The Rebel Flag

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It represents both in that it represents a historical episode that very much involves racism and slavery. That being said, in as much as the Confederate flag represents racism or slavery, so does Old Glory. Remember that slavery wasn't outlawed in the United States until the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment in late 1865, which is not to mention the racial strife that followed for, if we're being generous, the next 100 years. So no one has the moral high ground to criticize the flying of the Confederate flag.

Actually, every family of former slaves has that moral high ground. By the way, there is probably not a single African American in this country who views the star spangled banner as an emblem of racism. They likely do, however, view, to the last man, woman, and child, the confederate flag as a symbol of racism. Surely you've figured this out by now.

If they don't view the U.S. flag, a flag that flew over a slave country for nearly 100 years, in the same way they view the Confederate flag then they're being inconsistent. The Civil War was a war between two slave-owning parties: the Union and the Confederacy. So no, there is no moral high ground when one is applying different standards to different flags.

 

[gtopa1]

It represents both in that it represents a historical episode that very much involves racism and slavery. That being said, in as much as the Confederate flag represents racism or slavery, so does Old Glory. Remember that slavery wasn't outlawed in the United States until the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment in late 1865, which is not to mention the racial strife that followed for, if we're being generous, the next 100 years. So no one has the moral high ground to criticize the flying of the Confederate flag.

Actually, every family of former slaves has that moral high ground. By the way, there is probably not a single African American in this country who views the star spangled banner as an emblem of racism. They likely do, however, view, to the last man, woman, and child, the confederate flag as a symbol of racism. Surely you've figured this out by now.

If they don't view the U.S. flag, a flag that flew over a slave country for nearly 100 years, in the same way they view the Confederate flag then they're being inconsistent. The Civil War was a war between two slave-owning parties: the Union and the Confederacy. So no, there is no moral high ground when one is applying different standards to different flags.

I have always found it interesting that several "Slave States" sided with the Union and were NOT required to "Free the Slaves" at all. They did some years later of course and quite rightly so. I have not thought of the Civil War as anything other than a battle over $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. As such, I consider it a vile waste of human life. I am glad that it is consigned to history and say with deep feeling: NEVER AGAIN!!!

Greg

 

[Stan Fan]

It represents both in that it represents a historical episode that very much involves racism and slavery. That being said, in as much as the Confederate flag represents racism or slavery, so does Old Glory. Remember that slavery wasn't outlawed in the United States until the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment in late 1865, which is not to mention the racial strife that followed for, if we're being generous, the next 100 years. So no one has the moral high ground to criticize the flying of the Confederate flag.

Actually, every family of former slaves has that moral high ground. By the way, there is probably not a single African American in this country who views the star spangled banner as an emblem of racism. They likely do, however, view, to the last man, woman, and child, the confederate flag as a symbol of racism. Surely you've figured this out by now.

I doubt if there are any family members of former slaves left living in America who were effected by slavery. Oh - sure - some can trace their ancestry back to people who were slaves - we know the last surviving member of Thomas Jefferson's bloodline is alive today, and can be identified, but the Southern slave owners never kept written records regarding the births, deaths, burial sites of slaves, and sold them off at will, scattering any possible, traceable record of direct descendant, making it almost impossible to find.

The Black community does find that Confederate flag offensive, and as I pointed out, the one we see in modern times isn't the Confederate battle flag, but their naval ensign. The two schools regarding its display are Southern pride and identity; graves of dead Confederate soldiers, and murderous white extremist groups which arose during Reconstruction and terrorized the largely uneducated Black population, about 5 million of them, freed at the end of the war.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the states in revolt against the Union at the time. That they find the flag offensive, fine, they have managed to ensure it doesn't fly over United States government buildings or institutions. Although the first persons buried in Arlington National Cemetery were dead Confederate soldiers, their graves are not marked with Confederate flags. A Black boycott of the State of South Carolina in recent years got that flag, flying over the State Capital Building, removed. The boycott was successfully aimed at South Carolina's tourism industry - and also included pleas for tourists and long haul trucker's to drive straight across that state refusing to fuel their vehicles. They were successful - however - the flag, after being removed from the State Capital Building, was subsequently flown over the Confederate Memorial on the State Capital grounds, and does so to this day.

One can't separate the racists from the zealous regarding this flag, but racism in America isn't confined to the South, cities like Boston and Chicago have throughout their history, had horrible race relations with the Black community, particularly Boston, and it was the hotbed of the abolition movement during the Civil War, raised and equipped the first Black military regiment to go into battle for the Union. Flying it from front porches or private residences; stock car races; public cemetery's, Civil War monuments in the South, nothing wrong with it as long as it is done on an individual basis. Heck, one can purchase and fly the German Nazi flag and it is protected by free speech, as long as it isn't invading on others. Same with the old Confederate flag. People in New England Patriot regalia, license plates and Patriot's NFL flags upset me more than seeing the Confederate flag flying anywhere..............

 

[Stan Fan]

It represents both in that it represents a historical episode that very much involves racism and slavery. That being said, in as much as the Confederate flag represents racism or slavery, so does Old Glory. Remember that slavery wasn't outlawed in the United States until the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment in late 1865, which is not to mention the racial strife that followed for, if we're being generous, the next 100 years. So no one has the moral high ground to criticize the flying of the Confederate flag.

Actually, every family of former slaves has that moral high ground. By the way, there is probably not a single African American in this country who views the star spangled banner as an emblem of racism. They likely do, however, view, to the last man, woman, and child, the confederate flag as a symbol of racism. Surely you've figured this out by now.

If they don't view the U.S. flag, a flag that flew over a slave country for nearly 100 years, in the same way they view the Confederate flag then they're being inconsistent. The Civil War was a war between two slave-owning parties: the Union and the Confederacy. So no, there is no moral high ground when one is applying different standards to different flags.

I have always found it interesting that several "Slave States" sided with the Union and were NOT required to "Free the Slaves" at all. They did some years later of course and quite rightly so. I have not thought of the Civil War as anything other than a battle over $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. As such, I consider it a vile waste of human life. I am glad that it is consigned to history and say with deep feeling: NEVER AGAIN!!!

Greg

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, issued after the Battle of Antietam in 1862, only freed the slaves in those states in revolt against the Union, not in the states that were still in the Union. Plus, Lincoln held Missouri, Delaware, Kentucky and most particularly Maryland in the Union by force. Kentucky and Delaware were recognized by the Confederate Congress in Richmond as member's of their union, but the states themselves never seceded. Tennessee, which suffered the second most battles during the Civil War after Virginia, was the last state to join the confederacy. Lincoln, a shrewd lawyer (that is mostly lost in the mists of history), seized the slaves from those in revolt against the Union, using those state's owns laws, which, according to his understanding of the law, were "property" and as such, since secession was illegal, the states in revolt laws remained in effect, and those slaves, by state laws still in effect, were "property."

He seized their slaves as a war measure to deny the South their use legitimacy as chattel, and the aid they could bring the rebellious states in the war effort. It also allowed slaves fleeing from Southern states to be confiscated and harbored by the Union armies. The Supreme Court never ruled on the issue - it couldn't - no Southern state recognized the Supreme Court's legitimacy because they thought they were an actual country - they never were legally. Lincoln's re-election sealed the legitimacy of the Emancipation Proclamation, the voters could have turned him out of office over it, but didn't in 1864. The argument is convoluted and simple. Lincoln and the United States did not recognize the South's right to break up the Union and form a new country. Therefore, the existing laws of every state in rebellion, remained in effect, their territory remained a part of the United States of America, and since their own laws, in existence at the time of secession, remained in effect, slaves were identified legally as property, and as a war measure, Lincoln seized them as property, much like he could seize a warship or a railroad line...........

 

[Correll]

It represents both in that it represents a historical episode that very much involves racism and slavery. That being said, in as much as the Confederate flag represents racism or slavery, so does Old Glory. Remember that slavery wasn't outlawed in the United States until the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment in late 1865, which is not to mention the racial strife that followed for, if we're being generous, the next 100 years. So no one has the moral high ground to criticize the flying of the Confederate flag.

Actually, every family of former slaves has that moral high ground. By the way, there is probably not a single African American in this country who views the star spangled banner as an emblem of racism. They likely do, however, view, to the last man, woman, and child, the confederate flag as a symbol of racism. Surely you've figured this out by now.

IF the "families of former slaves" had the moral high ground for any reason, they have squandered that moral capital long ago.

I'm done for paying for the sins of long dead people because they sort of looked like me.

 

[Rogue 9]

I have always found it interesting that several "Slave States" sided with the Union and were NOT required to "Free the Slaves" at all. They did some years later of course and quite rightly so. I have not thought of the Civil War as anything other than a battle over $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. As such, I consider it a vile waste of human life. I am glad that it is consigned to history and say with deep feeling: NEVER AGAIN!!!

Greg

Sure Lincoln could have done that, if he wanted to lose the war. Attempting general emancipation in 1862 would have prompted the immediate secessions of the loyal slave states - otherwise known as the rest of the territory surrounding Washington, D.C. There's also the fact that he didn't have the constitutional authority to do that, and said so; the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure justified under the war powers of the President, but he wasn't at war with Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware.

 

[there4eyeM]

The American flag was not that of a slave country. Many states did not have slaves, some did. The US did not.
The Confederacy was composed of slave states for slavery.
Apples and oranges.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The American flag was not that of a slave country. Many states did not have slaves, some did. The US did not.
The Confederacy was composed of slave states for slavery.
Apples and oranges.

Slavery was legal and practiced in the United States for nearly 100 years. The United States was a slave nation from 1776-1865.

Which is, of course, not to mention the years of slavery prior to the Colonies seceding from the British.

 

[Picaro]

So what to do with the black freemen slave owners, and the black slave traders in Charleston and New Orleans and Atlanta? Or the corrupt black politicians who fronted for the northern land speculators and swindlers? Do they get a pass? How about the black racists all over the South like those in the this cite:

“ Fun Reconstruction Facts”

Another weak seam in the Republican fabric joined predominately mulatto antebellum free Negroes and the largely black ex-slaves.

In Louisiana and N. Carolina, the early monopolization of black leadership by the mulatto class aroused the color and class tensions never far from the surface in the black community.

A mulatto candidate for the 1868 constitutional convention in South Carolina said: “ If ever there is a ****** government – an unmixed ****** government – established in South Carolina, I shall move.”

On the other side, a black leader said of the mulattoes: “To what race do they belong? … I know that my ancestors trod the burning sands of Africa, but why should men in whose veins run a great preponderance of white blood seek to specially ally themselves with the black man, prate of 'our race', when they are simply mongrels.”

p.560, Ordeal By Fire – The Civil War and Reconstruction - James McPherson, Knopf, 1982.

Pretending some high standard of morals re 'racists' had much to do with the Civil War is just and invented nonsensical fantasy. The fact is most of those 'anti-slavery' types in the North were more like modern white nationalists; they didn't want any black people in their states or the new territories period, including Lincoln, who helped write the Black Codes for his home state of Illinois in the 1850's.

And, there is also the deaths of hundreds of thousands of 'freed' blacks who died in the Northern 'property camps', not allowed to flee north, nor return home, for example, one of the consequences of the war.

How the end of slavery led to starvation and death for millions of black Americans US news The Guardian

This of course is conveniently left out of most history books and k1-k12 classes; it doesn't fit the rosy image of those great yankees fighting against 'racism n stuff' and freeing black people for 'moral reasons'. Black people themselves didn't suddenly become more moral or high-minded as a group, either; just because some group or other has been oppressed doesn't automatically make them better people, in fact it's usually been just the opposite, historically.

AS I said before, nobody here ever had a thing to do with freeing anybody, so patting yourselves on the back for supporting on side or the other in a war over 150 years ago is just idiotic and fatuous posturing. Same goes for those who think by flying that old battle flag somehow invests them with some sort of aristocratic cache from the 'old days'.

None of you are anything remotely like those people from hundreds of years ago. You should be thankful you aren't, instead of building yourselves up over non-issues. If you want to be Heroes, the planet has no shortage of places to go and do something real; great 'Causes' to fight, make lots of speeches about 'rights' and 'racism' and how it's like really really bad n stuff. Good luck with that, and we all look forward to hearing from the survivors.

 

[Stan Fan]

So what to do with the black freemen slave owners, and the black slave traders in Charleston and New Orleans and Atlanta? Or the corrupt black politicians who fronted for the northern land speculators and swindlers? Do they get a pass? How about the black racists all over the South like those in the this cite:

“ Fun Reconstruction Facts”

Another weak seam in the Republican fabric joined predominately mulatto antebellum free Negroes and the largely black ex-slaves.

In Louisiana and N. Carolina, the early monopolization of black leadership by the mulatto class aroused the color and class tensions never far from the surface in the black community.

A mulatto candidate for the 1868 constitutional convention in South Carolina said: “ If ever there is a ****** government – an unmixed ****** government – established in South Carolina, I shall move.”

On the other side, a black leader said of the mulattoes: “To what race do they belong? … I know that my ancestors trod the burning sands of Africa, but why should men in whose veins run a great preponderance of white blood seek to specially ally themselves with the black man, prate of 'our race', when they are simply mongrels.”

p.560, Ordeal By Fire – The Civil War and Reconstruction - James McPherson, Knopf, 1982.

Pretending some high standard of morals re 'racists' had much to do with the Civil War is just and invented nonsensical fantasy. The fact is most of those 'anti-slavery' types in the North were more like modern white nationalists; they didn't want any black people in their states or the new territories period, including Lincoln, who helped write the Black Codes for his home state of Illinois in the 1850's.

And, there is also the deaths of hundreds of thousands of 'freed' blacks who died in the Northern 'property camps', not allowed to flee north, nor return home, for example, one of the consequences of the war.

How the end of slavery led to starvation and death for millions of black Americans US news The Guardian

This of course is conveniently left out of most history books and k1-k12 classes; it doesn't fit the rosy image of those great yankees fighting against 'racism n stuff' and freeing black people for 'moral reasons'. Black people themselves didn't suddenly become more moral or high-minded as a group, either; just because some group or other has been oppressed doesn't automatically make them better people, in fact it's usually been just the opposite, historically.

AS I said before, nobody here ever had a thing to do with freeing anybody, so patting yourselves on the back for supporting on side or the other in a war over 150 years ago is just idiotic and fatuous posturing. Same goes for those who think by flying that old battle flag somehow invests them with some sort of aristocratic cache from the 'old days'.

None of you are anything remotely like those people from hundreds of years ago. You should be thankful you aren't, instead of building yourselves up over non-issues. If you want to be Heroes, the planet has no shortage of places to go and do something real; great 'Causes' to fight, make lots of speeches about 'rights' and 'racism' and how it's like really really bad n stuff. Good luck with that, and we all look forward to hearing from the survivors.

McPherson is an excellent historian, and that is a good post, pointing out that slavery wasn't particularly the main reason for the American Civil War. It's destruction was the main result, but destroying slavery, and destroying racism, two vastly different ideas...............

 

[gtopa1]

So what to do with the black freemen slave owners, and the black slave traders in Charleston and New Orleans and Atlanta? Or the corrupt black politicians who fronted for the northern land speculators and swindlers? Do they get a pass? How about the black racists all over the South like those in the this cite:

“ Fun Reconstruction Facts”

Another weak seam in the Republican fabric joined predominately mulatto antebellum free Negroes and the largely black ex-slaves.

In Louisiana and N. Carolina, the early monopolization of black leadership by the mulatto class aroused the color and class tensions never far from the surface in the black community.

A mulatto candidate for the 1868 constitutional convention in South Carolina said: “ If ever there is a ****** government – an unmixed ****** government – established in South Carolina, I shall move.”

On the other side, a black leader said of the mulattoes: “To what race do they belong? … I know that my ancestors trod the burning sands of Africa, but why should men in whose veins run a great preponderance of white blood seek to specially ally themselves with the black man, prate of 'our race', when they are simply mongrels.”

p.560, Ordeal By Fire – The Civil War and Reconstruction - James McPherson, Knopf, 1982.

Pretending some high standard of morals re 'racists' had much to do with the Civil War is just and invented nonsensical fantasy. The fact is most of those 'anti-slavery' types in the North were more like modern white nationalists; they didn't want any black people in their states or the new territories period, including Lincoln, who helped write the Black Codes for his home state of Illinois in the 1850's.

And, there is also the deaths of hundreds of thousands of 'freed' blacks who died in the Northern 'property camps', not allowed to flee north, nor return home, for example, one of the consequences of the war.

How the end of slavery led to starvation and death for millions of black Americans US news The Guardian

This of course is conveniently left out of most history books and k1-k12 classes; it doesn't fit the rosy image of those great yankees fighting against 'racism n stuff' and freeing black people for 'moral reasons'. Black people themselves didn't suddenly become more moral or high-minded as a group, either; just because some group or other has been oppressed doesn't automatically make them better people, in fact it's usually been just the opposite, historically.

AS I said before, nobody here ever had a thing to do with freeing anybody, so patting yourselves on the back for supporting on side or the other in a war over 150 years ago is just idiotic and fatuous posturing. Same goes for those who think by flying that old battle flag somehow invests them with some sort of aristocratic cache from the 'old days'.

None of you are anything remotely like those people from hundreds of years ago. You should be thankful you aren't, instead of building yourselves up over non-issues. If you want to be Heroes, the planet has no shortage of places to go and do something real; great 'Causes' to fight, make lots of speeches about 'rights' and 'racism' and how it's like really really bad n stuff. Good luck with that, and we all look forward to hearing from the survivors.

You hit on a very interesting point; the cheap labour laws in the North that prevented the employment of "cheap"..read that "black" labour from the south were responsible for the ghettos in the North. Once again; Unions have NOTHING to be proud of.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

So what to do with the black freemen slave owners, and the black slave traders in Charleston and New Orleans and Atlanta? Or the corrupt black politicians who fronted for the northern land speculators and swindlers? Do they get a pass? How about the black racists all over the South like those in the this cite:

“ Fun Reconstruction Facts”

Another weak seam in the Republican fabric joined predominately mulatto antebellum free Negroes and the largely black ex-slaves.

In Louisiana and N. Carolina, the early monopolization of black leadership by the mulatto class aroused the color and class tensions never far from the surface in the black community.

A mulatto candidate for the 1868 constitutional convention in South Carolina said: “ If ever there is a ****** government – an unmixed ****** government – established in South Carolina, I shall move.”

On the other side, a black leader said of the mulattoes: “To what race do they belong? … I know that my ancestors trod the burning sands of Africa, but why should men in whose veins run a great preponderance of white blood seek to specially ally themselves with the black man, prate of 'our race', when they are simply mongrels.”

p.560, Ordeal By Fire – The Civil War and Reconstruction - James McPherson, Knopf, 1982.

Pretending some high standard of morals re 'racists' had much to do with the Civil War is just and invented nonsensical fantasy. The fact is most of those 'anti-slavery' types in the North were more like modern white nationalists; they didn't want any black people in their states or the new territories period, including Lincoln, who helped write the Black Codes for his home state of Illinois in the 1850's.

And, there is also the deaths of hundreds of thousands of 'freed' blacks who died in the Northern 'property camps', not allowed to flee north, nor return home, for example, one of the consequences of the war.

How the end of slavery led to starvation and death for millions of black Americans US news The Guardian

This of course is conveniently left out of most history books and k1-k12 classes; it doesn't fit the rosy image of those great yankees fighting against 'racism n stuff' and freeing black people for 'moral reasons'. Black people themselves didn't suddenly become more moral or high-minded as a group, either; just because some group or other has been oppressed doesn't automatically make them better people, in fact it's usually been just the opposite, historically.

AS I said before, nobody here ever had a thing to do with freeing anybody, so patting yourselves on the back for supporting on side or the other in a war over 150 years ago is just idiotic and fatuous posturing. Same goes for those who think by flying that old battle flag somehow invests them with some sort of aristocratic cache from the 'old days'.

None of you are anything remotely like those people from hundreds of years ago. You should be thankful you aren't, instead of building yourselves up over non-issues. If you want to be Heroes, the planet has no shortage of places to go and do something real; great 'Causes' to fight, make lots of speeches about 'rights' and 'racism' and how it's like really really bad n stuff. Good luck with that, and we all look forward to hearing from the survivors.

McPherson is an excellent historian, and that is a good post, pointing out that slavery wasn't particularly the main reason for the American Civil War. It's destruction was the main result, ...............

I heard a comment recently that racism will never be truly gone until black people are just like us...and we are just like them. I would suggest that we all have a lot of self bettering to do.

Greg

 

[Picaro]

You hit on a very interesting point; the cheap labour laws in the North that prevented the employment of "cheap"..read that "black" labour from the south were responsible for the ghettos in the North. Once again; Unions have NOTHING to be proud of.

Greg

Given the plight of labor in the North and how they were treated, it's rather pointless to discuss whether slaves were worse or better off re 'free labor' in the North; it's pretty much a distinction without a difference. The antipathy of white labor towards even cheaper black labor was a very real existential threat to their very abilities to earn even a poor living, so sneering at the 'racism' of white workers not only from that era but right up to modern times is just effete snobbery from Burb Brats and those who don't have to face that themselves, and certainly not anything 'morality based'.

 

[gtopa1]

You hit on a very interesting point; the cheap labour laws in the North that prevented the employment of "cheap"..read that "black" labour from the south were responsible for the ghettos in the North. Once again; Unions have NOTHING to be proud of.

Greg

Given the plight of labor in the North and how they were treated, it's rather pointless to discuss whether slaves were worse or better off re 'free labor' in the North; it's pretty much a distinction without a difference. The antipathy of white labor towards even cheaper black labor was a very real existential threat to their very abilities to earn even a poor living, so sneering at the 'racism' of white workers not only from that era but right up to modern times is just effete snobbery from Burb Brats and those who don't have to face that themselves, and certainly not anything 'morality based'.

Your point is well made but the problem still arises that poor blacks and poor whites were treated very differently. Excluding blacks from organised Labour Organisations when those Unions had the power to negotiate left blacks without a voice and powerless. I do NOT say that whites should have dropped their standards of employment but that blacks were barred from getting a voice because of the actions of those Unions amongst others. In short; Unions existed for their white members and blacks were "not allowed". This ensured black s had no access to well paying jobs when the tides of employment turned. That was a disaster for the blacks.

Greg

 

[mgh80]

It symbolizes different things to different people. Personally I'm not offended by the flag, but I would never fly it. Not because I'm worried about offending others...but because honestly I find it a little silly. I fly my US flag and state flag (below it).