Why the Confederacy should not be "honored"

[BSM1]

Why would the South "still being there" prove that the Union did not win the war? The South is still here, but is the Confederacy a sovereign nation?

Obviously you're not from the South. My condolences.

 

[BSM1]

Is that really your view or are you just pulling our leg?

You'd be surprised what you can learn from Carpetbaggers.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I wonder to the mythology of the Union. I suspect much of the history people do accept is myth.

This is almost always true.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I didn't realise the support for slavery was quite as explicit as that, so many thanks for putting this link up.

Actually, I'd recommend reading the causes for succession. Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
I linked to it in another recent thread, but for ease of reference...

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

 

[Nakosis]

I'm well aware slavery existed in many places in many times.



So, two of the states, relied partly on slave labor, Delaware being the most of the North States, still had less slavery in it than any of the Southern states.

"By the time the Civil War began, fewer than 1,800 slaves lived in Delaware, and 75 percent of them were in Sussex County, mostly in the Nanticoke River basin in the far southwest of the state. In the fall of 1861, Lincoln proposed to George P. Fisher, Delaware congressman, a plan to compensate Delaware's remaining slaveholders from federal funds if they would free their slaves. Lincoln hoped that, if this could be shown to work in Delaware, it could be done as well in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, and eventually become a model for the states then in the Confederacy. In his proposal to Fisher, he called it the "cheapest and most humane way of ending this war and saving lives."[3]

Slavery in Delaware

And yes, the North has been racist. Many people sold their slaves to Southerns. Many weren't freed as so much as died. Racism against them was just as systematic. But what someone who is waving the flag. Abolition was sometimes portrayed as a way to get rid of black people, not help them, or make them equal. But generally people wave flags because of the ideals they supposedly represent, not because of their bloodlines.

Ok, there are a lot of opinions on what happened to be found. So I'm learning which opinions can be supported.

I think actually the flag they display isn't even the one they fought under?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So why support the American flag when northern states were allowed to continue to rely heavily on slave labor? Or should people who display it be ashamed as well of everything that's been done under it's banner?

I would imagine it's more a matter of looking at what the flag stands for.

All blind nationalism is jingoism, to my mind, but the key difference here is the overall message of the flag, and it's intent.

The Confederate battle flag is an interesting choice which appears commonly made as a sign of recognizing the rights of the state over the rights of the federal government, which is ironic when compared to the actual causes of the war in which it was used. There appears a degree of ignorance there.

I think it's easy enough to agree the North was far from perfect, and the South was far from the Devil. The Stars and Stripes has the benefit of use in a variety of circumstances since then in which to build a more nuanced meaning. Any actual tracking of where and when usage of the Confederate battle flag began to be popularly used (post war) is not particularly beneficial to providing nuance to it's meaning.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have already discussed in part the issues already. If you cannot fathom how someone may want to honor their cultural and possibly biological heritage that is deeply rooted in the south and also at the same time find it inescapably absurd to resist passing off every bit under inaccurate demonetization then you simply will not get it.

Let me ask you this, although I doubt it will be fruitful, if you had a racist parent, but otherwise was a great parent to you, loved you, gave everything they had and more for you, yet they were racist, would you spit in their face and tell your children that they were demons? Obviously tell them that this views on race are wrong but totally discount and disown the person because of it?

This is all a bit extreme in terms of how it is worded but such is needed to allow you a glimpse into a mindset very counter to your own.

I get your point (maybe because I have a racist dad?? lol)
I actually don't have an issue with remembering and honouring the dead in general terms. People honour their ancestors, and the war claimed a lot of lives. I just think it should be about honouring the dead, not honouring the causes of the Southern secession.

Put it this way...I get uncomfortable with some honouring of our 'glorious war dead' in Australia in relation to ANZAC day, because it is easy to have a narrative supported which is inaccurate. However, I have been at very moving services which were all about remembering and respecting the sacrifices people made, and not about misrepresenting or glorifying war in and of itself. These included recognition of the enemies fallen.

Looking from a distance, it appears that too many people are tying too much to a Confederate battle flag that wasn't even used by the State now flying it above their government building, and revisionist history frankly pisses me off. But the over-correction of trying to eradicate all mention of the flag, even in it's historical context (eg. http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/our-game-has-been-removed-from-appstore) is baffling and ridiculous. Indeed, it smacks of revionism as well.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Typical yankee BS.

Which bit?

 

[gsa]

No he didn't. He ended for the southern states. I thought you said you had learn about this.

"Fact #2: The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states in rebellion.

President Lincoln justified the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure intended to cripple the Confederacy. Being careful to respect the limits of his authority, Lincoln applied the Emancipation Proclamation only to the Southern states in rebellion."

10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime measure, keep in mind; President Lincoln did not have the constitutional authority to abolish slavery in loyal slave states in the North. Because of the proclamation, however, the Thirteenth Amendment only directly applied to a small minority of remaining slaves; most had been liberated during the war.

It is true that Southerners instituted a close parallel to slavery in the form of peonage and criminalization of freed slaves, exploiting the involuntary servitude exception found in the 13th Amendment. But this would not have been possible without the violent overthrow of the Reconstruction governments by the white extremist "redeemer" movement, followed by the successful disenfranchisement of Southern freed slaves through poll taxes, literacy requirements, white primaries and other vile devices. And this system only started to really come down during and after World War II, when a very different kind of judicial philosophy prevailed on the bench, the world had just witnessed the mass slaughter horror of genocidal racism and as communists used American apartheid as a propaganda weapon against US capitalism.



We shouldn’t romanticize the Union in the Civil War era or demonize Southerners on the basis of their history and sense of separate identity, but the revisionists who downplay the effect of the proclamation and the impact of the Reconstruction Amendments do us a disservice.

 

[leibowde84]

Obviously you're not from the South. My condolences.

So, what do you mean. Do people in the south think that the North wanted them to disappear?

 

[leibowde84]

Easier to forgive the sin of the folks you side with?

I think every group is likely to have their skeletons which may get lost in the retelling of history.

Just easier to point to the skeleton in someone else's closet.

History is told as story to make it interesting and make some moral points I suppose. The actual motivations of folks, how can you know that? But if you can tell it in such a way to make yourself look like a hero...

It's just what I expect from folks.

Fair enough, but what is the truth and how can you prove it. This all just sounds like speculation based off generations of resentment, but I am open to contrary evidence.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't see it as a straw man. Can you explain how it is you view it as such?

Sure. Just that no one in the North today has any issue with the south "being the south" and still being there. In fact, it's a really fun part of the country. That's what I mean by straw man. They are fighting their own mistake assumption.

 

[Laika]

Actually, I'd recommend reading the causes for succession. Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
I linked to it in another recent thread, but for ease of reference...

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

I'm ussually very cynical but I can't begin to describe my disbelief at how utterly naked a defence of slavery that is. Not even an attempt to dress it up as the Union violating some higher law beyond white supremacy. wow.

 

[Neo Deist]

Lincoln ended slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation. So this is not accurate.

A little history lesson...

Lincoln wanted the French to blockade the eastern seaboard and the Gulf ports so that the British could not lend aid to the CSA. The French agreed, but only if the slaves in America were granted their freedom. The war started in 1861. The EP came about in 1863. Slavery was not even an issue until Lincoln wanted the help of the French, and he had to meet their demands in order to receive it.

Edit: oh, yeah...that article is just some more liberal crap.

 

[Curious George]

A little history lesson...

Lincoln wanted the French to blockade the eastern seaboard and the Gulf ports so that the British could not lend aid to the CSA. The French agreed, but only if the slaves in America were granted their freedom. The war started in 1861. The EP came about in 1863. Slavery was not even an issue until Lincoln wanted the help of the French, and he had to meet their demands in order to receive it.

Edit: oh, yeah...that article is just some more liberal crap.

It seems, while slavery was not abolished, in the south, until after the war started, or everywhere, until after the war, that the articles of secession indicate that southerners foresaw the trend towards the abolishment of slavery and moved to prevent it. Thus, slavery could have been the primary motivation even though national abolishment had not occurred. Do you have any evidence that contradicts this notion that the south saw the writing on the wall and acted preemptively? And what of the discussion towards "states rights?"

 

[Neo Deist]

It seems, while slavery was not abolished, in the south, until after the war started, or everywhere, until after the war, that the articles of secession indicate that southerners foresaw the trend towards the abolishment of slavery and moved to prevent it. Thus, slavery could have been the primary motivation even though national abolishment had not occurred. Do you have any evidence that contradicts this notion that the south saw the writing on the wall and acted preemptively? And what of the discussion towards "states rights?"

The South was mad because as the US expanded after taking land from the Native Americans (westward), the Northern law makers decided that US Territories could not have slavery. The North was able to expand its industry, but the South could not expand its agriculture. They saw it as unfair representation and yes, states' rights.

Let's not forget that Northern law makers also put high tariffs on European imports, thus forcing the Southern states to buy from the Northern at their inflated prices. It always has (and still is) about politics and money.

 

[Curious George]

The South was mad because as the US expanded after taking land from the Native Americans (westward), the Northern law makers decided that US Territories could not have slavery. The North was able to expand its industry, but the South could not expand its agriculture. They saw it as unfair representation and yes, states' rights.

Let's not forget that Northern law makers also put high tariffs on European imports, thus forcing the Southern states to buy from the Northern at their inflated prices. It always has (and still is) about politics and money.

I do not doubt there was lobbying, politics, and money involved. But can you point to any document of the time that articulates these reasons above the slavery issue. It seems slavery was an issue if not the issue if we go by the quotes from the articles of secession...I have not read these documents, but I wondered if you can point me to a part of one or some other document of that era that articulates or supports "state's rights" "tariffs" or any other issues. And if so, does this document when read in its entirety also articulate slavery and notions of white supremacy as a motivating factor as well?

 

[Neo Deist]

I do not doubt there was lobbying, politics, and money involved. But can you point to any document of the time that articulates these reasons above the slavery issue. It seems slavery was an issue if not the issue if we go by the quotes from the articles of secession...I have not read these documents, but I wondered if you can point me to a part of one or some other document of that era that articulates or supports "state's rights" "tariffs" or any other issues. And if so, does this document when read in its entirety also articulate slavery and notions of white supremacy as a motivating factor as well?

A quick Google search will yield countless results that deal with the American Civil war. However, make sure to weed out Pro-X websites that are one sided. AmericanHistory.net, CivilWar.org, PBS, etc. are good places to start. You will get multiple links from within those sites that will go into detail about particular aspects leading up to the war. As far as white supremacy goes, that was not even an issue at the time. If anything it was federal government vs. states.

 

[leibowde84]

A little history lesson...

Lincoln wanted the French to blockade the eastern seaboard and the Gulf ports so that the British could not lend aid to the CSA. The French agreed, but only if the slaves in America were granted their freedom. The war started in 1861. The EP came about in 1863. Slavery was not even an issue until Lincoln wanted the help of the French, and he had to meet their demands in order to receive it.

Edit: oh, yeah...that article is just some more liberal crap.

None of this contradicts what I stated in my comment. Lincoln still ended slavery. No matter the reasoning, that was a great thing.

 

[BSM1]

So, what do you mean. Do people in the south think that the North wanted them to disappear?

They still do.