The Confederate flag

[Shadowfax503]

Who ever said Lincoln was a saint? Far from it. He just happened to be the right man at the right time at the right place to fight a war. And since when has war been a nice thing?
And how does this apply to the Confederate Battle Flag?
All I see happing here is that that flag makes some people think of slavery, some think of their dislike of the union and what Lincoln did. And a few remember that some men showed great valor following that flag.

 

[JGL53]

Lincoln as a war crimminal? That seems like a hard sell to me. But, I think what's going on in 2008 is more relevant than in 1861 - like, for instance, getting our troops the hell out of Iraq in WAY less than 100 years.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

Fascinating -- but utterly irrelevent insofar as the Confederate Flag's connotations are concerned.

Broadcasting Lincoln's sins is all well and good for history, but it doesn't make the Confederacy's go away.

It shows exactly what the Confederacy was rebelling against.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It shows exactly what the Confederacy was rebelling against.

The Confederacy was rebelling against Lincoln personally?

 

[SpyridonOCA]

The Confederacy was rebelling against Lincoln personally?

Lincoln, his tactics, and what he represented.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Lincoln, his tactics, and what he represented.

Tactics which were used during the War -- which still begs the question about what instigated the secession in the first place.

My reading of South Carolina's Declaration of Secession makes it pretty clear that slavery was chief among those reasons. Certainly, the South were fighting for "State's Rights" -- primarily the right to keep slaves.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

Declaring war to end states' rights was enough reason to be angry. If Lincoln were an abolitionist, he could have peacefully paid Southern slave owners for their slaves, instead of declaring war on the South while not abolishing slavery in the North.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Declaring war to end states' rights was enough reason to be angry. If Lincoln were an abolitionist, he could have peacefully paid Southern slave owners for their slaves,

Being an abolitionist, Lincoln couldn't in good conscience purchase slaves from people whom he believed had no right to own them in the first place.

instead of declaring war on the South while not abolishing slavery in the North.

Slavery had already been abolished in the North -- by the northern states themselves, in an example of "States' Rights" which had the South frothing at the mouth in anger.

New York, for example, had freed its slaves under the Gradual Emancipation Act of 1827. My own home state of New Jersey had passed a similar act in 1804. Pennsylvania had them both beat by abolishing slavery in 1780. Shall I continue?

Did you expect Lincoln to do what the (Northern) states had already done decades before his election?

If anything, the Southern states -- your alleged champions of "States' Rights" -- were furious that the federal government was doing nothing to undo it -- as I have already illustrated before in this thread.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

Being an abolitionist, Lincoln couldn't in good conscience purchase slaves from people whom he believed had no right to own them in the first place.

Lincoln could have paid for their freedom with cash instead of the blood of over 600,000 Americans.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Lincoln could have paid for their freedom with cash instead of the blood of over 600,000 Americans.

You don't think freedom is worth paying in blood?

 

[SpyridonOCA]

You don't think freedom is worth paying in blood?

War should be avoided at all costs, especially when against your own people. Again, why couldn't Lincoln have freed the slaves through peaceful means?

 

[Nathan Poe]

War should be avoided at all costs, especially when against your own people.

Perhaps the South should've thought of that before firing on Fort Sumter.

Again, why couldn't Lincoln have freed the slaves through peaceful means?

You mean bribery? Freedom's not worth dying for?

 

[SpyridonOCA]

No, not bribery. At the time, slaves were legally recognized as property. Slave masters can be paid to free their slaves, just as land owners can be compensated when the government declares eminent domain.

 

[Nathan Poe]

BTW, SpyridonOCA, I've noticed you're turning your arguments towards a more nebulous, abstract bent -- "War should be avoided at all costs," etc...

Any particular reason you're not addressing the historical facts I've been pummeling you over the head with?

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, not bribery. At the time, slaves were legally recognized as property. Slave masters can be paid to free their slaves, just as land owners can be compensated when the government declares eminent domain.

Except that neither Lincoln, the Northern states, nor any abolitionist would recognize a slave as "property."

 

[SpyridonOCA]

Except that neither Lincoln, the Northern states, nor any abolitionist would recognize a slave as "property."

That doesn't matter. The civil war could have been avoided. That is what matters.

 

[SallyNow]

War should be avoided at all costs, especially when against your own people. Again, why couldn't Lincoln have freed the slaves through peaceful means?

Let's say Lincoln paid for the freedom of those slaves.

You know what would have probably happened? Those he paid would have used that money to go and pay for more people to be kidnapped. And then there would have been more people enslaved, being used as property rather than the human beings they were all along. There were not the international laws and networks in place that would have made diplomacy a viable option in that circumstance.

None of this excuses the use of the confederate flag, a symbol that portrays the support of slavery, of torture, of terrorism, of abuse. What the symbol meant before the war, and what it may mean in the future, may be totally different. But right now, it still represents horrible things. If someone wants to have one, fine, but they've got to realize what a negative symbol it is, and realize that wearing one will make others weary simply for the pure hatred of human rights it has stood for.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That doesn't matter. The civil war could have been avoided. That is what matters.

Almost any war could've been avoided -- whether or not they should've is what matters.Unless the enemy is breaking down your door, war can always be avoided.

Lincoln could've allowed the South to secede with a nod and a smile, but he decided that in wouldn't have been in the best interest of America to lose its southern half.

Similarly, America could've chosen to stay out of WWII even after Pearl Harbor - FDR could've scrapped his "Date that will live in infamy" speech in favor of something along the lines of "Japan has sent a message; we hear and obey," But you'd be hard pressed to find an American who's not glad he instead chose war.

It's getting pretty sad for Confederate Apologists if the best they can offer is "well, Lincoln should've paid off the South."

Besides, Spyridon, if you're saying that Lincoln could've avoided war by buying up the South's slaves, then aren't you admitting what I've been saying -- that the South's secession was about slavery all along?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let's say Lincoln paid for the freedom of those slaves.

You know what would have probably happened? Those he paid would have used that money to go and pay for more people to be kidnapped. And then there would have been more people enslaved, being used as property rather than the human beings they were all along. There were not the international laws and networks in place that would have made diplomacy a viable option in that circumstance.

Furthermore, Not only would Lincoln have more or less bankrupted the Northern coffers by buying up every slave in the South, but he would've doomed the Union to financial ruin when the South seceded anyway, removing a sizable portion of America's revenue.

 

[Lisa0315]

Furthermore, Not only would Lincoln have more or less bankrupted the Northern coffers by buying up every slave in the South, but he would've doomed the Union to financial ruin when the South seceded anyway, removing a sizable portion of America's revenue.

So, we are in agreement that it was not out of concern for the welfare of human beings, but due to financial concerns on both sides. I mean, to me, if it were a human rights thing, then, the North would not have employeed children and in such poor working conditions.

Lisa