The confederate flag? [Archive]

ScareCrow

04-10-2008, 04:38 AM

I'm not sure exactly where to post this so hopefully a mod will move it if they feel it's necessary.

I was driving home from my a visit with my in laws on Saturday when I got behind a truck on the highway. On the back of the truck were two flags, an American flag flying on the drivers side and a Confederate flag flying on the passenger side. I was sort of confused as to why someone would fly these two flags together, never mind why someone would fly the Confederate flag. It seems to me that the use of the Confederate flag next to the American flag is at best a contradiction. Then my 9 year old daughter said, "look at the redneck in the truck in front of us" and I took to laughing instead of thinking about it.

Well then today I noticed one of my neighbors is flying a Confederate flag right below their American flag on the pole in their front yard, and under that is a POW MIA flag. This sparked my interest again. First, I'm happy that I live in a country where people can fly any flag they choose without fear of retribution from the government. The thing is I see a huge contradiction in flying these two flags together. Maybe it's living here in Indiana, where there seems to be no shortage of "rednecks"(I grew up in Maryland and still think people talk funny here). Can anyone here explain to me why you would even want to fly the confederate flag, so much as fly it with the American flag? Does anyone else see a contradiction in flying the two flags together, maybe a little disrespectful even?

Elrathin

04-10-2008, 04:45 AM

Do I see a contradiction? Perhaps, I would fly the P.O.W flag above the confederate flag, but other than that I see no contradiction personally. There are many folks that have a history in the south under the confederate flag that does NOT deal will slavery.

Since we have no laws on flag "etiquette" there are no laws being broken so I don't have a problem with however they choose to fly the flags. And yes, that includes flying the Mexican Flag over the American Flag. I disapprove of it, but since we have no law stating otherwise, it falls under free speech, no matter how much I despise it.

And you know what? I wouldn't want to have a law dictating flags PERIOD. It goes against what this country stands for. I personally follow flag etiquette since I was in the military, but I don't want to force others to.

Alonzo

04-10-2008, 04:55 AM

I don't really care much about flag etiquette, but I remember growing up that there was this house a few blocks away that flew a confederate flag above their door. Well at least until someone ripped it off and threw it in the street. I assume some kids did it, but by the time I saw it the pole was broken and it had obviously been run over a few times.

I thought that was a fitting place for it. So I guess putting it anywhere near an American flag would be inappropriate in my mind.

ScareCrow

04-10-2008, 04:55 AM

Let me say that I don't believe the Confederate flag stands for slavery or for racism except for a few ignorant people who want to believe that it does on both sides. The contradiction I see here is, this flag stands for a group of people that were once fighting against the unity of America.

I personally don't like the idea of creating flag legislation because of free speech issues either but I wonder where the limit is drawn. I'm sure there would be an uprising in my neighborhood if someone started flying an old Iraqi flag on their flag pole, especially if that person were Arabic. Like it or not, the confederacy was an enemy of America who we fought against in war. The people fighting on both sides were Americans but there can't be a war without an enemy and the Confederates were the enemy of Americans. I'm sure if you were able to build a time machine and go back to 1862 and fly the Confederate flag in the north you would have probably been tried for treason.

PatrickHenry

04-10-2008, 05:00 AM

The deal with flags?

They all have their good and bad side.

USA stands for freedom and tyranny. Old Glory can mean either one.

Same with the Confederate battle flag. It can mean a lot of different things; not all of them good or bad.

It does represent a contradiction, though. USA conquered the Confederacy.

Mia

04-10-2008, 05:13 AM

To some it is an expression of states rights over Federal rights, for them it is not a contradiction. For others it simply represents 'The South', not against the North or the Union, just pride in the Southern part ;-)

David

04-10-2008, 12:01 PM

Alonzo

04-10-2008, 12:03 PM

David, considering the first flag is used to represent the confederacy I don't think whether it actually was is relevant.

Flags are about perception.

David

04-10-2008, 12:07 PM

David, considering the first flag is used to represent the confederacy I don't think whether it actually was is relevant.

Flags are about perception.

The fact remains. The 1st isn't the CSA Flag and never was.

The battle flag was used to represent Gen. Lee and his troops. If used in that regard I'll not take issue, but to claim it's the CSA Flag is like me taking the 101 Airborne standard and saying it's the USA Flag.

Alonzo

04-10-2008, 12:10 PM

But it's used as the confederate flag. The reason for being flown, and the reaction it garners, is that of the confederate flag. That it technically isn't is merely an interesting piece of historical trivia, but it doesn't really effect anything about why it's flown or how it's viewed.

Essentially, your point is true but what does change? Nothing.

David

04-10-2008, 12:13 PM

micfranklin

04-10-2008, 03:19 PM

Oh boy, here it goes again.

Well both are technically American flags as their part of American history.

davo

04-10-2008, 04:13 PM

Its about time someone stated the obvious here about the modern usage of the confederate flag or confederate sympathy:

The US Federal government of Abraham Lincoln is definitely not the same as today's US government by any standard. Whilst most of those flying the confederate flag today do not advocate slavery, they do currently have legit concerns about the overgrowth of Federal government power - It is several orders of magnitude more powerful than in the days of Lincoln. If the same people waving confederate flags today were around in Lincoln's time, they'd probably actually support him.

micfranklin

04-10-2008, 05:06 PM

And it's not like the Union back then was all goody two-shoes itself, I mean slavery was around longer when the country was a whole than the Confederacy was in existence.

Mia

04-11-2008, 12:12 AM

Why do people still think the war was about slavery?

SIGH.

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 12:41 AM

North wins slavery ends, south wins slavery continues.

The real purpose of the war isn't as relevant. Though slavery was a bigger aspect of the souths reasons for fighting. The north used it more for moral credibility. But, either way, the end result of each sides victory directly deals with slavery.

Mia

04-11-2008, 01:06 AM

It's extremely relevant. People act like it was the reason the South rebelled, and that Lincoln was this wonderful person who waged war against it.

Totally inaccurate.

Lincoln only freed the slaves that belonged to Southern states, to weaken them. He let the North keep theirs. Some hero for slaves :unreal:

Sublimating

04-11-2008, 01:12 AM

Flying the confederate fag in to many cases is a simple show of passive aggressive cowardice and a longing for the times when you could safely use the term ni**er without being fired from your job... alas that time has come and gone. I'm sure there are those who fly it for other reasons (I can't think of any) but mostly I think not. In my opinion it's a contradictory and backwards symbol for separatism, racism or both, but hey this is America...if that's waht makes you happy...fly it high.

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 01:13 AM

It's extremely relevant. People act like it was the reason the South rebelled, and that Lincoln was this wonderful person who waged war against it.

Totally inaccurate.

Lincoln opposed slavery, and as he grew older his opposition became stronger.

But lincoln fought the war to keep the nation unified. Lincoln then increased the attention on the slavery issue to add a moral element.

But slavery was a key issue for the south, as it was essential to their economy. Economics and slavery were intertwined.

Either way, the north winning ended slavery, the south winning would have continued it. That's was the end result, and at the time that was the foreseeable end result.

When all is said and done the reasons don't matter beyond the way they affected the outcome.

Lincoln only freed the slaves that belonged to Southern states, to weaken them. He let the North keep theirs. Some hero for slaves :unreal:

It was a temporary solution. The north had very few at the time and, those that they had, were grandfather in. Active slave trading was not occuring. Border states were an exception, and it makes sense. I'd much rather work with a slave trader, if it means I'll win a war and end slavery, than I would oppose him and seriously diminish my chances. In modern terms, if I thought it would improve the condition of the people, I'd work with the klan if necessary. If that's what it takes I'd do it, and I wouldn't have any problem with it as they're serving my ends. That was the same sort of relationship the northern had with border slave states.

If the north had forced all states to immediately emancipate some key border states would have seceded. That harms enslaved African Americans and the north.

micfranklin

04-11-2008, 01:16 AM

Why do people still think the war was about slavery?

SIGH.

I was just mentioning slavery, I know it was about the North wanting to reunite while the South wanted independence.

Flying the confederate fag in to many cases is a simple show of passive aggressive cowardice and a longing for the times when you could safely use the term ni**er without being fired from your job

Never heard that one before. I always thought people flew it because they had Southern pride. Eh.

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 01:21 AM

The ones I see with confederate flags tend to be nazi skinheads. Then again, it's not a smart thing to fly a confederate flag in Massachusetts, and you don't do it unless you're looking for a conflict.

David

04-11-2008, 01:32 AM

Mia

04-11-2008, 01:36 AM

Lincoln opposed slavery, and as he grew older his opposition became stronger.

But lincoln fought the war to keep the nation unified. Lincoln then increased the attention on the slavery issue to add a moral element.

But slavery was a key issue for the south, as it was essential to their economy. Economics and slavery were intertwined.

Either way, the north winning ended slavery, the south winning would have continued it. That's was the end result, and at the time that was the foreseeable end result.

When all is said and done the reasons don't matter beyond the way they affected the outcome.

It was a temporary solution. The north had very few at the time and, those that they had, were grandfather in. Active slave trading was not occuring. Border states were an exception, and it makes sense. I'd much rather work with a slave trader, if it means I'll win a war and end slavery, than I would oppose him and seriously diminish my chances. In modern terms, if I thought it would improve the condition of the people, I'd work with the klan if necessary. If that's what it takes I'd do it, and I wouldn't have any problem with it as they're serving my ends. That was the same sort of relationship the northern had with border slave states.

If the north had forced all states to immediately emancipate some key border states would have seceded. That harms enslaved African Americans and the north.

That's all very interesting, but not addressing my point, which is this is not what the war was primarily about - The Union didn't want the Southern States to leave, that is what it was about.

As you said yourself, acting like it was about slavery gave the North a false morality badge to put on the face of their fight.

Kinda like 'Saddam was a bad man' is why we invaded Iraq, or at least makes it OK, when the truth is we wouldn't have given two shits how he was to his people, as long as it didn't interfere with any goals of ours.

Same for Lincoln and the slaves.

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 01:49 AM

That's all very interesting, but not addressing my point, which is this is not what the war was primarily about - The Union didn't want the Southern States to leave, that is what it was about.

The actual difference that makes? Historical trivia yes, but it doesn't alter the end result of the civil war, or the end result if the south had won.

As you said yourself, acting like it was about slavery gave the North a false morality badge to put on the face of their fight.

It wasn't a false morality, the north did want to end slavery. Lincoln opposed it, his party opposed it, and the north was largely abolitionist.

The North was not going to allow slavery to expand, and the south was not going to give up something essential to their economy. At the same time the north was not going to force the south to change by military force, they only went to war when they tried to secede.

Kinda like 'Saddam was a bad man' is why we invaded Iraq, or at least makes it OK, when the truth is we wouldn't have given two shits how he was to his people, as long as it didn't interfere with any goals of ours.

We should have invaded and overthrown him when he gassed the kurds.

Same for Lincoln and the slaves.

The end result was good, and the method of killing around 600,000 people was better than allowing 4 million, and then their children, to remain as slaves.

It doesn't matter if the north went to war because the south stole their golden fruit fly, the result of either side winning was obvious.

Sublimating

04-11-2008, 02:13 AM

I was just mentioning slavery, I know it was about the North wanting to reunite while the South wanted independence.

Never heard that one before. I always thought people flew it because they had Southern pride. Eh.

Really...so you have no clue how it became associated with racism and red necks?

Hard to believe Mic,but i'll just take ya word for it.

Mia

04-11-2008, 03:01 AM

The actual difference that makes? Historical trivia yes,,,,,

Trivia? LOL, you are a Hoot, with a capital H, and I mean that. :thumbsup:

David

04-11-2008, 03:09 AM

At the same time the north was not going to force the south to change by military force, they only went to war when they tried to secede.

Not even. The North didn't attack until after Ft. Sumter and that wasn't even the 1st attack on Northern military bases.

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 03:13 AM

Well technically the south did fire first, but both sides were preparing for war and the north wasn't going to let them go without a fight.

Trivia? LOL, you are a Hoot, with a capital H, and I mean that.

I think the difference is you're more concerned about the reasons for fighting, while I'm more concerned with the results.

apdst

04-11-2008, 03:22 AM

David, considering the first flag is used to represent the confederacy I don't think whether it actually was is relevant.

It's very relevant. David brings up a good point. I bet if that dude had been flying The 1st National Flag, Scarecrow's kid wouldn't have called him a r*****k.

I display The 1st National for two reasons, I can make a political statement and still be politically correct.

North wins slavery ends, south wins slavery continues.

The North didn't enter into the war with the intention of ending slavery. In fact, The Confederate Government talked about abolishing slavery, before The United States Government. The Confederacy was a victim of the same conundrum that The United States was: they both knew that slavery was a bad idea, but had no idea about how to end it, other than allowing it to die a natural death. Lincoln had no compunction, whatsoever, about preserving slavery, if it meant avoiding war and preserving The Union.

But slavery was a key issue for the south, as it was essential to their economy. Economics and slavery were intertwined.

The same was true in the North. Northern workers, and Southern tradesmen, for that matter, didn't want to compete with a few more million people for a job. The last thing your garden variety Federal soldier wanted to see was free coloreds.

longing for the times when you could safely use the term ni****r without being fired from your job

I long for those days. Those were the days when we were trully free. Today it's n*gger. What's it going to be tomorrow? Kinda walks on my 1st Amendment rights, but that's just me.

Lincoln only freed the slaves that belonged to Southern states, to weaken them. He let the North keep theirs. Some hero for slaves

The Eamcipation Proclomation only freed slaves that resided in areas that were held by The Confederacy. It excluded places such as New Orleans, that were already held by Union Forces, at that time.

micfranklin

04-11-2008, 03:30 AM

I always thought the South only wanted to be seperate, independent and recognized as its own country.

Mayberry

04-11-2008, 03:34 AM

Just 2 cents worth from a good ol' southern boy, but the "confederate" flag (Lee's battle flag) merely stands for southern pride today and nothing more. Flying it together with Old Glory merely shows American and southern pride. I see it all the time (though not so much as in years past). The negative perception that is perpetuated by some individuals and groups today is a relic from the old days when the flag was hijacked by the KKK as a symbol. And if it is displayed largely by "rednecks", so what? Most rednecks are decent, hard working people. I could be classified as a redneck. I like trucks, beer, scantily clad women, fishing...... I'm from the south. So I must be a redneck, right? And if I am, I will wear the label with pride.

micfranklin

04-11-2008, 03:39 AM

Plus why forget that there were blacks serving in the Confederate Army as well, there's even black Confederates today. Aren't they racist?

Hell aren't I racist for supporting this?

Sublimating

04-11-2008, 03:41 AM

I long for those days. Those were the days when we were trully free. Today it's n*gger. What's it going to be tomorrow? Kinda walks on my 1st Amendment rights, but that's just me.

So apdst you long for the days when you could you the term ni**er and not
loose your job, doesn't surprise me. Weren't you the one who said we couldn't have a black president? Well keep longing bud those days are gone forever.

You know FYI you can use the term all you like at home probably around your friends too!

Also FYI your fist amendment rights end at your employers door bud so no one ie walking on them.

If you like the term n***er you might also want to try

f*g
w*t bac*k
ki*ke
hon*y
D*go

Just make sure your in like company as yourself:madlaugh:

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 03:44 AM

The North didn't enter into the war with the intention of ending slavery. In fact, The Confederate Government talked about abolishing slavery, before The United States Government. The Confederacy was a victim of the same conundrum that The United States was: they both knew that slavery was a bad idea, but had no idea about how to end it, other than allowing it to die a natural death. Lincoln had no compunction, whatsoever, about preserving slavery, if it meant avoiding war and preserving The Union.

They entered the war with the knowledge that it would end slavery. But, unlike the south, they also were not going to allow slavery to expand into the North, not that it would but they would not have allowed it anyway.

The North saw slavery as a bad idea and wanted no part in it, the south saw it as a bad idea and many zealously participated in it, though its leaders tended to adopt the more "It's bad, but it's necessary for now" line of thinking that many of the founding fathers had.

The Confederate government did talk about ending slavery, primarily as a method of gaining additional soldiers. They wanted to arm them in exchange for freedom so they would help the south win. The emancipation proclamation by the north was a political tool designed to frame the war in moral terms and keep european powers from aiding the south.

That being said, both took those actions out of a perceived necessity (or tried to, the south never did free their slaves). But the south did so out of desperation. They would not have freed the slaves had they won, especially if they had won without facing near defeat first and did not feel they needed the manpower.

The south did not have a desire to free the slaves and wouldn't have. For the north the preferred state was no slavery, it was secondary to unifying the nation, but a southern defeat was going to result in its abolition.

The same was true in the North. Northern workers, and Southern tradesmen, for that matter, didn't want to compete with a few more million people for a job. The last thing your garden variety Federal soldier wanted to see was free coloreds.

If the northerners did not want them freed, why did every northern state (not the border ones) either free their slaves or end the slave trade and only allowed those grandfathered in?

I long for those days. Those were the days when we were trully free. Today it's n*gger. What's it going to be tomorrow? Kinda walks on my 1st Amendment rights, but that's just me.

I wonder if you utilized that freedom before.

The Eamcipation Proclomation only freed slaves that resided in areas that were held by The Confederacy. It excluded places such as New Orleans, that were already held by Union Forces, at that time.

Correct, why do otherwise? Why increase the risk of conflict in areas under your control? It only complicates the war and reduces the chance of winning, which was going to abolish slavery anyway.

Mia

04-11-2008, 03:45 AM

I always thought the South only wanted to be seperate, independent and recognized as its own country.

Well, not only, but yes, that is what they wanted. They felt that the Federal Government was too overreaching and no longer desired to be a part of it. Slavery was but one of the issues at hand.

Who's to say that Southerners would not have decided to abolish slavery later on? After all, it was only by accident that Lincoln did,,,

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 03:47 AM

Well, not only, but yes, that is what they wanted. They felt that the Federal Government was too overreaching and no longer desired to be a part of it. Slavery was but one of the issues at hand.

Who's to say that Southerners would not have decided to abolish slavery later on? After all, it was only by accident that Lincoln did,,,

It's odd to suggest that a man who opposed slavery, and was a member of a party that opposed slavery, and adopted increasingly progressive views as he aged, only "accidentally" abolished slavery.

Mia

04-11-2008, 03:56 AM

I think the difference is you're more concerned about the reasons for fighting, while I'm more concerned with the results.

It's not a matter of what I'm more concerned with, rather that my original statement had to do with the reasons for going to war.

To say that the reason for the war is based on the results makes no sense whatsoever.

Because the result was the end of slavery, people mistakenly believe that was the whole point of the war to start with, and it's good sometimes to know the real deal, rather than the hazy version of history that feels good.

I admit it sounds much better to say that the Union was noble and waged this war to free blacks, but it was a matter of control and resources,,,,, business as usual.

Once we have our facts straight, if you want to cheer the result, I will cheer with you. I actually find it funny that The Union was hood-winked into freeing slaves,,,,,, serves them right ;-)

apdst

04-11-2008, 04:03 AM

So apdst you long for the days when you could you the term ni**er and not
loose your job, doesn't surprise me.

I don't see you crying about certain members writing, "redneck", in their posts. I think the authors of those posts, in the spirit of just trying to get along should edit their posts. Just a thought.

Mia

04-11-2008, 04:05 AM

It's odd to suggest that a man who opposed slavery, and was a member of a party that opposed slavery, and adopted increasingly progressive views as he aged, only "accidentally" abolished slavery.

Zo, you make me work too hard to source things most people already know. I will quote one thing for you, but I am not going to be your history teacher.

Lincoln, oddly enough, apparently shared some of these views. In his 1860 inaugural address, he said: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Two years later, President Lincoln wrote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)."

And in 1858 Lincoln had written: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3487

There is much, much more, google 'Lincoln slavery'.

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 04:11 AM

It's not a matter of what I'm more concerned with, rather that my original statement had to do with the reasons for going to war.

To say that the reason for the war is based on the results makes no sense whatsoever.

I never said that. I said that what the flag represents is the south, and if the south had won, regardless or any additional reasons (though, for the south, the economy was the principle concern, but due to the impact the removal of slavery would have), slavery would have continued. I said that when dealing with the flag it represents the confederacy, and a significant part of the confederacy is the continuation of slavery that would have occurred if it won.

Mia

04-11-2008, 04:22 AM

I never said that. I said that what the flag represents is the south, and if the south had won, regardless or any additional reasons (though, for the south, the economy was the principle concern, but due to the impact the removal of slavery would have), slavery would have continued. I said that when dealing with the flag it represents the confederacy, and a significant part of the confederacy is the continuation of slavery that would have occurred if it won.

By that reasoning, the confederate flag is a symbol of freedom, as slaves never would have been freed by Lincoln, if not for the fact that doing so advanced the cause of the Union :thumbsup:

...the Northern anti-slavery movement had to pressure Lincoln--and ultimately, the logic of winning the war against the Confederacy pushed Lincoln to adopt more radical positions at each step.

Interesting 'trivia': Lincoln proposed colonization as the solution to the “Negro problem.” The government would gradually purchase the freedom of slaves and then send them to Liberia in Africa, removing them from American society.

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/532/532_08_FreedTheSlaves.shtml

Anywho, the need to crush the South's attempts at leaving the Union is what brought about the end of slavery, so hu-rah for the whole war and the Southerners who made it happen. :worship:

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 04:31 AM

Two years later, President Lincoln wrote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)."

Which is what I said:
But lincoln fought the war to keep the nation unified. Lincoln then increased the attention on the slavery issue to add a moral element......

The North was not going to allow slavery to expand, and the south was not going to give up something essential to their economy. At the same time the north was not going to force the south to change by military force, they only went to war when they tried to secede.

And in 1858 Lincoln had written: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

Which does not deal with the issue of slavery at all, and is, again, consistent with what I said:

adopted increasingly progressive views as he aged,

Also in 1958, in those same debates as the quote you mentioned, he said this:

There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respectscertainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.

http://www.usconstitution.com/lincoln-douglasdebates1.htm

And in 1965, as his views evolved, he said this:

Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave-state of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the Legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man. Their Legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These twelve thousand persons are thus fully committed to the Union, and to perpetual freedom in the state--committed to the very things, and nearly all the things the nation wants--and they ask the nations recognition and it's assistance to make good their committal. Now, if we reject, and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We in effect say to the white men "You are worthless, or worse--we will neither help you, nor be helped by you." To the blacks we say "This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips, we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how." If this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I have, so far, been unable to perceive it.....

It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/last.htm

No one argues he's modern, but these aren't the words of someone indifferent to slavery.

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 04:38 AM

By that reasoning, the confederate flag is a symbol of freedom, as slaves never would have been freed by Lincoln, if not for the fact that doing so advanced the cause of the Union :thumbsup:

Interesting 'trivia':

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/532/532_08_FreedTheSlaves.shtml

Anywho, the need to crush the South's attempts at leaving the Union is what brought about the end of slavery, so hu-rah for the whole war and the Southerners who made it happen. :worship:
[/QUOTE]

I think the argument that the south should be praised for keeping slaves and getting drawn into a conflict where they were destroyed and slavery was abolished, is about as absurd and obscene as praising the nazi's for allowing the state of Israel to be formed. Both nations were responsible for the suffering and death of millions, and they both resulted in a better environment, post war, for those enslaved and persecuted.

Lincoln proposed colonization as the solution to the “Negro problem.” The government would gradually purchase the freedom of slaves and then send them to Liberia in Africa, removing them from American society.

Which, again, reinforces the argument he wanted to end slavery.

It was a popular argument of the day, and many black leaders advocated it as well.

Mia

04-11-2008, 04:44 AM

Call it absurd, it's your logic I was using. It was satire, Zo.

David

04-11-2008, 01:42 PM

It's odd to suggest that a man who opposed slavery, and was a member of a party that opposed slavery, and adopted increasingly progressive views as he aged, only "accidentally" abolished slavery.

The man wasn't an abolitionist. He opposed the spread of slavery but didn't think twice about the slaves residing in the slave states and even said he'd let the slaves remain if he could win the war without freeing them.

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 04:02 PM

The man wasn't an abolitionist. He opposed the spread of slavery but didn't think twice about the slaves residing in the slave states and even said he'd let the slaves remain if he could win the war without freeing them.

He was in the anti-slave party and was on record as opposing slavery even before he won. Just because he saw unity as more important doesn't mean he was comfortable with slavery.

apdst

04-11-2008, 04:08 PM

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 04:15 PM

In Lincoln's time being opposed to slavery and being an abolitionist were two different things. Mary Todd Lincoln's family owned slaves, so slavery couldn't have been that big of a deal to him.

Robert E. Lee opposed slavery, but was hardly an abolitionist. Lee wrote in a letter, in 1856 that, "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."

abolitionist, emancipationist (a reformer who favors abolishing slavery)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=abolitionist

That's what Lincoln was.

Robert E Lee was favored the continuation of slavery. Like the founding fathers he saw things wrong with it, but did not support its abolition.

Mary Todd Lincoln came from a slave state that seceded. It's a bit absurd to denounce Lincoln for what her family did. It's like denouncing someone who married Erika Duke because her father is David Duke.

apdst

04-11-2008, 04:26 PM

As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. Lincoln's letter to Horace Greely, 1862.

I just showed you a documented quote from Robert E. Lee and you still insist that Lee supported the continuation of slavery? You're not paying attention.

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 04:42 PM

That's a view on priorities and war. It doesn't contradict anything, such as these quotes:

In 1958 he said this:

There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respectscertainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.

http://www.usconstitution.com/lincoln-douglasdebates1.htm

And in 1965, as his views evolved, he said this:

Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave-state of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the Legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man. Their Legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These twelve thousand persons are thus fully committed to the Union, and to perpetual freedom in the state--committed to the very things, and nearly all the things the nation wants--and they ask the nations recognition and it's assistance to make good their committal. Now, if we reject, and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We in effect say to the white men "You are worthless, or worse--we will neither help you, nor be helped by you." To the blacks we say "This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips, we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how." If this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I have, so far, been unable to perceive it.....

It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/last.htm

I just showed you a documented quote from Robert E. Lee and you still insist that Lee supported the continuation of slavery? You're not paying attention.

Robert E. Lee's full quote:

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

He was talking of the necessity of owning slaves, and how it benefited slaves to an extent. He saw slavery as a necessary evil. God would determine when slavery was no longer necessary in his mind.

While such allowances may have improved the quality of life for the Arlington slaves, most black men and women on the estate remained legally in bondage until the Civil War. In his will, George Washington Parke Custis stipulated that all the Arlington slaves should be freed upon his death if the estate was found to be in good financial standing or within five years otherwise. When Custis died in 1857, Robert E. Lee—the executor of the estate—determined that the slave labor was necessary to improve Arlington's financial status. The Arlington slaves found Lee to be a more stringent taskmaster than his predacessor. Eleven slaves were “hired out” while others were sent to the Pamunkey River estates. In accordance with Custis's instructions, Lee officially freed the slaves on December 29, 1862.

http://www.nps.gov/arho/historyculture/slavery.htm

Again, the necessity of slavery arises.

brien

04-11-2008, 08:02 PM

I read the original OP and 5 pages later I am weary as to how the thread morphed into the meaning of the flag, the reasons for the War between the States, and other points made in the thread.

I think the original question had something to do with two flags on the rear bumber of a truck. I think perhaps things have been a trifle over intellectualized here.

Could it be that the truck driver merely wanted to show his patriotism by displaying the stars and stripes and his "rebel" stance with his display of the stars & bars? Nothing more and nothing less. I think the guy is too busy earning a living to hang all of this over intellectualization on him.

Mia

04-11-2008, 10:59 PM

The reason for bringing that in is that to some, the flag represents slavery and racism. So one must determine if the war was fought over that to assess that claim.

My first and only point relevant to this discussion, which cannot be denied, is the war was not waged over slavery. Lincoln cared about saving the Union, that is all.

I agree with you the sub-debate over the particulars of Lincoln's stance on slavery, which changed a lot over the years, should have it's own thread or be moved to FP - it is far off the topic of the flag.To some non-racist Southerners, the flag represents a lot of things. Pride in the Southern culture, rebelling against the tyranny of the Federal Government, or simply because it looks cool.

Alonzo

04-11-2008, 11:12 PM

The reason for bringing that in is that to some, the flag represents slavery and racism. So one must determine if the war was fought over that to assess that claim.

Either that or that slavery was so central to the confederacy, and a confederate victory, that it is intertwined with the Confederacy. The confederacy was concerned about their economy and prosperity, it was not slavery per se, but the fact that the removal of slavery would have devastated the southern economy standard of living in their mind.

There's a philosophical difference here I think as well, as you don't seem to view the end result as a central issue to address, where for me that's the primary issue with any question. Others are important, but primarily in how they effect that.

Lincoln cared about saving the Union, that is all.

Lincoln fought the war to save the union. But he never gave any indication that if he could end slavery, without the war and divisiveness, he would not. In fact he gave repeated indications that he would.

Mia

04-11-2008, 11:48 PM

He gave repeated indications, quoted here in this thread, that ending slavery was not his agenda, if he could save the union without freeing a single slave he would.

You also seem to miss the very important point that slavery might have been a big issue of the day, but the larger premise of the Confederate states was that they disagreed with Federal trumping State as often and as intrusively as it did.

To whittle it down to slavery is dishonest. That being said, I know you will never concede a single point, so I will bow out and let my comments stand. People can then actually discuss the topic at hand.

Alonzo

04-12-2008, 12:08 AM

He gave repeated indications, quoted here in this thread, that ending slavery was not his agenda, if he could save the union without freeing a single slave he would.

Not quite. He gave no indication that, if freeing and not freeing the slaves had an equal effect, that he would choose to not free. What he said was that saving the union was more important, and he would do either one to achieve that goal. Whichever one accomplished that goal he would do.

You also seem to miss the very important point that slavery might have been a big issue of the day, but the larger premise of the Confederate states was that they disagreed with Federal trumping State as often and as intrusively as it did.

And the key issue of contention was the economy, through the restriction of slavery. If you removed slavery from the table entirely, the anger at northern intervention would have been unlikely to arise to the point of war.

But again, the notion of "northern intervention" overlooks the particular areas they intervened on, the areas of contention, and the effect that the intervention has, or would have had.

The point of federal vs states rights is correct, but that says nothing about the actual effects on southerners. If they're fighting over states rights or if they're fighting over slavery, either cause doesn't alter the effects of their victory or their defeat. They're rallying around a cause and a principle, but what that principle is does not make what they were doing under that principle any better at all.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no significant moral distinction between states which fight for states rights, and under that banned will keep slaves as long as those states want it, versus states who fight for the right to slaves, and under that banner will keep slaves as long as those states want it. The end result is the same.

That being said, I know you will never concede a single point, so I will bow out and let my comments stand.

I'm not in the habit of conceding points when I don't think I'm wrong. The flag represents the confederacy, a slave supporting nation that stood in opposition to a slave opposing nation.