Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
The Civil War happened because it was bound to happen whether it was by slavery or not.

This statement makes no sense.

There is an argument by some historians that eventually the (then) wealthier agrarian south would eventually conflict with the industrializing north no matter what. It doesn't explain why other ag states didn't join (Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, etc).

Plus, the agrarian vs industrial argument is meaningless absent slavery. As you yourself point out, it was never an issue of pastoral life generally but of slavery particularly.

It definitely doesn't explain why those states didn't rebel. it also glosses over the point that, absent some of the New England states which were heavily mercantile, the US had barely begun to industrialize. You basically had states with small farms vs. states with small farms and some plantations.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
The Civil War happened because it was bound to happen whether it was by slavery or not.

This statement makes no sense.

There is an argument by some historians that eventually the (then) wealthier agrarian south would eventually conflict with the industrializing north no matter what. It doesn't explain why other ag states didn't join (Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, etc).

Plus, the agrarian vs industrial argument is meaningless absent slavery. As you yourself point out, it was never an issue of pastoral life generally but of slavery particularly.

It definitely doesn't explain why those states didn't rebel. it also glosses over the point that, absent some of the New England states which were heavily mercantile, the US had barely begun to industrialize. You basically had states with small farms vs. states with small farms and some plantations.

Kind of hard to join the rebellion when, with Habeas Corpus suspended, those wanting to vote to do so (state politicians favoring the rebellion) were arrested and jailed to prevent the votes. Other states (Delaware and Maryland) had the Union army presence in DC and the surrounding area to convince them it would be a Bad Thing, plus by staying with the Union they got to keep their slaves initially (the emancipation proclamation deliberately only freed slaves in states that rebelled). Kentucky tried to stay neutral, but basically both sides recruited from the population, and when the rebels under Polk (another general with a Ft named after him) took columbus,KY, the state legislature decided to back the union.

The border states frankly were pulled both ways and tried hard to make the best of a gakky situation and maintain some level of sovereignty.

This kid just wrote himself into the history books

Amazon will no longer sell items with Confederate flags on them
Valley Forge Company will no longer make the Confederate flag
Motions in State governments to debate to remove Stars and Bars on basically anything

 AdeptSister wrote:
I also don't understand the belief that the Confederate flag was twisted by racists.

Well, it was created by one era of racism and then reinterpreted by another era of racism. The character of racism had dramatically changed between the 1850 and the 1920s.

File this under "trivia that everyone probably knows and nobody asked for":

My state, West Virginia, was the only state to form by seceding from the Confederate States of America.

So we get a cookie for that.

 CptJake wrote:
The border states frankly were pulled both ways and tried hard to make the best of a gakky situation and maintain some level of sovereignty.

This is a very good point that you almost never see thanks the "states rights" mythologization of the Southern Cause; resisting the Confederacy could also be a matter of state sovereignty.

 Manchu wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The border states frankly were pulled both ways and tried hard to make the best of a gakky situation and maintain some level of sovereignty.

This is a very good point that you almost never see thanks the "states rights" mythologization of the Southern Cause; resisting the Confederacy could also be a matter of state sovereignty.

Yep, and Quantrill and his raiders tried hard to make Kansas pay, for example.

 CptJake wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The border states frankly were pulled both ways and tried hard to make the best of a gakky situation and maintain some level of sovereignty.

This is a very good point that you almost never see thanks the "states rights" mythologization of the Southern Cause; resisting the Confederacy could also be a matter of state sovereignty.

Yep, and Quantrill and his raiders tried hard to make Kansas pay, for example.

Yeppers...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_War_(Kansas%E2%80%93Missouri_rivalry)

Now you know why the Jayhawks and Mizzou hates each other.

The First Official Flag of the Confederacy. Although less well known than the "Confederate Battle Flags",the Stars and Bars was used as the official flag of the Confederacy from March 1861 to May of 1863. The pattern and colors of this flag did not distinguish it sharply fom the Stars and Stripes of the Union. Consequently, considerable confusion was caused on the battlefield.

The seven stars represent the original Confederate States; South Carolina (December 20, 1860), Mississippi(January 9, 1861), Florida (January 10,1861), Alabama (January 11, 1861), Georgia (January 19, 1861), Louisiana (January 26, 1861), and Texas (February 1, 1861).



The Confederate Battle Flag. The best-known Confederate flag, however, was the Battle Flag, the familiar "Southern Cross". It was carried by Confederate troops in the field which were the vast majority of forces under the confederacy.
The Stars represented the 11 states actually in the Confederacy plus Kentucky and Missouri.



The second Official Flag of the Confederacy. On May 1st,1863, a second design was adopted, placing the Battle Flag (also known as the "Southern Cross") as the canton on a white field. This flag was easily mistaken for a white flag of surrender especially when the air was calm and the flag hung limply.

The flag now had 13 stars having been joined officially by four more states, Virginia (April 17, 1861), Arkansas (May 6, 1861), Tennessee (May 7, 1861), North Carolina (May 21, 1861). Efforts to secede failed in Kentucky and Missouri though those states were represented by two of the stars.



The third Official Flag of the Confederacy.On March 4th,1865, a short time before the collapse of the Confederacy, a third pattern was adapted; a broad bar of red was placed on the fly end of the white field.



Confederate Navy Jack: Used as a navy jack at sea from 1863 onward. This flag has become the generally recognized symbol of the South.

 Manchu wrote:
Worthwhile read on the subject. Address given in Charleston in 2011 - "Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners Fought"[https://web.archive.org/web/20110321183207/http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html

That was a really fascinating read. Thanks for sharing it.

I'm not much for the "great man" school of history, in that I think social trends are more likely to impact history than any one person's actions, but do you think Lincon's assassination, and the ascendence of the more venegeful Andrew Johnson hurt relations in the long wrong? Or was the wound too deep and too tighly geographic to really heal easily?

 Polonius wrote:

I'm not much for the "great man" school of history, in that I think social trends are more likely to impact history than any one person's actions, but do you think Lincon's assassination, and the ascendence of the more venegeful Andrew Johnson hurt relations in the long wrong? Or was the wound too deep and too tighly geographic to really heal easily?

My guess is that it's the latter, but I do think that Lincoln would have done his damnedest to try and smooth relations as well as possible.

 Polonius wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Worthwhile read on the subject. Address given in Charleston in 2011 - "Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners Fought"[https://web.archive.org/web/20110321183207/http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html

That was a really fascinating read. Thanks for sharing it.

I'm not much for the "great man" school of history, in that I think social trends are more likely to impact history than any one person's actions, but do you think Lincon's assassination, and the ascendence of the more venegeful Andrew Johnson hurt relations in the long wrong? Or was the wound too deep and too tighly geographic to really heal easily?

Agreed.... was a very interesting read..it also doubles as a good example of how bad biblical exegesis can lead to error.

Of course it also reveals the lengths people will go to, to bend the Bible to their own nefarious ends.

As to the Andrew Johnson thing, I thought he was impeached because the radical republicans thought he was too soft on the south during the time leading up to reconstruction ?

GG

It seems to me that slavery and sovereignty were one and the same for the Southern states. The fear was, abolition would make the Southern states into clients of Northern patrons. Whether this became a self-fulfilling prophecy or whether they were simply right, their fears were in many ways realized after the war. Much of the South remains relatively poor and backwards even to this day. I am wary of the idea that Lincoln, a man who was assassinated because he embodied what the South dreaded so terribly, could have made much of a difference; no more so than he could have prevented the war in the first place.

 whembly wrote:
First, in this thread, what's the main topic?

The Confederate Flag... right?

Why are we talking about it?

Actually, you are not. That was my whole point. I was asking you why you were talking about something completely unrelated.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 whembly wrote:
First, in this thread, what's the main topic?

The Confederate Flag... right?

Why are we talking about it?

Actually, you are not. That was my whole point. I was asking you why you were talking about something completely unrelated.

I'm decrying the media's overblown attention over a flag.

The *flag* did not turn Dylann Roof into a murderer.

In the aftermath of these horrific murders, I'm saying that we should be praising the victim's families' reaction at the court hearing AND how the community responded. Like this:



But, no... the media is talking about that stupid flag.

Or the media is over reporting that Obama said "november" (to use jihadin's "n-word" slang).

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 whembly wrote:
First, in this thread, what's the main topic?

The Confederate Flag... right?

Why are we talking about it?

Actually, you are not. That was my whole point. I was asking you why you were talking about something completely unrelated.

You must have missed the picture of the state building. US flag at 1/2 mast on the building, confederate flag at full mast in front of the building.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/take-down-the-confederate-battle-flag-near-south-carolinas-capitol/2015/06/22/dfafa05e-1912-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

Plus the guy who did the shooting has a picture with the confederate flag and his gun on a website that hosts his manifesto.

As the confederate flag is used today by many racist groups the two flags together is in bad taste and it seems america has finally had enough of it, and they gak who did the shooting might have finally been the tipping point to seeing the flag reduced to the obscurity it belongs in.

 whembly wrote:
In the aftermath of these horrific murders, I'm saying that we should be praising the victim's families' reaction at the court hearing AND how the community responded. Like this:

Spoiler:

But, no... the media is talking about that stupid flag.

So, in this thread about the flag, you are telling us we should not be talking about the flag, but rather about something else. That is… weird.

Let's make one thing clear. As a United States Citizen, you still have the right to fly the stars and bars. No one is stopping you. No official federal actions forced the removal of the confederate flag in SC. Public pressure did that. No one is under the illusion that removing the Confederate flag from Charleston will erase racism, but it is a start. The idea that African Americans can now see that the state government of SC no longer actively endorses a symbol of racism will be a (very) small step in easing racial division.

As a conservative and a libertarian, I think the conservative movement shoots itself in the foot by constantly crying, "Now isn't the time to have this conversation" because it puts us in an uncomfortable position. National conversations happen because people want it to happen (or the media drums it up).

What is there to say about the Dylan Roof that hasn't been said about Columbine or Newtown or Virginia Tech or Birmingham back in 1963? Stop trying to shut down the debate because you don't like the way it's going. Stop trying to defend a flag that screams racism to almost every black American living today.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 whembly wrote:
In the aftermath of these horrific murders, I'm saying that we should be praising the victim's families' reaction at the court hearing AND how the community responded. Like this:

Spoiler:

But, no... the media is talking about that stupid flag.

So, in this thread about the flag, you are telling us we should not be talking about the flag, but rather about something else. That is… weird.

*rubs temple*...*sigh*...*soldier on*...

All I'm saying, is that we need to remember that this story began with the people of Charleston and of SC uniting together in support of the victims of a shooting.

The flag controversy( which is an old controversy) is an attempt to deflect this story and pit us against one another.

Oh I thought the story began when a racist white kid murdered a bunch of black folks.

 Manchu wrote:
Oh I thought the story began when a racist white kid murdered a bunch of black folks.

Yup.

 whembly wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 whembly wrote:
In the aftermath of these horrific murders, I'm saying that we should be praising the victim's families' reaction at the court hearing AND how the community responded. Like this:

Spoiler:

But, no... the media is talking about that stupid flag.

So, in this thread about the flag, you are telling us we should not be talking about the flag, but rather about something else. That is… weird.

*rubs temple*...*sigh*...*soldier on*...

All I'm saying, is that we need to remember that this story began with the people of Charleston and of SC uniting together in support of the victims of a shooting.

The flag controversy( which is an old controversy) is an attempt to deflect this story and pit us against one another.

It pits people who support a racist symbol against those who do not. This is a case of people finally demanding that a state cease this insanity.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
And here we are not even talking about the flag of a nation, but the flag of an army whose very purpose was destroying the United states.

The Confederate army wasn't trying to destroy the United States.

That was the immediate purpose for its existence. To stop Federal armies from preserving the Union.

That's not the same thing as trying to destroy the United States.

 Manchu wrote:
Oh I thought the story began when a racist white crazy POS murdered a bunch of black folks.

Corrected your typo

 whembly wrote:
Was there any doubt that hypothetical would ever happen? Why are you arguing from this viewpoint. You're tugging that goalpost awfully hard...

It's not a hypothetical, it's what happened in the cases where there were protests/riots/etc. Like I said, that's the key difference between the two: whether the murderer was immediately arrested, got no sympathy, and will spend the rest of his life in prison, or was given absurdly light punishment and the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity. There's no outrage and rioting in this case because there's no target for it, if there was a target (as in the other cases) there would probably be a lot more rioting and a lot less peaceful forgiveness.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Was there any doubt that hypothetical would ever happen? Why are you arguing from this viewpoint. You're tugging that goalpost awfully hard...

It's not a hypothetical, it's what happened in the cases where there were protests/riots/etc. Like I said, that's the key difference between the two: whether the murderer was immediately arrested, got no sympathy, and will spend the rest of his life in prison, or was given absurdly light punishment and the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity. There's no outrage and rioting in this case because there's no target for it, if there was a target (as in the other cases) there would probably be a lot more rioting and a lot less peaceful forgiveness.

Okay... I do see your point and to certain extent, I agree with you now.

Since Ferguson, I've taken such a pessimistic view that whenever something like this happens, I'm expecting it to blow up.

FWIW, I believe this flag belongs in a museum (it's history) and no where near used in any "official" capacity. (yes, I know it's on 4 other state's flag too).

 Manchu wrote:
It seems to me that slavery and sovereignty were one and the same for the Southern states. The fear was, abolition would make the Southern states into clients of Northern patrons. Whether this became a self-fulfilling prophecy or whether they were simply right, their fears were in many ways realized after the war. Much of the South remains relatively poor and backwards even to this day. I am wary of the idea that Lincoln, a man who was assassinated because he embodied what the South dreaded so terribly, could have made much of a difference; no more so than he could have prevented the war in the first place.

It's not a coincidence that the Civil War occured right around the time of rapid industrialization and immigration to the North, which tilted both the population and economy of the country from the historically aristrocratic south to the capitalist north. The US was dominated by Southern Elites since before the US was independent, through roughly 1840 or so.

In many ways, the tragedy is that chattel slavery probably only had another generation in it as an economic force. It might have remained profitable in the deep south, but the mechanization of agriculture and the mass production of lower end craftsman made goods would have kicked the chair out of a slave economy. Brazil and Russia didn't free the slaves/serfs out of kindness. There is some evidence that landowners enjoyed higher incomes, albiet with less overall weath, under sharecropping than they did under slavery. Probably isolated instances, but slaves are expensive and completely unregulated labor is really cheap.

 whembly wrote:
All I'm saying, is that we need to remember that this story began with the people of Charleston and of SC uniting together in support of the victims of a shooting.

The flag controversy( which is an old controversy) is an attempt to deflect this story and pit us against one another.

If that controversy is old, I guess it does predate that story you are talking about. I guess it will also outlive it. So why deflect from addressing it?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I'm not much for the "great man" school of history, in that I think social trends are more likely to impact history than any one person's actions, but do you think Lincon's assassination, and the ascendence of the more venegeful Andrew Johnson hurt relations in the long wrong? Or was the wound too deep and too tighly geographic to really heal easily?

My guess is that it's the latter, but I do think that Lincoln would have done his damnedest to try and smooth relations as well as possible.

I remember reading something that before his assassination, Lincoln intended to not only pardon every Confederate Solider, but to grant to them the dignity of being recognized as American military veterans.

Lincoln believed, that though they have fought for the wrong cause, they were still American citizens and deserved to be respected for their valintry on the battlefield.

Lincoln’s assassination, arguably, prevented the healing of our nation that he sought to bring about after the Civil War. I need to find that book since we're talking so much history. (and I hope I didn't butcher that... as it's coming from my old head)

I think, if you put yourself into the place of Southerners at the time, it would be awfully difficult to imagine a generation yet to come because that world would be so fundamentally different from the world you knew and had always known.