Confederate Flag

[SC_Shooter]

After the secession, nothing mattered to the South, but being totally defiant to the North and the Union controllers.

How true. The slavery issue was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. It could just as easily have been about interstate taxes, the number of representatives in Congress or a host of other issues. People were fed up with a growing, power hungry Federal Government that wanted to make decisions for States and individuals (sound familiar?).

Once the fight began, however, it became almost solely about beating the national government back and keeping them from effectively taking over operations of the states. Neither side wanted to lose, even though neither side liked the idea of fighting the men they were against. That's what made the whole war so difficult. Civil wars are like that by nature.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well, slavery was an emotional issue and it made for a better rally cry to gain public support for the war to say "we're doing this to free people who have been enslaved" than to say "we're doing this to show some of the states that we can do whatever we want and they better get on board with it."

You have it backwards. It was the South, not the North that used slavery to rally support for the war, e.g. Stephens Cornerstone Speech. The South fought to save slavery. Indeed, Lincoln was very clear that his Republican war aims were to save the Union, not free the slaves.

It all came to the Union trying to impose things on the South, so they became defiant.

The South became aggressive and started the war. Even during the course of the war the South continued to attack bystanders and drag them into the war, e.g. Kentucky.

The North did not seek to impose anything on the South, unless you mean the Northern Abolitionists (a small minority of the population) who sought to free the slaves and that upset the South. And, as we see from the historical record, it did upset the South to the point that they attacked the Union.

Money was the primary reason for the Civil War

It was slavery, all to do with slavery by the South's own admission.

After the Civil War, the the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it became more difficult for respectable Southerners to admit that the war had been about slavery, thus General Early and the Lost Causers tried to turn the war into some struggle over economics.

 

[whiskeytangofoxtrot]

It is a very complex topic, I encourage everyone to at least take a look into it.

For example, I enjoy how Robert E. Lee was asked before all others to command the Union army for Lincoln, but instead he chose to lead the army of Northern Virginia because he was more loyal to his home state, not the Union.

 

[csaws]

You have it backwards. It was the South, not the North that used slavery to rally support for the war, e.g. Stephens Cornerstone Speech. The South fought to save slavery. Indeed, Lincoln was very clear that his Republican war aims were to save the Union, not free the slaves.



The South became aggressive and started the war. Even during the course of the war the South continued to attack bystanders and drag them into the war, e.g. Kentucky.

The North did not seek to impose anything on the South, unless you mean the Northern Abolitionists (a small minority of the population) who sought to free the slaves and that upset the South. And, as we see from the historical record, it did upset the South to the point that they attacked the Union.



It was slavery, all to do with slavery by the South's own admission.

After the Civil War, the the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it became more difficult for respectable Southerners to admit that the war had been about slavery, thus General Early and the Lost Causers tried to turn the war into some struggle over economics.

I am confident of two things about the information in this thread, this is probably gonna make someone mad...

1. Not a one of us was there so this is all hearsay just like most religious beliefs
2. As was stated earlier History books are written by the winner, I will add one other thing to that, it is written to follow someone's agenda (usually twisting the truth to their favor)

 

[Bill of Rights]

Not like they were hurting for money in the first place.

Ryan, you know how rich people get that way? Hint: It's not by spending money they don't have to spend or by buying something they already have.

Slavery was on it's way out anyway. The Industrial Revolution was coming, pardon the pun, like a locomotive, and nothing was going to stop it. The slaves would have been freed anyway. Be that as it may, when the Southern states said "We're done, we're outta here, this isn't what we agreed to be a part of", that should have been the end of it. "Fare well; bye and luck." Unfortunately, the North did depend on the South's cotton for manufacturing, so Lincoln couldn't allow the South to leave.

The revisionists like to paint Lincoln as this great mediator who gave the slaves their freedom, wanting only the best for them, when in fact, he was bowing to pressure from many sides. Look up the Corwin Amendment to see what Lincoln was willing to agree to to the end of keeping the nation together- he unnecessarily signed the amendment, indicating agreement with it, not that his agreement was needed: The President has nothing to do with the Amendment process.

Imagine, if you will, a married couple; the husband, Sam and his wife, Dixie. They took the standard marriage vows (love, honor, cherish), but shortly after their wedding, Sam begins making demands of Dixie, expecting her to serve him, getting nothing in return for her trouble but more demands. She announces she wants to leave and does so, only to have the police find her, apprehend her, and bring her back. Sam ties her to the foot of the bed and beats and rapes her... repeatedly.

The names are obvious. The vows are the Constitution, to which all parties (2 in this case) agreed. The demands are violations of the vows, violating sovereignty. When Dixie, the South, left, it was because the rules had changed and it was not what she/they had agreed to be part of, but federal troops (police) forced the re-joining of the Union... and the country has been bent over by such things as the conveniently-accepted/conveniently ignored 14th Amendment ever since.

Kirk, with respect, yes, slavery was a central issue, but the fact that that which was central to their economy, and which was a purely internal matter was being forcibly taken away in conflict with the Constitution's central tenets was the larger issue. To accept federal prohibition of such internal matters is to give credence to the myriad abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause... How much water is your toilet allowed to flush now?

I look forward to your replies; seldom do I read one without learning something of value.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SC_Shooter]

You have it backwards. It was the South, not the North that used slavery to rally support for the war, e.g. Stephens Cornerstone Speech. The South fought to save slavery. Indeed, Lincoln was very clear that his Republican war aims were to save the Union, not free the slaves.

Actually, I don't. The rally cry throughout the South wasn't "let's win so we can keep our slaves," if was "let's win so we can maintain States' Rights and keep people in Washington from running our lives." The war (from the South's perspective) was no more about keeping slaves than today's anger toward the government is about keeping Anthem as our insurance company.

Keep in mind that an extremely small number of people actually had slaves in the first place, yet more than a million answered the call to arms. They were not drafted, they volunteered.

Is it even remotely logical that they volunteered to fight and die to keep their slaves? The ones they didn't have in the first place? No, but it is completely rational that they would fight to prevent the Federal Government from exerting more and more control over the States. It had only been about a hundred years since they won their freedom in the first place and what they saw as an assault on that freedom was worth fighting against.

The South became aggressive and started the war. Even during the course of the war the South continued to attack bystanders and drag them into the war, e.g. Kentucky.

You are correct that the South actually started the war. Union troops established a stronghold at Fort Sumter in SC a few days after SC declared its succession from the Union.

After MONTHS of calls from SC for the Union troops to leave their territory, supplies at the fort ran low and the Union military sent a contracted ship to resupply them. That ship was fired on to prevent it from resupplying what were seen as an occupying army and that is when the war began. This only happened after MONTHS of asking the troops to leave the area. Who knows what would have happened if they had. I should also add that the establishment of this stronghold was at the decision of the local commander and NOT an order from the President.

The North did not seek to impose anything on the South, unless you mean the Northern Abolitionists (a small minority of the population) who sought to free the slaves and that upset the South. And, as we see from the historical record, it did upset the South to the point that they attacked the Union.

It was slavery, all to do with slavery by the South's own admission.

After the Civil War, the the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it became more difficult for respectable Southerners to admit that the war had been about slavery, thus General Early and the Lost Causers tried to turn the war into some struggle over economics.

No one is arguing that people were not being mistreated during that time period. They were and that treatment was appalling by today's standards. As Bill and I both pointed out earlier, slavery was on its way out anyway...war or no war.

All that said, the North most certainly was trying to force things on the South. To be more correct, I should say that Washington was trying to force things on the States. The slavery issue did not affect many of the Northern states because they had become free states already by that time. For that reason, it came across mostly an issue of Washington forcing something on the South.

Yes, slavery was the final straw and I'm not in any way arguing that it wasn't. I'm simply making the point that people were fighting to preserve States Rights...slavery was just the latest of disputes between Washington and the States.

God knows we are all better off that slavery was ended and that it never should have happened in the first place. It's always interesting to hear people's perspectives on an issue like this because we are all (myself included) applying our own feelings, wants, likes, dislikes and life experiences to a situation none of us participated in. We've read the same books, but most of us on this site tend to question things and not just take whatever we read as the gospel. It's good we can do that.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...You are correct that the South actually started the war. Union troops established a stronghold at Fort Sumter in SC a few days after SC declared its succession from the Union.

After MONTHS of calls from SC for the Union troops to leave their territory, supplies at the fort ran low and the Union military sent a contracted ship to resupply them. That ship was fired on to prevent it from resupplying what were seen as an occupying army and that is when the war began. This only happened after MONTHS of asking the troops to leave the area. Who knows what would have happened if they had. I should also add that the establishment of this stronghold was at the decision of the local commander and NOT an order from the President....

Let's go over this point a little more closely. SC said, "We're done, outta here, thanks for playing, but this isn't our game anymore." In essence, at that point, SC was in effect if not in name, a sovereign country unto itself (and even if not, it was part of a sovereign country, the CSA.) SC/The CSA had a piece of property known as Ft. Sumter within it's borders, that was occupied by troops of a foreign power, the uSA (capitalization and lack of same is intentional.) The President may not have ordered the occupation, but he was complicit in it's continuation and resupply-as CinC, he could have ended it with the stroke of a pen.
Diplomatically, SC/CSA requested that the troops vacate and they failed to do so. SC finally had enough and stopped the resupply... and this is the fault of the South for becoming violent how?

I will be clear on this point: I am not a scholar of the War of Northern Aggression. I know what factoids I got in school and I know what facts and opinions, etc. I've learned over the years.

What I've learned is that there was nothing at all civil about this war, that both sides have their version of what happened (with the truth lying somewhere between them both, though IMHO, it is closer to the CSA version), and that we've all been given a huge load of bullscat that it was all about slavery and nothing else.

That's like saying that the singular root cause of the American Revolution was "gun control". In 1775, the British troops sought to control the colonists by removing their means of resistance and failed. In 1861, the North sought to control the South by making the appearance of noble cause when the true root was the lining of their own pockets. (That is, each was, in it's time, *A* cause, though neither was *the* cause.)

In neither case is the public story anything but oversimplified spin; the "straw that broke the camel's back", so to speak. People don't seek war for petty causes unless they themselves don't plan to see combat; as long as it's someone else's :moon: on the line, they're happy to slap faces with gloves and posture, betting their personal safety on the lives and temperaments of true warriors... "Rough men who stand ready to do violence on their behalf." (apologies to Orwell)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Boilers]

Camel's back - hey, I heard something on TV. Did you guys know there was a north american camel? Now extinct.

Carry on.

 

[jsgolfman]

An Abolitionist Defends the South by Thomas DiLorenzo

 

[SC_Shooter]

Camel's back - hey, I heard something on TV. Did you guys know there was a north american camel? Now extinct.

Carry on.

Didn't the species die out from broken backs???

 

[CapBuster49]

Not to stereo type but most people I see with X flag seem to be ignorant redneck Donkeys.. Can't say i've ever seen a Lexus with a confederate license plate on the front, or one flying on a porch in Geist..

GO WITH THE STARS AND BARS!

 

[ATF Consumer]

Camel's back - hey, I heard something on TV. Did you guys know there was a north american camel? Now extinct.

Carry on.

I know that the Army looked into using them, but they scared the horses and they kept spitting on everyone so they scrapped that program.

 

[RelicHound]

I dont fly the flag and it ticks me off to no end when I see it flown by some ignorant high school kid who doesnt know its true meaning.
the civil war had very little to do with slavery in the beginning...yes read that..take it in,remember it! the confederates fought in the civilwar to protect there profits..they did not want to share there profits with the union so the union decided to take them. cotton was a very profitable crop in the south{you dont see many cotton fields in the northern states} and the union states wanted a piece of that pie..the south said no so they fought it out.
the confederates fought the union for basically the same reasons the colonials fought the British..but instead of the war being over taxes it was over cotton profits...yes it is a fact that almost all of the cotton was planted,harvested/worked by the use of slaves and when ole Abe seen this he decided to do something about it.
the confederacy died and its flag should have died with it..not brought back as some half cocked statement or symbol of social status.
thousands of AMERICANS died for that flag and I say its a safe bet that many of them are rolling in there grave over how the flag is being used today.

 

[SavageEagle]

I dont fly the flag and it ticks me off to no end when I see it flown by some ignorant high school kid who doesnt know its true meaning.

I sure hope that wasn't geared toward me. I might have to ban you in the banning thread!

 

[RelicHound]

I sure hope that wasn't geared toward me. I might have to ban you in the banning thread!

IDK..are you an ignorant HS kid who flys the flag because you think its "cool"?

 

[SavageEagle]

IDK..are you an ignorant HS kid who flys the flag because you think its "cool"?

Nope, but I did tell about my experiance in HS flying it in the back of my truck. Was just checking. I ban you anyway. Just cause it's fun to act like I gots da POWA!

 

[RelicHound]

Nope, but I did tell about my experiance in HS flying it in the back of my truck. Was just checking. I ban you anyway. Just cause it's fun to act like I gots da POWA!

I see..well you should of known I ignore most of your post..so I never would seen where you posted that

 

[SavageEagle]

I see..well you should of known I ignore most of your post..so I never would seen where you posted that

BANANANANANANABAN!

 

[CountryBoy19]

I also went to a HS named for General Lee. The Stars and Bars represent the concept incorrectly called "states' rights" to me. The fedgov had no business trying to make slaves of 13 states because the states wanted to leave. The Constitution is a contract between the sovereign states that form the country, a contract which the fedgov violated in attempting to control the internal affairs of the Southern states.

Make no mistake, I do not defend the enslavement of people, whether as individuals to other individuals or as entire states held involuntarily in bondage to other states or to a collective group they all help form.

The Confederate Battle Flag has been misrepresented as symbolic of slavery by and to many people, of whom Black people are but one subset, just as a noose has been misrepresented as symbolic of racism specifically against Black people.

Our ancestors saw the encroachment upon "states' rights" as the camel's nose under the tent. My only question is, this long after the fact and with the benefit of hindsight, why don't we?

Blessings,
Bill

+1

While I don't doubt that some people fly the flag as a symbol of racism, I don't see it as that. I see the Confederate flag as being no different than a Gadsen flag for the most part. It is a symbol and warning that you stand for states rights and not federal government power. Personally I choose not to fly the flag because it may be misunderstood as racist and I don't think that is a good picture to paint because I am not racist, but to say nobody should fly the flag is not good advice IMHO. Unfortunately, this symbol of history and people making a stand on what they believe in has been turned into something completely different so that it can't be effectively used to represent those things.

 

[4sarge]

+1

While I don't doubt that some people fly the flag as a symbol of racism, I don't see it as that. I see the Confederate flag as being no different than a Gadsen flag for the most part. It is a symbol and warning that you stand for states rights and not federal government power. Personally I choose not to fly the flag because it may be misunderstood as racist and I don't think that is a good picture to paint because I am not racist, but to say nobody should fly the flag is not good advice IMHO. Unfortunately, this symbol of history and people making a stand on what they believe in has been turned into something completely different so that it can't be effectively used to represent those things.