Do you consider the Confederate flag to be racist

[Ixzara]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the general consensus among the abolitionists were to free the slaves, but not as equals to white men. Rather, they wanted to have tiered citizenship status, with whites being at the top.

As for the philosophical question, that has many factors that would need to be considered. For one, what was education like during those times? Not the school type, but rather the cultural perception of what was moral and what was not.

True. Slavery was back than not considered something immoral back than. There was even Aristotles work where he defens slavery (race in his theory has nothing to do). Since he was part of every school curriculum I would not wonder if there was such perception of slavery.

Exactly. The modern concept of Slavery was a norm for well over 400 years after the Renaissance and existed centuries before then, albeit in different forms (e.g. serfdom) tracing all the way back to Greek times and I believe even Babylonian. It isn't that hard to postulate that it may have been us in the 19th century that began changing the norm, which up until that time, was the norm. Having abolished slavery and changing attitudes about it is literally a very recent historic development. After all, most countries in the world didn't recognize all humans as equal until the 20th century.

[Herrebrugh]

One helluva ugly slaver flag...

(Image)

Well to be fair, these flags would also count if that was the case:

You're forgetting this one:

[Ratateague]

Perhaps not explicitly racist, but distasteful and mildly offensive.

[Urcea]

Absolutely. The Confederacy is nothing more than a blight, a black mark on the History of the United States.

[Herrebrugh]

Absolutely. The Confederacy is nothing more than a blight, a black mark on the History of the United States.

Doesn't mean the flag is racist, though.

[Dyakovo]

The war was about slavery. 4 fucking states said it right on their Declaration of Secession.

That's funny I remember there being more than just 4 states in the confederacy....

The CSA constitution also explicitly protected the institution of black slavery.

[Farnhamia]

Absolutely. The Confederacy is nothing more than a blight, a black mark on the History of the United States.

Doesn't mean the flag is racist, though.

No, because pieces of cloth do not have thoughts or opinions. As the symbol of the racist Confederacy, however, it is racist.

[Dyakovo]

Those are not the Primary Cause. All the sources list Slavery as the primary cause.

I did not get slavery as the primary cause. The two things mentioned in all four was the political inequality occurring, and then in the states secession statements they all listed the births refusal to uphold the fugitive slave act.

The only "political inequality" that was happening was the Southern states did not get to dictate everything that happened. "Not getting your own way 100% of the time" is not, despite what you and the Southern states believe(d), is not "political inequality".

[Davao and Mati]

Yes,because it will encourage white supremacy

[Distruzio]

He would say that, were the northern states rejecting the constitution, they were justified in doing so because democracy is the idealization of equality and certain ideals transcend law. You and I would agree that certain ideals transcend the law. Our disagreement on the justification of the North would be utterly biased and an end of conversation.

Also, the Confederates were traitors to the Union. They argued that the northern states had become traitors to the constitution which is a very different thing.

Don't try to play that card; the Federal Government had neither the intention nor the political capital to violate the Constitution before Confederate Secession. They seceded because they realized that public opinion was threatening their pseudo-aristocratic way of life.

Indeed. A way of life that was, as you well know, established and defended according to the artifices of the Constitution. Note that I'm not saying that the Confederates were legally justified in seceding; only that they had the correct perception of what a non-Southern friendly administration would represent.

I've acknowledged before that I think they were premature in their secession and I'm quite prepared to concede that there was yet more time to perpetuate a southron manner in the life within the Union. In other words, the southern states acted illegally in seceding although their reasons for doing so were hardly unjustified according to the strictest interpretation of the Constitution.

They were, as you've intimated before, throwing a tantrum about losing the republic to a more populist (and therefore, democratic) opinion on the Constitution.

[Distruzio]

The man who argued and voted against secession for the reasons you hint at? Hardly a man supporting your argument I'd say.

I'm not sure why. Once the war started, he supported it entirely, even turning down an offer from Sherman to negotiate a separate peace for Georgia when the opportunity presented itself, and the war was all but lost for the South. He may have been reluctant to go to war, but once war broke out, he was firmly and totally on the side of the South. His professional colleagues certainly seemed to think so, electing him to high office more than once.

You haven't read his works then, nor the works of his contemporaries about him. His election was secured in order to satisfy the pro-Unionist agitators within Georgia and the greater Confederacy. Quite a brilliant move, by the way; electing a pro-Unionist to a position within the Confederate government would reassure the pro-Unionist elements throughout the southern states (both within and without the Confederacy) that a Confederacy would not necessarily threaten their interests. Stephens represented the slaveocracy. His fellows knew that the Confederate Constitution threatened their monopoly (which is why they were pro-Unionist but anti-Lincoln/Republican). His election stympied aggression against slaver interests (economic interests).

Moreover, Stephens works, had you read any of them, would reveal a man whose devotion to the Union was surpassed only in his devotion to Georgia. When Georgia declared for secession, what choice did he have? All his wealth (slave wealth) lay in Georgia. At least in Georgia Stephens held great political clout by which he could best protect his interests. Remaining loyal to the Union would have, assuredly, seen him rendered destitute and, given a Union victory, without financial security. His ONLY play following secession was to go where Georgia went.

Now, that doesn't suggest his words defending the slaveocracy were justified. Quite the opposite, actually. It suggests the man was a self-serving sycophant - a sycophant favoring the Union over the Confederacy.

[Tekania]

And yet those 4 states that did explicitly secede because of slavery still destroy the argument that the Civil War was not about slavery. Need more? The Vice President of the Confederacy said so himself.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/03 ... r-slavery/

Where are the primary documents from the secession papers? This is a second hand spruce from a guy who is obviously biased. While he does point out things, does he show the whole document? There were the ideas of tariffs involved, political imbalance, etc. and you know that most people in the confederate army didn't fight over slaves right?

There are basically two classes of Confederate states..... those who left primarily because of slavery and Northern state's ignorance without redress of Constitutional provisions about it, and those that sympathized with the Slave state which seceded first but were adamantly opposed to the use of military force upon them. So all in all they fall into two classes.... states which specifically want to protect their institution of slavery, and states which want to protect other states power to have an institution of slavery.

While I really won't hide the fact that overall the civil war's root cause was the serious failure at the time in our system of Federal government primarily borne by a contest and compromise which had been in effect since our inception; there is no doubt that slavery was the primary component of reason that sparked secession, as core grievances were all connected to that.

[Ixzara]

Where are the primary documents from the secession papers? This is a second hand spruce from a guy who is obviously biased. While he does point out things, does he show the whole document? There were the ideas of tariffs involved, political imbalance, etc. and you know that most people in the confederate army didn't fight over slaves right?

There are basically two classes of Confederate states..... those who left primarily because of slavery and Northern state's ignorance without redress of Constitutional provisions about it, and those that sympathized with the Slave state which seceded first but were adamantly opposed to the use of military force upon them. So all in all they fall into two classes.... states which specifically want to protect their institution of slavery, and states which want to protect other states power to have an institution of slavery.

While I really won't hide the fact that overall the civil war's root cause was the serious failure at the time in our system of Federal government primarily borne by a contest and compromise which had been in effect since our inception; there is no doubt that slavery was the primary component of reason that sparked secession, as core grievances were all connected to that.

^This

[The Padelas Empire]

There are basically two classes of Confederate states..... those who left primarily because of slavery and Northern state's ignorance without redress of Constitutional provisions about it, and those that sympathized with the Slave state which seceded first but were adamantly opposed to the use of military force upon them. So all in all they fall into two classes.... states which specifically want to protect their institution of slavery, and states which want to protect other states power to have an institution of slavery.

While I really won't hide the fact that overall the civil war's root cause was the serious failure at the time in our system of Federal government primarily borne by a contest and compromise which had been in effect since our inception; there is no doubt that slavery was the primary component of reason that sparked secession, as core grievances were all connected to that.

^This

The root of the problems may be the discourse of slavery, but the actual conflict is as you said a failure to compromise.

[Ixzara]

^This

The root of the problems may be the discourse of slavery, but the actual conflict is as you said a failure to compromise.

Wait, I just remembered, the real Confederate flag wasn't the stars and bars, it was this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSA_FLAG_28.11.1861-1.5.1863.svg

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm not sure why. Once the war started, he supported it entirely, even turning down an offer from Sherman to negotiate a separate peace for Georgia when the opportunity presented itself, and the war was all but lost for the South. He may have been reluctant to go to war, but once war broke out, he was firmly and totally on the side of the South. His professional colleagues certainly seemed to think so, electing him to high office more than once.

You haven't read his works then, nor the works of his contemporaries about him. His election was secured in order to satisfy the pro-Unionist agitators within Georgia and the greater Confederacy. Quite a brilliant move, by the way; electing a pro-Unionist to a position within the Confederate government would reassure the pro-Unionist elements throughout the southern states (both within and without the Confederacy) that a Confederacy would not necessarily threaten their interests. Stephens represented the slaveocracy. His fellows knew that the Confederate Constitution threatened their monopoly (which is why they were pro-Unionist but anti-Lincoln/Republican). His election stympied aggression against slaver interests (economic interests).

Moreover, Stephens works, had you read any of them, would reveal a man whose devotion to the Union was surpassed only in his devotion to Georgia. When Georgia declared for secession, what choice did he have? All his wealth (slave wealth) lay in Georgia. At least in Georgia Stephens held great political clout by which he could best protect his interests. Remaining loyal to the Union would have, assuredly, seen him rendered destitute and, given a Union victory, without financial security. His ONLY play following secession was to go where Georgia went.

Now, that doesn't suggest his words defending the slaveocracy were justified. Quite the opposite, actually. It suggests the man was a self-serving sycophant - a sycophant favoring the Union over the Confederacy.

That single line renders the entire rest of your argument moot. But no, I haven't read books on him, only articles.

[The UPA]

Yes, and I believe that the flags should be burned. Also supporting the Confederacy if you are an American is TREASON!!

[Tekania]

^This

The root of the problems may be the discourse of slavery, but the actual conflict is as you said a failure to compromise.

The compromises themselves were an adaptation and compromise of slavery to our new system. So really it all sources back to that. The civil war was cause be the conflict between the institution of slavery and the core principals which were used as a basis of our formation of government and law. As such a US war was in fact inevitable, and it was inevitable because of slavery. Something had to die, and it was either going to be the American idea of liberty borne from enlightenment philosophy or the institution of slavery.

And much as a respect from a tactical perspective some of my state's own who fought for the CSA as well a my own ancestors and the personal conflict they had to endure through this on as well as that from the other side. I'm frankly glad the CSA lost.

[Tekania]

The root of the problems may be the discourse of slavery, but the actual conflict is as you said a failure to compromise.

Wait, I just remembered, the real Confederate flag wasn't the stars and bars, it was this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSA_FLAG_28.11.1861-1.5.1863.svg

Actually that flag you just posted is the one called the "Stars and Bars" flag.

[Conserative Morality]

Indeed. A way of life that was, as you well know, established and defended according to the artifices of the Constitution. Note that I'm not saying that the Confederates were legally justified in seceding; only that they had the correct perception of what a non-Southern friendly administration would represent.

We're in agreement here, although I would argue that the South's influence over the Federal government at the time of Lincoln's election was still enough to prevent any serious changes, even as the North's increasing urban and industrial interests began to assert themselves.

I've acknowledged before that I think they were premature in their secession and I'm quite prepared to concede that there was yet more time to perpetuate a southron manner in the life within the Union. In other words, the southern states acted illegally in seceding although their reasons for doing so were hardly unjustified according to the strictest interpretation of the Constitution.

They were, as you've intimated before, throwing a tantrum about losing the republic to a more populist (and therefore, democratic) opinion on the Constitution.

I would mostly agree, save for that I wouldn't say 'strictest' so much as 'a particular' interpretation of the Constitution, as I would argue the strictest interpretation of the Constitution doesn't address nonviolent secession at all.

[Ixzara]

Wait, I just remembered, the real Confederate flag wasn't the stars and bars, it was this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSA_FLAG_28.11.1861-1.5.1863.svg

Actually that flag you just posted is the one called the "Stars and Bars" flag.

Thank you, learn something new every day.

[Tekania]

Actually that flag you just posted is the one called the "Stars and Bars" flag.

Thank you, learn something new every day.

Yes, and that one was teh first CSA flag, the one commonly represented by neo-confederate types is usually either the battleflag of Tennessee or the second confederate naval jack, and occasionally the more square Battle flag of the ANV. The CSA flag was changed twice though, the one you posted was just the first design. Later they used the ANV type battleflag on the corner of a all white field flag, which was called "The Stainless Banner" and later a red stripe was added to the end of that design as the third (and final) flag design for the CSA (it would get confused as a banner of surrender because of the white) that became known as the "Bloodstained Banner". As such the last official CSA flag design was this one when the war ended:

[Distruzio]

Indeed. A way of life that was, as you well know, established and defended according to the artifices of the Constitution. Note that I'm not saying that the Confederates were legally justified in seceding; only that they had the correct perception of what a non-Southern friendly administration would represent.

We're in agreement here, although I would argue that the South's influence over the Federal government at the time of Lincoln's election was still enough to prevent any serious changes, even as the North's increasing urban and industrial interests began to assert themselves.

Absolutely. I agree.

I don't, however, disagree with the southern leaders that the writing was on the wall. I understand their haste to get the mess over with. After all, the debate on slavery and economic dominance within the Union had been raging for more than 50 years at that point (arguably since the very ratification of the Constitution - which created the Union as such). We must recall that it was the southern leadership that resented most fervently the rise of Jacksonian Democracy after 1830. They knew that a populist national polity democratically enfranchised would eventually usurp the interests of the South with or without a southern President and southern controlled judiciary. Especially when states rights advocates were so ardently opposed to national interventions favoring slavery.

But, as you say, they acted too brashly and too prematurely. The debate on secession had only been forestalled in 1850 by leaders such as Alexander Stephens (so often inappropriately trumpeted by modern anti-confederates as the paragon of Confederate politics when he was, in fact, a paragon of Union politics - albeit a Union including the southern states). The southern state legislatures were traitors to the Union, it's true. But, if we are to disregard Lincoln and Union hostility to a domestic black population (including slaves and freedmen) as realities of the times then we must acknowledge that treason against the Union pre-14th Amendment could not, and did not, exist. One could only betray the individual state of ones citizenship. There were no citizens of the Union pre-1865.

Where the Colonist rebels were traitors against the Crown in 1776, the southern states were not. This reality, however, was repudiated once they created the Confederacy (which never seceded from the Union as it did not exist - which, ironically, substantiates Lincoln's claims that it never existed). Upon unilaterally abandoning the Union the southern states violated the Constitution, yes, but they did not commit treason.

I've acknowledged before that I think they were premature in their secession and I'm quite prepared to concede that there was yet more time to perpetuate a southron manner in the life within the Union. In other words, the southern states acted illegally in seceding although their reasons for doing so were hardly unjustified according to the strictest interpretation of the Constitution.

They were, as you've intimated before, throwing a tantrum about losing the republic to a more populist (and therefore, democratic) opinion on the Constitution.

I would mostly agree, save for that I wouldn't say 'strictest' so much as 'a particular' interpretation of the Constitution, as I would argue the strictest interpretation of the Constitution doesn't address nonviolent secession at all.

True enough. Although I'd argue that the secession was nonviolent. It was the pro-activity of the states militias individually that created violence. Had the state legislatures ordered the forts seized then I'd capitulate on this topic. You cannot, however, deny that the Confederacy did not initiate hostilities as it did not exist when the violence began.

[Distruzio]

Well to be fair, these flags would also count if that was the case:

You're forgetting this one:

And this one:

[Herrebrugh]

You're forgetting this one:

(Image)

And this one:

Well, this one was already posted a couple of steps up the quote pyramid: