The Confederate Flag Rascist or Not?

[Heather in Neverland]

So what? If the pattern of the confederate flag was a peaceful sign of wood fairies in 1800 it would still symbolize the pro slavery movement and racism today. The most powerful and famous use of any symbol wins out, and that's what we're faced with. For people to be justifying the use of a swastika or confederate flag because it was also used for "other things" are just being delusional. They both symbolize a belief system founded on racism. Period.

 

So the Chinese should stop using it as a sign for their Red Swastika Society that began in 1922?

[Kate in Arabia]

So the Chinese should stop using it as a sign for their Red Swastika Society that began in 1922?

And Hindus should stop using a good-luck symbol they've been using for centuries?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4188141.stm

[Negin]

So what? If the pattern of the confederate flag was a peaceful sign of wood fairies in 1800 it would still symbolize the pro slavery movement and racism today. The most powerful and famous use of any symbol wins out, and that's what we're faced with. For people to be justifying the use of a swastika or confederate flag because it was also used for "other things" are just being delusional. They both symbolize a belief system founded on racism. Period.

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

I so agree and I would just add that the last sentence in the above quote, I would say, "They both now symbolize a belief system founded on racism."

Come on. Let's say it like it is ;). They are now, in 2011, regarded on the whole, as racist symbols.

[Kate in Arabia]

"They both now symbolize a belief system founded on racism."

Come on. Let's say it like it is . They are now, in 2011, regarded on the whole, as racist symbols.

To some the swastika is regarded as that; to the approx 900+ million Hindus in this world it isn't. They don't count? They don't get to use their symbol anymore without being thought of as racist?

[Osmosis Mom]

The swastika used by Hitler was slightly different than the one used by non-Nazists, no? The ends look different? Also, would anyone know why Hitler chose this symbol?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

That is NONSENSE and completely without logic, without any consideration of people different from yourself, and a extremely biggoted comment. I assume you did it just to start a fight... but it is appalling, disrepectful, and uninformed... and rather hateful.:leaving:

 

If you visit the Capital and see the source documents on display from that period it becomes very apparent that slavery was the cause of the civil war. It was "in your face" apparent IMHO.

[pqr]

The swastika used by Hitler was slightly different than the one used by non-Nazists, no? The ends look different?

 

 

I am afraid that it was not. There are many variants of the swastika, some with left orientation some with right and many of them look exactly like that used by the Nazis.

 

This was the emblem of the US 45 Infantry Division in the '30s

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_-_45_INF_DIV_Swastika.svg

[Dobela]

The swastika used by Hitler was slightly different than the one used by non-Nazists, no? The ends look different? Also, would anyone know why Hitler chose this symbol?

From here althoiugh I found the same information in several places.

 

When Adolph Hitler, the frustrated artist, was placed in charge of propaganda for the fledgling National Socialist Party in 1920, he realized that the party needed a vivid symbol to distinguish it from rival groups. He sought a design, therefore, that would attract the masses. Hitler selected the swastika as the emblem of racial purity displayed on a red background “to win over the worker,â€

Hitler had a convenient but spurious reason for choosing the Hakenkreuz or hooked cross. It had been used by the Aryan nomads of India in the Second Millennium B.C. In Nazi theory, the Aryans were the Germans ancestors, and Hitler concluded that the swastika had been “eternally anti-Semitic.â€

[pqr]

It was also used in Finland on their aircraft as early as 1918 and on Latvian aircraft in 1918. In both cases it predates the rise of the Nazi Party. Hitler may/should have known about such usage, given the proximity of Germany to these newly independent nations.

 

The first link is to the Finnish rondel (used 1918 -1944). The second is to the Latvian rondel used 1918 - 1940.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Finland_roundel_WW2_border.svg

http://www.insigniamag.com/afs005.html

 

The use of the swastika is complicated and as has been stated is not reserved to the Nazis alone. It was used with both a left and a right orientation by many peoples. Common myths about Buddhists ONLY using one orientation or the Nazis reversing the symbol of good are just that...myths.

[MissKNG]

Here is a good link:

 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Swastika

 

You can see the difference between the Nazi swastika (scroll to the bottom) and the Hindu swastika and others. The link even states "in the West" that the swastika is most known for Nazi usage.

[Mrs Mungo]

The Confederate flag was never used for anything outside of the context of the civil war. The swastika has a long history as a symbol, but the Nazi flag dies not.

[mom2scouts]

They'll never get it, I wouldn't bother. The problems with those who come from deep rooted families who have embedded racism in their history is they've been around it their entire lives and can rarely even point it out when they see it.

 

 

 

It's kind of ironic that this comment about "deep rooted families who have embedded racism" is in response to my post. Not only am I and my maternal line from the north, we live in an area where it's common to see houses that were part of the Underground Railroad and things named after John Brown. On my paternal side, I know that my ggg grandfather was in a border state, but he and his brother were both UNION soldiers who each re-enlisted in the Union army. As far as I've been able to tell, none of my family members ever owned slaves and they fought against slavery in the Civil War.

[mommytobees]

I would feel very uncomfortable to the point of not trusting someone if I saw a confederate flag displayed on someone's porch or in someone's house...Every Black person or other minority I know personally (of course I don't know everyone, but you get my point) would feel the same...I just think people should keep that in mind if their intentions are not ill...It does give a very strong message to a lot of people in this country...Whether the message is true or false, or you agree with it or not, just know that is how it is perceived...

 

::delurking::

 

We just moved to Charleston, SC. This is the second time we've lived here (US Navy).

 

I was in a shop a few days ago and there was a huge Confederate flag on the wall. I was talking with the clerk about this and that.

 

In the conversation I learned that _he_ was the owner. I was Shocked!! And it showed!!

 

The man was slightly offended and asked me point blank:

 

"A black man can't own a shop?"

 

It was all I could do through my blush to point at the flag.

 

He told me:

 

The Confederate flag is not about race. It is about pride. A black man can be proud of being a Southern Man. The flag is about rights, not about what IS right.

 

He and I discussed it for about 10 minutes. It was enlightening.

 

This man isn't alone in his thinking.

 

KRis, who is going back to lurking

[Teachin'Mine]

There are always exceptions. I wonder if it was "good" for business. I know - I'm cynical. :tongue_smilie:

[Jennifer3141]

The whole, "I know a black man who flies the Confederate flag!" argument is akin to the n-word. Yes, POCs can use it all they want while "taking it back" (even if many, many other POCs disagree that it is helpful to try to do so). As a white person, I cannot.

 

And yes, it IS a double standard, born out of the simple fact that people who look like me or who were even related to me ripped entire families and communities from the homes they had inhabitied almost since man could walk upright. Then they took those people without regard across the ocean (on a trip where many died) and then SOLD the survivors for enslavement, sometimes torture and often death.

 

I won't even mention what "white people" have done to the entire African continent.

 

There are some evils in which to effect the repairs will take generations. So if a black man wants to fly a Confederate flag, so be it. It's offensive to many, many other POCs. And because it stands for centuries of hate and and fear and death, it is offensive to me.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

What seems so shocking to me about this thread is the inconsistency. When someone comes here to report some comment that a stranger made to them about homeschooling WTM members fall all over themselves offering sympathy, commiseration, etc. But, what I'm hearing from some posters on this thread, if someone posted that, "I'm a POC and saw a confederate flag and I felt scared" some WTM people would tell them that, "Oh, what's the big deal? It's just a symbol of Southern pride!" :confused:

 

This is NOT about the exact cause of the civil war and IS about (IMO!) the fact that many people still view it as a symbol of hatred and racisim and many POC see it as a WARNING.

 

Isn't THAT enough to not defend it's use? This is not someone being overly sensitive or wanting to be politically correct. It IS about (again, IMO) caring about other people. Does 'pride in your Southern heritage' or pride in your ancestor's actions REALLY trump the feeling of safety and security of another human being?

 

I know that someone will take this to every illogical conclusion, as if we need to rip around our homes and country removing every.single.thing that could offend someone, but please do not take it there. Please just consider that some people here have said that they see it as a warning and know to keep out. IMO that is enough to NOT defend it.

[Cricket]

What seems so shocking to me about this thread is the inconsistency. When someone comes here to report some comment that a stranger made to them about homeschooling WTM members fall all over themselves offering sympathy, commiseration, etc. But, what I'm hearing from some posters on this thread, if someone posted that, "I'm a POC and saw a confederate flag and I felt scared" some WTM people would tell them that, "Oh, what's the big deal? It's just a symbol of Southern pride!" :confused:

 

This is NOT about the exact cause of the civil war and IS about (IMO!) the fact that many people still view it as a symbol of hatred and racisim and many POC see it as a WARNING.

 

Isn't THAT enough to not defend it's use? This is not someone being overly sensitive or wanting to be politically correct. It IS about (again, IMO) caring about other people. Does 'pride in your Southern heritage' or pride in your ancestor's actions REALLY trump the feeling of safety and security of another human being?

 

I know that someone will take this to every illogical conclusion, as if we need to rip around our homes and country removing every.single.thing that could offend someone, but please do not take it there. Please just consider that some people here have said that they see it as a warning and know to keep out. IMO that is enough to NOT defend it.

 

To be fair, the OP asked *why* someone would display the flag if it wasn't a symbol of racism and she specifically requested "HONEST opinions."

 

In my experience the majority of people who display the flag do not have racist intentions. I can't count the number of trucks I've seen with the flag on the back window. I see it as a sign that they probably are from the South (but not necessarily), probably like country music, are hard-working and independent, not a big fan of federal government intervention, and they could probably fix my truck. :) That's what it means to every person I've talked to who has it in their truck. You can't deny that the flag has other meanings besides "I support slavery." I think you are right that it all comes down to people's feelings. I guess we all have to decide for ourselves as to how we handle that.

[Nakia]

What seems so shocking to me about this thread is the inconsistency. When someone comes here to report some comment that a stranger made to them about homeschooling WTM members fall all over themselves offering sympathy, commiseration, etc. But, what I'm hearing from some posters on this thread, if someone posted that, "I'm a POC and saw a confederate flag and I felt scared" some WTM people would tell them that, "Oh, what's the big deal? It's just a symbol of Southern pride!" :confused:

 

This is NOT about the exact cause of the civil war and IS about (IMO!) the fact that many people still view it as a symbol of hatred and racisim and many POC see it as a WARNING.

 

Isn't THAT enough to not defend it's use? This is not someone being overly sensitive or wanting to be politically correct. It IS about (again, IMO) caring about other people. Does 'pride in your Southern heritage' or pride in your ancestor's actions REALLY trump the feeling of safety and security of another human being?

 

I know that someone will take this to every illogical conclusion, as if we need to rip around our homes and country removing every.single.thing that could offend someone, but please do not take it there. Please just consider that some people here have said that they see it as a warning and know to keep out. IMO that is enough to NOT defend it.

 

Cyndi, Thank you for saying what I really couldn't figure out a way to say. I am so sad that some of our very own WTM boardies can't go to certain places for fear for their life because the flag is displayed, yet people still choose to defend that flag. I want to puke when I see it. I was born and raised right here in Western NC and have never left. I know all about Southern pride. I'm proud of living in the south, but for very different reasons than the people who fly that vile flag.

[Slartibartfast]

To be fair, the OP asked *why* someone would display the flag if it wasn't a symbol of racism and she specifically requested "HONEST opinions."

 

In my experience the majority of people who display the flag do not have racist intentions. I can't count the number of trucks I've seen with the flag on the back window. I see it as a sign that they probably are from the South (but not necessarily), probably like country music, are hard-working and independent, not a big fan of federal government intervention, and they could probably fix my truck. :) That's what it means to every person I've talked to who has it in their truck. You can't deny that the flag has other meanings besides "I support slavery." I think you are right that it all comes down to people's feelings. I guess we all have to decide for ourselves as to how we handle that.

 

Are you a POC? In fairness not all of them would react the same way to different people. You only have your own perception and are not listening to those who have different experiences.

 

It isn't about feelings at all, but experiences.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Thank you, Nakia and Cricket for responding. Cricket, I hear you that the OP started the thread asking that question. What I meant was that WTM members have stated that they feel unsafe and WARNED when they see it and yet people have still defended it's use.

 

I'm not suggesting that we outlaw it. (it would only make it MORE of a symbol, I'm afraid!) I'm only saying that it pains me greatly that people would still WANT to display/use it when, to others, it is a clear warning.

 

When we get into "but the Swastika was used by NA/Hindu people" we discount the fact that MANY, MANY victims see it and freeze with fear.

 

I don't think that anyone here is denying that a swastika, confederate flag, cross, etc. can all be symbols of many things. But,....to deny that there are common meanings associated with those symbols seems insincere.

 

Again, it's only MY opinion. I have no historical original documents to uphold my opinion. I'm not trying to prove it, just pass it along.

[8circles]

As an non-POC I have no tolerance for the confederate flag as more than a historical object. While there may be non-racists people who are fond of this flag I've only personally experienced those who are racists. So when I encounter this flag I stay far away from that individual.

[Spy Car]

That is NONSENSE and completely without logic, without any consideration of people different from yourself, and a extremely biggoted comment. I assume you did it just to start a fight... but it is appalling, disrepectful, and uninformed... and rather hateful.:leaving:

 

The phrase "States Rights" has be used by segregationist and racist white-supremacists as a code-word from slave-days to the present.

 

It is always valuable to look at the historical record and primary source documents (rather than those who would rewrite history) to see the what motivated them.

 

Here is what Alexander Stephens, the Vice-President of the Confederacy, had to say about the reason for the war:

 

"The new constitution [The CSA constitution] has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.

 

This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.

 

What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

 

The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.

 

It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.

 

The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

 

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

[8circles]

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

This is not news to me but its horrifying to see it in print.

[MSNative]

The phrase "States Rights" has be used by segregationist and racist white-supremacists as a code-word from slave-days to the present.

 

 

 

Can't multi-quote, but here is your earlier post.

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

 

Do you honestly believe that people today who argue and vote in favor of states rights are racist, white-supremacists? I hope that is not what you meant to say and that it has just come out wrong. However, I think that may be why so many find what you said offensive.

[Slartibartfast]

Can't multi-quote, but here is your earlier post.

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

 

Do you honestly believe that people today who argue and vote in favor of states rights are racist, white-supremacists? I hope that is not what you meant to say and that it has just come out wrong. However, I think that may be why so many find what you said offensive.

 

No it isn't offensive. He is discussing the Civil War, not people who discuss "State's Rights" now, no telling what they mean by that.

 

It is clear from the actual historic secession documents that the PRIMARY reason states seceded was slavery. People say all the time that the war was about "State's Rights" but in actually it was about "State's Rights to keep slaves and have those 'rights' enforced even in free states."

 

It wasn't just "State's Rights" It was slavery.

[leeannpal]

Spycar,

 

The issue of state's rights existed long before the Confederacy. Going back to the years immediately after the American Revolutionary War, the isue of whether the U.S. should have a strong central government or a allow individual states to hve stronger rights was hotly debated. You can caim th the term "state's rights" is a code phrase for slavery, but you are simply wrong. Hitory is about facts, not opinion. There is ample evidence inU.S. history that the issues of sate's rights was a lage and divisive issue long before the Confederacy existed.

 

You really should stick to issue at hand-whether or not the Confederate flag is a racist symbol. Now that is based on opinion, not fact.

[leeannpal]

No it isn't offensive. He is discussing the Civil War, not people who discuss "State's Rights" now, no telling what they mean by that.

 

It is clear from the actual historic secession documents that the PRIMARY reason states seceded was slavery. People say all the time that the war was about "State's Rights" but in actually it was about "State's Rights to keep slaves and have those 'rights' enforced even in free states."

 

It wasn't just "State's Rights" It was slavery.

 

It was a combination of several things, primarily economics and trade.

[Slartibartfast]

Spycar,

 

The issue of state's rights existed long before the Confederacy. Going back to the years immediately after the American Revolutionary War, the isue of whether the U.S. should have a strong central government or a allow individual states to hve stronger rights was hotly debated. You can caim th the term "state's rights" is a code phrase for slavery, but you are simply wrong. Hitory is about facts, not opinion. There is ample evidence inU.S. history that the issues of sate's rights was a lage and divisive issue long before the Confederacy existed.

 

You really should stick to issue at hand-whether or not the Confederate flag is a racist symbol. Now that is based on opinion, not fact.

 

If you disagree that the Civil War was about slavery then prove it.

 

Spycar and I have both quoted historic documents, where are yours for rebuttal?

[Slartibartfast]

It was a combination of several things, primarily economics and trade.

 

 

None of the secession documents say that.

 

They say "slavery"

[Mrs Mungo]

It was pretty clear to me that Bill was talking about State's Rights in the context of the Civil War, not other contexts.

[Slartibartfast]

Here are the quotes again

 

 

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.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

It was pretty clear to me that Bill was talking about State's Rights in the context of the Civil War, not other contexts.

 

:iagree:

[MSNative]

No it isn't offensive. He is discussing the Civil War, not people who discuss "State's Rights" now, no telling what they mean by that.

 

It is clear from the actual historic secession documents that the PRIMARY reason states seceded was slavery. People say all the time that the war was about "State's Rights" but in actually it was about "State's Rights to keep slaves and have those 'rights' enforced even in free states."

 

It wasn't just "State's Rights" It was slavery.

 

That is why I was trying to clarify. He wrote "to the present." I didn't add that. I do find it offensive for someone to say that anyone in favor of states rights NOW is a racist.

[leeannpal]

If you disagree that the Civil War was about slavery then prove it.

 

Spycar and I have both quoted historic documents, where are yours for rebuttal?

I absolutely don't dsagree that slaver was a main cause of the Civl War. What i, and a few oters have tried to say is that the situation, at that time in history, was far more complicated than just to throw out statements like southern slaves owners were akin to Nazis. That what makes me made-overblown emotionalism that has little bearings on the facts. of history.

 

I hate anything to do with slavery/Jim Crow and racism in general. I've had te privilege of livin as a minority in an African county. I've had the distinct displesure f seeing blatant racism in my hometown. I'm not defending slavery. But, I don't like it when people distort historical fact to make it fit with 21st century mindsets either.

[Slartibartfast]

I absolutely don't dsagree that slaver was a main cause of the Civl War. What i, and a few oters have tried to say is that the situation, at that time in history, was far more complicated than just to throw out statements like southern slaves owners were akin to Nazis. That what makes me made-overblown emotionalism that has little bearings on the facts. of history.

 

I hate anything to do with slavery/Jim Crow and racism in general. I've had te privilege of livin as a minority in an African county. I've had the distinct displesure f seeing blatant racism in my hometown. I'm not defending slavery. But, I don't like it when people distort historical fact to make it fit with 21st century mindsets either.

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

I quoted the HISTORIC documents. I didn't distort them. They SAY slavery.

 

Your accusation is not only ridiculous but hilarious!

[Slartibartfast]

That is why I was trying to clarify. He wrote "to the present." I didn't add that. I do find it offensive for someone to say that anyone in favor of states rights NOW is a racist.

 

What he said was

 

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

[leeannpal]

It was pretty clear to me that Bill was talking about State's Rights in the context of the Civil War, not other contexts.

 

But you can't do that. U.S. history is all strongy tied together. The Civil War didn't just sudenl happen out of the blue. In fact the issues, including state's rights had been going on for decades. South Carolina, led by the notorious John. C. Calhoun, tried to secede from the union in the 1820's over the issue of state' rigts primarily. That was more than 35 years before the start of the Civil War.

 

Look at it this way. You ca' separate WWIIfrom the events that happened before it either. WWI, and the failed Treaty of Paris and League of Nations fiasco were a direct cause of the rise of Hitler and ,eventually, WWII.

[leeannpal]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

I quoted the HISTORIC documents. I didn't distort them. They SAY slavery.

 

Your accusation is not only ridiculous but hilarious!

And I now understand that it is pretty useless to try to explain the finer points of American history to you. Go back and look at the numerous documents about state's rights well before the Civil War. There had been so may fights in Congress-northern interests vs. southern interests, that it makes sense when yo look at the war in the context of our history-not as a single event. Chck out the name Preston Brooks.

[Slartibartfast]

And I now understand that it is pretty useless to try to explain the finer points of American history to you. Go back and look at the numerous documents about state's rights well before the Civil War. There had been so may fights in Congress-northern interests vs. southern interests, that it makes sense when yo look at the war in the context of our history-not as a single event. Chck out the name Preston Brooks.

 

It is clear that you do not want your own opinion to be countered in any way even with historical proof.

 

There are many things that led to the Civil War, but the people AT THE TIME said the *primary reason* was slavery. You are blind to the facts.

 

The documents speak for themselves. I have offered historical documents as has Spycar and you have done *nothing* but bring your own opinion to the discussion. Your opinion does not override the State of Mississippi

 

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

Edited August 6, 2011 by Sis

[Ellesmere]

Spycar,

 

You really should stick to issue at hand-whether or not the Confederate flag is a racist symbol. Now that is based on opinion, not fact.

 

I know you didn't ask me, but I am sincerely wondering.

 

So, if this is the question:

Is the Confederate flag a racist symbol?

 

And someone's answer is:

It has been used a racist symbol. It is still sometimes used that way. It is not always meant to be used that way (and I know at least one person who does use it for what he would say is just "southern pride"), but it might be at the very least a compassionate choice to understand why people are nervous around it.

 

It is a fact that it has been used as a racist symbol, since some people admit that they use it that way. However, the flag itself does not always demonstrate a racist attitude.

 

Would you be in disagreement?

 

(This is a genuine question, not an argument and not in a sarcastic tone. I'm just spelling out what (at this point) seems to me to be a reasonable conclusion/opinion and wonder there would be disagreement with that answer. And I'm asking based on the quoted statement, not on anything else you have posted, since this thread is, ah, rather long and I don't want to read anything into what you have said. I hope you don't mind discussing! Thanks!)

[leeannpal]

I know you didn't ask me, but I am sincerely wondering.

 

So, if this is the question:

Is the Confederate flag a racist symbol?

 

And someone's answer is:

It has been used a racist symbol. It is still sometimes used that way. It is not always meant to be used that way (and I know at least one person who does use it for what he would say is just "southern pride"), but it might be at the very least a compassionate choice to understand why people are nervous around it.

 

It is a fact that it has been used as a racist symbol, since some people admit that they use it that way. However, the flag itself does not always demonstrate a racist attitude.

 

Would you be in disagreement?

 

(This is a genuine question, not an argument and not in a sarcastic tone. I'm just spelling out what (at this point) seems to me to be a reasonable conclusion/opinion and wonder there would be disagreement with that answer. And I'm asking based on the quoted statement, not on anything else you have posted, since this thread is, ah, rather long and I don't want to read anything into what you have said. I hope you don't mind discussing! Thanks!)

I believe that it is a racist symbol and would not own one. However, I am not omnicient and cannot say with certainty that other people see it that way.

[Spy Car]

That is why I was trying to clarify. He wrote "to the present." I didn't add that. I do find it offensive for someone to say that anyone in favor of states rights NOW is a racist.

 

The fact that there has been (and continue to be) legitimate differences of opinion and persuasion on the matter of Federal vs State powers is a very different thing than the use of "States Rights" as a political code-word.

 

"States Rights" has notoriously been the code-word used by segregationist and white supremacists when fighting against school integration and Civil Rights. You can recognize this truth, or pretend otherwise.

 

This does not mean that there are not legitimate issues that go back to the divisions of Federalists and Anti-Federalists. But let's not pretend about the historic legacy of how the phrase "States Rights" has been used by forces of bigotry and hate in this nation up to today.

 

Bill

[Jennifer3141]

The fact that there has been (and continue to be) legitimate differences of opinion and persuasion on the matter of Federal vs State powers is a very different thing than the use of "States Rights" as a political code-word.

 

"States Rights" has notoriously been the code-word used by segregationist and white supremacists when fighting against school integration and Civil Rights. You can recognize this truth, or pretend otherwise.

 

This does not mean that there are not legitimate issues that go back to the divisions of Federalists and Anti-Federalists. But let's not pretend about the historic legacy of how the phrase "States Rights" has been used by forces of bigotry and hate in this nation up to and INLUDING today.

 

Bill

 

One slight change and I utterly agree with Spy. :D

[Rivka]

I absolutely don't dsagree that slaver was a main cause of the Civl War. What i, and a few oters have tried to say is that the situation, at that time in history, was far more complicated than just to throw out statements like southern slaves owners were akin to Nazis. That what makes me made-overblown emotionalism that has little bearings on the facts. of history.

 

But you know that the Nazis had extremely strong economic motivations, right? That if you asked them at the time, they would have said that the economic security of their country was under threat from without and from within, and that they needed to go to war to protect their economic survival? Again, I'm not equating Confederates with Nazis, but harping on the South's economic concerns as a way of differentiating them from the Nazis just doesn't cut it.

 

The South's concerns were economic, largely because their entire economy was based on slavery. The South's concerns included state's rights, because they were afraid of losing their right to own slaves.

 

As early as Reconstruction, Southerners were retroactively justifying secession and the war as not being primarily motivated by slavery. But if you look at what they said before they lost, in the primary source documents that have been quoted in this thread again and again, it is clear that they were not at all ashamed to say that their cause was slavery.

 

I hate anything to do with slavery/Jim Crow and racism in general. I've had te privilege of livin as a minority in an African county. I've had the distinct displesure f seeing blatant racism in my hometown. I'm not defending slavery. But, I don't like it when people distort historical fact to make it fit with 21st century mindsets either.

The problem I have with "oh, you're just imposing 20th century morality on them" is that the abolitionists were products of the same era. There were plenty of people who recognized and publicized the evils of slavery. Plenty of the Confederates' contemporaries recognized that slavery was abhorrent, and they can't all have been time travelers from the 20th century.

[leeannpal]

It is clear that you do not want your own opinion to be countered in any way even with historical proof.

 

There are many things that led to the Civil War, but the people AT THE TIME said the *primary reason* was slavery. You are blind to the facts.

 

The documents speak for themselves. I have offered historical documents as has Spycar and you have done *nothing* but bring your own opinion to the discussion. Your opinion does not override the State of Mississippi

And ou can't quote just the ordinances of secession from a few southern states and ignore the numerous other historical documents out there, some from many years befoer the Civil War. For one thing, those documents were mostly written by one or two people. They certainly didn't speak for all southerners of the time. Even Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal," and yet, he was a slave owner. There is no way I would take that quote out of context and discern that Jefferson must have treated his slaves remarkably well because, after all, he thought all men were equal.That is why I am not posting documents or quotes. I think most of us are aware that, without appropriate context, a few quotes are meaningless. Go back a few pages and look at the posts by dueling Lincoln posters. The issues leading up to he Civil War were incredibly complex, and next to impossible or us to understand wit out modern viewpoints.

[UmmiSays]

The fact that there has been (and continue to be) legitimate differences of opinion and persuasion on the matter of Federal vs State powers is a very different thing than the use of "States Rights" as a political code-word.

 

"States Rights" has notoriously been the code-word used by segregationist and white supremacists when fighting against school integration and Civil Rights. You can recognize this truth, or pretend otherwise.

 

This does not mean that there are not legitimate issues that go back to the divisions of Federalists and Anti-Federalists. But let's not pretend about the historic legacy of how the phrase "States Rights" has been used by forces of bigotry and hate in this nation up to today.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

[leeannpal]

But you know that the Nazis had extremely strong economic motivations, right? That if you asked them at the time, they would have said that the economic security of their country was under threat from without and from within, and that they needed to go to war to protect their economic survival? Again, I'm not equating Confederates with Nazis, but harping on the South's economic concerns as a way of differentiating them from the Nazis just doesn't cut it.

 

The South's concerns were economic, largely because their entire economy was based on slavery. The South's concerns included state's rights, because they were afraid of losing their right to own slaves.

 

As early as Reconstruction, Southerners were retroactively justifying secession and the war as not being primarily motivated by slavery. But if you look at what they said before they lost, in the primary source documents that have been quoted in this thread again and again, it is clear that they were not at all ashamed to say that their cause was slavery.

 

The problem I have with "oh, you're just imposing 20th century morality on them" is that the abolitionists were products of the same era. There were plenty of people who recognized and publicized the evils of slavery. Plenty of the Confederates' contemporaries recognized that slavery was abhorrent, and they can't all have been time travelers from the 20th century.

Before the Civil War there actually weren't a lot of abolitionists in the north or elsewhere. No one has said that slavery wasn't a cause. To try to boil it dow to the only cause is simply wrong.

[leeannpal]

:iagree:

O.K., now you are moing the issue into the 20th century. Several people have posted that you were only talking about the Civil War.

 

I just spent a semeter teaching Georgia History. We went all the reconstructionist views, Plessy vs. Ferguson, was a significant U.S. Supreme Court case in which te federal goernment, not the southern states, said that "separate but equal" was fine. So the basis of the Jim Crow laws came from the federal government. We also discused in detail racism in all parts of the country including the Los Angeles race riots. W also discussed the veryracst governors of the day, the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas case, the Montgomery bus boycott, rise of Martin Luther King Jr., the Civil Rights Acts of1957 an 1964, the Voting Rights act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

 

I live in a small tow in Georgia andsee aspectsof racism on a daily basis. At my school, I am doin all I can to stop the spread of racism. None of tht negates the fact that the Civil War was about several issues-not just slavery.

[Spy Car]

Before the Civil War there actually weren't a lot of abolitionists in the north or elsewhere. No one has said that slavery wasn't a cause. To try to boil it dow to the only cause is simply wrong.

 

The original source documents show that slavery was the cause given by the Southern states for the war.

 

That slavery is now, among most people—Douglas Wilson and others like him excluded— a source of great embarrassment does not allow rationalizations and revisionisms that don't reflect the truth to be substituted with confabulations.

 

Bill

[Slartibartfast]

And ou can't quote just the ordinances of secession from a few southern states and ignore the numerous other historical documents out there, some from many years befoer the Civil War. For one thing, those documents were mostly written by one or two people. They certainly didn't speak for all southerners of the time. Even Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal," and yet, he was a slave owner. There is no way I would take that quote out of context and discern that Jefferson must have treated his slaves remarkably well because, after all, he thought all men were equal.That is why I am not posting documents or quotes. I think most of us are aware that, without appropriate context, a few quotes are meaningless. Go back a few pages and look at the posts by dueling Lincoln posters. The issues leading up to he Civil War were incredibly complex, and next to impossible or us to understand wit out modern viewpoints.

 

No one is denying there were other issues at play, things that had been going on for awhile but..the documents do state that it was the PRIMARY reason.

 

Did they not have secession conventions? With voting? I don't think the documents were just written by some random guy and fired off to the papers without anyone else seeing it.