First off, Mick, I think we agree on a lot here but our presentations may be a bit skewed to each of our understanding.
Second, I respect you much on this board. You’re one of my more favorite posters so with that being said, my rebuttals are very blunt, but know that no disrespect is intended. just to the point answers. So if I offend know that’s it’s not personal and I have nothing but respect for you. unless you turn into an ass then FUCK YOU! (Just kidding [:)])
Grmp I’m sorry but your understanding of mid nineteenth century America is simplistic and completely drowned in 21st century thinking, ie. trying to apply today’s standards and situations to that of the 1850s/1860s.
That’s because I have the benefit of hindsight, as does anyone living today(meaning applicable thoughts or attitudes that were prevalent of the time are now moot). The standards hold true even back then, but the ignorance of the south would not let them see the reality of the situation. Doesn’t matter that the South saw the slaves as property, fact remains that they were not property, not back then, not now. Nobody is ever property!
[reply]Symbols of the Confederacy are a symbol of Southern heritage (such as states rights in the face of a federal government trying to tell them what to do).
I’ve heard this reasoning and I completely dismiss it. States rights? Really? So the state has the right to deprive Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I think not! No state ever has the right to do that. SO the whole states rights issue is completely asinine. That’s like someone stepping in to stop a murder and the would be murderer suing the hero for laying hands on would be murderer. Completely stupid!
This just shows how much you don’t understand the situation. No one today is trying to say slavery is justified because it is a state’s right, the point is (or was) slavery was intrinsic to the Southern economy (the agrarian tradition, which relied on the labour of 4 million slaves)
[/reply]
[u]“No one today is trying to say slavery is justified because it is a state’s right”[/u]
That is exactly what they are trying to say. Otherwise there is no reason to bring up state’s rights. The fact that slave labor was intrinsic to the south doesn’t change the fact that the south had no right to do it.
Crack dealers make their money off selling drugs, if the government steps in and arrests them, they have squashed said crack dealers ability to make a living. Under the argument that you (are still making for the south) and the south are making, the central government has no right to come in and destroy said way of life; which is completely false. That argument was false back then its false now. (I understand their reasoning and it’s wrong and has been proven wrong time and time again. So that rebel flag holds no other value than that of racism (except for the idiot that flies it out of ignorance thinking it means something else).
Even if it’s flown under the false pretense as an “anti Central government” it’s still wrong because the south was protesting the central government’s ability to outlaw racism (Slavery)
I completely understand the mindset of the south back then. They were at the time, and regardless if the south saw it or not, racist. The thought that their way of life was threatened because the Government was going to put an end to slavery, doesn’t make their attitudes any more or less racist ‘cause the Government was destroying their way of life…
You seem to be under the impression that just because the south believed they had a right to enslave people meant that it’s not racist… that’s just wrong…
The role of the government is to provide for the common welfare of its citizens and letting states deny the most basic of rights to citizens (by letting the south continue to keep PEOPLE as property) would be the central government ignoring its own role in government,
Regardless of how the south felt about or thought about it, the Government was ending injustice and to keep the attitudes of the south intact shows a refusal to progress past a racist mindset.
The abolition movement from the North was seeking an end to slavery as it was a blot on the American gov. and their comparatively amazing constitution. The foundation of the country is however based on a distrust of a powerful centralized gov. (lessons learned from the old world) and the intention was to allow each state as much sovereignty as it could.
Yeah, The distrust of the Central government was hashed out 70 years prior with the articles of Confederation and bill of rights debates …this still doesn’t help the south any, because, under what was adopted, the Central government still had clout to pass and enforce it’s laws
Lincoln was the first pres. who stepped up the federal gov.s role in civil matters, and for the issue of abolishing slavery he was, of course, right. The slave states did not think they were intentionally denying civil liberties to slaves because they didn’t see slaves as being equals and entitled to such in the first place. To understand why a country (or loose group of states or individuals or whatever) did what it did you need to understand what they believed at that time. Most Southerners did not care about black people being equal citizens because of their ignorance and racism. But it was over this issue that they come into conflict with the North as the North were seeking a complete change of the Southern economy and life.
[i]ignorance and racism. [/i]
This is what I’ve been saying. I understand that they thought of black people as property but they are not property. And they were not back then either, even though they were bought and sold they were still not property!
Yes, at the time the south didn’t think they were racist but they were. End of story. Now that everyone knows that the south was racist, that’s the only thing that flag can possibly represent. Anything else and, whoever is doing the “redefining” is as delusional as the south was about racism.
Flying it now is worse because back then the south couldn’t really be held accountable for knowing any better (I mean you could probably argue that they should’ve known better) but, nobody today has that luxury. EVERYBODY knows that the south was racist.
[reply]However I think there are many who brandish the flag today who are not inveterate racists, Al being a case in point. If anything the flag is an attempt to look like a bad boy, a rebel. But it does have an ironic twist to it, Al prefering not to pay his musicians for their work.
again, ignorance, because went it comes right down to it that flag is racist. It was founded on racism and waived on racism those can try to legitimize it all they want but it still comes down to racism.
The flag is a symbol of the Southern states who believed they had a right to be racist. They did not proudly declare themselves “racist” but their belief of the innate inferiority of black people was of course racist. You need to step outside your own beliefs to understand others. You would not make a good historian if you can’t do this (not that you want to be an historian).
[/reply]
And that mindset is “ok" (I suppose) for back then, but this is today and not back then. People today DO NOT have the luxury of keeping that mindset, I guess you DO have the right to be racist in your thoughts but not your actions.
This is the whole Crux of my argument I think if you are waiving that flag around you are either racist or ignorant of the fact that you are promoting racism (SEE, AL J)
[reply]Edit: regarding some historical points. Emancipation (just the slaves in the CSA) was Jan 1st, 1863. Gettysburg was won July 4th, 1863. Slavery is more intrinsic to secession than it being the sole reason, however the declarations of secession from the seceding states all identified their right to perpetuate slavery as the being the reason why they were splitting.
I think I said this already. The election of Lincoln is what lead to the split and the slaves were not freed until the union gained the upper hand in the war.
No you said: “After Lincoln won a decisive battle (Gettysburg, I think, I never remember the names of the battles) that’s when slaves were freed” which is chronologically innacurate. The Union would fight the Civil War to preserve the Union (as you said) but the CSA were fighting it to assert their rights to perpetuate slavery. The CSA opened fire first.
[/reply]
Ugh, lol, what battle for what war did you think I was talking about? The north didn’t automatically decree that all slaves were free and that’s why the south left. The south left because it knew the abolition movement was gonna eventually ruin their way of life, and so they left the union… not because Lincoln ended slavery as many seem to think. Slavery actually didn’t become outlawed until Gettysburg(?) which means the Civil war was already raging… Sorry I thought I was clear on that.
[reply] The CSA never had a chance and that is maybe why they people still try to find something admirable in it, because they feel sorry for them as is the case with many losing sides of a war.
actually the south had a fantastic chance. The south had better generals, they were fighting on home turf, which meant they knew the terrain better than the city slickers that came down for the fight, they were better shots with their guns because they relied on their guns every day for their daily living. Hell, they were fighting for their livelihood that’s a pretty big motivator.
At one point the south was actually advancing north with an opportunity to take over the white house. The south pretty much had everything in their favor. The only thing the south really didn’t have were the factories that produced the weapons, and ammunition and transportation lines.
Your last sentence here as well as the obvious factor of the North having a much larger man pool is basically why they didn’t have a realistic chance at winning.
[/reply]
Well, these statements are true but I don’t think are technically correct. While yes the north had bigger population they didn’t necessarily have a bigger man pool. Not everyone in the north supported abolition, some didn’t care either way and others may have supported abolition but may have refused to fight. Nobody knows for sure because thankfully no draft was instituted.
The biggest downfall of the south was the fact that all of the ammunition factories were up north (and here I clearly say I don’t know) but you would think that the confederate soldiers would loot the battlefields and be able to pick up the guns and bullets they needed and with the southerners being better shots you would figure they wouldn’t need as much ammo as the north. But now we’re off topic
The CSA won some big battles in '61-'63 but that was due to ineptitude of guys like McClellan and the vigour of guys like Lee. The very best the CSA could have hoped for was a compromise down the line. A country with a far superior man pool and munitions capacity would have to lie down and take it up the ass for that to happen. Under Lincoln that was never going to happen. And when guys like Grant and Sherman got going, the CSA was terminal.
I don’t know, I think for two years the south demonstrated their combat superiority I think at best they could’ve maintained their secession, although they were gonna have to reestablish trade with countries… I guess that’s what else lead to the collapse of the confederacy the lack of money coming in because of the embargo
I think the rebel flag is something that we should not become desensitized to.
Late,
grmpysmrf
The flag can, of course, be offensive to black people. What we know now to be the inherent injustice of slavery was not a common belief in the South. Just for a second imagine yourself being born into and growing up on a Southern plantation that kept slaves, you see and are probably told from day one that black people are a different inferior race. Just as others are indoctrinated with religion from youth it is too presumptuous to think you would find it inherently wrong and would seek it’s end.
I agree with all of this… but the simple fact is that WE do not live in those times. so anyone, now, in current society can’t claim ignorance the way the old south could.
It generally takes people from outside that realm to see what is wrong with it, who are more enlightened and objective. No one can today deny that slavery is unjust and not be laughed at or accused of racism, and rightly so. But the point I’m trying to make here is that most Southerners did not believe that and because slavery was bound in their way of life
Again, I agree completely, but I say again, everybody in today’s modern society is (in your words) outside that realm. everyone can see that the south left do to its racist tendencies (just cause the south at the time couldn’t see it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t racist if an overvweight person doesn’t believe they are fat does that keep said overweight guy from being overweight? I think not)
(which was not going to last, the agrarian economy was stilted and too monolithic. As the North and Europe advances into a greater techological age, the South would have to adapt. The irony of the institution of slavery is that it was an inefficient means even before the Civil War, the political economy argument rules that having to look after slaves (food, shelter, medicine, etc.) costs more than just paying workers a shitty wage and letting them look after themselves) they were resistant to the idea of Northerners coming down and telling them what to do, that they would have to radically alter their economy on ideological grounds.
AS far as cheaper to pay them I think not. They put up crappy shelters and fed them left over slop medicine was unheard of for them and savaging for fire wood doesn’t cost a damn thing. Not only that as the agrarian society collapsed (as you, I believe, so rightly predicted) you think those slaves would’ve been turned loose? I think not they would’ve been put to work doing something else… We’d all be bitching about the the slaves we have to deal with for tech support rather than the East Indians!
It is not sufficient enough to say the Confederate flag is simply a symbol of racism.
It is! You as a modern day adult do not have the benefit of the blinders that were worn by the south.
It is a symbol of resistance to the federal gov. forcing them to change their ways, their ways being inherently racist.
Right, it is a symbol to continue their racist ways… This flag was to symbolize the racist ways of the south… what else is there?
You and me and most others know that the CSA were wrong in what they were fighting for but that should not muddle our understanding of the reasons for doing what they did.
Their reasons were racist! It doesn’t matter that they didn’t know, because WE KNOW!!
There are ALWAYS institutional and contextual factors underlying major changes/wars etc. If slaves were not important to the Southern economy in the nineteenth century there probably would not have been a civil war.
agreed!
Now there’s probably plenty of yahoos today who wave the Confederate flag and who are racist and using it for their white supremacy bullshit but all flags and symbols can be misused or misconstrued to mean something else. [
again, I agree. the flag is misconstrued to mean something else when in actuality it means racism.
So in Al’s use of the flag it is not fair to say he is racist because he brandishes it. The flag has more than just a racist connotation.
You are right it’s not to fair to call Al racist. It is fair to call him ignorant though because that flag means racism despite what meaning he wants to put behind it. I DON’T THINK AL IS RACIST AT ALL. I THINK HE IS IGNORANT
Late,
grmpysmrf
