What does the Confederate flag mean?

Tress

Tress

I remember years ago on this very forum when I argued that the Civil War was really about slavery and not state's rights... and people shouted me down and told me I didn't know anything about history. Where are all those people now?
 
Eriol

Eriol

Tress said:
I remember years ago on this very forum when I argued that the Civil War was really about slavery and not state's rights... and people shouted me down and told me I didn't know anything about history. Where are all those people now?
Click to expand...
/sigh. I guess a Canadian has to take this one up: TL;DR; your civil war was about screwing over the southern states economically and politically, not slavery particularly.

The north had the population and the manufacturing capacity. They couldn't push some policies friendly to their more urban and manufacturing based economies on the southern more agricultural states because of states rights. So their approach was two-pronged, 1. Control the federal government, and 2. Abolish slavery, as that would have no effect on the north, but cripple the south economically.

Basically, they were acting how they could in a TRADE war to cut the legs out from underneath their competition.

Abolition was just a convenient cover for (some) public support. Few anywhere in the U.S.A. at the time believed in anything resembling equality. Hence why FEDERAL laws were passed in the years leading up to that war supporting that slavery was OK specifically. There north didn't give a damn as long as the south stayed OK with staying in the union.

Basically it's more plausible as a power grab from the north than a fight for freedom for slaves given all the other subsequent legal discrimination in the USA after that. The power grab just fits the historical record better IMO.

So yes, some people do argue that. It's not popular, but it is argued.
 
Tress

Tress

Eriol said:
/sigh. I guess a Canadian has to take this one up: TL;DR; your civil war was about screwing over the southern states economically and politically, not slavery particularly.

The north had the population and the manufacturing capacity. They couldn't push some policies friendly to their more urban and manufacturing based economies on the southern more agricultural states because of states rights. So their approach was two-pronged, 1. Control the federal government, and 2. Abolish slavery, as that would have no effect on the north, but cripple the south economically.

Basically, they were acting how they could in a TRADE war to cut the legs out from underneath their competition.

Abolition was just a convenient cover for (some) public support. Few anywhere in the U.S.A. at the time believed in anything resembling equality. Hence why FEDERAL laws were passed in the years leading up to that war supporting that slavery was OK specifically. There north didn't give a damn as long as the south stayed OK with staying in the union.

Basically it's more plausible as a power grab from the north than a fight for freedom for slaves given all the other subsequent legal discrimination in the USA after that. The power grab just fits the historical record better IMO.

So yes, some people do argue that. It's not popular, but it is argued.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of the argument. I'm a history teacher. But what you posted is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth bullshit like "You don't know what the fuck you're talking about" and "I get tired of Northerns like you twisting facts blah blah blah". That's what is oddly missing here.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Tress said:
I remember years ago on this very forum when I argued that the Civil War was really about slavery and not state's rights... and people shouted me down and told me I didn't know anything about history. Where are all those people now?
Click to expand...
That discussion was about the war, this discussion is about the flag. I was just leaving the northern bigots to their little games. There is no use twisting a knife in people that are hurt.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Tress said:
I'm well aware of the argument. I'm a history teacher. But what you posted is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth bullshit like "You don't know what the fuck you're talking about" and "I get tired of Northerns like you twisting facts blah blah blah". That's what is oddly missing here.
Click to expand...
I tried to subtly hint it earlier with my simpsons video clip, but I wasn't looking to shout anybody down.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Chad Sexington said:
I'm just here to ask a simple, non-controversial question: what does the Confederate flag mean? Should it still fly in former Confederate states? The argument I hear most often is that the Confederacy and the Civil War were about states' rights, and there's more to it than the easy narrative of slavery: but can it honestly be argued that any right was fought for more than the right to own slaves?

Is the Confederate flag a piece of history to celebrate, or a piece of history to remember with sobriety and sombreness?
Click to expand...
Which flag are we talking about?

Because this is the battle flag of the Army of Tennessee:



And this is, I think, the final flag of the Confederate States of America:


The latter is most decidedly racist, because the creator of that flag said so himself:
"As a people, we are fighting to maintain the heaven ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored rate ; a white flag would thus be emblematic of our cause..."
Which is why it has a large white field on it. He wanted the world to hail it as the "White Man's Flag". That this flag was adopted should make it pretty damn clear that the Confederacy was founded on the idea of racism, and wanted to wave their racism around as their banner.

However, I can't find anything definitive about the Army of Tennessee's flag being born of such blatant racism. It's still possible, just not as cut and dried.
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

figmentPez said:
just not as cut and dried.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I call bullshit. Call it the "battle flag of the army of Tennessee," call it the "Confederate naval jack." It's all a bunch of semantics and avoiding the issue. Whatever you want to call it, that particular design became a symbol of official racism in the 50s and 60s when the Deep South states added it to their own flags. And gradually, as such institutionalized racism became less and less acceptable, those same states began to remove the design from their flags.

They're the same states that voted for Thurmond for president in '48, and Wallace in '68.

tl;dr: stop hair-splitting. It's racist.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
DarkAudit said:
Sorry. I call bullshit.

tl;dr: stop hair-splitting. It's racist.
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is that I don't know the mind of the guy who created the flag of the Army of Tennessee. It's easy to see what the flag has become, and that part is cut and dried. However, I'm not going to say that the flag was created with that purpose, the way the later flags of the Confederacy were. I don't even know how old the flag for the Army of Tennessee is.[DOUBLEPOST=1434942513,1434942397][/DOUBLEPOST]
jwhouk said:
That's actually the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia - aka Lee's Army.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia says that this is the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
blotsfan said:
I would bet anything that if someone showed you that flag, your first thought would not be "oh, the battle flag of the army of tennessee."
Click to expand...
I only made the distinction because there was blatant racism from the creator of the actual flag of the Confederacy, and I wanted to be clear about which flag I was talking about when I said the creator made it to be a symbol of white supremacy.
 
drawn_inward

drawn_inward

Mathias said:
Let's all get one thing straight. Slavery was the life blood of the Southern economy. The Civil War was fought to keep that gravy train rolling. Period. That's the main reason.
Click to expand...
This is sort of semantics, but slavery at the point of the civil war had already existed for nearly 200 years. So, slavery was the life-blood for the entire U.S. The North had just as much blood on their hands as the South. If all the slave money stayed in the South, then they would have won the war or it would have dragged on longer. So, what I am saying is the Northerners aren't the "good" guys, and the Southerners aren't the "villains".

As for the flag, U.S. slavery is such an ugly despicable period of history, and to defend anything that is close to it is insanity. It is just as bad as the general Wehrmacht and citizens of WWII Germany claiming ignorance. The confederate flag represents so much more than just where one is from. To wave it with pride is being ignorant of 200+ years of some of the most vile actions in history.

I don't think the South is a bad place. I also don't think people from NYC are jerks. It's easy to trash talk a region when you haven't been there long enough to experience it properly. There are bad spots/people where ever you go.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.” —Mark Twain
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
drawn_inward said:
This is sort of semantics, but slavery at the point of the civil war had already existed for nearly 200 years. So, slavery was the life-blood for the entire U.S. The North had just as much blood on their hands as the South. If all the slave money stayed in the South, then they would have won the war or it would have dragged on longer. So, what I am saying is the Northerners aren't the "good" guys, and the Southerners aren't the "villains".
Click to expand...
It's also a little telling that the Emancipation Proclamation came halfway through the war (instead of at the start), and only applied to slaves in states in open revolt. It wasn't a magnanimous gesture, or a moral stand - it was first and foremost a war measure. It didn't outlaw slavery, and it didn't make former slaves citizens.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Zero Esc said:
It's mind-boggling to me that people are still angry that 150 years ago their ancestors were no longer allowed to enslave people.
Click to expand...
What's really mind bogling is that those same people can't understand why african americans are still having problems today. I mean slavery ended 150 years ago people! More than enough time to completely recover. But still enough time to hold a meaningless grudge.

I'm from the south. I hate that flag and what it actually stands for, which is redneck pride and racism.[DOUBLEPOST=1435003659,1435003206][/DOUBLEPOST]
Eriol said:
/sigh. I guess a Canadian has to take this one up: TL;DR; your civil war was about screwing over the southern states economically and politically, not slavery particularly.

The north had the population and the manufacturing capacity. They couldn't push some policies friendly to their more urban and manufacturing based economies on the southern more agricultural states because of states rights. So their approach was two-pronged, 1. Control the federal government, and 2. Abolish slavery, as that would have no effect on the north, but cripple the south economically.

Basically, they were acting how they could in a TRADE war to cut the legs out from underneath their competition.

Abolition was just a convenient cover for (some) public support. Few anywhere in the U.S.A. at the time believed in anything resembling equality. Hence why FEDERAL laws were passed in the years leading up to that war supporting that slavery was OK specifically. There north didn't give a damn as long as the south stayed OK with staying in the union.

Basically it's more plausible as a power grab from the north than a fight for freedom for slaves given all the other subsequent legal discrimination in the USA after that. The power grab just fits the historical record better IMO.

So yes, some people do argue that. It's not popular, but it is argued.
Click to expand...
Do you actually believe that or are you just presenting it as an example of the kind of bad argument about the civil war that Tress was bemoaning.[DOUBLEPOST=1435003967][/DOUBLEPOST]
drawn_inward said:
I don't think the South is a bad place. I also don't think people from NYC are jerks. It's easy to trash talk a region when you haven't been there long enough to experience it properly. There are bad spots/people where ever you go.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.” —Mark Twain
Click to expand...

I mean ok but Dallas is still terrible.
 
Cajungal

Cajungal

Staff member
DarkAudit said:
Private business. Can run as they wish within the confines of the law. Fuck you, next case! *BANGS GAVEL*[DOUBLEPOST=1435081889,1435081800][/DOUBLEPOST]And it just fucking figures. :facepalm:
Click to expand...
That's what happens. Gun stores around here couldn't keep bullets on the shelves after Sandy Hook. People were so angry and freaked out about gun control discussions that they started hoarding. My mother in law even said, "We can't even buy bullets, because, you know, Obama."
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Cajungal said:
That's what happens. Gun stores around here couldn't keep bullets on the shelves after Sandy Hook. People were so angry and freaked out about gun control discussions that they started hoarding. My mother in law even said, "We can't even buy bullets, because, you know, Obama."
Click to expand...
Well, Sandy hook didn't happen until 2012, but the ammo shortage started in 08. But yes, it was because everybody thought Obama was going to institute draconian gun control/taxation laws, everybody started buying everything in sight and stockpiling.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

You know it's bad when the people who make the DIY home reloading supplies can't even keep up with demand to make the machines that let you reload at home.
On the other hand, does this mean you will no longer be able to buy Lynyrd Skynyrd albums at Wal-Mart?

--Patrick
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

And now Amazon, eBay, and Etsy are all banning the sale of items featuring the Confederate flag, now making it officially harder to obtain than the Nazi banner.
We're starting to cross over into Don Cheadle levels of overreaction.

--Patrick
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Taking it down from government buildings is a correct move that should've been the case all along as its a symbol of secession, but I feel like outright banning its sale in places is going to backfire, the way banning anything in America backfires.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Zero Esc said:
Taking it down from government buildings is a correct move that should've been the case all along as its a symbol of secession, but I feel like outright banning its sale in places is going to backfire, the way banning anything in America backfires.
Click to expand...
Its not like its being made illegal. Just these companies aren't selling it.
 
drawn_inward

drawn_inward

Exactly, these companies are exercising their freedom to not sell the flags. It hasn't been banned, nor is it against the law. Good for them.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

So self-censorship due to public shaming/pressure from interest groups is ok, it's just not ok when it's the government telling you you can't?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top