The Confederate flag

[Nathan Poe]

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

Agreed -- Slavery was certainly an important issue for the North, but it was only secondary to the fact that losing its key agricultural states (providers of both food and cotton cash crops) so suddenly would've spelt economic ruin for what was left of America.

I, for one, am not denying that freeing the slaves was not the #1 reason for the North to go to war, but that keeping slaves was the #1 reason for the South. For if we're going to continue this charade of the South fighting for "States' Rights," then we have to ask the question, "States' rights to do what?"

Can anyone in the class give an answer besides "A state's right to keep slaves?" Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[Lisa0315]

Agreed -- Slavery was certainly an important issue for the North, but it was only secondary to the fact that losing its key agricultural states (providers of both food and cotton cash crops) so suddenly would've spelt economic ruin for what was left of America.

I, for one, am not denying that freeing the slaves was not the #1 reason for the North to go to war, but that keeping slaves was the #1 reason for the South. For if we're going to continue this charade of the South fighting for "States' Rights," then we have to ask the question, "States' rights to do what?"

Can anyone in the class give an answer besides "A state's right to keep slaves?" Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Yeah, I have to agree. Everyone was content with the status quo of the federal government until slavery was called to task. I still say it was a political platform on both sides and that no one was really too concerned with the slaves, but you make a good point of what right the States thought they were being denied.

Lisa

 

[Nathan Poe]

False false false false. That was an official party platform position. Him personally, while a racist by modern standards, cared greatly about the slaves. Lincoln had a capacity to change. He became more and more an abolitionist throughout the war. Just read his personal letters.

Fredrick Douglas once said that Lincoln was the only white man he ever had a long conversation with that didn't remind him that he was a negro.

I can't find it (maybe someone else can), but a friend once said to him "Why do you care so much about the negro?" He replied with something that it is our moral duty to abolish slavery.

Though today he would be racist, he was personally against slavery and politically indifferent.

You're absolutely right -- I too, got caught up in Confederate revisionist history (re: bad history) regarding Lincoln.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yeah, I have to agree. Everyone was content with the status quo of the federal government until slavery was called to task. I still say it was a political platform on both sides and that no one was really too concerned with the slaves, but you make a good point of what right the States thought they were being denied.

Lisa

Well, the Abolitionsts quickly hopped on the Union bandwagon to make the war about abolishing slavery -- to a degree, they succeeded.

 

[Tacere]

Is the Confederate flag a symbol of racial hatred or Southern pride and opposition to abuse of government power? Should it be allowed to be displayed?

By the way, Abraham Lincoln was a racist, imperialist and warmonger. He literally trampled on the Constitution, and we are paying for it to this day.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Real Lincoln by Charley Reese[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Mythical Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo[/FONT][/FONT]

Of course only a Southerner would ask/say this. No bias there. . .

That flag should be illegal to fly in the United States of America. It caused the death of 625,000 Americans (don't even try to blame that on Lincoln. Who seceded? Last time I checked it was the South).

 

[Nathan Poe]

Of course only a Southerner would ask/say this. No bias there. . .

That flag should be illegal to fly in the United States of America. It caused the death of 625,000 Americans (don't even try to blame that on Lincoln. Who seceded? Last time I checked it was the South).

I have to strongly disagree with the part I've highlighted -- I don't want the flag banned; that would be censorship. But let's make absolutely sure that the history associated with that flag is the real history, and not some whitewashed (pun intended) NeoConfederate revisionism.

The South seceded in order to maintain slavery, pure and simple -- every Confederate leader and official declaration of the time explicitly said so (although, to be sure, most of them changed their tune rather quickly after the war was over and their cause was lost -- no surprise there)

Let the real history behind the flag be known, and let anyone who wants to fly it then do so.

Of course, once the real history becomes common knowledge, the only places anyone would want to display it will probably be either in a museum or at a lynching -- but I say let people have the option, as long as they know the facts.

 

[BAFRIEND]

I think the Confederate Flag is not seen by most whites as racist- but is seen as by most minorities.

I think the flag has no useful purpose.

 

[Dale]

SpyridonOCA in OP:
<< By the way, Abraham Lincoln was a racist, imperialist and warmonger. He literally trampled on the Constitution, and we are paying for it to this day.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Real Lincoln by Charley Reese[/FONT] >>


I assume this is the Charley Reese who writes for the Orlando Sentinel, if they haven't dropped him. My local paper used to carry his column. In a nutshell, Charley Reese is one of the most venomous anti-semites ever to disgrace the pages of an American newspaper.

It is not unusual for me to disagree with a columnist, but only in the case of Charley Reese did I ask that his columns be removed from the paper. I was not alone. A chorus of voices joined in and his column was dropped.

Not only is Reese anti-Israel, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, he became outright anti-American. He opposed the war in Afghanistan, predicting American defeat. He refused to call the 9-11 hijackers criminals or terrorists, calling them only "young men." As far as anyone can disentangle his reasoning, since Israel is Absolute Evil, anyone trying to destroy it must be Good.


Spyridon, if there is any support anywhere for your claims, you're going to have to do better than this.

*
*

 

[Dale]

Spyridon in post #187:
"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."

Spyridon in post #189:
"Lincoln could have paid for their freedom with cash instead of the blood of over 600,000 Americans."

Spyridon in post #191:
"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?"

Spyridon in post #193:
"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."


Answer: Lincoln did propose to purchase the slaves. No one was interested and there was even a backlash against the idea.

By the way, how long do you think Lincoln was President before the war started?


"The border states figured prominently in another aspect of the president's strategy for dealing with slavery--compensation. In the second year of the war, when it was clear that a quick conclusion to the conflict was not forthcoming, Lincoln began to argue that, as an alternative to waging war, it would be cheaper for the government simply to buy the slaves from their masters. Moreover, he was convinced that if the border states agreed to gradual and compensated emancipation, the South would see the futility of it rebellion and capitulate. Much to Lincoln's chagrin, the pilot program kindled little interest in the border states. Meanwhile, the idea of compensating slave owners infuriated the abolitionists."


--Douglas L. Wilson, Lincoln's Sword
NY: Alfred Knofp, 2006
p. 109-110


As I read this passage, in a reputable history book, Congress did pass a program to emancipate slaves in the border states by purchasing them. The slave owners weren't interested.

*
*