florduh

Southern Pride

Recommended Posts

Just now, DarkBishop said:

 

I see descendants of slaves and the end of slavery as the only good outcome of a war that ended hundreds of thousands of lives. And the end result was a lengthy animosity toward northern states, the federal govt, and the African American race. 

     I'm not doubting that you're anti-slavery.  There's no need to defend that position.  I'll try asking things a different way.

 

     So do descendants of slaves have a place at the table when it comes to the war and things surrounding it?  For example, should they have a say in whether the statues stay or go?  Or should this be something reserved for only the descendants of those who actually fought in the war?  Or something else I'm not considering?

 

Just now, DarkBishop said:

I know at this point it is all a hypothetical situation that myself and a couple of others have mentioned already. But if slavery had been allowed to die out on its on. If the federal govt had offered some type of subsidy so that slave owners could liberate their slaves, pay them, and not have a crippling effect on their profits then maybe and most likely the resulting war, deaths, animosity, and racism that has endured for 150 years would never have happened.

     The idea of buying and freeing the slaves was considered.  Slaves were worth more money than the government had in total.

 

     I'm not sure how subsidies would have worked back then if at all.  I don't think they had the same type of socialized systems that we do now so I'm thinking this wouldn't have been a consideration.  It would have been more like a bribe, a payout, to the very wealthy and not really anything more.  I don't even know if this was something that was asked for and denied or something that people nowadays think should have happened.  It seems like the latter.

 

     I recall that slave states wanted to expand into more territories.  This would mean breeding more slaves or, more likely, bringing more fresh slaves in since those territories wouldn't be covered by the Constitution.  It seems that this would be a driving force considering the vast amount of wealth that would be at stake.  Something, as I said, all the banks couldn't cover.

 

     I've pointed out that the South seceded as a result of the election of Lincoln.  So what we're left with is The Confederate States of America simply coming to exist without a war.  That's it.  We're into an entirely different history.  An entirely different Constitution.  An entirely different western expansion.  It's all different.  Nothing to even consider when we talk about United States history at this point because it would be entirely different as well.

 

     I guess I'm missing something here unless couched here is the point that secession should have simply happened, the war avoided, and slavery continued, even expanded, for some unknown length of time since, looking back and not forward as they were, we know it would probably resolve itself eventually given other nations.  And if it resolved on its own accord those who were slaves, or descendants of slaves, would be fine with it unlike nowadays.

 

Just now, DarkBishop said:

Also in many cases (as I've always heard but can't prove) a lot of slave owners treated their slaves like family. Some slaves even after the end of slavery chose to stay where they were. I like to think this is true because there are many African Americans that took on their former master's last name. I can't imagine a slave taking a former master's last name if he was the brutal, slave lashing, slave raping, heretic that was portrayed by the federal govt at the time and what first comes to mind in today's emotionally charged climate. 

     I've heard the stories of being treated like family too.  The thing about that is my family lets me come and go as I please.  I don't take orders from my family.  I'm not imprisoned by my family.  At best I see this describes a type of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

     All I know about the treatment of slaves (I guess all anyone knows) is from the stories and testimonies.  Some (few?) by the slaves themselves.  I was at the Slave Mart (Ryan's Mart) in Charleston and they had recordings by slaves talking about conditions made way back when.  Overall I was disappointed in the Slave Mart but I tried to hit up everything I could.  Other stories were by whites supposedly transcribing slaves.  It's hard to know how accurate those are (if they've been embellished, how much, and so on).  And stories by the families and those around them.  People would report the owners for abuses (for various reasons...some legit and some just to be jerks).

 

     I stayed out at Middleton Place for the better part of a week while I was out there (we jumped around so we could take in everything).  It was a huge, fancy, plantation.  The main house and a flanker was burned at the end of the war.  It was probably a sight to see before then.  Just the tour of the remaining flanker was something.  These folks were not just rich but wealthy.  This was their "show" plantation.  It didn't have lot of slaves.  They had a number of plantations over the state that did.  The neighboring plantations (we couldn't see them all since we lacked the time) were about as large.  I couldn't imagine how much wealth and power they must have had.  This doesn't account for their house in the city (I don't believe it's still there but we went inside some restored house and it was quite a sight).

 

     Now, considering that I do understand why they would throw in with their state.  Even if they didn't want to.  While we were staying in the city (the historical district) almost every house had a plaque telling its history.  One house we walked by about every day told how it was once owned by a Loyalist in the Revolution.  This stuck in my mind because we consider them rather trash folk.  Traitors.  The house had been taken from them.  I never considered this in all my years.  I just always assumed since the British were already here that Loyalists and Revolutionaries co-existed then one side lost and the others got on board or sold out and left.  Not sure where I got that idea.  Probably school.  But in this case, and I'm sure many others, they lost everything.  That's what was at stake.  This person assumed/hoped the crown would win.  For whatever reasons they gambled and lost.

 

     So you have most everything tied up in property.  Not just the rich but the little guy.  Maybe especially the little guy.  Out in the middle of nowhere.  His shack.  His little bit of land.  Your choices are leave it or throw in and hope to win to keep it.  It doesn't have to been about over-reaching government or things so complicated but I can either be a refugee, fighting for the other side for no land, or I can try to keep my land.  Thing is that the side you're on is dictated by the area you're in.  Take a look around.  You're a blue.  You're a gray.  Maybe you also believe in slavery or maybe you believe in abolitionism.  Who knows?  But in the most pragmatic of cases if you stay your side is chosen for you.  The same options would happen today if any of our states were to secede overnight.  You leave taking whatever you can grab or you side-up with your state hoping to keep what you have.  You don't have to believe in states rights or any of these high ideals like we like to assign.  You just get stuck between the rock and the hard place.

 

     At Middleton Place we were told that they converted all their money to Confederate so they were destitute after the war.  They left when the war broke out and returned to the burnt house.  One of his relatives sent money from the North to get them by.  Had he not went all-in with the Confederacy they could have freed all their slaves and still been filthy rich.  Of course had the South won he would have been all the poorer for doing so.

 

     I thought that slave surnames, after the war, were frequently (not always) a type of "origin" than anything.  They needed surnames and when they didn't have them they were essentially given/adopted the name of the place they were last at (so Middleton in the case of Middleton Plantation).  So if someone asked their surname for something like a census or whatever required it and they didn't have one they would ask where they were last a slave, they'd say "Middleton" and they'd called them So-and-So Middleton.  Not because they had an affinity for him but because it was their last "post" as it were.  Others took on famous names they knew (ie. Washington or Jefferson) and others just took on "Freeman."

 

Just now, DarkBishop said:

No one has focused on any story's of good slave owners. Only the bad. And this is another piece of history that the media won't bring up. Because it won't induce good ratings. No one wants to hear the good anymore only the bad.

 

     Frankly, "good" slave owners are a hard sell.  You own people.  They have no personal liberties.  None.  When it comes to owning people perhaps there are better ones than others but it's all relative.  You could say a slave owner was good compared to other slave owners but that's about it.  And once a slave owner went to war which is primarily for slavery it becomes extremely difficult to consider that person good.  I realize it was a different time and all but it's still a hard sell.

 

          mwc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



4 hours ago, mwc said:

     I'm not doubting that you're anti-slavery.  There's no need to defend that position.  I'll try asking things a different way.

 

     So do descendants of slaves have a place at the table when it comes to the war and things surrounding it?  For example, should they have a say in whether the statues stay or go?  Or should this be something reserved for only the descendants of those who actually fought in the war?  Or something else I'm not considering?

 

          mwc

As far as my hypothetical situation, your right there is really no use in discussing the what if's. It would have ended up being a very different America. Although as history has proven in other countries and in other noble movements. It could have eventually been done without war if both sides had been willing to come together on the issue.

 

As far as my thoughts on if i believe the descendants of slaves should have a say so on what happens to confederate monuments my answer is no. Everyone suffered during that time. The north, the south, and slaves. What I would rather see is them erect monuments dedicated to the sacrifice of their ancestors during that time. There were even slaves that served in the war with the promise of freedom as their reward after it was over. Build statues with their likeness on them and put them in the battlefields and various memorials. Add to the history. Don't take away from it. 

 

DB

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

As far as my hypothetical situation, your right there is really no use I  discussing the what is. It would have ended up being a very different America. Although as history has proven in other countries and in other noble movements. It could have eventually been done without war if both sides had been willing to come together on the issue.

 

As far as my thoughts on if i believe the descendants of slaves should have a say so on what happens to confederate monuments my answer is no. Everyone suffered during that time. The north, the south, and slaves. What I would rather see is them erect monuments dedicated to the sacrifice of their ancestors during that time. There were even slaves that served in the war with the promise of freedom as their reward after it was over. Build statues with their likeness on them and put them in the battlefields and various memorials. Add to the history. Don't take away from it. 

 

     Super.  I think you've helped me gain a bit of insight.

 

     I can't think of anything more to bother you with at the moment but if something pops into my head I'll be back. :)

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2017 at 6:09 AM, mwc said:

 

     Frankly, "good" slave owners are a hard sell.  You own people.  They have no personal liberties.  None.  When it comes to owning people perhaps there are better ones than others but it's all relative.  You could say a slave owner was good compared to other slave owners but that's about it.  And once a slave owner went to war which is primarily for slavery it becomes extremely difficult to consider that person good.  I realize it was a different time and all but it's still a hard sell.

 

@mwc

(One more thing to add concerning this statement)

I dunno about that. When I think about the actions of others I try to put myself in their shoes. And in this case I can't automatically call a slave owner in general "bad". And this is the reason why. When I put myself in these people's shoes I have to remind myself that this was what they new. Slavery had been around for thousands of years. For them the thought of it being wrong was actually a foreign concept and something that was a new movement. So I cant say that they were wrong for living a normal life according to the standards of their time. It was the way it was. Rich people had slaves. And slavery made the south wealthy. And their have been a lot of wars fought over money issues. This was no different. Politics and money. 

 

That being said I can certainly see how some slave owners would have been considered good. If they treated their slaves as family then I would definitely say that was a good slave owner. 

 

But in today's standards looking back it's easy to point and wag a finger at how wrong it was. But it was a touchy issue back then. I guess you could say it was the 1800s equivalent of a wedge issue. The same as today's abortion, gay rights, and the affordable health care act.

 

I did the same thing when I watched the eclipse in Tennessee last week. I was in the totality for 2 min 40 sec. Or so. And I pictured myself as an ancient isrealite or Indian noticing the sun slowly dim and then get completely covered up. And honestly I can see how it would look to someone like the eye of God was staring back at them. Can you imagine the panic they would have been struck with? It was an awesome inspiring sight to behold and without the knowledge we have today I can understand why whole religions were made centering around events just like that. Even in the bible it talks about the sun being blotted out. And how it is an act of God. I can't really blame them for making their religions. They were ignorant and trying to explain things they didn't understand. But in today's time it's hard to understand how someone can be a fervent believer anymore. Just like in today's time slavery is unacceptable and a crude lifestyle of an ancient ignorant world.

 

Dark Bishop 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

@mwc

(One more thing to add concerning this statement)

I dunno about that. When I think about the actions of others I try to put myself in their shoes. And in this case I can't automatically call a slave owner in general "bad". And this is the reason why. When I put myself in these people's shoes I have to remind myself that this was what they new. Slavery had been around for thousands of years. For them the thought of it being wrong was actually a foreign concept and something that was a new movement. So I cant say that they were wrong for living a normal life according to the standards of their time. It was the way it was. Rich people had slaves. And slavery made the south wealthy. And their have been a lot of wars fought over money issues. This was no different. Politics and money. 

     Slavery had been around for thousands of years.  Pretty much forever.  It's hard to deny that.

 

     Although the form of slavery that was practiced was a bit different.  Our form of slavery was, by this time, race based.  Historically, this hadn't really been the case.  But it was about the only way to get it done.  People realized that if they made the argument that these people were somehow less than human then it didn't really count that they enslaved them.  It was a nice moral loophole.

 

     Slavery had been on the way out for centuries by this point.  Transitioning to, and co-existing, with the serf system among other things before simply being abolished in various places.  The fact that this sort of transition had been taking place before the Revolution.  In places like Britain (and other trading partners in Europe) it would not be something that would go unnoticed.

 

     America's founders wrestled with the issue before compromising to form the union and ultimately keeping their own slaves as well (clearly choosing their own self-interest over their Enlightenment values).  And that the Constitution had slave compromises within too (you don't need to include such compromises, rules to make sure slaves can be imported for the next couple of decades, if slavery is the common way of thinking).  The country was already on shaky ground with slavery from just about day one.  The follow-on "compromises" that came later must have signaled to both sides that something was going on with this issue and it wasn't just business as usual.  We're looking at more than 3/4's of a century by the time the country was founded to the time the war broke out.  Two to three generations of folks.  They should have been able to see the writing on the wall in that amount of time that history had turned against them.

 

16 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

That being said I can certainly see how some slave owners would have been considered good. If they treated their slaves as family then I would definitely say that was a good slave owner. 

     I'm not with you on this.  I don't see how this could ever be the case.  If you're property then you're not family.  It's that simple.  If they buy you, immediately free you, then you stay on living with them choosing to do all those tasks the same as the slave might do but with no obligation whatsoever beyond this "familial" sort of bond then I'm there with you.  Otherwise it seems more illusion that reality.  If no one else in you family is enslaved then you're not treating them like family.  It's impossible.  Even if every day is a picnic it's not a picnic if you don't have a choice in the matter.  It's a prison by another name.  A fancy cage is still a cage.

 

     And this assumes a single, special, slave.  What of two slaves in a household?  Five?  Ten?  Fifty?  How many get the "family" treatment?  Can't treat a whole camp like family.

 

16 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

But in today's standards looking back it's easy to point and wag a finger at how wrong it was. But it was a touchy issue back then. I guess you could say it was the 1800s equivalent of a wedge issue. The same as today's abortion, gay rights, and the affordable health care act.

     It was an issue before it became an issue that's for certain.  Like I said above, it was a problem when founding the country (before then even).

 

16 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I did the same thing when I watched the eclipse in Tennessee last week. I was in the totality for 2 min 40 sec. Or so. And I pictured myself as an ancient isrealite or Indian noticing the sun slowly dim and then get completely covered up. And honestly I can see how it would look to someone like the eye of God was staring back at them. Can you imagine the panic they would have been struck with? It was an awesome inspiring sight to behold and without the knowledge we have today I can understand why whole religions were made centering around events just like that. Even in the bible it talks about the sun being blotted out. And how it is an act of God. I can't really blame them for making their religions. They were ignorant and trying to explain things they didn't understand. But in today's time it's hard to understand how someone can be a fervent believer anymore. Just like in today's time slavery is unacceptable and a crude lifestyle of an ancient ignorant world.

     I see the point you're driving at.  I just don't think the same claim can be made of the South at this particular time.  They weren't this naive and ignorant of the world and their own country.  They couldn't have had the attitude that slavery existed and would likely always exist in the form they practiced it without knowing their own country was founded in a way that didn't support that notion.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally judge slave owners as wrong in the same way I judge people today who support war other than defense of one's own borders. Who cares if it's socially acceptable and has been around forever? It causes massive amounts of pain and suffering to others. In my book of morality, that's the key. Don't hurt others. If you do, you are wrong. You are being bad. I don't like to call people good or bad generally. But their actions and positions can be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mwc

 

That's good info. I didn't know all that. I can see your point a little better now. To bad the couldn't have nipped it in the bud in the beginning after the revolution. 

 

I know how people in general are resistant to change. So it really doesn't surprise me that the moral loopholes were made. Etc before it was abolished. We can see that resistance to change even in our own situation of deconversion. Even faced with massive amounts of evidence to disprove the ancient superstitions and beliefs of man, they will still deny that information because of the indoctrination from childhood that their belief system (christian, Muslim, pagan, jewish) is above any proven scientific finding.

 

Makes me wander how much indoctrination was involved with the acceptance and defense of slavery. But even if it had been on its way out for 100 years or so. It was still an accepted practis in the south for a long time. Fighting that type of indoctrination that they were lesser beings and the greed involved with the profits made must have been frustrating to say the least. 

 

So yeah I'm sure some slave owners were better than others. But most if not all must have known that deep down there was something wrong with owning a person. I wander how church services on the subject were preached back then? Churches preach a lot for or against wedge issues now. I would like to know how the sermons concerning slave ownership went. Probably wasn't to hard to justify with the bible. It's full of slave stuff. 

 

Maybe that's a ray of light for our situation. Religion has been going out for over a 100 years. Maybe in another hundred or so it will be almost gone. 

 

DB

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

@mwc

 

That's good info. I didn't know all that. I can see your point a little better now. To bad the couldn't have nipped it in the bud in the beginning after the revolution. 

 

I know how people in general are resistant to change. So it really doesn't surprise me that the moral loopholes were made. Etc before it was abolished. We can see that resistance to change even in our own situation of deconversion. Even faced with massive amounts of evidence to disprove the ancient superstitions and beliefs of man, they will still deny that information because of the indoctrination from childhood that their belief system (christian, Muslim, pagan, jewish) is above any proven scientific finding.

 

Makes me wander how much indoctrination was involved with the acceptance and defense of slavery. But even if it had been on its way out for 100 years or so. It was still an accepted practis in the south for a long time. Fighting that type of indoctrination that they were lesser beings and the greed involved with the profits made must have been frustrating to say the least. 

     I'm not laying the blame on these people like they just should have known like we do.  They didn't have that luxury.  They also had mixed signals for some time.  Like when we were at the plantations, and slave lists were available, prior to the Revelation slaves were bought in Pounds.  This makes sense, right?  But slavery wasn't a thing in Britain at the time.  Only the colonies.  So Brits were profiting off of it even though they, themselves, didn't want it in their country (they had a sort of serfdom at the time which is unimportant to go into the point being not slavery).  The same was true for a lot of countries that wouldn't have slavery at home but turned a blind eye in their colonies.

 

     But, this likely meant to a lot of people that the time was coming that slavery would end in all these colonies at some point as well.  Perhaps with a similar transition.  The original proposal, as I recall (I'm sure I'm not getting this quite right), was all slaves would be purchased and returned to Africa through Haiti.  This was early on.  Then the cotton gin came around and slavery actually boomed rather than busted so the idea became cost prohibitive.  Add to that Haiti ended slavery and couldn't be used to channel slaves anywhere.  The whole idea became unworkable but was still considered at the time of the Civil War.

 

11 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

So yeah I'm sure some slave owners were better than others. But most if not all must have known that deep down there was something wrong with owning a person. I wander how church services on the subject were preached back then? Churches preach a lot for or against wedge issues now. I would like to know how the sermons concerning slave ownership went. Probably wasn't to hard to justify with the bible. It's full of slave stuff. 

 

Maybe that's a ray of light for our situation. Religion has been going out for over a 100 years. Maybe in another hundred or so it will be almost gone. 

     At the MIddleton Plantation (I speak of it a lot since, as I said, I spent quite a bit of time there) they had an on-site chapel.  It was originally built as a billiards room but the guys wife decided it should be a chapel instead so he got screwed on the whole deal.  The guide folks there were awfully proud of this chapel since it was open to everyone of all races so the sermons were for whites and blacks, free and slaves.  The whole plantation did not like to talk much about slavery or anything (the state parks and some others were not like this).  They acknowledged it but really like to just sort of sweep it under the rug.  They had one tour that really talked about it.  Even then they tried to downplay the whole thing.  He, like lots of folks down there, liked their churches and this one was no exception.   But in this chapel the guy let it slip (at least it seemed that way) that the sermons tended to justify and even endorse the institution.  So everyone in that community, free and slave, would hear how this was how things should be.  It was essentially ordained.

 

     That indoctrination would be a tough thing to get free of.  We all know that.  I can't say if people knew it was wrong or not.  People, especially religious ones, see/hear Leviticus and gays are bad.  Period.  If it worked the same for slaves I can't say it's any different than that.  You could see the slave movement all over the world but since it went against this long time programming it wouldn't matter.  Combine that with the economics and everything else surrounding it and people probably weren't willing, and maybe even unable, to really see the bigger picture.  That's why distance is often needed.  I can't say we see today as clearly as we think we do.  Some of the trees perhaps but I don't think we'll see the actual forest for awhile.

 

          mwc

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a lot of people confederate flags have come to represent rebellion, basically.

 

I say that for a couple of reasons. One reason is because some guy from New Jersey has a bar set up in his garage and he's mounted confederate flags on the wall - along with bands and all sorts of decorations. One evening (breaking his balls a little after several drinks) I asked him why an Italian / Irish Yankee  boy from New Jersey feels the need to have several confederate flags on the wall? He told me that confederate flags are actually huge up there, at least among the mud truck country types up north. He said it's just cool, trendy to have them. And that a rebel flag encapsulates rebellion. And of course there's some American red neck type movements which have hit northern Europe too. It's seems to be to be centered around a retro type of rebellion movement. 

 

I had something similar going on as a teen. I liked confederate flags and the rebel image that they seem to portray. But ultimately what put that to rest for me is the fact that I realized that regardless of the way in which I viewed it, there's too much baggage associated and I had to ask myself if it's really worth while to fight to defend a flag that at the end of the day does represent slavery and the fight to maintain slaves, regardless of whether or not I was viewing it that way. And my decision was to let it go, it's not something worthy of fighting for and there's plenty of other ways of being rebellious without rebel flags in the mix.

 

Really what we need is a new flag altogether that represents what many people are shooting for by using the old confederate flags as a mere symbol of rebellion. Something that is extremely rebellious in nature, but which is all inclusive and all inviting from a racial or even sexual orientation stand point. Let all of the rebels out there rally around something better suited for the modern era without the negative baggage attached. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

For a lot of people confederate flags have come to represent rebellion, basically.

 

I say that for a couple of reasons. One reason is because some guy from New Jersey has a bar set up in his garage and he's mounted confederate flags on the wall - along with bands and all sorts of decorations. One evening (breaking his balls a little after several drinks) I asked him why an Italian / Irish Yankee  boy from New Jersey feels the need to have several confederate flags on the wall? He told me that confederate flags are actually huge up there, at least among the mud truck country types up north. He said it's just cool, trendy to have them. And that a rebel flag encapsulates rebellion. And of course there's some American red neck type movements which have hit northern Europe too. It's seems to be to be centered around a retro type of rebellion movement. 

 

I had something similar going on as a teen. I liked confederate flags and the rebel image that they seem to portray. But ultimately what put that to rest for me is the fact that I realized that regardless of the way in which I viewed it, there's too much baggage associated and I had to ask myself if it's really worth while to fight to defend a flag that at the end of the day does represent slavery and the fight to maintain slaves, regardless of whether or not I was viewing it that way. And my decision was to let it go, it's not something worthy of fighting for and there's plenty of other ways of being rebellious without rebel flags in the mix.

 

Really what we need is a new flag altogether that represents what many people are shooting for by using the old confederate flags as a mere symbol of rebellion. Something that is extremely rebellious in nature, but which is all inclusive and all inviting from a racial or even sexual orientation stand point. Let all of the rebels out there rally around something better suited for the modern era without the negative baggage attached. 

 

 

 

Not the same in the South, where they are associated with a lot of ugly, and fairly recent, history. I'm not against it being displayed by private citizens peacefully, not even privately owned businesses, but don't think it has any place being used for official purposes outside of a history museum because of what it actually represents.

 

I understand what you're talking about, as the image was softened in the country as a whole with stuff like Country Music becoming mainstream popular and using it frequently, and television shows such as the Dukes of Hazard or Looney Tunes, were the use is usually benign, romanticized, and even inclusive.

 

There is that element of Dixie Pride going on. Not everyone who displays it is involved with that sort of thing or believes in that stuff, and some of it is indeed a benign kind of culture, but it has much stronger ties to a bad way of thinking in the South where blood has been spilled for the ideals it has been flown to represent, and I'm not talking about the war here. Most of the more benign uses are by people who aren't aware of the true history of what they think of as the "Confederate" flag.

 

This is not the same as the issue regarding the monuments. Nobody carries around a statue of Robert E Lee to a cross burning or White Nationalist march. The flag is not memorializing anything, marking any important events, nor does it really have any historical value serving as a remembrance of any individual person or specific event. It wasn't even the actual Confederate Flag. The cross and stars over a red background was the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia used to identify Confederate units on the Eastern side of the war, but it was a square flag and not a rectangular one, had a border around it, and was one of several battle flags used in the war.

 

Actual Army of Northern Virginia Battle Flag:

 

0710confedflagss01.jpg

 

The flag that is used today is a relatively modern symbol that didn't really exist until the late 1940s, where it was used by "Dixiecrats" who opposed the adoption of civil rights. The modern day "Confederate" flag was literally created as a symbol to promote racism. Down here we associate it with the KKK, protesters working against civil rights and integration, and various other not so nice things. In some parts of the South seeing it displayed is pretty much the same thing as seeing a "Whites Only" sign and could be taken as a warning. The PR arm of the bad side of things would love to push the narrative that it's about pride and not hate, but that idea really only exists in places where the flag doesn't have direct ties to local history or by people who aren't aware of the flag's real history.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't searching for this, honest. :) 

 

This does seem to put to rest the argument that the war was primarily about freeing the slaves though. Right from the horse's mouth (highlighted text, mine).  

Bottom line, as I see it, Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back but it was far from the only straw. When DC demanded that Kansas be a free state, that was the last straw for the southern states, who were focused as much on state rights over fed as they were in particular slavery. As Lincoln points out in this letter, which was apparently written in the middle of the war with a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation sitting on his desk, he too was more focused on the issue of fed vs. state:

 

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

 

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     I thought it was well known that Lincoln held that position?

 

     In fact, I saw some documentary that had Union soldiers letters back home and some of their families letters.  They had an interesting progression.  When they start out they held a similar sentiment.  But as they went south and got exposed to slaves (those who escaped and as they came across plantations) their attitudes changed towards abolitionism.  Their families back home still remained on the fence however.

 

     The Republican platform was about freeing the slaves.  That is what the South feared and why they seceded once a Republican won.  Party politics has cast a long shadow over this country and people still embrace it.  Of course I'm simplifying a lot of this because life is complex, which is why there are mountains of books on the war, but a lot of it boils down to these basic things (plus a dose of my opinion).

 

          mwc

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mwc said:

     I thought it was well known that Lincoln held that position?

 

     In fact, I saw some documentary that had Union soldiers letters back home and some of their families letters.  They had an interesting progression.  When they start out they held a similar sentiment.  But as they went south and got exposed to slaves (those who escaped and as they came across plantations) their attitudes changed towards abolitionism.  Their families back home still remained on the fence however.

 

     The Republican platform was about freeing the slaves.  That is what the South feared and why they seceded once a Republican won.  Party politics has cast a long shadow over this country and people still embrace it.  Of course I'm simplifying a lot of this because life is complex, which is why there are mountains of books on the war, but a lot of it boils down to these basic things (plus a dose of my opinion).

 

          mwc

 

 

As I understood it, they seceded over Kansas, not the GOP platform. Nitpicking I guess, but it goes to the last straw thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I think about it, they wouldn't have lost slavery at all if they hadn't seceded. They seceded on principle, but anted their entire pot and then ultimately lost the bet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Vigile said:

 

As I understood it, they seceded over Kansas, not the GOP platform. Nitpicking I guess, but it goes to the last straw thing. 

     I was about to do something so I'm going to be super lazy and just point to Wikipedia on this.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mwc said:

     I was about to do something so I'm going to be super lazy and just point to Wikipedia on this.

 

          mwc

 

 

Well, I don't know how accurate that is. Maybe more, maybe less than my professor back in university. There, I was taught that the southerners seceded after Kansas was made a slave free state. From reading this, it sounds to me that Kansas is where the skirmishes took place before Fort Sumpter was ultimately attacked. IOW, the battle over ideology of the north and south clashed in Kansas as poor farmers wanted it slave free so that they could compete and rich slave owners wanted it to be a slave state so that they could buy up the land and farm it with their slaves imported from other states. So, at least Kansas was kind of a little guy vs big guy conflict with the southerns representing the rich and the northerners the underdog poor. 

 

That's an eye opener to me. https://www.kshs.org/kansapedia/civil-war/14565

 

There goes the binary, black and white reasons to cling to. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vigile said:

 

Well, I don't know how accurate that is. Maybe more, maybe less than my professor back in university. There, I was taught that the southerners seceded after Kansas was made a slave free state. From reading this, it sounds to me that Kansas is where the skirmishes took place before Fort Sumpter was ultimately attacked. IOW, the battle over ideology of the north and south clashed in Kansas as poor farmers wanted it slave free so that they could compete and rich slave owners wanted it to be a slave state so that they could buy up the land and farm it with their slaves imported from other states. So, at least Kansas was kind of a little guy vs big guy conflict with the southerns representing the rich and the northerners the underdog poor. 

 

That's an eye opener to me. https://www.kshs.org/kansapedia/civil-war/14565

 

There goes the binary, black and white reasons to cling to. :)

     Try here.

 

     From South Carolina (the first state to secede):



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.

...

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

     Kansas is a part of this picture as you can see.  But it was the election that triggered this radical course of events.  South Carolina seceded immediately after the election.  About as soon as the results were in.  I visited several of the places in Charleston where these events took place.  I thought I had a picture of the one just down the road from the slave mart but I can't find it.  I liked it because it was such a nondescript place for such a major event.  I believe most of the events actually took place after Fort Sumter which was after Lincoln took office and the war basically started from there.  So secession happened, there was a short time that nothing really happened, then Fort Sumter followed by war and more secession.

 

          mwc

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JNWjPDOq0zHOhxx7jdmBNP1ZIgUqhwh8swqkckFB

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are probably as many stories about those statues as there are about the legendary Confederate Gold which disappeared at the end of the War. Wonder what happened to that? It's a sight more interesting and it'd be worth a lot more!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2017 at 8:09 AM, florduh said:

A question from my Facebook. It is not about whether or not we should remove some statues, but what are people proud of? Why are monuments to enemy troops memorialized for this war as opposed to other wars America has fought? 

 

"Not just stirring the pot, but perhaps somebody could explain something to me about Confederate icons. The Confederacy split off and went to war with this country in order to preserve an agrarian economy that relied on the ownership of human beings just like farm animals. They went to war as an enemy of the United States and lost. Why is that something to venerate, honor and feel pride in? Seriously, I'm asking. But if you tell me the war wasn't about being able to keep slaves, go read some actual history and get back to me. I really don't understand how people essentially fighting for slavery are heroes."

 

 

It's a great question. One that we have the luxury of pondering due to our brutal and murderous theft of this land from the natives. 

 

Let me think on it some more and I'll get back to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But seriously... Icons aren't synonymous with "good." I think few look at these statues with admiration. I think they're more or less placeholders for history. The best people to ask would be the locals where these statues reside.

 

Remembering the good with the bad is good for humanity and some people don't get adequate history lessons unless it's thrown in their face... A public effigy can be good for that. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last few posts are pretty much exactly why I say that whether the statues remain or not should be based on their actual historical significance.

 

If they are there to mark a place of significance where important events actually occurred they should remain. It doesn't matter if that event is a good or bad one. The point of a monument is to preserve history and act as a reminder. Sometimes we should be reminded of bad things that happened. You could even say it's more important than remembering good things as the lessons bad things teach us are often more valuable.

 

If they're just there as a decoration and don't mark any event of historical importance then I could care less if they remain standing or not.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now