Confederate Flag issue

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.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Orlanth wrote:
Las wrote:

The Confederacy, unlike the US, was created SPECIFICALLY to maintain slavery.

Thats about as accurate as saying America exists to turn th Altantic into cold bewed tea.

Your reluctance to truth being literally spelled out in front of you is impressive. You have either constructed mental barriers in your mind so sturdy that nothing can get past them or you honestly just don't understand what people are telling you.

Either way, you can read the Constitution of the Confederate States and then compare to the original Constitution of the United States and see, in plain English, that the CSA was founded on the perpetuity of slavery in the South and its expansion into the Western Territories.

Orlanth wrote:

The same thing is happening right now with the battle flag. It is a symbol of slavery and white supremacy.

No. First because one the Confederacy is dead. Second it places a direct moral judgement on the use of the symbology ignoring the truth that it can be used for multiple purpose as a heritage symbol.

You act as if since the Confederacy is dead, the ideals upon which it was founded (the white man is superior to the black man) have completely evaporated and now it is just a nebulous "heritage." Again, let's talk about what that heritage is. To do so, I will once again quote Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

...

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.

**cincydooley**

I just can't wait to see some silly confederate flag protester in a Che' Guevara t-shirt. That'll be a delicious bit of hilarity.

**Relapse**

Reading the first part of section 9 in the Confederate Constitution makes me think buying and extracting of all the slaves in the South would have been cheaper than the Civil War if slavery was a big enough issue to have launched it.

**BeAfraid**

Orlanth wrote:

Those who want the iconography are saying that the Confederacy is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.

Trying to deal with the Confederacy, and the Revisionism surrounding it, trying to paint it as anything OTHER THAN EVIL is in now way excusing, or "absolving" other evils at any time.

Let us change this sentence to point out how ludicrous it is:

Those who want the iconography are saying that Nazi Germany is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.

Those who want the iconography are saying that the Stalinist USSR is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.

Those who want the iconography are saying that the Khmer Rouge is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.

Do you see how stupid that sounds.

Focusing upon one evil that happens to be directly in front of you, and for which something can be done about right now is neither dismissing, nor "absolving" other evils, AT ANY TIME.

It is simply pointing out that people who have been promoting a false narrative regarding the Confederacy are wrong, and probably racist as well, since they are trying to defend a group that was racist to its very core and foundation.

The Confederacy in the words of its Leaders
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/

From South Carolina:
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html#South_Carolina

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

From Mississippi:
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html#Mississippi

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…

From Louisiana:
http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=122:louisiana-commissioner-geo-williamson-urges-texas-to-secede-qto-preserve-the-blessings-of-african-slaveryq&catid=40:secession

As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.

From Alabama:
http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=123:alabama-legislature-resolves-to-secede-if-a-republican-is-elected-president&catid=41:the-gathering-storm

Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.

From Texas:
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html#Texas

...in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

Jefferson Davis Threatening Secession if a Republican was Elected to the White House in 1860 over the Issue of Slavery:
http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:speech-of-jefferson-davis-before-the-mississippi-legislature-nov-16-1858q-where-he-advocates-secession-if-an-abolitionist-is-elected-president-&catid=41:the-gathering-storm

I say to you here as I have said to the Democracy of New York, if it should ever come to pass that the Constitution shall be perverted to the destruction of our rights so that we shall have the mere right as a feeble minority unprotected by the barrier of the Constitution to give an ineffectual negative vote in the Halls of Congress, we shall then bear to the federal government the relation our colonial fathers did to the British crown, and if we are worthy of our lineage we will in that event redeem our rights even if it be through the process of revolution.

Jeffery Hammon, claiming a Divine Right to own African Slaves:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cotton-is-king/

We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. None of that race on the whole face of the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South. They are happy, content, unaspiring, and utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations. Yours are white, of your own race; you are brothers of one blood. They are your equals in natural endowment of intellect, and they feel galled by their degradation.

Georgia Governor on Secession:
https://books.google.com/books?id=7QRJAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=%22Among+us+the+poor+white+laborer+.+.+.+does+not+belong+to+the+menial+class.+The+negro+is+in+no+sense+his+equal&source=bl&ots=Me-NmW_4wi&sig=-ra1ppN3lkg_vA-amg4RqUqzgvU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UXeHVef5I5OhyATzjaioAw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22Among%20us%20the%20poor%20white%20laborer%20.%20.%20.%20does%20not%20belong%20to%20the%20menial%20class.%20The%20negro%20is%20in%20no%20sense%20his%20equal&f=false

Among us the poor white laborer is respected as an equal. His family is treated with kindness, consideration and respect. He does not belong to the menial class. The negro is in no sense of the term his equal. He feels and knows this. He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men. He black no masters boots, and bows the knee to no one save God alone. He receives higher wages for his labor than does the laborer of any other portion of the world, and he raises up his children with the knowledge, that they belong to no inferior cast, but that the highest members of the society in which he lives, will, if their conduct is good, respect and treat them as equals.

Other quotes from Secessionists:
https://books.google.com/books?id=ilvGeJQazOYC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=or+else+there+will+be+an+eternal+war+of+races,+desolating+the+land+with+blood,+and+utterly+wasting+and+destroying+all+the+resources+of+the+country.&source=bl&ots=y_5wCBljwa&sig=8oAYf0MzbdlhClcLungFmwN-OoE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lViIVZ2bJIW3yQTwj4LICw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=or%20else%20there%20will%20be%20an%20eternal%20war%20of%20races%2C%20desolating%20the%20land%20with%20blood%2C%20and%20utterly%20wasting%20and%20destroying%20all%20the%20resources%20of%20the%20country.&f=false

If the policy of the Republicans is carried out, according to the programme indicated by the leaders of the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the Southern States. The slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate—all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life; or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying all the resources of the country.

There is also no shortage of material to point out that the South was just DYING/LOOKING for a reason to split from the north, and/or to spread the Institution of Slavery as far as they possibly could (wanting to take Mexico, Cuba, and South America, lands in which to produce an agrarian economy built upon slavery).

You may read about that in the article from the Atlantic I posted.

Defending the Confederacy is no different than defending any other evil - the Confederacy is not the only one, nor does focusing upon it negate the existence of other evils, nor diminish them.

It is trying to excuse a mass murderer by pointing out how well he/she treated his/her family, and for how many charities he/she volunteered.

When one's FOUNDATION is essentially evil, it makes no difference what else is done, unless those other acts took responsibility for that evil, and worked to diminish it.

The South, so far, has done none of that.

While the ills you are attempting to lay at the feet of the USA are things which were contrary to the spirit of its Foundation[/i] (The 5/9th clause was a compromise with the South, primarily, to name just one, and it was undone by the Civil War, where the Institution of Slavery was ended, and the attempt to right that wrong begun - which is still taking place, yet which some are resisting - namely you at this point).

The point is that the USA was NOT FOUNDED to support the institution of Slavery.

It's FOUNDATION was/is:

Began with:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Which led DIRECTLY to:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. . . .

You are trying to establish an absolutist standard for ALL BEHAVIOR, which you are not applying to the Confederacy.

The USA was not perfect, But at least it was not founded with the express purpose of BLACK Slavery, predicated upon the belief that African/Negros (as they referred to them were created by God as "lesser animals" forever unequal to "the white man".

Yes, the USA did many things that were deplorable.

But thanks to its FOUNDATIONS - the principles upon which it was built, it managed to overcome the varied acts of evil committed by its members, to become something that is inherently not evil, however flawed - as has been demonstrated by the correction of past wrongs against a specific demographic of our population, previously denied rights.

That sort of thing would never have occurred in the Confederacy, as it was made illegal (in their Constitution) to either made Slavery Illegal (anywhere in their borders), or to even amend the Constitution of the Confederacy to allow slavery to be abolished.

MB

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am just stunned by Orlanth's lack of reasoning ability in this regard (Greg Stafford would be appalled to see his creation so associated with this).

To be unable to separate intention from effect, or behavior is astonishing.

It is like watching Freshmen Philosophy Students encounter a Trolley Problem for their first time.

MB

**Orlanth**

BeAfraid wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

Those who want the iconography are saying that the Confederacy is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.

Trying to deal with the Confederacy, and the Revisionism surrounding it, trying to paint it as anything OTHER THAN EVIL is in now way excusing, or "absolving" other evils at any time.
Let us change this sentence to point out how ludicrous it is:
Do you see how stupid that sounds.

However by the 1930's most western societies had moved on, there were moral distinctions between them and the Nazis. In the 1850's the moral difference was negligible.

It is simply pointing out that people who have been promoting a false narrative regarding the Confederacy are wrong, and probably racist as well, since they are trying to defend a group that was racist to its very core and foundation.

BeAfraid wrote:

Defending the Confederacy is no different than defending any other evil - the Confederacy is not the only one, nor does focusing upon it negate the existence of other evils, nor diminish them.

It is trying to excuse a mass murderer by pointing out how well he/she treated his/her family, and for how many charities he/she volunteered.

No its like having a murderer at a convention of murderers and singling him out amongst a consensus of murderers for how evil he is. Though he had not the most blood on his hands by a large margin.,

BeAfraid wrote:

I am just stunned by Orlanth's lack of reasoning ability in this regard (Greg Stafford would be appalled to see his creation so associated with this).

You are conditioned, and are unused to a contrary opinion and are shocked by it.

Americans in general are spoonfed that the USA is a force of unremitting good, and part of this syrup is to paint the Confederacy as a source of unremitting evil.
It has strong bond with the wild west 50's movies of people boldly rigtheously heading out and taking the land, how this was wholesome.
Calamity Jane (1953) comically asks the lead character how many N-words (same word as blacks but in context meaning Native Americans) she shot today.
The entire culture of the west is steeped in casual extermination at the time, and followed by a media spin on casual extermination that lasted over a century.
The media of it is still acceptable.

As it happens I wouldn't want Calamity Jane and How the West Was Won banned any more than the Confederate flag. Because its unhealthy not to manage a detachment from history, and highly unhealthy to look for iconography to be offended at and removed. This is what you are doing here, and you should be aware of the consequences.
This form of revisionism is highly militant and spreading, its also contemporary, historically selective and viral.

One racist murderer with a Confederate flag is a trigger, not the actual Confederacy, and this is just a bandwagon is cultural appeasement, for a selective edit of history. Its very similar to the #RhodesMustFall movement which is stretching beyond its native South Africa and trying to have memorials removed in the UK. While Rhodes did some pretty despicable things we are not happy to have our history whitewashed thank you.
It invokes memory of totalitarianism to remove opposed symbology, not of healing.or purification. This entire episode is not positive, itwould have been healthier to leave the iconography alone. If anything rooting out Confederate history will do nothing to unite the nation, its already as united as it will likely get, but will fuel the search for the next icon of history for revision, as agitators are getting a taste for it now.

BeAfraid wrote:

To be unable to separate intention from effect, or behavior is astonishing.

Slavery bad, genocide good?
I think through that, I hoped you could also.
The Confederacy practiced no genocide, yet somehow they were worse than those who did.
This can only be by selective judgement.

**Kilkrazy**

The Confederacy was created with the specific intention of preserving chattel slavery of black people, against the majority democratic wishes of the US population as a whole, and in disregard of the general moral position of the developed world which since the late 18th century had reconsidered the institution, turned against it and and outlawed it as wrong.

**dogma**

Relapse wrote:
Reading the first part of section 9 in the Confederate Constitution makes me think buying and extracting of all the slaves in the South would have been cheaper than the Civil War if slavery was a big enough issue to have launched it.

Even if the CSA would have allowed that (and it wouldn't have), it would have only postponed war. With two competing governments, and many territories yet to become States, conflict would be inevitable.

Orlanth wrote:

The Confederacy practiced no genocide, yet somehow they were worse than those who did.
This can only be by selective judgement.

The Confederacy wasn't around long enough to do so.

Regardless, the Trail of Tears was largely the result of political pressure from the States that would later form the CSA.

Orlanth wrote:

Americans in general are spoonfed that the USA is a force of unremitting good, and part of this syrup is to paint the Confederacy as a source of unremitting evil.

Actually, we aren't, but thanks for your opinion. It has been noted and discarded.

**Orlanth**

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

The Confederacy practiced no genocide, yet somehow they were worse than those who did.
This can only be by selective judgement.

The Confederacy wasn't around long enough to do so. You're reaching.

The Confederacy was also not around long enough to be known for anything other than slavery according to other comments.
You cant have it both ways.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
The Confederacy was created with the specific intention of preserving chattel slavery of black people, against the majority democratic wishes of the US population as a whole, and in disregard of the general moral position of the developed world which since the late 18th century had reconsidered the institution, turned against it and and outlawed it as wrong.

Slavery in some states of the Union formally outlived the Confederacy. Wrong or not, it was still there.

The Confederacy was created so the bloc of southern states had representation at a level they felt was lacking as a minority of the United States. Slavery was one of many issues which were different, not the only issue.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:

The Confederacy was also not around long enough to be known for anything other than slavery according to other comments.
You cant have it both ways.

I only need to have it one way: the CSA came into being in order to protect the institution of black slavery. What it might have done in the future is irrelevant, as it lost the US Civil War.

Orlanth wrote:

The Confederacy was created so the bloc of southern states had representation at a level they felt was lacking as a minority of the United States. Slavery was one of many issues which were different, not the only issue.

What other issues were involved?

**Orlanth**

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

The Confederacy was also not around long enough to be known for anything other than slavery according to other comments.
You cant have it both ways.

I only need to have it one way: the CSA came into being in order to protect the institution of black slavery. What it might have done in the future is irrelevant, as it lost the US Civil War.

So the fact that genocide cannot be leveled at the Confederacy's door, but can at its detractors remains valid then.

Orlanth wrote:

The Confederacy was created so the bloc of southern states had representation at a level they felt was lacking as a minority of the United States. Slavery was one of many issues which were different, not the only issue.

What other issues were involved?

**Las**

Self determination regarding the right to own human beings.

Your "you've been conditioned to love America" stance is hilarious. You're talking to people from many different countries, openly arguing revisionist, mythos based narratives that run contrary to contemporary historical analysis accepted by the vast majority of professional historians the world over, and you call us conditioned.

**A Town Called Malus**

Orlanth wrote:

Self-determination, which in their eyes they did not adequately receive.

The only self determination they wanted was the right to own slaves.

**Orlanth**

Las wrote:
Self determination regarding the right to own human beings.

Your "you've been conditioned to love America" stance is hilarious. You're talking to people from many different countries, openly arguing revisionist, mythos based narratives that run contrary to contemporary historical analysis accepted by the vast majority of professional historians the world over, and you call us conditioned.

Not in the slightest. I do not deny Confederate slavery, I however disagree with the claim that is all it stood for, or that the Confederacy was a unique evil demanding individual censure in the 19th century.

You are conditioned because you only see the two dimensional slavery and non slavery, do not see that slavery actually existed in the Union, and that similar practices just an abhorent were commonplace. It is a convenient propaganda label which should be seen with a fresh light over a century and half later. Most of all the propaganda element is all that the current climate is allowing to remain of a historical chapter and heritage symbol which has a far more widespread usage.

You have yet to explain why the Confederate battle flag is a slavery symbol, its a martial symbol of a nation state. The symbol of the men who fight rather than the policy makers, often who are completely different types of people. You are also yet to explain why is is an evil symbol, depicting de facto slavery yet it was ok for Obama to use it.

Present some consistency please.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

Self-determination, which in their eyes they did not adequately receive.

The only self determination they wanted was the right to own slaves.

Thats a bit two dimensional, and a good reason to look deeper into the history than to make a throw away inclusion. Self determination is ultimately about self determination, the catalyst is just a single issue.

**sirlynchmob**

Orlanth wrote:

Slavery bad, genocide good?
I think through that, I hoped you could also.
The Confederacy practiced no genocide, yet somehow they were worse than those who did.
This can only be by selective judgement.

Shall we compare the numbers?

Jews 6-9 million.
transatlantic slavery 9 million could be as high as 15 million.
giving a range of deaths due to the slave trade of anywhere between 22 million and 55 million.

http://orb.essex.ac.uk/lg/lg449/AtlanticSlaveTradeDeaths.htm

so the confederacy was practicing genocide and they are just as evil as the nazi's. Not more, not less, equal to the evil of the nazi's. But probably more as their reign of terror lasted 200 years. Then another 100 years of racism still going on today. No the southern states aren't responsible for every death, but as they were willing participants of the slave trade they are equally responsible for every death, a practice they felt should continue for all time.

So if the confederacy wasn't practicing genocide, isn't it odd they killed more people as the nazi's?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

You have yet to explain why the Confederate battle flag is a slavery symbol, its a martial symbol of a nation state. The symbol of the men who fight rather than the policy makers, often who are completely different types of people. You are also yet to explain why is is an evil symbol, depicting de facto slavery yet it was ok for Obama to use it.

It was raised over all the southern capitals where it remains today as a protest against de segregation. Flying it today still says the same message, It's a symbol of the Klan and used as a symbol to say keep those blacks away from us good white folk. Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

politicians just want votes, watch this election, any state they're standing in they try to talk like them and pretend to be with them. But I'd bet you don't see anymore confederate buttons, except maybe some republicans and it will cost them the election.

**A Town Called Malus**

Orlanth wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

Self-determination, which in their eyes they did not adequately receive.

The only self determination they wanted was the right to own slaves.

Thats a bit two dimensional, and a good reason to look deeper into the history than to make a throw away inclusion. Self determination is ultimately about self determination, the catalyst is just a single issue.

I'm sorry but how many times in this thread have people posted the actual declarations of secession? You are arguing against not only the opinions of contemporary historians but also the very people who committed the acts being examined.

You are wrong. End of.

**Dark Apostle 666**

On whether the Confederacy was practicing Genocide or not:
Technically, Genocide isn't about how many people die - Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"

I'm not saying whether that was the case with the confederacy or not - I don't know enough to make a judgement, but I think it's important to understand that Genocide depends on intent, rather than scale.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:

So the fact that genocide cannot be leveled at the Confederacy's door, but can at its detractors remains valid then.

Sure, if you ignore the fact that the states that would go on to make up the CSA were the primary proponents of that genocide. Seriously, you're going to accuse people of ignoring history, and then offer up that sort of context devoid argument?

Orlanth wrote:

Self-determination, which in their eyes they did not adequately receive.

Sure, they wanted the right to own slaves, and further create more pro-slavery states as they came into being. People bandy about the "self-determination" argument all the time, but the only real beef the nascent CSA had with the US was the issue of slavery.

**Las**

"WWII wasn't caused by German aggression, it was cause because of the Allied guarantee of Polish sovereignty!"

Anyway, you've heard the evidence straight from the horse's mouth. I'm not gonna sit here trying to convince you of something when the heads of the Confederate government couldn't even do that. I recomend that you read up on the events and inform yourself better. Go read McPhearson's Battle Cry of Freedom or something and stop subscribing to 50 year old, defunct historical narratives.

**Ensis Ferrae**

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Americans in general are spoonfed that the USA is a force of unremitting good, and part of this syrup is to paint the Confederacy as a source of unremitting evil.

Actually, we aren't, but thanks for your opinion. It has been noted and discarded.

I would say that he's not too far off the mark there, but with a major caveat..... We're largely taught through out the K-12 schooling that America is Awesome and is so great, etc. etc. It honestly wasn't until I hit college level history courses that we get a "America is a great nation amongst many, but here are some of the problems it's had"

**BeAfraid**

I got a History degree from France. True, it was Art History, but a great deal of actual history was involved in it.

They certainly had no motivation to teach me that America was this "Great Nation."

But what they DID TEACH was a great deal about the Enlightenment, who worked to promote those ideals, where, and when, and who worked against them.

I doubt I got an education there that portrayed The USA (NOT "America" which is two continents, comprising some 100 odd countries - if one includes the Island states/nations) as being some magical saint of a country.

But we did focus an awful lot on where the ball had been dropped, and the point is pretty much correct.

The Vast majority of the genocide carried out against the Natives came from the Southern States, which would later become the Confederacy, and post-Civil War, would see an exodus of bitter colonists flee to the West and South America (bringing with them their racism, and hatred of non-whites).

This is not to say that NO ONE from the North had issues.

But the Theological differences between the North and South are largely responsible for this distinction.

The North saw more of the more Enlightenment strains of Protestantism, while the South was deeply involved with the more Calvinistic strains of the Reformation (which gave birth to US Evangelicals during this time - who represent the vast majority of racist religious theology to this very day).

The Enlightenment Protestants (mostly through the English and Scottish Churches - Episcopalian and Presbyterian) of the North had a much deeper influence of Enlightenment Philosophers. The Mercantile Classes of England and Scotland tended to be very sympathetic to the French Enlightenment, due to its pressure to grant the same rights to the regular population as enjoyed by the Aristocracy and Nobility in Europe (which France had destroyed during its Revolution - an episode of not applying the Standards of the Enlightenment to itself - they lost sight of Reason).

Anyway, this is largely wasted on Orlanth, who is so invested in a false-equivalence that he is unable to sort out the distinctions involved.

MB

**hotsauceman1**

So, there are people who don't believe that the south was an incredibly racist place and was well into the 20th century.
hell, the southern strategy was an important part of Nixon winning.

**stanman**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, there are people who don't believe that the south was an incredibly racist place and was well into the 20th century.

You say that like somehow they managed not to continue that tradition to the current day. It may not be the heydays of fire hoses and lynchings anymore but it's still pretty ugly.

**CptJake**

stanman wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, there are people who don't believe that the south was an incredibly racist place and was well into the 20th century.

You say that like somehow they managed not to continue that tradition to the current day. It may not be the heydays of fire hoses and lynchings anymore but it's still pretty ugly.

Just out of curiosity, in what ways is it still pretty ugly?

**Orlanth**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

Slavery bad, genocide good?
I think through that, I hoped you could also.
The Confederacy practiced no genocide, yet somehow they were worse than those who did.
This can only be by selective judgement.

Shall we compare the numbers?

Jews 6-9 million.
transatlantic slavery 9 million could be as high as 15 million.
giving a range of deaths due to the slave trade of anywhere between 22 million and 55 million.

http://orb.essex.ac.uk/lg/lg449/AtlanticSlaveTradeDeaths.htm

so the confederacy was practicing genocide and they are just as evil as the nazi's.

Ok lets deal with the above farse of an answer.

The United States as a nation permitted the Atlantic slave trade, while admittedly to southern ports of the USA. The US Government persistently protested Royal Navy interdiction of slave ships.
However let us leave this aside as this was prior to the timeline of the Confederacy.

The Confederate constitution forbade the importation of slaves except from the US slave owners. It is frankly assinine to blame the confederacy for the deaths of the Atlantic Salve Trade when they themselves made statute moves to end that trade from day one.

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

BeAfraid wrote:

The Vast majority of the genocide carried out against the Natives came from the Southern States, which would later become the Confederacy, and post-Civil War, would see an exodus of bitter colonists flee to the West and South America (bringing with them their racism, and hatred of non-whites).

Who was in charge? Who had the power mandate to stop? Who controlled the US army which was instrumental of many of the exterminations?
Former Confederates?

Come on be real. Where is the evidence that the genocide was from southern states Americans. There were however documentary evidence of embittered Confederates who headed west, and aided the tribes, I make no prior doctrinal point on this as it was an alliance of convenience

BeAfraid wrote:

Anyway, this is largely wasted on Orlanth, who is so invested in a false-equivalence that he is unable to sort out the distinctions involved.
MB

Disagreement is not an excuse to troll.
Comparing slavery to Native American genocide is not a false-equivalence.
Also I am more than able to sort out religious distinctions, even pointed them out in an earlier thread on topic.

It is telling that you can't present an argument without taking a swipe at the person. Again I have a thick skin and won't formally complain though.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

You are arguing against not only the opinions of contemporary historians but also the very people who committed the acts being examined.
You are wrong. End of.

You miss out the pertinent factor that the Sourthern States were regional blocs and not moral entities. You can argue all daty that Jefferson Davis said this or that. The fact remained that when the Southern states seceded the people of those state largely rallied to the banners.

Even the most head-up bottom revisionist should have the wit to realise that when a state goes to war and its people follow they do so not out of personal opinion but tribal identity. We everyone, or effectively everyone in Florida a slave owner, or even pro-slavery. Probably not, moral opinions are not regionally polarised. There were slave owners in northern states also, and has been mentioned before most of those fought for the Union.

I have repeated stated, correctly, and this point has not been challenged, only ignored. That slavery was only a catalyst to an independence movement. There is proof of this, proof in the FACT that when the southern states rallied their banners the people followed, and likewise for the north. There only places where there was much discourse was along the geographical division line, and in places like the Virginias brother might fight brother.
Exceptions of course exist, and many ring down through history, but the American Civil War was a tribal war of states, de facto, slavery was the fuse rthat lit the keg, but the fighting was by people groups.

To turn around a century and a half later and wave a hand and say all tin the South were pro-slavery, all in the north were anti is just revisionism pure and simple. The heritage argument for Confederate iconography is strong because it is ultimately true, it matters less what one racist statesman said now than who signed up and marched under the Confederate banner, and how many did not return. This is a history of the common man. You want evidence of this I suppose, look to the flag. The flag remembered is the Battle flag, not the national flag, a lot of people will not be able to name the Confederacy's only president, but most Americans have heard of Robert E Lee, and his end was honoured and his name still is. Lee ended the war at
Appomattox and the politicians while wishing to continue could not. This says something about the realities of the Confederacy, it might have started with the rhetoric , but it was actually truthfully all about the soldiers. Revisionism poisons history, and it is unsurprising that the poison is still there. All the poison is doing is enforcing societal guilt, it is unsurprising if people cannot move on properly.
If you removed the poison and realised this truth, the hard logically undeniable but oft denied fact that the Confederacy was a tribal institution, the war was a tribal war and the iconography is tribal iconography you wouldn't have the generational guilt trip that results in moral intransigence in some, and the more healthy memory espoused by others would persist and be clearly the stronger.

We know that second dynamic is there, but even now no one has yet explained why if the Confederate iconography was de facto slavery imagery rather than regional imagery. Why did Obama and Clinton's supporters use it in election campaigns.

Should I be surprised that a lot of the return comments are increasing acrid and personal. Yet the core arguments I posted have not as yet been challenged.
Revisionism poisons, but I am not the revisionist. The logic I posted works for then as now. If you disagree try challenging it.

**Kilkrazy**

You keep trying to show that the USA was as bad as the Confederacy in terms of slavery, but it wasn't.

The trans-Atlantic slave trade was banned in 1808. The northern states above the Ohio River and Mason-Dixon line, had all banned slavery by the 1820s and all remaining slaves had been freed or died by the 1840s.

You claimed earlier that the North had slave holding states after the end of the war. This is a minor technicality based on the fact that Kentucky for example was essentially a southern, slave-holding state that was got into the Federal side by a wide usew of military and political shenanigans including the suspension of Habeus Corpus.

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves (theoretically) in the Confederacy in 1863. The 13th Amendment to end slavery throughout the USA was enacted in early 1865 and ratified in December and applied essentially to the few states like Kentucky that had ended up on the northern side..

To claim from the above that the USA was a slave holding state like the Confederacy is a travesty.

**dogma**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I would say that he's not too far off the mark there, but with a major caveat..... We're largely taught through out the K-12 schooling that America is Awesome and is so great, etc. etc. It honestly wasn't until I hit college level history courses that we get a "America is a great nation amongst many, but here are some of the problems it's had"

I didn't have that experience in public school. Out of curiosity, when did you graduate?

**Orlanth**

Kilkrazy wrote:

To claim from the above that the USA was a slave holding state like the Confederacy is a travesty.

It was literally true though.

Actually my main point, and it was made often enough, was NOT to judge the United States, but also NOT to judge the Confederacy either.
This was the 19th century, nation states held different moral profiles to what they do today. The Confederacy was a part of its time, and what
other nation states was similar, yet the Confederacy is being singled out as an evil, yet others not.

This type of revisionist history is nothing new or unique to the Confederacy, but its based on modern preconceptions and opinions rather than history.
Normally its the UK who gets this stick over colonialism, with finger pointing by other colonial nations, often with far worse reputations themselves.

The myth that Confederates are unique candle holders for slavery is an act to absolve others, in the same way the 'British Imperialism' is mentioned to overlook Imperialism by others which was contemporary.

That there was some history of slavery in the Union, however slender is relevant to pointing out that the Confederate is largely spun into a perpetual bogeyman of myth, which is unhistorical and more importantly unfair on people living in the southern states today.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Orlanth wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

To claim from the above that the USA was a slave holding state like the Confederacy is a travesty.

It was literally true though.

Actually my main point, and it was made often enough, was NOT to judge the United States, but also NOT to judge the Confederacy either.
This was the 19th century, nation states held different moral profiles to what they do today. The Confederacy was a part of its time, and what
other nation states was similar, yet the Confederacy is being singled out as an evil, yet others not.

This type of revisionist history is nothing new or unique to the Confederacy, but its based on modern preconceptions and opinions rather than history.
Normally its the UK who gets this stick over colonialism, with finger pointing by other colonial nations, often with far worse reputations themselves.

Why does it matter if someone else did something awful too?

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:
The Confederacy was a part of its time, and what other nation states was similar, yet the Confederacy is being singled out as an evil, yet others not.

I don't think anyone has singled out the CSA as being evil. That's your flowery addition.

Orlanth wrote:

This type of revisionist history is nothing new or unique to the Confederacy, but its based on modern preconceptions and opinions rather than history.

Your position is the revisionist one. There are many, many historical documents which make clear that the CSA came into being due to the slavery issue.

Orlanth wrote:

The myth that Confederates are unique candle holders for slavery is an act to absolve others...

No one has ever argued that the CSA is unique in any manner that isn't directly related to American history. You're reaching again.

**Kilkrazy**

"It was literally true" is a very weak argument in this case.

The core of the matter is that one or two culturally southern 'border' states were roped on to the Federal side for strategic reasons, and had the lifetime of their slavery extended by a few months due to administrative reasons until the 13th Amendment became law.