NationStates

Southern pride and rednecks most of the time.

I had ancestors fight for the south and im even slightly favorable to the south as I find it fascinating, but to me it represents a traitorous rebellion that denied the american system of democracy in favor of the perceived right for the aristocrats to own other people.

You can claim it was for states rights but it was mostly for one right, the right to own slaves. Yes many people, like my ancestors, did not own slaves but thwy still commited treason for an unjustifiable cause and thus is still shameful.

To deny that the various confederate flags have no negative connotations, be it slavery or treason, is astoundingly ignorant and naive.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Republic of Coldwater wrote:When most of its citizens didn't own slaves.

And 39% of its population were slaves.

4% owned slaves, so 57% didn't own slaves. Therefore, most of its citizens didn't own slaves.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
And 39% of its population were slaves.

4% owned slaves, so 57% didn't own slaves. Therefore, most of its citizens didn't own slaves.

Even if that's true, so what?

Thirteen States wrote:I had ancestors fight for the south and im even slightly favorable to the south as I find it fascinating, but to me it represents a traitorous rebellion that denied the american system of democracy in favor of the perceived right for the aristocrats to own other people.

You can claim it was for states rights but it was mostly for one right, the right to own slaves. Yes many people, like my ancestors, did not own slaves but thwy still commited treason for an unjustifiable cause and thus is still shameful.

To deny that the various confederate flags have no negative connotations, be it slavery or treason, is astoundingly ignorant and naive.

Says the guy with a Stars and Bars Flag

The south also had democracy, its government is very similar (almost identical) to the northern government.

If it was truly for slavery, why didn't Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, slave states secede? They joined the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation, signed in 2 years into the war only freed slaves in "places of rebellion" that excludes New Orleans and the Union slave states. Robert E. Lee, a prominent Confederate general freed his slaves in 1862 and Ulysees S. Grant, a prominent Union General had slaves all the way until December of 1865. The war was fought for numerous reasons, mainly the Morrill Tariff, which helped northern machinery factories and textile mills, but due to the south requiring the importation of European machinery, the Morrill Tariff had a detrimental effect on the southern economy, and thus, the south began its fight against tariffs that only benefitted the north.

Ifreann wrote:

Republic of Coldwater wrote:4% owned slaves, so 57% didn't own slaves. Therefore, most of its citizens didn't own slaves.

Even if that's true, so what?

It shows that the flag of the Confederacy did not represent slavery because only a very few under the banner of the Confederacy owned slaves.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Thirteen States wrote:I had ancestors fight for the south and im even slightly favorable to the south as I find it fascinating, but to me it represents a traitorous rebellion that denied the american system of democracy in favor of the perceived right for the aristocrats to own other people.

You can claim it was for states rights but it was mostly for one right, the right to own slaves. Yes many people, like my ancestors, did not own slaves but thwy still commited treason for an unjustifiable cause and thus is still shameful.

To deny that the various confederate flags have no negative connotations, be it slavery or treason, is astoundingly ignorant and naive.

Says the guy with a Stars and Bars Flag

The south also had democracy, its government is very similar (almost identical) to the northern government.

If it was truly for slavery, why didn't Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, slave states secede? They joined the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation, signed in 2 years into the war only freed slaves in "places of rebellion" that excludes New Orleans and the Union slave states. Robert E. Lee, a prominent Confederate general freed his slaves in 1862 and Ulysees S. Grant, a prominent Union General had slaves all the way until December of 1865. The war was fought for numerous reasons, mainly the Morrill Tariff, which helped northern machinery factories and textile mills, but due to the south requiring the importation of European machinery, the Morrill Tariff had a detrimental effect on the southern economy, and thus, the south began its fight against tariffs that only benefitted the north.

Maryland was forced to stay. So, armed rebellion is the best way to fight a tariff even though you have equal representation and hold a large enough portion of Congress to force a repeal?

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Even if that's true, so what?

It shows that the flag of the Confederacy did not represent slavery because only a very few under the banner of the Confederacy owned slaves.

That's not how flags work. The Confederate flags represent slavery because slavery was the Confederacy's raison d'etre. The number of people owning slaves there doesn't change that.

I've always wondered why I live in Northern Central Pennsylvania (very much part of the union in the civil war) and everyone in their diesel guzzling trucks sport Confederate battle flags. To me it represents a backwards way of living. Refusal to join the modern era is completely accurate to me. These people in this area flying that flag probably had ancestors die fighting AGAINST that flag in battle, yet they waive it so proudly to represent their what? southern pride? Most of these people are either closeted racists or totally open about it. They actively disregard civil progress and cling to backwards ways of thinking.

There are obviously exceptions to this. A lot of people sporting the Confederate battle flag are "country fans". They clearly mean it to represent southern pride and pride in their music.

I long ago put aside my opinions on this matter, it won't change anything so it doesn't really matter. Just thought I'd offer a possibly unique experience with the representation of that flag.

Dakini wrote:

Republic of Coldwater wrote:When most of its citizens didn't own slaves.

That doesn't change the stated reasons for secession.

And your objection also has about fuck-all to do with my statement in the first place. The fact that public schools in the South were pretty much non-existent at the time was another indicator of its stubborn refusal to join the modern world. The fact that landowners preferred to use slaves and refused to industrialize were other indicators of its stubborn refusal to join the modern world.

The fact that right now, it's a symbol of racism has much more to do with the sorts of people who fly the flag and scream about how proud they were that their ancestors are traitors who left the union and declared war for the right to own people.

The South was agrarian based, and generally poorer than the north because it relies on cotton and tobacco instead of costlier machinery and textiles for money. Public schooling would be too expensive for the south at that time. Likewise, Cuba and many South American nations also didn't industrialize later on. Some places take longer than others to industrialize, and even after the war was over, the south was still very plantation based until the late 1800s.

There were many reasons for the south's secession, but only 4% owned slaves. Some wanted the south as a different nation, others were tired of the north's extravagant tariffs which laid its toll on the southern economy, and some wanted more states rights. The reasons varies, and there is no single answer for why the south seceded.

Furthermore, the American Flag, is by your logic a symbol of racism and inability to join the modern world. It didn't fully industrialize until the late 1800s (the north did by the mid 1800s), its leaders kept on pushing Native Americans out of their homeland and into reservations, racial segregation exists in the law up until the 60s and in society until today (sadly), so why aren't you arguing that the American flag is a symbol of the inability to join the rest of the world and racism, because you are with the Confederate flag. How about the Japanese Flag? People under that banner killed millions in the rest of Asia in an attempt to unite the Asian people under one banner? How about the Hammer and Sickel. Stalin under that flag killed more than Hitler and created the gulag, an inhumane jail that has caused medical complications and arguably caused the death of millions. How about the British Flag? The British ruled half of Africa and India. They discriminated the people there and violently put down many people? Why aren't you calling the British Flag racist? Every flag has something ugly under it, and we should accept that as a fact and realize that the Confederate Flag is not a symbol of hate, but of many things.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Dakini wrote:__________________________
Furthermore, the American Flag, is by your logic a symbol of racism and inability to join the modern world. It didn't fully industrialize until the late 1800s (the north did by the mid 1800s), its leaders kept on pushing Native Americans out of their homeland and into reservations, racial segregation exists in the law up until the 60s and in society until today (sadly), so why aren't you arguing that the American flag is a symbol of the inability to join the rest of the world and racism, because you are with the Confederate flag. How about the Japanese Flag? People under that banner killed millions in the rest of Asia in an attempt to unite the Asian people under one banner? How about the Hammer and Sickel. Stalin under that flag killed more than Hitler and created the gulag, an inhumane jail that has caused medical complications and arguably caused the death of millions. How about the British Flag? The British ruled half of Africa and India. They discriminated the people there and violently put down many people? Why aren't you calling the British Flag racist? Every flag has something ugly under it, and we should accept that as a fact and realize that the Confederate Flag is not a symbol of hate, but of many things.

You're totally right about that. But you don't think Native Americans look at the American flag with a knot in their stomach? I think a flags symbolism is due to the way someone uses it. If a racist uses the Confederate Flag to show that he/she is proud of said racism, then that's what it represents. If they use it to remember their fallen ancestors, that is what it represents. On a larger scale it's important to look at what it's mostly used for and who might feel oppressed or bullied by the image of it.

Because the nation that created and used the flag was founded to prolong the institution of racially based human enslavement.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Dakini wrote:That doesn't change the stated reasons for secession.

And your objection also has about fuck-all to do with my statement in the first place. The fact that public schools in the South were pretty much non-existent at the time was another indicator of its stubborn refusal to join the modern world. The fact that landowners preferred to use slaves and refused to industrialize were other indicators of its stubborn refusal to join the modern world.

The fact that right now, it's a symbol of racism has much more to do with the sorts of people who fly the flag and scream about how proud they were that their ancestors are traitors who left the union and declared war for the right to own people.

The South was agrarian based, and generally poorer than the north because it relies on cotton and tobacco instead of costlier machinery and textiles for money. Public schooling would be too expensive for the south at that time. Likewise, Cuba and many South American nations also didn't industrialize later on. Some places take longer than others to industrialize, and even after the war was over, the south was still very plantation based until the late 1800s.

There were many reasons for the south's secession, but only 4% owned slaves. Some wanted the south as a different nation, others were tired of the north's extravagant tariffs which laid its toll on the southern economy, and some wanted more states rights. The reasons varies, and there is no single answer for why the south seceded.

Furthermore, the American Flag, is by your logic a symbol of racism and inability to join the modern world. It didn't fully industrialize until the late 1800s (the north did by the mid 1800s), its leaders kept on pushing Native Americans out of their homeland and into reservations, racial segregation exists in the law up until the 60s and in society until today (sadly), so why aren't you arguing that the American flag is a symbol of the inability to join the rest of the world and racism, because you are with the Confederate flag. How about the Japanese Flag? People under that banner killed millions in the rest of Asia in an attempt to unite the Asian people under one banner? How about the Hammer and Sickel. Stalin under that flag killed more than Hitler and created the gulag, an inhumane jail that has caused medical complications and arguably caused the death of millions. How about the British Flag? The British ruled half of Africa and India. They discriminated the people there and violently put down many people? Why aren't you calling the British Flag racist? Every flag has something ugly under it, and we should accept that as a fact and realize that the Confederate Flag is not a symbol of hate, but of many things.

The difference between the flags of various other nations and the flags of the Confederacy is that other nations have centuries of history, both good and bad, over the course of numerous governments, both good and bad, ruling over an ever-changing society with an ever-changing culture. The Confederate states, on the other hand, came and went in the blink of an eye. They started a war for slavery, lost that war, and promptly ceased to exist.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Even if that's true, so what?

It shows that the flag of the Confederacy did not represent slavery because only a very few under the banner of the Confederacy owned slaves.

They owned slaves to such an extent multiple states had more slaves than actual citizens. It's slavery, deal with it. It is the only country to ever go to war to defend slavery.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Dakini wrote:That doesn't change the stated reasons for secession.

And your objection also has about fuck-all to do with my statement in the first place. The fact that public schools in the South were pretty much non-existent at the time was another indicator of its stubborn refusal to join the modern world. The fact that landowners preferred to use slaves and refused to industrialize were other indicators of its stubborn refusal to join the modern world.

The fact that right now, it's a symbol of racism has much more to do with the sorts of people who fly the flag and scream about how proud they were that their ancestors are traitors who left the union and declared war for the right to own people.

The South was agrarian based, and generally poorer than the north because it relies on cotton and tobacco instead of costlier machinery and textiles for money. Public schooling would be too expensive for the south at that time. Likewise, Cuba and many South American nations also didn't industrialize later on. Some places take longer than others to industrialize, and even after the war was over, the south was still very plantation based until the late 1800s.

There were many reasons for the south's secession, but only 4% owned slaves. Some wanted the south as a different nation, others were tired of the north's extravagant tariffs which laid its toll on the southern economy, and some wanted more states rights. The reasons varies, and there is no single answer for why the south seceded.

Furthermore, the American Flag, is by your logic a symbol of racism and inability to join the modern world. It didn't fully industrialize until the late 1800s (the north did by the mid 1800s), its leaders kept on pushing Native Americans out of their homeland and into reservations, racial segregation exists in the law up until the 60s and in society until today (sadly), so why aren't you arguing that the American flag is a symbol of the inability to join the rest of the world and racism, because you are with the Confederate flag. How about the Japanese Flag? People under that banner killed millions in the rest of Asia in an attempt to unite the Asian people under one banner? How about the Hammer and Sickel. Stalin under that flag killed more than Hitler and created the gulag, an inhumane jail that has caused medical complications and arguably caused the death of millions. How about the British Flag? The British ruled half of Africa and India. They discriminated the people there and violently put down many people? Why aren't you calling the British Flag racist? Every flag has something ugly under it, and we should accept that as a fact and realize that the Confederate Flag is not a symbol of hate, but of many things.

So what should it symbolise? What did the Confederates do that wasn't related to slavery or the defence of slavery?

Edlichbury wrote:

Republic of Coldwater wrote:
The South was agrarian based, and generally poorer than the north because it relies on cotton and tobacco instead of costlier machinery and textiles for money. Public schooling would be too expensive for the south at that time. Likewise, Cuba and many South American nations also didn't industrialize later on. Some places take longer than others to industrialize, and even after the war was over, the south was still very plantation based until the late 1800s.

There were many reasons for the south's secession, but only 4% owned slaves. Some wanted the south as a different nation, others were tired of the north's extravagant tariffs which laid its toll on the southern economy, and some wanted more states rights. The reasons varies, and there is no single answer for why the south seceded.

Furthermore, the American Flag, is by your logic a symbol of racism and inability to join the modern world. It didn't fully industrialize until the late 1800s (the north did by the mid 1800s), its leaders kept on pushing Native Americans out of their homeland and into reservations, racial segregation exists in the law up until the 60s and in society until today (sadly), so why aren't you arguing that the American flag is a symbol of the inability to join the rest of the world and racism, because you are with the Confederate flag. How about the Japanese Flag? People under that banner killed millions in the rest of Asia in an attempt to unite the Asian people under one banner? How about the Hammer and Sickel. Stalin under that flag killed more than Hitler and created the gulag, an inhumane jail that has caused medical complications and arguably caused the death of millions. How about the British Flag? The British ruled half of Africa and India. They discriminated the people there and violently put down many people? Why aren't you calling the British Flag racist? Every flag has something ugly under it, and we should accept that as a fact and realize that the Confederate Flag is not a symbol of hate, but of many things.

So what should it symbolise? What did the Confederates do that wasn't related to slavery or the defence of slavery?

I understand that they did declare things.

Stormwind-City wrote:Because the nation that created and used the flag was founded to prolong the institution of racially based human enslavement.

This. The country that the flag represents was created essentially only to preserve racial slavery. Not much else to associate it with. Except treason of course.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
And 39% of its population were slaves.

4% owned slaves, so 57% didn't own slaves. Therefore, most of its citizens didn't own slaves.

Again...so what? Does this now make it okay?

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Even if that's true, so what?

It shows that the flag of the Confederacy did not represent slavery because only a very few under the banner of the Confederacy owned slaves.

Because that is how it works

Really hate to violate Godwin's law here but, hey the majority of Germans were not Nazis so now the third Reich flag doesnt represent Nazism and its evils by your flawed logic.

Edlichbury wrote:

Republic of Coldwater wrote:
The South was agrarian based, and generally poorer than the north because it relies on cotton and tobacco instead of costlier machinery and textiles for money. Public schooling would be too expensive for the south at that time. Likewise, Cuba and many South American nations also didn't industrialize later on. Some places take longer than others to industrialize, and even after the war was over, the south was still very plantation based until the late 1800s.

There were many reasons for the south's secession, but only 4% owned slaves. Some wanted the south as a different nation, others were tired of the north's extravagant tariffs which laid its toll on the southern economy, and some wanted more states rights. The reasons varies, and there is no single answer for why the south seceded.

Furthermore, the American Flag, is by your logic a symbol of racism and inability to join the modern world. It didn't fully industrialize until the late 1800s (the north did by the mid 1800s), its leaders kept on pushing Native Americans out of their homeland and into reservations, racial segregation exists in the law up until the 60s and in society until today (sadly), so why aren't you arguing that the American flag is a symbol of the inability to join the rest of the world and racism, because you are with the Confederate flag. How about the Japanese Flag? People under that banner killed millions in the rest of Asia in an attempt to unite the Asian people under one banner? How about the Hammer and Sickel. Stalin under that flag killed more than Hitler and created the gulag, an inhumane jail that has caused medical complications and arguably caused the death of millions. How about the British Flag? The British ruled half of Africa and India. They discriminated the people there and violently put down many people? Why aren't you calling the British Flag racist? Every flag has something ugly under it, and we should accept that as a fact and realize that the Confederate Flag is not a symbol of hate, but of many things.

So what should it symbolise? What did the Confederates do that wasn't related to slavery or the defence of slavery?

It should represent Southern Heritage (it would be a good symbol to show the distinct differences between the north and the south), those who fell under that banner and rebellion.

Thirteen States wrote:

Republic of Coldwater wrote:It shows that the flag of the Confederacy did not represent slavery because only a very few under the banner of the Confederacy owned slaves.

Because that is how it works

Really hate to violate Godwin's law here but, hey the majority of Germans were not Nazis so now the third Reich flag doesnt represent Nazism and its evils by your flawed logic.

Most of the Germans during the time were indeed fans of Hitler and his ideology, many voluntarily joined the army and voted for the Nazis.

Gaelic Celtia wrote:

Republic of Coldwater wrote:4% owned slaves, so 57% didn't own slaves. Therefore, most of its citizens didn't own slaves.

Again...so what? Does this now make it okay?

That does not mean slavery is ok, but it means that the vast majority of Confederate citizens were not slavers and many of these non slavers still fought for the Confederacy, and I doubt all of them would fight for something that they don't own.

Gaelic Celtia wrote:

Stormwind-City wrote:Because the nation that created and used the flag was founded to prolong the institution of racially based human enslavement.

This. The country that the flag represents was created essentially only to preserve racial slavery. Not much else to associate it with. Except treason of course.

Slavery wasn't the only reason why the Confederates seceded when only 4% of the population owned slaves. There were many reasons for the secession of the south, including unfair northern tariffs and southern independence.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Gaelic Celtia wrote:This. The country that the flag represents was created essentially only to preserve racial slavery. Not much else to associate it with. Except treason of course.

Slavery wasn't the only reason why the Confederates seceded when only 4% of the population owned slaves. There were many reasons for the secession of the south, including unfair northern tariffs and southern independence.

I don't know why you keep pushing this as if it were relevant.
The southern economy was dependent on slavery and almost EVERYONE had some connection to it.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Gaelic Celtia wrote:Again...so what? Does this now make it okay?

That does not mean slavery is ok, but it means that the vast majority of Confederate citizens were not slavers and many of these non slavers still fought for the Confederacy, and I doubt all of them would fight for something that they don't own.

It doesn't matter what motivated the soldiers to fight. What motivated the country to come into existence, and to start the war the war that ended their existence, was slavery. There is therefore no way to dissociate the Confederacy, nor its flags, from slavery.