger ties with nations who might have been willing to help them foil the Union blockade that denied the Confederacy the resources to continue their impressive early victories. It was just a matter of time before they lost.

They both sucked. :p

According to 2 prominant historians (one of which, ironically, started the "lost cause" movement), the reason the South lost the war was because of inferior Celtic genetic stock. The same ones that fought the English in the middle ages in one big charge, with no regard for tactics. They were oftentimes beaten, but they never thought there was something wrong with their tactics. They always thought that the enemy didn't fight honorably. The Southerners thought (and think today) that had the yankees fought like men instead of hiding in holes with rifles, they would have won.

If The Confedercy had managed to delay the beginning of war for five years, they would have won. Assuming there would have even been a war. Their arrogance destroyed them.

That's a claim I've heard all my life, and I just don't buy it anymore. Bigotry was always a tenet of the Confederacy, no matter how you slice it. Slavery may not have been the sole cause of the Civil War, and it may not have even been the primary cause, but it was a cause, and to deny that is to deny fact. You don't have slavery without bigotry, without the belief that you are better than someone else and therefore deserve the power you have over them and have the right to treat them like shit as a result.
Then please explain to this foreigner here why after the slavery was abolished in the reestablished Union after the Civil War was over, the "one drop of blood" policy was adopted nationwide.

If anything, I think the flag has lost its original meaning. You can paint it however you like, but if this flag is such a symbol of hatred and racism, why do we see it everywhere? Why do major clothing maufacturers make t-shirts and hats smothered in Confederate design? Why do rednecks have Confederate bumper stickers on their trucks? Why isn't there mass African-American outrage?
Hell, it's still on the flag of Mississippi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mississippi

Meh.
QFT.

It's because many southerners, due to their genetic inferiority, believe that they were fighting the good fight for freedom and self-determination. They fought on their feet, while those "damn yankees" dug holes and shot at them with rifles. Recall the charge of the 13th Mississippi at Stones River, when the regiment charged a strong, dug in Federal position with a handful of old flintlock smoothbores (which didn't work because of rain during the previous night) and sticks.

They don't worship the fact they lost, the worship how they fought.

According to 2 prominant historians (one of which, ironically, started the "lost cause" movement), the reason the South lost the war was because of inferior Celtic genetic stock. The same ones that fought the English in the middle ages in one big charge, with no regard for tactics. They were oftentimes beaten, but they never thought there was something wrong with their tactics. They always thought that the enemy didn't fight honorably. The Southerners thought (and think today) that had the yankees fought like men instead of hiding in holes with rifles, they would have won.

Blimey, I thought we ditched that 'genetic superiority' crap decades ago.

Blimey, I thought we ditched that 'genetic superiority' crap decades ago.

It's obviously your defective 29th chromosome that's making you think that. ;)

It's obviously your defective 29th chromosome that's making you think that. ;)
I'll take that as an insult. All my chromosomes are defective.:D

Last I checked was with a noose that has 6 twists. Give it at least 4 feet of drop space soes it don't suffa no moe.

If anything, I think the flag has lost its original meaning. You can paint it however you like, but if this flag is such a symbol of hatred and racism, why do we see it everywhere? Why do major clothing maufacturers make t-shirts and hats smothered in Confederate design? Why do rednecks have Confederate bumper stickers on their trucks? Why isn't there mass African-American outrage?

Simply put, it's been accepted. It has been accepted as a part of southern culture. Sure, it may have been associated with slavery and racism in the past, but it's not anymore or else mainstream America wouldn't have accepted it. The people who wear Confederate apparel aren't racist, and that's the end of it.

I work with African-Americans. Paul, Adrian, George, Zeke. And we live in an area where the confederate flag is everywhere. And guess what? They don't care. They don't give a fuck. Is it right? Maybe not. But it's taken on a different meaning, and you can either choose to accept it or not. Either way, it isn't going to go away.

I don't know where you live, but there is and has been near-constant outrage over the flag in the African-American communities in the places I've lived for my entire life. There have been boycotts of entire states over where it has been flown, and movements to have the insignia removed from state flags, and the fights have nearly always broken down over racial lines. To act as though it's a settled matter is, well, pretty fucking stupid.

According to 2 prominant historians (one of which, ironically, started the "lost cause" movement), the reason the South lost the war was because of inferior Celtic genetic stock. The same ones that fought the English in the middle ages in one big charge, with no regard for tactics. They were oftentimes beaten, but they never thought there was something wrong with their tactics..

Would they be the Highland scots, whose charge broke the english line in every battle up to Culloden?

Hell, it's still on the flag of Mississippi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mississippi

I salute the flag of Mississippi and the sovereign state for which it stands with pride in her history and achievements and with confidence in her future under the guidance of Almighty God.

That's the name of this piece currently installed in the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science in Tallahassee, FL.

*image snip*

I agree with it completely, even though it will no doubt offend many of my fellow southerners. Pride in any flag is questionable, since most nations have committed vast numbers of atrocities over time, but that flag doesn't have a single decent memory attached to it. It stands for slavery, for bigotry, for treason and hatred and the symbolism here is apt. The penalty for treason is death, and it's about time we southerners carried it out on the idea that our history is glorious. It's not.

It stands for the rights of States over an increasingly powerful and pervasive federal government.

/thread

If The Confedercy had managed to delay the beginning of war for five years, they would have won. Assuming there would have even been a war. Their arrogance destroyed them.

Of course, if they hadn't fired on Sumter there likely wouldn't have been a war. Public opinion was in favor of letting the seceding states go right up until they stupidly attacked that fort. Attacking Sumter very well could have been the Dumbest. Mistake. Ever.

I don't know where you live, but there is and has been near-constant outrage over the flag in the African-American communities in the places I've lived for my entire life. There have been boycotts of entire states over where it has been flown, and movements to have the insignia removed from state flags, and the fights have nearly always broken down over racial lines. To act as though it's a settled matter is, well, pretty fucking stupid.

I think selective reading is pretty fucking stupid. Care to address the rest of the points in the post, or are we just going to pretend like I wrote one sentence?

I think you and I have different ideas of mass outrage. If you count the NAACP as mass African-American outrage, than you and I have very different ideas of mass outrage. Other than that, all I can say is that I've lived in the same place a very long time, and in the past ten years I keep seeing more and more of the confederate flag. You see it in schools, on t-shirts, and you know what? I don't know anybody who ever went to the principal's office over it. I don't know a black man who hasn't just shrugged it off as ignorant...I'd like to see the outrage you're talking about.

I think you and I have different ideas of mass outrage. If you count the NAACP as mass African-American outrage, than you and I have very different ideas of mass outrage

I think the NAACP counts as considerably more "mass" than your three black friends.

But if I must than I must

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jan2000/conf-j26.shtml
http://albionmonitor.net/5-5-96/olympicsflag.html
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16721

three links in 10 seconds.

It stands for the rights of States over an increasingly powerful and pervasive federal government.

/thread

and the bigotry and racism, don't forget the bigotry and racism!

See, that's the problem, people always stop short when they shouldn't. The idea that the confederacy was about "the rights of states standing up to the federal government" is really only half complete, one should truly finish that sentence.

The confederacy was about "the rights of states standing up to the federal government" because they wanted to keep owning slaves.

It wasn't some noble protest. It david standing against goliath. It wasn't standing in front of the tanks at tienamin square like the confederate apologetics want to paint it. The south was pissed because the federal government wanted to end slavery.

That, and because the south started getting pissy that due to the industrial revolution the population of the north outgrew the south and tipped the scales of the proportional representative congress to the north. Funny how in 1850 when only 1/3 people in the US lived in the south that proportional representative systems were "unfair" and "harmful" but 50 years earlier when the population was a 50/50 split there was no problems.

The confederacy represents two things. First, a society that grew bitter and disenchanted that the north was more industrially capable and thus outgrew them, and second a territory bothered by the fact that the federal government wanted to end slavery.

That's it. End of discussion, it wasn't some noble sacrifice, the civil war was about the southern representatives getting all bent out of shape about their inability to compete for population growth and the fact that the federal government asked them to stop owning other human beings. Any idea that it was anything more noble than that is simply revisionist history and blatant apologetic attitudes by people who don't like to be reminded that over a million people died because they wanted to own other people.

Now i think we can call this thread over.

and the bigotry and racism, don't forget the bigotry and racism!

See, that's the problem, people always stop short when they shouldn't. The idea that the confederacy was about "the rights of states standing up to the federal government" is really only half complete, one should truly finish that sentence.

The confederacy was about "the rights of states standing up to the federal government" because they wanted to keep owning slaves.

The slavery issue was merely the proverbial last straw. It wasn't the only one. But you can continue your revisionist ramblings instead if you like. :rolleyes:

Of course, you do have the occasional black supporter of a Confederate flag. I'm pretty sure there's a famous one who parades around his town every day carrying one. I don't understand how he could accept it though.

There used to be a movement to get the Confederate flag declared as the "black power" flag so that Southern states would take their Confederate flags down, I believe. That could be it.

They don't worship the fact they lost, the worship how they fought.

Stupidly?

Stupidly?

Um...I don't think you know as much about the war as you think you do.

Um...I don't think you know as much about the war as you think you do.

I was talking about the charging thing. It's called context. Learn about it.

It stands for the rights of States over an increasingly powerful and pervasive federal government.

/thread

You have slain me with your overwhelming logic, especially since states rights in this case is a euphemism for "we want to keep owning black people." :rolleyes:

Once again, Cluich...Arthais has handed you your ass.

God I love it.

I'd still be interested in an answer, though:
That's a claim I've heard all my life, and I just don't buy it anymore. Bigotry was always a tenet of the Confederacy, no matter how you slice it. Slavery may not have been the sole cause of the Civil War, and it may not have even been the primary cause, but it was a cause, and to deny that is to deny fact. You don't have slavery without bigotry, without the belief that you are better than someone else and therefore deserve the power you have over them and have the right to treat them like shit as a result.
Then please explain to this foreigner here why after the slavery was abolished in the reestablished Union after the Civil War was over, the "one drop of blood" policy was adopted nationwide.

Even better way to use the flag:

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/1confederate_1933_3893585

She has desecrated her body with that flag. It must be removed at once.

That's the name of this piece currently installed in the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science in Tallahassee, FL.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_FJIwg2jbUP4/Rf8e2pKObeI/AAAAAAAAAEY/jr1ZXAIpLNo/s320/Confederate%2BRag.jpg

I agree with it completely, even though it will no doubt offend many of my fellow southerners. Pride in any flag is questionable, since most nations have committed vast numbers of atrocities over time, but that flag doesn't have a single decent memory attached to it. It stands for slavery, for bigotry, for treason and hatred and the symbolism here is apt. The penalty for treason is death, and it's about time we southerners carried it out on the idea that our history is glorious. It's not.
It was only treason because they lost the war. They were defending their freedom to choose their own laws and culture.

I'd still be interested in an answer, though:

Then please explain to this foreigner here why after the slavery was abolished in the reestablished Union after the Civil War was over, the "one drop of blood" policy was adopted nationwide.
Bolding your question doesn't make it any more relevant to the discussion at hand. It just makes it slightly more obnoxious. When you can explain how what you're describing has anything to do with the glorification of the Confederate flag--outside of them both taking up space in your pointy little head--then I'll consider answering your point. Until then, I see no need to.

It was only treason because they lost the war. They were defending their freedom to choose their own laws and culture.

And that culture included bigotry, slavery and racism. Do you deny that? My point is that it's a culture that doesn't deserve defending. If anything, we southerners need to kill the ridiculous glorification of things like the Marble Man and the Lost Cause. We need to feel disgust at that part of our culture.

And that culture included bigotry, slavery and racism. Do you deny that? My point is that it's a culture that doesn't deserve defending.
I don't deny that. That culture did include bigotry, slavery, and racism.

But I can't claim any moral authority to decide that culture's worth. How can you?

Would they be the Highland scots, whose charge broke the english line in every battle up to Culloden?

The Highland Charge had no place on the Civil War battlefield. The English Northerners learned that quite quickly. The Celtic Southerners learned that far too late.

I don't deny that. That culture did include bigotry, slavery, and racism.

But I can't claim any moral authority to decide that culture's worth. How can you?

.....

Ok it does not deserve defending RELATIVE to the continuous harmony and peace trying to be achieved for the human race.

It was only treason because they lost the war. They were defending their freedom to choose their own laws and culture.

...Yeah, and?

"It's only treason cuz they lost." Well duh, you ever hear of the winners accusing themselves of treason? No, they won. The south lost, so it's treason. If they'd won, I doubt they'd have been accused of such. Are we arguing whether or not they lost?

Bolding your question doesn't make it any more relevant to the discussion at hand. It just makes it slightly more obnoxious. When you can explain how what you're describing has anything to do with the glorification of the Confederate flag--outside of them both taking up space in your pointy little head--then I'll consider answering your point. Until then, I see no need to.
I referred directly to something you've said in your previous post and thus participated in the discussion - and I'd like to understand why after slavery was abolished, another system was installed "to treat [people] like shit", to paraphrase your words, which treated people of color even more rigorously bad in the whole of the United States than how they were treated in the North before the Civil War.
How that question is obnoxious is beyond me, and I'd like to understand why the Confederate flag is considered so evil when under the Unionist flag (and apparently all the righteous things it stood for during the Civil War) people were treated worse than before, some people of color having served as free men in the North and gaining nothing as a result.

Why you need to start calling me names is another thing I'd like to know. "outside of them both taking up space in your pointy little head"?
WTF, Nazz? That was really uncalled for and absolutely unnecessary.
Bigotry was always a tenet of the Confederacy, no matter how you slice it. Slavery may not have been the sole cause of the Civil War, and it may not have even been the primary cause, but it was a cause, and to deny that is to deny fact. You don't have slavery without bigotry, without the belief that you are better than someone else and therefore deserve the power you have over them and have the right to treat them like shit as a result.
And this is what I referred to.

I don't deny that. That culture did include bigotry, slavery, and racism.

But I can't claim any moral authority to decide that culture's worth. How can you?

You can't? What, "Yes, yes, the South was based on bigotry, slavery and racism, but you know, them darkies sure did sing some pretty songs, so maybe it wasn't all that bad."

That's like Barbara Bush, who I used to like, remarking that, well, most of the folks in New Orleans were pretty bad off before the storm, so their new digs in Houston and other places were kind of a step up.

Sorry, bigotry, slavery and racism are just so 19th century. Thanks for playing, though.

Ok it does not deserve defending RELATIVE to the continuous harmony and peace trying to be achieved for the human race.
But if you're trying to argue that one position is superior to another you need to back that up somehow.

I don't deny that. That culture did include bigotry, slavery, and racism.

But I can't claim any moral authority to decide that culture's worth. How can you?

It's my culture. I was raised in it, steeped in it, and I've lived in the detritus of it all my life. I think that qualifies me as much as anyone else.

It stands for slavery, for bigotry, for treason and hatred

thats funny really that you think that this is what the flag stood for. what you described is what people who fly the flag today make it look like it stood for. the confederate flag when created stood for alot of the smae things the united states flag stands for today. it wasnt a symbol of "we got the slaves", it was a symbol of pride for ones nation. just as if flown and represented right today is a symbol of pride for ones heritage.

think what you want of the nation once known as the confederacy, but doing this to the flag that represents ones heritage is not an inviting gesture. its almost up their with putting a quran in the toilet that everyone seemed to be against.

But if you're trying to argue that one position is superior to another you need to back that up somehow.

Do you really need the fact that racism and bigotry are damaging to the peace and harmony between the human race (which i stated before) backed up? Unless of course you think "demz niggers arn't humans".

You can't?
No. I see no basis for any position on this issue.

What you're basically doing is arguing against self-determination.
That's like Barbara Bush, who I used to like, remarking that, well, most of the folks in New Orleans were pretty bad off before the storm, so their new digs in Houston and other places were kind of a step up.
I don't see the objection to that. Even now the people who've returned to New Orleans are the wealthier residents. The poorer folks haven't made it back. Maybe their new digs are better.
Sorry, bigotry, slavery and racism are just so 19th century. Thanks for playing, though.
Ethnocentric much?

thats funny really that you think that this is what the flag stood for. what you described is what people who fly the flag today make it look like it stood for. the confederate flag when created stood for alot of the smae things the united states flag stands for today. it wasnt a symbol of "we got the slaves", it was a symbol of pride for ones nation. just as if flown and represented right today is a symbol of pride for ones heritage.

think what you want of the nation once known as the confederacy, but doing this to the flag that represents ones heritage is not an inviting gesture. its almost up their with putting a quran in the toilet that everyone seemed to be against.

Heritage? Do explain what "Southern heritage" is beyond a deep and abiding longing for a way of life that considered human beings to be property? Please, I would sincerely like to know.

I referred directly to something you've said in your previous post and thus participated in the discussion - and I'd like to understand why after slavery was abolished, another system was installed "to treat [people] like shit", to paraphrase your words, which treated people of color even more rigorously bad in the whole of the United States than how they were treated in the North before the Civil War.
How that question is obnoxious is beyond me, and I'd like to understand why the Confederate flag is considered so evil when under the Unionist flag (and apparently all the righteous things it stood for during the Civil War) people were treated worse than before, some people of color having served as free men in the North and gaining nothing as a result.

Why you need to start calling me names is another thing I'd like to know. "outside of them both taking up space in your pointy little head"?
WTF, Nazz? That was really uncalled for and absolutely unnecessary.

And this is what I referred to.
It was necessary because on the very next page after you got the above quote from, there was an answer to your question. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12447397&postcount=21) The basic answer is that I'm not concerned with what the north did afterward--this is not a case of "south bad, north good" because that claim is stupid, as you point out. But without reading the thread in the first place to see if I'd addressed anything on those lines, you ask the question, and then when you don't get an answer, you basically call me out again. So I slap back. Sorry I hurt your feelings, but I'm not getting into that discussion because it's irrelevant to any discussion of the Confederate flag.

think what you want of the nation once known as the confederacy, but doing this to the flag that represents ones heritage is not an inviting gesture. its almost up their with putting a quran in the toilet that everyone seemed to be against.
You're right--it's not an inviting gesture. That's why I approve of it so strongly, because I want the glorification of the Confederacy to die. There was nothing good about that flag or the country it represented. There is noting worthwhile about that heritage, and if I can burn it to the ground, I will.

Do you really need the fact that racism and bigotry are damaging to the peace and harmony between the human race (which i stated before) backed up? Unless of course you think "demz niggers arn't humans".
I'm not disputing the two are in conflict, but you're saying that the principle we should prefer is predetermined, and I don't buy it.

I'm not disputing the two are in conflict, but you're saying that the principle we should prefer is predetermined, and I don't buy it.
And yet your sig: It's called freedom. Some of us like it.

If you're going to laud freedom, shouldn't you believe that it's to be preferred for everyone instead of just those in power?

You're right--it's not an inviting gesture. That's why I approve of it so strongly, because I want the glorification of the Confederacy to die. There was nothing good about that flag or the country it represented. There is noting worthwhile about that heritage, and if I can burn it to the ground, I will.
And I disagree. It was a fight against tyranny. Regardless of whether the tyranny was justified or right our good (and I'm making no claims either way on those - which I shouldn't have to mention explicitly because I've made no claims either way on those), it was still tyranny, and clearly the south thinks fighting against tyranny is a good thing.

So they're celebrating that.

And I disagree. It was a fight against tyranny. Regardless of whether the tyranny was justified or right our good (and I'm making no claims either way on those - which I shouldn't have to mention explicitly because I've made no claims either way on those), it was still tyranny, and clearly the south thinks fighting against tyranny is a good thing.

Slave Owners Demand Freedom!!! :p

And yet your sig: It's called freedom. Some of us like it.

If you're going to laud freedom, shouldn't you believe that it's to be preferred for everyone instead of just those in power?
It was those in power (the United States government) who was imposing its will on the south, regardless of the south's wishes. The south fought back.

It's remarkably similar to how the USA was born in the first place.

And I disagree. It was a fight against tyranny. Regardless of whether the tyranny was justified or right our good (and I'm making no claims either way on those - which I shouldn't have to mention explicitly because I've made no claims either way on those), it was still tyranny, and clearly the south thinks fighting against tyranny is a good thing.

So they're celebrating that.

Unless they're talking about their own tyranny over a large segment of their own population. It's bullshit, Llewdor, and no matter how much ketchup you put on it, it'll still taste like bullshit.

Slave Owners Demand Freedom!!! :p
Some Southerners are Freer than Others. :p

Setting aside racism for a moment;

Why do so many people worship losers? Between the Confederacy or the Nazis, I don't know who crashed and burned the hardest. What fascinates the fans of these two historical skidmarks so?

I just don't get it. :confused:

Think about it -- if you're a societal pariah, misfit or outcast and you want to belong to something that represents the anithesis of the majority, you join and pledge fealty to a fringe group. For the Columbine shooters, for example, that was the so-called "Trenchcoat Mafia". For whites who want no part of personal responsibility and want credit just for being white, it's the new white supremacy movements or neo-Nazis, or whatver name they're using for themselves now.

Rebel- and Nazi-humpers/apologists are made up to no small extent of self-exiled outsiders who are looking for something to "freak out" the comfortable majority. And what better way to do that than to study, extol and espouse the philosoiphies of the Confederacy or the Third Reich? Rather childish, really.

But if you're trying to argue that one position is superior to another you need to back that up somehow.
That's like saying, "you need to back up the claim that humans are better off having air to breathe than they are if they lack any air to breathe."

It was those in power (the United States government) who was imposing its will on the south, regardless of the south's wishes. The south fought back.

It's remarkably similar to how the USA was born in the first place.

Except that the South was part of that representative government. They weren't victims of it, they were part of it.

Heritage? Do explain what "Southern heritage" is beyond a deep and abiding longing for a way of life that considered human beings to be property? Please, I would sincerely like to know.

sure because fact of the matter is that less than half of the population owned slaves. other people lived there as well as slaves and slave masters. and where you have people living they create a heritage. a way of life. and so when less then half the population owns a slave then its kind of ahrd for the way of life for most southerners to be slave owners.

i just got some figures:

Owning 50 or more slaves 2.5%
Owning 5-50 slaves 15.5%
Owning 5 or fewer slaves 18%
Nonslaveholding 64%
Source: Faragher et al. "Out of Many: A History of the American People"

so are you going to try and tell me that 26% of the south leads what the heritage is for 64% of the rest.

Unless they're talking about their own tyranny over a large segment of their own population. It's bullshit, Llewdor, and no matter how much ketchup you put on it, it'll still taste like bullshit.
But it was their place to decide. You keep turning this into a moral argument, and it isn't one.

Centuries of tradition held that slavery was acceptable, particular in the south. The north then went and changed that without so much as a "by your leave". I think the south was understandably pissed.

@ Nazz:

I had simply hoped you could've given me some insight on American history instead of going "not talking about it, bitch".

What I didn't and still don't understand is why once the slavery was abolished, the bigotry and racism were increased in all states, yet you make it sound as if only the Confederate flag stood/stands for it, when apparently, the Star-spangled Banner fulfills the same role afterwards.

And I had looked through the thread to see if you've quoted me and answered my question, which you really haven't, for you discarded it as irrelevant to the discussion.

Well fine, carry on. I had thought I could learn something from you today - guess the lesson was not to talk to someone on a high horse.

But it was their place to decide. You keep turning this into a moral argument, and it isn't one.

Centuries of tradition held that slavery was acceptable, particular in the south. The north then went and changed that without so much as a "by your leave". I think the south was understandably pissed.
And I think that "The South" was home to 9 million people, and 3.5 million of those people were the legal property of other people.

Let's kindly not forget about those 3.5 million Southerners in our history, hmm? I'm guessing they weren't "pissed" at the idea that perhaps they should be regarded as actual human beings.

@ Nazz:

I had simply hoped you could've given me some insight on American history instead of going "not talking about it, bitch".

What I didn't and still don't understand is why once the slavery was abolished, the bigotry and racism were increased in all states, yet you make it sound as if only the Confederate flag stood/stands for it, when apparently, the Star-spangled Banner fulfills the same role afterwards.

And I had looked through the thread to see if you've quoted me and answered my question, which you really haven't, for you discarded it as irrelevant to the discussion.

Well fine, carry on. I had thought I could learn something from you today - guess the lesson was not to talk to someone on a high horse.

Keep the horse's asshole below eye level. It's bad enough looking for shit in only one direction without ducking flying turds as well. :)

Keep the horse's asshole below eye level. It's bad enough looking for shit in only one direction without ducking flying turds as well. :)
:confused:http://www.section.at/img/smiley/hotte1.gif

You have slain me with your overwhelming logic, especially since states rights in this case is a euphemism for "we want to keep owning black people." :rolleyes:

And your post translates to read: "I don't know shit about history." Not surprised there really.

sure because fact of the matter is that less than half of the population owned slaves. other people lived there as well as slaves and slave masters. and where you have people living they create a heritage. a way of life. and so when less then half the population owns a slave then its kind of ahrd for the way of life for most southerners to be slave owners.

i just got some figures:

Owning 50 or more slaves 2.5%
Owning 5-50 slaves 15.5%
Owning 5 or fewer slaves 18%
Nonslaveholding 64%
Source: Faragher et al. "Out of Many: A History of the American People"

so are you going to try and tell me that 26% of the south leads what the heritage is for 64% of the rest.

So, 64% of all Southerners at the start of the war did not own slaves, fine. Why were they seceding? What was so terrible about continuing in a Union with the Abolitionist North that drove them to the radical step of leaving the Union? Preserving their rights? Their rights to do what? What rights were being infringed or were about to be infringed by the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln?

So, 64% of all Southerners at the start of the war did not own slaves, fine. Why were they seceding? What was so terrible about continuing in a Union with the Abolitionist North that drove them to the radical step of leaving the Union? Preserving their rights? Their rights to do what? What rights were being infringed or were about to be infringed by the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln?

Ooh ooh! I know!

The right to own slaves! Oh wait, no, that can't be right. It supposedly has nothing to do with slavery.

The right to not be outvoted by states without slaves! Oh wait, that has to do with slavery too.

Ummm.....um......The right to be prejudiced against black people? No, that can't be it. That was all over the place.

Ok, you got me. What was it about?

But it was their place to decide. You keep turning this into a moral argument, and it isn't one.

Centuries of tradition held that slavery was acceptable, particular in the south. The north then went and changed that without so much as a "by your leave". I think the south was understandably pissed.

I don't believe that the issue had been decided when the South decided to leave the Union. Slavery was still legal in the United States. The Democrats, who we can probably say favored the status quo, held a majority in the Senate in the Congress that convened in 1861. The Republicans held a majority in the House. So Congress was split, meaning that any legislation originating in the House to eliminate slavery would have failed in the Senate. They probably could have played that game for years.

And anyway, why are you defending the institution of slavery? It may have been acceptable up to that time, but most Western nations did away with it before we did. Heck, even Czarist Russia abolished slavery before the United States, I don't think that's a particularly glorious thing for us. Add to that, we needed to kill or maim hundreds of thousands of our own citizens and destroy millions of dollars in property, all for what? So some human being could own other human beings? Hardly seems worth it, does it. Especially, as Slaughterhouse pointed out, 64% of Southerners didn't even own slaves.

Well, the Nazis put on a pretty good show, but ultimately, they never stood a chance because they were led by a maniac who was more concerned about loyalty than military talent from his generals. As time went by, and skill was replaced b cronyism, it became easy to see the damage done to the Nazi war machine.

The COnfederacy, however, never stood a chance because they jumped the gun. They had some of the greatest military generals of the time, but in their arrogance, they attacked Fort Sumter and began the conflict with the North before they could establish stronger ties with nations who might have been willing to help them foil the Union blockade that denied the Confederacy the resources to continue their impressive early victories. It was just a matter of time before they lost.

They both sucked. :p
Yeah, but the Nazis lost all their power while racist pricks continued to run the South for the next century.

Well, the Nazis put on a pretty good show, but ultimately, they never stood a chance because they were led by a maniac who was more concerned about loyalty than military talent from his generals. As time went by, and skill was replaced b cronyism, it became easy to see the damage done to the Nazi war machine.

The COnfederacy, however, never stood a chance because they jumped the gun. They had some of the greatest military generals of the time, but in their arrogance, they attacked Fort Sumter and began the conflict with the North before they could establish stronger ties with nations who might have been willing to help them foil the Union blockade that denied the Confederacy the resources to continue their impressive early victories. It was just a matter of time before they lost.

They both sucked. :p

Interesting point. If the South Carolinians had been able to hold their water and stick it out for a few more years, the Southerners might have been able to make sure that when they did secede, say in 1865 or even 1870, Britain and France recognized them at once.

@ Nazz:

I had simply hoped you could've given me some insight on American history instead of going "not talking about it, bitch".

What I didn't and still don't understand is why once the slavery was abolished, the bigotry and racism were increased in all states, yet you make it sound as if only the Confederate flag stood/stands for it, when apparently, the Star-spangled Banner fulfills the same role afterwards.

And I had looked through the thread to see if you've quoted me and answered my question, which you really haven't, for you discarded it as irrelevant to the discussion.

Well fine, carry on. I had thought I could learn something from you today - guess the lesson was not to talk to someone on a high horse.
First of all, I don't make it sound like only the Confederate flag stood/stands for bigotry and racism--that's a problem of your reading comprehension. What I said was that I was limiting my discussion--not the thread's, but mine--solely to that of the flag and southern tradition. You can start another thread for discussing the role of the north if you want. I started this because of the art installation I posted on the first post, which deals solely with the culture of the south that glorifies that flag. I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to stray from that in this thread, largely because it's outside my realm. I don't know why racism and bigotry increased nationwide after the Civil War, and I suspect no one does, at least not fully.

and the bigotry and racism, don't forget the bigotry and racism!

See, that's the problem, people always stop short when they shouldn't. The idea that the confederacy was about "the rights of states standing up to the federal government" is really only half complete, one should truly finish that sentence.

The confederacy was about "the rights of states standing up to the federal government" because they wanted to keep owning slaves.

It wasn't some noble protest. It david standing against goliath. It wasn't standing in front of the tanks at tienamin square like the confederate apologetics want to paint it. The south was pissed because the federal government wanted to end slavery.

That, and because the south started getting pissy that due to the industrial revolution the population of the north outgrew the south and tipped the scales of the proportional representative congress to the north. Funny how in 1850 when only 1/3 people in the US lived in the south that proportional representative systems were "unfair" and "harmful" but 50 years earlier when the population was a 50/50 split there was no problems.

The confederacy represents two things. First, a society that grew bitter and disenchanted that the north was more industrially capable and thus outgrew them, and second a territory bothered by the fact that the federal government wanted to end slavery.

That's it. End of discussion, it wasn't some noble sacrifice, the civil war was about the southern representatives getting all bent out of shape about their inability to compete for population growth and the fact that the federal government asked them to stop owning other human beings. Any idea that it was anything more noble than that is simply revisionist history and blatant apologetic attitudes by people who don't like to be reminded that over a million people died because they wanted to own other people.

Now i think we can call this thread over.

Nice! :)

And your post translates to read: "I don't know shit about history." Not surprised there really.

I'm not the one who's been pwned throughout this thread, but if lying to yourself helps you sleep at night...

It was only treason because they lost the war. They were defending their freedom to choose their own laws and culture.

:rolleyes:

But I can't claim any moral authority to decide that culture's worth. How can you?

Ah so slavery and bigotry are acceptable to you. Good to know.

And anyway, why are you defending the institution of slavery?
I'm not defending slavery. I'm defending the celebration of the confederacy.

Just because the confederacy stood for some things you don't like (slavery) is not a good reason to declare everything confederate bad.

Ah so slavery and bigotry are acceptable to you. Good to know.
You're compltely missing the point. Regardless of my views on slavery or bigotry, I don't think it's my place to impose those views on others.

Just because the confederacy stood for some things you don't like (slavery) is not a good reason to declare everything confederate bad.
Actually, it is. It's a very good reason.

You're compltely missing the point. Regardless of my views on slavery or bigotry, I don't think it's my place to impose those views on others.
There comes a point when moral relativism stops being a polite consideration and becomes an annoying game of intellectual dishonesty.

But it was their place to decide. You keep turning this into a moral argument, and it isn't one.

Centuries of tradition held that slavery was acceptable, particular in the south. The north then went and changed that without so much as a "by your leave". I think the south was understandably pissed.

Things change and people have to change as well.

You adapt or die. The Confederacy died.

I'm not defending slavery. I'm defending the celebration of the confederacy.

Just because the confederacy stood for some things you don't like (slavery) is not a good reason to declare everything confederate bad.

What was good about the Confederacy? It ended or ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, wasted a huge amount of the nation's wealth. What was good?

Actually, I'll give you one good thing about the Confederacy. It forced the United States to abolish slavery, once and for all. It did that in the worst possible way, but it did do that.

Actually, it is. It's a very good reason.
So if the Confederacy had uncovered a cure for some disease, you would advocate never applying that research simply because it was confederate?

So if the Confederacy had uncovered a cure for some disease, you would advocate never applying that research simply because it was confederate?

They didn't do that though, did they?

There comes a point when moral relativism stops being a polite consideration and becomes an annoying game of intellectual dishonesty.
I think it would be more dishonest to apply moral relativism only when dealing with issues you deemed unimportant.

They didn't do that though, did they?
Doesn't matter. Would you?

You asserted that because they did some things you didn't like, that was sufficient cause to declare everything they did bad. For that to hold, you have to discard that research.

What was good about the Confederacy? It ended or ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, wasted a huge amount of the nation's wealth. What was good?

Actually, I'll give you one good thing about the Confederacy. It forced the United States to abolish slavery, once and for all. It did that in the worst possible way, but it did do that.
The Confederacy didn't exist until the Civil War. The Southern States were, both before and after, an important part of the United States.

You're compltely missing the point. Regardless of my views on slavery or bigotry, I don't think it's my place to impose those views on others.

It was rather lame, I admit that.

Contrary to Libertarian views which you do judge as morally superior BTW.

People have to be "forced" to do some things they don't like. It's why we have laws. It's why we have worker laws and child labor laws. It's why we have drunk driving laws and speed laws......

I think it would be more dishonest to apply moral relativism only when dealing with issues you deemed unimportant.

Some things just aren't as important as others, and I'm not shy about proclaiming (mostly Western, but there are exceptions) liberal ideas as superior to other world views.

What was good about the Confederacy? It ended or ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, wasted a huge amount of the nation's wealth. What was good?
Does there need to have been something objectively good about the confederacy to allow people to celebrate it?

The Confederacy didn't exist until the Civil War. The Southern States were, both before and after, an important part of the United States.

True and I wouldn't dispute that, but that's not exactly the point. The Confederate States of America, during its brief existence, did nothing good save force the United States to come to grips with the hypocrisy of slavery in a country that proclaimed its independence by saying that all men are created equal. Nothing good and much that was bad.

Doesn't matter. Would you?
Sure it does.
The Confederacy was worthless and any excuse to dismiss their "contributions" is acceptable.

Does there need to have been something objectively good about the confederacy to allow people to celebrate it?
People are "allowed" to celebrate whatever they want as long as it isn't going ot lead to violence.

But guess what? I'm also allowed to think them bigoted idiots for celebrating it.

Does there need to have been something objectively good about the confederacy to allow people to celebrate it?

Why celebrate something that has nothing good about it?

But, really, this is a pointless discussion. I know why the South reveres the Confederacy, it's the "Good Old Days" syndrome. Everything was better then, back when we were standing up to them Yankees and fighting the good fight and defending Southern womanhood and all that. It's become romanticised. No one remembers what slavery was like, no one remembers the horrors of that war. Even the old photographs don't convey it to people who have grown up with television and cool special effects and CGI. So, sure, Southerners romanticise the War. But, you know, its "glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing ... for sons, husbands, and fathers ... it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated ... that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation."

Enough. Fly that flag. Just remember that the red in it is blood.

That's the name of this piece currently installed in the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science in Tallahassee, FL.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_FJIwg2jbUP4/Rf8e2pKObeI/AAAAAAAAAEY/jr1ZXAIpLNo/s320/Confederate%2BRag.jpg

I agree with it completely, even though it will no doubt offend many of my fellow southerners. Pride in any flag is questionable, since most nations have committed vast numbers of atrocities over time, but that flag doesn't have a single decent memory attached to it. It stands for slavery, for bigotry, for treason and hatred and the symbolism here is apt. The penalty for treason is death, and it's about time we southerners carried it out on the idea that our history is glorious. It's not.

Wow, nice to see someone agrees with me. My opinion on the matter is a bit biased, since before moving out here, my family lived in rural New England.

I prefer calling that flag the traitor's flag. That is what it is to me. If someone claims to be patriotic but then flies that despicable banner, to me, they lose all credibility whatsoever.

Enough. Fly that flag. Just remember that the red in it is blood.
Like that's news. The third Confederate Flag was known as the blood-dipped banner.

I, personally, have no reason to fly the flag. I'm Canadian.

sure because fact of the matter is that less than half of the population owned slaves. other people lived there as well as slaves and slave masters. and where you have people living they create a heritage. a way of life. and so when less then half the population owns a slave then its kind of ahrd for the way of life for most southerners to be slave owners.

i just got some figures:

Owning 50 or more slaves 2.5%
Owning 5-50 slaves 15.5%
Owning 5 or fewer slaves 18%
Nonslaveholding 64%
Source: Faragher et al. "Out of Many: A History of the American People"

so are you going to try and tell me that 26% of the south leads what the heritage is for 64% of the rest.

Uh...I'm no statistician, but the "non-slave-holding" 64% and the "slave-holding" 26% add up to only 90%. Is there a 10% "mega-slave-holding" class who had more than a thousand slaves, or is the missing 10% people who went about freeing slaves via purchase or something?

Also, the culture that gets remembered is largely the culture of those in power. I would venture a guess that those who owned slaves had at least a bit more power than those who did not. They were probably more able to become politicians, travelers, and other emissaries of culture and heritage because they had the spare time that non-slaveholding folks didn't. A poor white (non-slaveholding) southerner may have deserved a monument, statue, song, book or poem written about them, but didn't have the clout or money to facilitate such remembrances.

Just a thought.

So, 64% of all Southerners at the start of the war did not own slaves, fine. Why were they seceding? What was so terrible about continuing in a Union with the Abolitionist North that drove them to the radical step of leaving the Union? Preserving their rights? Their rights to do what? What rights were being infringed or were about to be infringed by the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln?

Follow the money. That 64% had one hell of a lot less of it than those who owned slaves. Money = political power. Money threatened = secede/go to war.

Uh...I'm no statistician, but the "non-slave-holding" 64% and the "slave-holding" 26% add up to only 90%. Is there a 10% "mega-slave-holding" class who had more than a thousand slaves, or is the missing 10% people who went about freeing slaves via purchase or something?

Also, the culture that gets remembered is largely the culture of those in power. I would venture a guess that those who owned slaves had at least a bit more power than those who did not. They were probably more able to become politicians, travelers, and other emissaries of culture and heritage because they had the spare time that non-slaveholding folks didn't. A poor white (non-slaveholding) southerner may have deserved a monument, statue, song, book or poem written about them, but didn't have the clout or money to facilitate such remembrances.

Just a thought.

The slaveholding rich people were the ones in power (as rich people usually are). They were the ones who led the secession effort, and basically caused the war. There's a lot of truth to the saying "It's a rich man's war but a poor man's fight."

So if the Confederacy had uncovered a cure for some disease, you would advocate never applying that research simply because it was confederate?Nah, it just wouldn't be grounds for celebrating the Confederacy, just like we don't celebrate the Nazis for their innovation of the helicopter, rocket technology, and astounding discoveries concerning hypothermia.

Follow the money. That 64% had one hell of a lot less of it than those who owned slaves. Money = political power. Money threatened = secede/go to war.

Oh, undoubtedly.

And that 26% was a typo, methinks.

Nah, it just wouldn't be grounds for celebrating the Confederacy, just like we don't celebrate the Nazis for their innovation of the helicopter, rocket technology, and astounding discoveries concerning hypothermia.
But Neo Undelia's point was that everything the confederacy did should be discarded simply because they did some things that were bad.

By that reasoning, no one should ever apply that nazi research, either, no matter how much good it can do.

Nah, it just wouldn't be grounds for celebrating the Confederacy, just like we don't celebrate the Nazis for their innovation of the helicopter, rocket technology, and astounding discoveries concerning hypothermia.

What? Werhner Von Braun and his people were never Nazis!

;)

What? Werhner Von Braun and his people were never Nazis!

;)

"Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department," says Werner von Braun.

That's a claim I've heard all my life, and I just don't buy it anymore. Bigotry was always a tenet of the Confederacy, no matter how you slice it. Slavery may not have been the sole cause of the Civil War, and it may not have even been the primary cause, but it was a cause, and to deny that is to deny fact. You don't have slavery without bigotry, without the belief that you are better than someone else and therefore deserve the power you have over them and have the right to treat them like shit as a result.

Well, one does. But we didn't.

Even the word slave comes "Slav" an eastern European people from whom many slaves were taken.

Racism was invented as an excuse for slavery after it had started to become unpopular. And it was well on its way to being outlawed before the invention of the cotton gin which turned it into too much of an economic reality to just outlaw without consequence.

Finally, as to why things like the "drop of blood" test and Jim Crow and all kinds of racism persisted long after the US Civil War (that war's proper name, given the nature of this forum), the causes range from "unknown" to things like the ass-fuck that was Reconstruction (producing resentment for the North and the perceived reason for the whole mess, Blacks).

Earlier in this thread, the notion of competition for work and livelihood was mentioned, and that certainly has its place among the causes of post-bellum racism. The homogeneity of two distinct populations coming together as a result of war and being effectively forced to coexist will cause resentment among those of the population who were already free and uncertainty (which leads to fear) among those who were slaves.

If you're unsure of how to assert your freedom, and what's more, you see those who do subjected to terrorism and lynching, you're likely to go along with whatever laws are passed to save yourself the inconvenience of an ass-kicking or an appearance as "strange fruit" on a Southern poplar tree.

As the white culture realized they could exploit the slavery-ingrained inferiority complex of Blacks and also the Blacks' uncertainty as to their new role in society, and, in effect, "keep darkie down", they did.

All of the white South? Certainly not, but enough of the powerful, influential and wealthy to ensure that the century following the "War of Northern Agression" (and I will use quotes on that phrase until my death) would not be a pleasant one for anyone Black or sympathetic to Black causes. It didn't take long for white superiority to change from a genteel tradition to a deadly game...played emblematically by Southern "men" cowardly cloaked in white sheets and burning the symbol of Christ while committing horrible violent crimes.

One more time, I do NOT believe that all in the South were racist, or even ignorant. But in the argument of "heritage", those with the ability to steer that heritage were largely the ones for whom slavery was lucrative. A majority of the masses become easier to lead once that ball is started rolling.

[/soap box]

Well, one does. But we didn't.

Even the word slave comes "Slav" an eastern European people from whom many slaves were taken.

Racism was invented as an excuse for slavery after it had started to become unpopular. And it was well on its way to being outlawed before the invention of the cotton gin which turned it into too much of an economic reality to just outlaw without consequence.

Uh...I don't disagree with your point, but racism wasn't "invented" for the US Civil War. Racism was the basis for colonialism and subjugation of different-looking/acting/what-have-you people since at least the Pharaonic times in ancient Egypt, if not earlier.

If I may, you might better have said that "racism was made an excuse for slavery after it had started to become unpopular." I know what you meant, and it's a tiny matter of semantics. Forgive my insolence.

But Neo Undelia's point was that everything the confederacy did should be discarded simply because they did some things that were bad.

By that reasoning, no one should ever apply that nazi research, either, no matter how much good it can do.I didn't follow NU's points that far. My point isn't his and they aren't the same.

But Neo Undelia's point was that everything the confederacy did should be discarded simply because they did some things that were bad.
Nope. My argument is that anything that can be used to discredit them should be.

Even the word slave comes "Slav" an eastern European people from whom many slaves were taken.If I'm not much mistaken, the word "Slav", an Eastern European people from whom many slaves were taken, comes from the Viking word for slave, and not the other way around.

That's the name of this piece currently installed in the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science in Tallahassee, FL.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_FJIwg2jbUP4/Rf8e2pKObeI/AAAAAAAAAEY/jr1ZXAIpLNo/s320/Confederate%2BRag.jpg

I agree with it completely, even though it will no doubt offend many of my fellow southerners. Pride in any flag is questionable, since most nations have committed vast numbers of atrocities over time, but that flag doesn't have a single decent memory attached to it. It stands for slavery, for bigotry, for treason and hatred and the symbolism here is apt. The penalty for treason is death, and it's about time we southerners carried it out on the idea that our history is glorious. It's not.

Yeah. I perfectly agree with this. But from your political bent, I thought you might have been a New Englander.