Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

I was raised in the South and did not view the Confederate flag as a racist symbol, but as a symbol of the South.

However, I was also very sheltered... raised in a county where the first AA in my school moved in during my senior year (2000). I don't recall learning much about the Civil War or slavery, except from what you learn from a brief chapter in a text book at school, nor did I think much about it as a teenager.

 

Now, however, especialy after reading Uncle Tom's Cabin and bawling through almost the whole thing, and fighting the urge to hug every AA in Walmart afterwards... I wouldn't dare be associated with a confederate flag and what it could "potentially" mean. Maybe those that are ok with it are as ignorant to the discusting horrors of slavery as I was. ?

 

Sure, you can view it as the flag of the South, but the thought of it sending a negative message like the one the OP received, I would stay far from it, personally. I'm ashamed to admit I had a confederate flag tag on the front of my car as a teen. Dumb, ignorant me.

 

On the other hand, I would not automatically assume a person with a confederate flag agrees with slavery or is racist. I certainly wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they just like the Dukes of Hazzard. The good ole' General Lee.

 

Anyway, I don't have one, but I don't assume everyone in the south is ignorant or racist just because they have a confederate flag on a shirt, car, or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just wish that rascist/hateful/bigoted groups would not tarnish a perfectly acceptable piece of Southern/US history by turning it into some kind of symbol for a cause that is revolting.

 

How is slavery acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Risking Spy Car's wrath at a red herring to say that the swastika is a non-racist symbol in Buddhism. So yes, symbols are not racist in and of themselves.

 

It is oriented the other way around, and not in a white circle on a red field when it is used as a Buddist symbol ;)

 

I do remember once visiting in the home of a prosperous Indian (by way of Uganda and England) family, and being quite (I'm not quite sure the right word for it is, "aware"?) of the swastitika motifs embedded in many of the traditional fabrics and art pieces they had in their beautiful home.

 

I, of course, knew that they were not Nazis and that knew this was an old symbol from their cultural past...still, it kind of gave me the willies.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is slavery acceptable?

 

It isn't, of course.

 

However, you are creating a false parallel between slavery and the Confederate flag. I think that is called a Red Herring, according to previous posts in this very thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think it was racism or ignorance, lots of people are ignorant enough to think the Civil War was about state's rights.

 

I respectfully disagree (don't want to derail this thread, though).

 

When I taught American History, I had my students keep track of all the arguments between the southern states/colonies and the northern states/colonies. The North and South were fighting from the beginning of our nation over issue after issue.

 

IMO, historians debate this issue all the time, the Civil War was fought over states' rights in the broader sense with slavery being the specific issue that ignited the war. The South thought that the Constitution did not give the Federal governemnt the power to tell them what to do in their own state, specifically about slavery. The Northern states sided with the Federal government for a lot of factors (religious background, economics, etc.). When Lincoln gets elected without any Southern support, the Southern states felt like the Federal government had enough power to ruin them economically so they seceded.

 

I don't agree with slavery (it is an atrocity). I think the South was 100% in the wrong for owning slaves, but the broad issue is state rights vs. Federal rights which we are still dealing with today.

 

IMO, when people say that the Civil War was just about slavery, I wince a little, because it was a much more complex war than just one issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't, of course.

 

However, you are creating a false parallel between slavery and the Confederate flag. I think that is called a Red Herring, according to previous posts in this very thread.

 

I am doing no such thing. The Civil War about about slavery. How is that a red herring???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe they just like the Dukes of Hazzard. The good ole' General Lee.

 

Anyway, I don't have one, but I don't assume everyone in the south is ignorant or racist just because they have a confederate flag on a shirt, car, or whatever.

 

:iagree:

 

How is slavery acceptable?

 

Slavery is never acceptable (of course).

 

But after having grown up in the south, I do not associate the Confederate flag with slavery. I heard "the South shall rise again" many, many, many times growing up. It had nothing to do with bringing back slavery. It had to do with making the South a separate country because the views of the people there are usually quite different than other parts of the country.

 

People seemed at the time to have more issues with people from the north than people that are black. The same way people here have issues with people from California (we are in MT).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion they are one of two things: oblivious or racist. Either they do not know how offensive that symbol can be or they do not care.

 

 

 

I agree, but... like almost any symbol, it can be used in a hateful way. There are people who display Confederate Flags out of no ill will or sentiment toward anyone. Yet there are also those who display it as a symbol of their bigotry. Without knowing the person, you can't say for certain what the intention is.

 

I will say, however, as a person who grew up in the South, the only times I saw INDIVIDUALS display that flag, they were doing it out of hate. Honestly (since you asked for honest), it makes me cringe when individuals use it. IMO, it belongs in an historical context/location only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respectfully disagree (don't want to derail this thread, though).

 

When I taught American History, I had my students keep track of all the arguments between the southern states/colonies and the northern states/colonies. The North and South were fighting from the beginning of our nation over issue after issue.

 

IMO, historians debate this issue all the time, the Civil War was fought over states' rights in the broader sense with slavery being the specific issue that ignited the war. The South thought that the Constitution did not give the Federal governemnt the power to tell them what to do in their own state, specifically about slavery. The Northern states sided with the Federal government for a lot of factors (religious background, economics, etc.). When Lincoln gets elected without any Southern support, the Southern states felt like the Federal government had enough power to ruin them economically so they seceded.

 

I don't agree with slavery (it is an atrocity). I think the South was 100% in the wrong for owning slaves, but the broad issue is state rights vs. Federal rights which we are still dealing with today.

 

IMO, when people say that the Civil War was just about slavery, I wince a little, because it was a much more complex war than just one issue.

 

I disagree with you. If my kid was in your class I would have pulled them.

 

The Civil War was not about state's rights. If you read the secession documents most of them say "Slavery"

 

Not only that but they clearly state that they were mad because the Fugitive Slave Act was not being enforced in other states. They wanted their property rights to still count in "Free" states.

 

That is the opposite of State's Rights. They wanted THEIR rights enforced in FREE states. That is not state's rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was raised in Texas, which is not the South; however, I would see that flag from time-to-time. Always found it repugnant. The Civil War is one of our nation's colossal, permanent embarrassments. I truly don't understand why anybody celebrates the memories.

 

That said, I leave room for the existence of a mindset that connects this flag with nostalgia for a "vanished kingdom". Unfortunately, that "vanished kingdom" relied on something horrible. The symbol [flag] really can't be separated from the reality. Yes, there were multiple issues. That often is brandished as an excuse to defend the war, I believe.

 

Not long ago, I read the children's book, Look Homeward, Hannalee. (I think that was the title.) I seriously doubt that the southern mill workers and other lower-income workers -- both white and black -- would dream of a return to those days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have about the same reaction as seeing Nazi flag displayed it a person's home.

 

"States Rights" is a code-word for the right of some people (White people) to enslave other people (Black people).

 

No way around that.

 

Bill

 

What he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respectfully disagree (don't want to derail this thread, though).

 

When I taught American History, I had my students keep track of all the arguments between the southern states/colonies and the northern states/colonies. The North and South were fighting from the beginning of our nation over issue after issue.

 

IMO, historians debate this issue all the time, the Civil War was fought over states' rights in the broader sense with slavery being the specific issue that ignited the war. The South thought that the Constitution did not give the Federal governemnt the power to tell them what to do in their own state, specifically about slavery. The Northern states sided with the Federal government for a lot of factors (religious background, economics, etc.). When Lincoln gets elected without any Southern support, the Southern states felt like the Federal government had enough power to ruin them economically so they seceded.

 

I don't agree with slavery (it is an atrocity). I think the South was 100% in the wrong for owning slaves, but the broad issue is state rights vs. Federal rights which we are still dealing with today.

 

IMO, when people say that the Civil War was just about slavery, I wince a little, because it was a much more complex war than just one issue.

 

:iagree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respectfully disagree (don't want to derail this thread, though).

 

When I taught American History, I had my students keep track of all the arguments between the southern states/colonies and the northern states/colonies. The North and South were fighting from the beginning of our nation over issue after issue.

 

IMO, historians debate this issue all the time, the Civil War was fought over states' rights in the broader sense with slavery being the specific issue that ignited the war. The South thought that the Constitution did not give the Federal governemnt the power to tell them what to do in their own state, specifically about slavery. The Northern states sided with the Federal government for a lot of factors (religious background, economics, etc.). When Lincoln gets elected without any Southern support, the Southern states felt like the Federal government had enough power to ruin them economically so they seceded.

 

I don't agree with slavery (it is an atrocity). I think the South was 100% in the wrong for owning slaves, but the broad issue is state rights vs. Federal rights which we are still dealing with today.

 

IMO, when people say that the Civil War was just about slavery, I wince a little, because it was a much more complex war than just one issue.

 

But, don't forget that Jim Crow laws were rationalized with the same argument: state rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Declareth history.

 

I disapprove of white washing.

 

Ahhh, "history." What a wonderful way for the winners to inform everyone what the losers really thought and were motivated by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Declareth you.

 

And the Confederate States in their declarations of succession.

 

It it in the historical record, plain as day.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is slavery acceptable?

 

In my quote I stated it was a part of Southern/US history. It is still a piece our (United States) history. I called it acceptable because there is nothing inherently rascist in the Confederate flag. It was simply a flag used by the Southern states when fighting in the Civil War. I personally don't display one because I know how people view it, but if I had a display of some Civil War memoribilia in my home, I might, IDK. But I don't think that automatically assuming if someone has one in their home means they are racist/ignorant is a fair depiction either.

 

But we can agree to disagree, I'm okay with that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahhh, "history." What a wonderful way for the winners to inform everyone what the losers really thought and were motivated by.

 

Did you read the primary source documents that she linked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I took the advice of one friend and asked the mom "what does displaying the confederate flag mean to your family?"

I think that's a great, non-confrontational question, by the way.

 

Her reply "oh ... nothing ... my husband just likes many different things

That is a hilarious answer. Because what does that mean? Why am I eating my lawn for dinner? Because I have a varied diet. Why am I wearing a three-piece suit to the beach? Because I like lots of different clothes. In other words, it's a non-answer.

 

so I put up the Gettysburg Address right under the flag for context"

What does that mean, though? What context does the Gettysburg Address provide?

 

I would find not only the confederacy-love weird, but their strange refusal to claim it, and their weakminded explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respectfully disagree (don't want to derail this thread, though).

 

When I taught American History, I had my students keep track of all the arguments between the southern states/colonies and the northern states/colonies. The North and South were fighting from the beginning of our nation over issue after issue.

 

IMO, historians debate this issue all the time, the Civil War was fought over states' rights in the broader sense with slavery being the specific issue that ignited the war. The South thought that the Constitution did not give the Federal governemnt the power to tell them what to do in their own state, specifically about slavery. The Northern states sided with the Federal government for a lot of factors (religious background, economics, etc.). When Lincoln gets elected without any Southern support, the Southern states felt like the Federal government had enough power to ruin them economically so they seceded.

 

I don't agree with slavery (it is an atrocity). I think the South was 100% in the wrong for owning slaves, but the broad issue is state rights vs. Federal rights which we are still dealing with today.

 

IMO, when people say that the Civil War was just about slavery, I wince a little, because it was a much more complex war than just one issue.

:iagree:

 

A slight aside on the flag issue - I assume we're talking about the Confederate battle flag (the flag on the General Lee.) Unfortunately, that symbol has been embraced/stolen whatever you want to call it, by some racist groups. Some people now display the National Flag of the Confederacy if they want to show their support for states rights without the racist/slavery imagery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have about the same reaction as seeing Nazi flag displayed it a person's home.

 

"States Rights" is a code-word for the right of some people (White people) to enslave other people (Black people).

 

No way around that.

 

Bill

 

:iagree: I am also very uncomfortable as an AA person when I encounter people displaying the flag on their homes, cars and clothing. I know they may not be racist per se, HOWEVER- the fact that a lot of folks who display the flag wish the south would have won the war or take pride in their ancestors fight for the south, obviously puts me on the defensive. I would probably keep my distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, don't forget that Jim Crow laws were rationalized with the same argument: state rights.

 

Right. I didn't say that their argument was sound. I think it was a load of bull (slavery included). But Federal law was used to enforce prohibition laws which was also an overreach of Federal rights. I was merely pointing out that states rights is a broad umbrella under which many claims are made, some valid, some stupid (slavery, Jim Crow, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is oriented the other way around, and not in a white circle on a red field when it is used as a Buddist symbol ;)

 

Bill

 

 

Wrong. Buddhists use the swastika in both the left and right orientation.

 

Incidentally the Finns, the Hundus, the Jains and several American Indian tribes also used the swastika in both left and right orientation.

 

Note the fourth picture down on the link. The top photo also has the swastika in a white field albeit with a left orientation.

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/symbols/swastika.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahhh, "history." What a wonderful way for the winners to inform everyone what the losers really thought and were motivated by.

 

 

The documents speak for themselves.

 

 

 

From the South Carolina secession documents

 

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

 

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

 

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

 

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

 

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

 

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

 

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

 

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

 

Mississippi

 

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

 

Texas

 

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time

 

Georgia

 

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

 

It was SLAVERY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, of course, knew that they were not Nazis and that knew this was an old symbol from their cultural past...still, it kind of gave me the willies.

You mean, if you came to my house, and I offered you watermelon on this charming picaninny plate while wearing my Chop Suey Specs disguise, you would be offended?! I can't imagine why!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ETA: This is from Wikipedia:

 

"In recent decades' date=' the term expanded its meaning to mean bigoted, loutish, and opposed to modern ways,[7] and has often been used to attack Southern conservatives and racists.[8] At the same time, some Southern whites have reclaimed the word, using it with pride and defiance as a self-identifier.[9]

 

Wikipedia also defines a redneck as a 17th century Scottish Presbyterian. Or a coal miner.

 

Words evolve. This one has evolved thanks to Jeff Foxworthy (who defines a redneck as someone who is "delightfully unsophisticated").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been very interested in the answers to this question. It is an odd matter to me as I went to a high school named Dixie and this flag was one of our symbols. The fight song was "Dixie". I graduated in 1989 and this was all still the case. I have been told that they have since changed the fight song and I don't know if they use the flag anymore but those things for us were symbols of pride in our high school. I would never, now, display that flag however because I am more aware now of the historical connotations. I do still get some nostalgic pride when I hear "Dixie" though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean, if you came to my house, and I offered you watermelon on this charming picaninny plate while wearing my Chop Suey Specs disguise, you would be offended?! I can't imagine why!

 

Some people are just hypersensitive. What can you do? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my quote I stated it was a part of Southern/US history. It is still a piece our (United States) history. I called it acceptable because there is nothing inherently rascist in the Confederate flag. It was simply a flag used by the Southern states when fighting in the Civil War. I personally don't display one because I know how people view it, but if I had a display of some Civil War memoribilia in my home, I might, IDK. But I don't think that automatically assuming if someone has one in their home means they are racist/ignorant is a fair depiction either.

 

But we can agree to disagree, I'm okay with that :)

 

I disagree because the Civil War was inherently racist.

 

My dad's family has some Nazi memorabilia because my grandfather took some things from Nazis while he was driving around in a tank. They don't display those items because that would not be ok. There is some intention in the family to donate those items to a museum at some point. But no one wants to display them...even though they are genuine historical items.

 

It is the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with you. If my kid was in your class I would have pulled them.

 

The Civil War was not about state's rights. If you read the secession documents most of them say "Slavery"

 

Not only that but they clearly state that they were mad because the Fugitive Slave Act was not being enforced in other states. They wanted their property rights to still count in "Free" states.

 

That is the opposite of State's Rights. They wanted THEIR rights enforced in FREE states. That is not state's rights.

 

I'm sorry you would have pulled your kids from my class :001_huh: I don't think the South's argument that slavery would fall under the state's rights banner is a valid one. I have my students follow all the conflicts between North/South from the foundation of our country to show that the Civil War had been building for a long time, Lincoln's election ignited a powder keg of what the South had believed for a long time (since the beginning) that the Northern states had it in for them. Slavery was the catalyst issue of that which is why you and others pointed out that they wrote extensively about slavery in their secession statements.

 

I think the South was wrong. I think slavery was wrong. All I'm saying is that the South believed it was an issue of states' rights. I'm not saying they were correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't most "rednecks" (stereotypical) racist? :gnorsi:

No. They aren't. Generalizations don't do anyone any favors.

 

My father's side of the family would be considered 'redneck' but they are not racists and their necks are red. They are farmers and construction workers.

 

I don't display the Confederate flag but I don't equate it to racism nor do I believe it means state's rights. I believe slavery is wrong in any shape form or fashion.

 

I really get upset when I see that it's ok and good to bash certain groups of people and not others. It's ok to bash fat people, Christians and people who are from the south apparently. Sheesh.... I didn't realize every bad thing my ancestors did branded me and mine for life. Anybody want to clue me in on the atrocities the Welsh and Swiss got up to? Or the Scots-Irish? I got a lousy public school education and we aren't up to the Modern Era of history yet.

 

Those 'rednecks' would give you the shirt off their back or the last bite of food they had - no matter if you were purple or from mars. They take people as they are which is what I do. That's what I was taught to do - to accept people the way they are. How someone could take the fact we happen to be from the south and are rednecks and automatically assume we're racist....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Texas

 

Quote:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time"

 

 

 

Those dang primary sources get me every time. I would enjoy thinking that my beloved Texas was above the fray in some respects, you know? In the war, but not of it. Alas, they were knee deep in the mire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry you would have pulled your kids from my class :001_huh: I don't think the South's argument that slavery would fall under the state's rights banner is a valid one. I have my students follow all the conflicts between North/South from the foundation of our country to show that the Civil War had been building for a long time, Lincoln's election ignited a powder keg of what the South had believed for a long time (since the beginning) that the Northern states had it in for them. Slavery was the catalyst issue of that which is why you and others pointed out that they wrote extensively about slavery in their secession statements.

 

I think the South was wrong. I think slavery was wrong. All I'm saying is that the South believed it was an issue of states' rights. I'm not saying they were correct.

 

I believe you are incorrect that the South believed it was a state's rights issue.

 

I posted several quotes from the actual secession documents that show my point. They believed it was about slavery. I think trying to say they were fighting for state's rights is white washing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry you would have pulled your kids from my class :001_huh: I don't think the South's argument that slavery would fall under the state's rights banner is a valid one. I have my students follow all the conflicts between North/South from the foundation of our country to show that the Civil War had been building for a long time, Lincoln's election ignited a powder keg of what the South had believed for a long time (since the beginning) that the Northern states had it in for them. Slavery was the catalyst issue of that which is why you and others pointed out that they wrote extensively about slavery in their secession statements.

 

I think the South was wrong. I think slavery was wrong. All I'm saying is that the South believed it was an issue of states' rights. I'm not saying they were correct.

 

:iagree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always viewed it as a racist symbol. I'm from TX and now in FL and I see it all the time. It bothers me. My brother is an athletic director at a high school in TX and he informed all of his players a few years ago that if he saw the Confederate flag displayed on their vehicles they would be sitting on the bench. It was a very small town and there was a lot of racism.

 

My dad's family has some Nazi memorabilia because my grandfather took some things from Nazis while he was driving around in a tank. They don't display those items because that would not be ok. There is some intention in the family to donate those items to a museum at some point. But no one wants to display them...even though they are genuine historical items.

 

Sis, this is us. My great uncle brought back some things from WWII and we have them stored in the attic. We don't want to display them but I'm also afraid to try and find someone or a museum who does. I'm afraid of the the whackos I might uncover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe you are incorrect that the South believed it was a state's rights issue.

 

I posted several quotes from the actual secession documents that show my point. They believed it was about slavery. I think trying to say they were fighting for state's rights is white washing.

 

Right. But in their mind slavery WAS a states' right issue. In my own words,

 

This is the state of Mississippi. We have the right to do what we want in our state without the Federal government telling us it is wrong. What we want to do is own slaves and have them returned to us if they escape. The Federal government will not enforce our right to do this. Therefore we will leave the United States so we can do what we want.

 

That is a states' right issue (in the South's mind) with slavery being the "hill to die on" so to speak.

 

This conflict between who should have more power, states or Federal, had been going on since the Constitutional Convention. Generally the South favored state power, while the Northern states favored Federal power. All I tried to show my Am. History students is that the Civil War was an outgrowth of that with the South using slavery as their hot button issue.

 

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Texas

 

Quote:

 

Those dang primary sources get me every time. I would enjoy thinking that my beloved Texas was above the fray in some respects, you know? In the war, but not of it. Alas, they were knee deep in the mire.

 

 

I think this is where many of us want to live "thinking so much is above the fray."

 

I think I am more confused than ever (I'm the OP). This conversation is really good and probably enlightening to many but I am still faced with do I let my child miss out on some very good instruction because of this issue or do I find another instructor? I know only I can answer that.

 

I really don't want to sit at this woman's house for 2 hours every Wednesday to keep an eye on things and I don't believe anyone will harm or mistreat my child but is my belief worth the doubt in the back of my mind?

 

I live in surburbia not back woods country and there are other kids in this class but I'm just saying if there is a shadow of a doubt (and there is) should I just go with the flow or find another instructor?? Just thinking out loud.

 

I know one thing my DC won't ever forget this lesson in history with all the visual aids and what not. Decisions, Decisions.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right. But in their mind slavery WAS a states' right issue. In my own words,

 

This is the state of Mississippi. We have the right to do what we want in our state without the Federal government telling us it is wrong. What we want to do is own slaves and have them returned to us if they escape. The Federal government will not enforce our right to do this. Therefore we will leave the United States so we can do what we want.

 

That is a states' right issue (in the South's mind) with slavery being the "hill to die on" so to speak.

 

This conflict between who should have more power, states or Federal, had been going on since the Constitutional Convention. Generally the South favored state power, while the Northern states favored Federal power. All I tried to show my Am. History students is that the Civil War was an outgrowth of that with the South using slavery as their hot button issue.

 

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

 

They wanted THEIR rights as slave owners to be enforced into free states by the FEDERAL government.

 

That isn't an argument for state power, they wanted the federal government to enforce their rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is where many of us want to live "thinking so much is above the fray."

 

I think I am more confused than ever (I'm the OP). This conversation is really good and probably enlightening to many but I am still faced with do I let my child miss out on some very good instruction because of this issue or do I find another instructor? I know only I can answer that.

 

I really don't want to sit at this woman's house for 2 hours every Wednesday to keep an eye on things and I don't believe anyone will harm or mistreat my child but is my belief worth the doubt in the back of my mind?

 

I live in surburbia not back woods country and there are other kids in this class but I'm just saying if there is a shadow of a doubt (and there is) should I just go with the flow or find another instructor?? Just thinking out loud.

 

I know one thing my DC won't ever forget this lesson in history with all the visual aids and what not. Decisions, Decisions.........

 

I would not, but I am sure many believe differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm African American, and I live in Texas. Nearly every time I have come across a confederate flag, it means I have accidentally stumbled somewhere I am not welcome.

 

I get myself and mine out of there post haste and definitely make sure the sun doesn't set on us.

 

I most certainly see it as a racist symbol. It makes me EXTREMELY uncomfortable to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They wanted THEIR rights as slave owners to be enforced into free states by the FEDERAL government.

 

That isn't an argument for state power, they wanted the federal government to enforce their rights.

 

Or...they wanted the right to secede from the union and become their own country. They got neither.

 

ETA: The Civil War started not because slavery laws were not enforced in the northern states or because the states were not given the rights that they wanted, but because they were not allowed to secede. If they had been allowed, there would not have been a war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or...they wanted the right to secede from the union and become their own country. They got neither.

 

ETA: The Civil War started not because slavery laws were not enforced in the northern states or because the states were not given the rights that they wanted, but because they were not allowed to secede. If they had been allowed, there would not have been a war.

 

I quoted the secession documents.

 

Mississippi's says

 

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

 

It seems to say it was about slavery.

 

 

 

That is like saying my child was sitting in the corner is due to me putting her in there, not her poor behavior.

 

The Confederate army attacked first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They wanted THEIR rights as slave owners to be enforced into free states by the FEDERAL government.

 

That isn't an argument for state power, they wanted the federal government to enforce their rights.

 

Exactly. The Fugitive Slave Law was a Federal piece of legislation. The Federal government refused to enforce it. The Southern states cried foul. It was their right to have these slaves and have them returned. The federal government said no it's not, the South secedes, and the Civil War begins.

 

If you want to get really technical, you could say that both states rights and slavery were just straw men when the real cause of the war was money (just like most wars). :glare:

 

BTW, I have really enjoyed throwing around history with you. I miss having debates about history :001_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I'm African American, and I live in Texas. Nearly every time I have come across a confederate flag, it means I have accidentally stumbled somewhere I am not welcome.

 

I get myself and mine out of there post haste and definitely make sure the sun doesn't set on us.

 

I most certainly see it as a racist symbol. It makes me EXTREMELY uncomfortable to see it.

 

 

I knew you would understand! I think its pretty unanimous among AAs, and I thought this was common knowledge to everyone else. So if you display this in your home either you are ignorant (b/c of your limited dealings with people of color) or you just don't care and this is my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. They aren't. Generalizations don't do anyone any favors.

 

My father's side of the family would be considered 'redneck' but they are not racists and their necks are red. They are farmers and construction workers.

 

I don't display the Confederate flag but I don't equate it to racism nor do I believe it means state's rights. I believe slavery is wrong in any shape form or fashion.

 

I really get upset when I see that it's ok and good to bash certain groups of people and not others. It's ok to bash fat people, Christians and people who are from the south apparently. Sheesh.... I didn't realize every bad thing my ancestors did branded me and mine for life. Anybody want to clue me in on the atrocities the Welsh and Swiss got up to? Or the Scots-Irish? I got a lousy public school education and we aren't up to the Modern Era of history yet.

 

Those 'rednecks' would give you the shirt off their back or the last bite of food they had - no matter if you were purple or from mars. They take people as they are which is what I do. That's what I was taught to do - to accept people the way they are. How someone could take the fact we happen to be from the south and are rednecks and automatically assume we're racist....

 

My comment about rednecks was in response to another post about confederate flag waving by rednecks who didn't know it was associated with the Civil War. Most of the confederate flag waving "rednecks" are anti-AA and non-whites in general. This is a totally different group from the rednecks you are referring to in your family. As I said, using this definition, my husband is one as well. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...