Confederate Flag Brouhaha

[Balog]

That makes no sense.

He's conflating the North's reasoning for entering the war with the South's.

[lupinus]

That makes no sense.

How so?

[Scout26]

Both sides sucked, for different and sometimes the same reasons.  Needless to say the side with a larger population and greater industrial might won.

I think this has already been posted:



Plus there was posted that entire lengthy blog post about why both sides sucked ass.

[roo_ster]

He's conflating the North's reasoning for entering the war with the South's.

The CSA entered the war because the USA invaded.  No invasion of CSA territory, no Civil War.

I think you are conflating some southern statesmen's reasoning for secession with an invasion.

Again, if the Union's burning desire was for ending slavery, the Republicans had the votes to do so in the newly truncated USA.  They did not do so and thus it can be supposed that they had higher priorities.

[Perd Hapley]

How so?

First, I’m not saying that the war was “all about slavery,” though the historical record confirms slavery’s central place among the issues leading to war. roo_ster says slavery was only a secondary concern, which traduces the facts. Since we know that slavery was a primary issue, does that mean the Northern leadership wanted to immediately eliminate slavery in the Union states where it remained? Does it even mean they wanted to pass a gradual emancipation measure right away? Well, no, it doesn’t mean that.

If one thinks that antebellum anti-slavery politics was all about ending slavery (whether gradually or immediately) in current slave states, then one need only study the period a bit more. I don’t know if I should get into the whole issue here, or not, but people opposed slavery for a variety of reasons. That usually meant they just didn’t want slavery to affect them, in their part of the country. 

A lot of people seem to think that "the war was about slavery" makes Northerners into noble crusaders with motives pure. It does not mean that.

[AJ Dual]

Yes, it's true the North invaded the South because it seceded not to end slavery.

However, the South still seceded over slavery... and all the issues of representation etc. that made it feel it wouldn't be able to defend slavery.

All the "other causes" pretty much dive right back into slavery.

It just is what it is.

[makattak]

Secession was about slavery. There is no denying that. (States' rights, yes. But it was about the right of the states to continue slavery. It was the fear of continued growth of the frontier into non-slave states, diminishing the power of the slave states to "protect" slavery.)

The war itself was about more than just slavery. Secession didn't have to lead to war, which is why the war was about far more than slavery. The North didn't go to was against the South to end slavery, the went to war to prevent them from seceding. (For many reasons not having to do with slavery.)

Therefore, you can argue that it was both ALL about slavery (that's why they seceded!) and not primarily about slavery (that's not why there was a war!).

In any case, I agree with zxcvbob that it ought not to be flown as a flag representing a government. Individuals flying the flag and memorials I see no problem with. (Though, as I said, I would not do it myself.)

Edit: I see AJ made the same points as me, just faster.

[Mannlicher]

I see we have a lot of folks here that are products of government schools.  No need to really read history anymore, just watching Oprah or The View, reading HuffPo, will give you your info, and your talking points.

as I said elsewhere today:

Some thoughts about America and the flag imbroglio.:
as always compromising, giving in to demands from the other side, does nothing to stop your enemy from asking for more. And more. And more. At what point do you draw the line?
Bear in mind, your enemy is not going to compromise, is not going to accept a good faith gesture, is not going to stop with this one demand.
We are being set up to cave in over and over. They won't stop, and the majority of Americans won't fail to take another step backwards. By doing their best to avoid a battle, they are are losing the war.
I'll just repeat my mantra again at this point:
Never before in human history, have so many people, with so much to lose, done so much to facilitate their own downfall, and almost beg for it to happen faster.

[Balog]

The CSA entered the war because the USA invaded.  No invasion of CSA territory, no Civil War.

I think you are conflating some southern statesmen's reasoning for secession with an invasion.

Again, if the Union's burning desire was for ending slavery, the Republicans had the votes to do so in the newly truncated USA.  They did not do so and thus it can be supposed that they had higher priorities.

The North had no interest in ending slavery as an institution. The South was very concerned about slavery as an institution though.

[Balog]

Secession was about slavery. There is no denying that. (States' rights, yes. But it was about the right of the states to continue slavery. It was the fear of continued growth of the frontier into non-slave states, diminishing the power of the slave states to "protect" slavery.)

The war itself was about more than just slavery. Secession didn't have to lead to war, which is why the war was about far more than slavery. The North didn't go to was against the South to end slavery, the went to war to prevent them from seceding. (For many reasons not having to do with slavery.)

Therefore, you can argue that it was both ALL about slavery (that's why they seceded!) and not primarily about slavery (that's not why there was a war!).

In any case, I agree with zxcvbob that it ought not to be flown as a flag representing a government. Individuals flying the flag and memorials I see no problem with. (Though, as I said, I would not do it myself.)

Edit: I see AJ made the same points as me, just faster.

Speaking about the Southern reasoning for secession and the war it caused, then the statement "It was all about slavery" is accurate.

[Balog]

I see we have a lot of folks here that are products of government schools.  No need to really read history anymore, just watching Oprah or The View, reading HuffPo, will give you your info, and your talking points.

as I said elsewhere today:

Unless Oprah or huffpo are quoting the articles of secession then your little jab there is misplaced.

[lupinus]

To simply say "it was about slavery!" is to gloss over and grossly over simplify huge social and economic issues which led t secession and ultimately the war. Yes, slavery was an underlying part. But it was far from the only part or the major part.

[makattak]

Speaking about the Southern reasoning for secession and the war it caused, then the statement "It was all about slavery" is accurate.

Yes. I was just trying to say that the two of you were arguing past one another. I was not arguing with either of you.

[roo_ster]

The North had no interest in ending slavery as an institution. The South was very concerned about slavery as an institution though.

Ayup.

[Balog]

To simply say "it was about slavery!" is to gloss over and grossly over simplify huge social and economic issues which led t secession and ultimately the war. Yes, slavery was an underlying part. But it was far from the only part or the major part.

The people who wrote the articles of secession disagree with you.

[Jocassee]

The people who wrote the articles of secession disagree with you.

Since this issue is really about a Battle Flag, flown during th WAR, do you realize Balog, that the Secession did in fact occur before the War, and that the North invaded the South, leading to generations of at least somewhat justified pride in fighting that invasion?

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, it's true the North invaded the South because it seceded not to end slavery.

However, the South still seceded over slavery... and all the issues of representation etc. that made it feel it wouldn't be able to defend slavery.

All the "other causes" pretty much dive right back into slavery.

It just is what it is.

This a lot.

[charby]

Maybe some Native Americans need to get in a tizzy about the US Flag.

[Balog]

Since this issue is really about a Battle Flag, flown during th WAR, do you realize Balog, that the Secession did in fact occur before the War, and that the North invaded the South, leading to generations of at least somewhat justified pride in fighting that invasion?

Lol. Your ancestors picked a stupid fight, over a stupid cause, and got their asses handed to them. And because they chose to attach some legitimate issues such as state's rights to something vile such as slavery, they screwed over future generations. The same way that the post war South screwed over the concept of free association through segregation and led the charge on gun control and the WoD with Jim Crow laws. They were a bunch of losers who significantly reduced the freedom in this country through their stupidity. Get over it dude.

[Perd Hapley]

Uh...

[AJ Dual]

Since this issue is really about a Battle Flag, flown during th WAR, do you realize Balog, that the Secession did in fact occur before the War, and that the North invaded the South, leading to generations of at least somewhat justified pride in fighting that invasion?

Yes, the invasion happened because of the secession, the secession happened over slavery.

"States Rights" to preserve slavery.
Issues of representation and control of congress, and the presidency to maintain slavery.
Admissions of new states as slave or free, and how it would affect congressional seats and the electoral college.
Economic disputes between the agrarian exporting Slave south, and the immigrant/industrial north.

Slavery Slavery Slavery.  It was over slavery. It happened because of slavery. All the "other causes" are one step removed from slavery, and were also because of slavery.

The "founding documents" of the Confederacy themselves state it over, and over, and over again.

I don't know why this is so hard for some in the South. You today didn't own the slaves, you didn't fight to keep them either.

For all I know some of my ancestors fought for bad causes in Europe, beat their spouses, or were criminals. I  have no idea. But what they did, or what they were doesn't define me.

It's as if you guys are unable to separate Moon Pies, RC Cola, Sweet Tea, and ladies in hoop skirts saying "Ah do declare!" etc. from slavery or the Civil War. Nobody's claiming the North is some paragon of righteousness. We're all aware the Emancipation Proclamation didn't cover the slaves in Union states. And Lincoln's words on preserving the Union, whether it meant freeing slaves, or leaving them in bondage.

And all of America killed or displaced a ton of Indians to get the land, or passively benefited from the epidemics from European contact that decimated them in the 1400's and 1500's before most of them even met a European colonist.

The "It was complicated" and "There were lots of reasons" arguments are shoddy.

[Balog]

"It's heritage, not hate!"

I accept that's true. I'm just saying your heritage is a bunch of losers who screwed over everyone in America with their stupidity.

[RoadKingLarry]

The CSA entered the war because the USA invaded.  No invasion of CSA territory, no Civil War.

I think you are conflating some southern statesmen's reasoning for secession with an invasion.

Again, if the Union's burning desire was for ending slavery, the Republicans had the votes to do so in the newly truncated USA.  They did not do so and thus it can be supposed that they had higher priorities.

Lets also remember that The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the states currently in rebellion.

[lupinus]

"It's heritage, not hate!"

I accept that's true. I'm just saying your heritage is a bunch of losers who screwed over everyone in America with their stupidity.

Riiiiight


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RoadKingLarry]

Since some have decided to sink to flinging insults maybe it would be a good idea to go ahead and shut this one down.