Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cato

Is the rebel flag racist?

Is the rebel flag racist?  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the rebel flag racist?

    • Yes, it is racist, and should be banned.
      2
    • The flag is not racist, and flag should not be banned, but should be removed from all official government buildings.
      3
    • The flag is racist, and should be removed from official government buildings, but should not be banned
      8
    • The flag is not racist, should not be banned, and should not be removed from government buildings.
      7


Recommended Posts

Please, it's all about the money. The states' rights thing, while an entirely legitimate concern, was in no way the real motivation.

  What is the real motivation then? The money issue isn't as big as most think it was. The slave owners, while rarely paying slaves, provided housing, food, and security. That isn't much price difference than paying your average Joe minimum wage, which is what happen to most former slaves. 

 

  The Tariff of 1828 was about the money, yes, but it had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. The Northern states were jealous of southern success so they forced southern traders to either sell to Northern factories or face a large tariff if they wanted to sell to European factories.

Yes. A war for no other purpose than defense.

   I am not sure what you are implying here. Sure, I guess a war entirely for defense is good, but are you saying a war for liberty and freedom isn't? The American Revolution was not good? And the South was fighting a defensive war, the North was the aggressors.

The effects of slavery continue. Higher poverty and crime rates in black communities are not coincidences or caused by black people being inferior: a great deal of it can be traced to problems which developed during and after the institution of American slavery.

  Maybe its because the black community has more criminals, and has less desire to succeed? I'm not saying that black people are inferior, but the facts support it. Every study says that blacks commit a higher amount of crimes than whites. And that's not taking into place the fact that blacks are only 12% of the population. Don't blame this on our culture, no one forces them to commit crimes. The black community is to be blamed. They are now saying that blacks should upraise against the police, and that white people should pay for crimes their grandfathers did. That seems almost cultish.

 

I'm going to challenge that on theological grounds. What right do you have to cause such deep and painful offense for so many people over anything less than the Gospel? As Christians we are called to peace, to a good standing before men, and to unity within the Church. Flying the Confederate Flag, whether it should or not, creates problems in each of these areas. It divides black and white in the Church, and creates a barrier between white Christians and black unbelievers who we ought to be evangelizing. We know what Paul would have said, "If flying the Confederate Flag hurts a brother, I will never again fly the flag!" It's one thing to offend people over the truth and the word of God, but let us not alienate others over less.

  I understand not flying the Nazi flag near a synagogue, or an ISIS flag in Orlando, but those have actual facts behind them. The groups the flags represents commits thousands and millions of murders. The Confederate flag does not have that factual evidence behind it.

 

  Paul didn't care about offending people for the truth, he just wanted you to not be a stumbling block. Now, if someone came up to me, and said that they would talk to me about Christ but they didn't want to be under the Confederate Flag, I would take it down so I could talk to them. Reaching others to Christ is far more important than regional pride. However, I don't see why Christians should avoid offending people because of personal preference. Jesus sure didn't, he spoke his words, and some interpreted that as offensive. I don't see anyplace in the Bible were we should avoid telling the truth because of other's feelings or misguided beliefs. 

I argue simply the fact you say the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

 
The Civil War would not have happened if the President had not abolished slavery. The Civil War was ENTIRELY about the right to have slaves. The South made tons of moneys off cotton and other plants that they did nothing for, and paid little to slaves except maltreatment. The farmers lived in luxury off the money while slaves were treated as subhumans. How is that even worth defending? Caleb is correct in this stance, it is ALL about the green stuff.
 

 

1. Abolishing slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. It wasn't until the 13th Amendment that slavery was abolished, years after the conflict. Slavery provided tension between the sides but it wasn't a major factor.

 

2. Why would plantation owners want to maltreat their slaves? I mean, you want your workforce to be as efficient as possible, any business man knows that. The slaves, in the most part, were treated well. They typically had plenty of food, living quarters, and some were even able to buy their freedom by doing some extra jobs. Whippings and malnutrition, while they did unfortunately happen, were uncommon as people wanted their slaves to be in the best shape.

Edited by PlasmaHam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the real motivation then? The money issue isn't as big as most think it was. The slave owners, while rarely paying slaves, provided housing, food, and security. That isn't much price difference than paying your average Joe minimum wage, which is what happen to most former slaves.

Despite the costs, slavery was the main engine of the Southern economy. A threat against slavery made for a threat against their whole economic setup.

 

I am not sure what you are implying here. Sure, I guess a war entirely for defense is good, but are you saying a war for liberty and freedom isn't? The American Revolution was not good?

I'm not convinced that anything other than a defensive war is acceptable. I am glad for the country that resulted from the American Revolution, but that doesn't mean I have to condone the war itself as fully justified.

And the South was fighting a defensive war, the North was the aggressors.

I've heard it both ways.

Maybe its because the black community has more criminals, and has less desire to succeed? I'm not saying that black people are inferior, but the facts support it. Every study says that blacks commit a higher amount of crimes than whites. And that's not taking into place the fact that blacks are only 12% of the population. Don't blame this on our culture, no one forces them to commit crimes. The black community is to be blamed.

The question is why there are more criminals and less drive to succeed. It is a very well-documented fact that higher poverty rates are associated with higher crime rates. Poverty creates crime. People are more likely to turn to crime in when in poverty. Likewise, feelings of alienation and oppression tend to cause people to cooperate less with the systems they perceive to be associated with those feelings, such as the law. All of these problems can be traced back very easily to situations bound up with Southern slavery.

 

I understand not flying the Nazi flag near a synagogue, or an ISIS flag in Orlando, but those have actual facts behind them. The groups the flags represents commits thousands and millions of murders. The Confederate flag does not have that factual evidence behind it.

What are you talking about by "facts?"

 

Paul didn't care about offending people for the truth, he just wanted you to not be a stumbling block. Now, if someone came up to me, and said that they would talk to me about Christ but they didn't want to be under the Confederate Flag, I would take it down so I could talk to them. Reaching others to Christ is far more important than regional pride. However, I don't see why Christians should avoid offending people because of personal preference. Jesus sure didn't, he spoke his words, and some interpreted that as offensive. I don't see anyplace in the Bible were we should avoid telling the truth because of other's feelings or misguided beliefs.

What does flying the Confederate Flag have to do with proclaiming the truth? It is a stumbling block and offense that is not in any sense necessary or "true," whatever you mean by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't until the 13th Amendment that slavery was abolished, years after the conflict

 

 

You phrase this like it had nothing to do with the end of the Civil War. In fact, however, every Confederate state needed to ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments in order to be readmitted to the Union. The federal government only co-opted the rule of Southern states when they refused to do this--which, incidentally, is why the Reconstruction Amendments were passed "years after the conflict."

 

Reconstruction--like the Civil War and like most of the politics of the United States after 1831--was mostly about slavery.

Edited by Chris-M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Prior to the election of 1860, the literature, the journalism, and a huge swathe of the major political debates of the day revolved around slavery.  The Civil War itself was precipitated by the election of 1860, a contest in which every major candidate for the North and the South ran primarily on the slavery question. Lincoln, the free soil candidate, won and the South seceded because they thought slavery was under threat. That's not conjecture--that's what Southerners themselves were saying. 

 

Yeah, the Civil War was about states' rights--states' rights to practice slavery. 

  Slavery was controversial then, yes, but not nearly to the extent you've claimed. Lincoln was a supporter of the North, and wanted to increase the power of the North. To increase the power of the North, he suggest tariffs and restrictions on the South. Lincoln had no real intention of freeing the slaves, he only did so as a publicy stunt to help gain Union support for the war. Also, Lincoln was Republican, not Free Soil.

 

  State rights did include slavery, and nullification, and tariffs, and the fairness of the Federalist system. The Confederacy reflected that stance, by becoming, well, a confederacy.

 

 

 

Following Nat Turner's Rebellion in 1831, 29 years before the Civil War, it became illegal in most of the South to teach blacks how to read or write. It became illegal for blacks to hold religious meetings without the presence of a white minister. As slavery became a more and more central issue, regional inequalities of this type only became more pronounced and violence against free blacks in the south only became more common. Meanwhile, educational and professional opportunities were broadly available to free blacks in places like Boston and New York. By and large, free blacks tended to migrate north and not the other way around.

  Free blacks were more likely to be captured and put into slavery in the North than the South. The Fugitive Slave Act put hundreds of truly free blacks and threw them back into slavery. And this act was supported and enforced by the Northern States. As I said before, Stonewall Jackson himself broke the law and taught blacks to read, so you can see how well that law was enforced. In fact, after the war, most blacks stayed in the South, going back to work as employees of their former owners. It wasn't until the 1890s that blacks really started to move up north because of better economic situations.

 

My knowledge centers on North Carolina. Here, federal troops occupied the state until we repudiated secession, ratified the 14th and 15th amendments, and passed a new state constitution. In response to this, southerners engaged in violent voter suppression, in acts of terrorism against blacks and "scallawag" white voters, and tried in numerous ways to dodge actually changing the status of blacks. I go into greater detail on this topic below.

 

This is not a just response. This is the response of a racist society trying to preserve racist institutions by any means necessary in the face of a hostile occupation

Whenever anyone has tried to change this, there has been a systematic and conscious response. In North Carolina after the Civil War, Republican legislators were booted out of office largely because of voter intimidation tactics carried out by the KKK. Governor Holden tried to pursue and prosecute these vigilantes, and in response the Conservative Congress impeached him virtually without cause. 

   I am also a North Carolinian, so I know a thing or two about my home state.Tell me of any nation that does not have violent protests when there is a conquering force ruling them? None, having the military rule the state is not gaining any popularity points. The reason why racism increased after the Civil War is because of the North. Reconstruction and the military controlled state legislature passed laws that unfairly benefited blacks, and punished the white plantation owner. Many blacks were given state government positions that were clearly a better fit for the more trained white man. Having someone take your job because of race is not going to end well.

 

  Those Republican legislators you talked about were brought in because the military ruled state wanted legislators that agreed with their opinions. There was no voting in those legislators. When the military left, the people appropriately kicked the legislators out of office. Governor Holden was power hungry, and Union supporter, and wasn't even voted in, he was appointed the governorship by the president. The legislature found his flip-flopping decision making was too weak, so they kicked him out. He basically had the same problem as the legislature did, no one voted him in or wanted him there.  

 

True, many poor white folks did not support Democratic attempts to lock down political power in this way, but it doesn't matter in particular because those poor white people lost. Claiming that the South was not a racist society because a lot of poor white people didn't support its racist institutions is like claiming that Afghanistan was not a radical Islamic society because most people didn't support the Taliban.

   As I said before, the leading generals of the Confederacy did not support slavery in the least. And the Taliban is not a state supported power, it is a independent terrorist group hiding within. And the majority of the South was poor, especially after the Civil War. How would the democrats get elected if the majority didn't support them? 

 

 

Well, this part is not correct at all. Lincoln had no plans to abolish slavery until during the war.

  True and False. Lincoln did release the slaves in his Emancipation Proclamation, but only the Confederate slaves. Any slaves in the Union border states like Kentucky and Delaware remained captive until years after the war.

 

 

Why?

   The Union passed and enforced the Fugitive Slave Act, which puts hundreds of innocents into slavery. Slave ships sailed using the US flag, no slave ship ever sailed for the CSA. George Washington was a slave owner, Lincoln though blacks were inferior in every way to whites. Crossing the Mason Dixon line doesn't change anything.

Edited by PlasmaHam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You phrase this like it had nothing to do with the end of the Civil War. In fact, however, every Confederate state needed to ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments in order to be readmitted to the Union. The federal government only co-opted the rule of Southern states when they refused to do this--which, incidentally, is why the Reconstruction Amendments were passed "years after the conflict."

 

Reconstruction--like the Civil War and like most of the politics of the United States after 1831--was mostly about slavery.

 

 The 13th amendment was passed with no real problems in less than a year. The Military took control of the South after the refusal to ratify the 14th amendment. But have you read Secton III of that Amendment? That is why the South refused to sign it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Union passed and enforced the Fugitive Slave Act, which puts hundreds of innocents into slavery. Slave ships sailed using the US flag, no slave ship ever sailed for the CSA. George Washington was a slave owner, Lincoln though blacks were inferior in every way to whites. Crossing the Mason Dixon line doesn't change anything.

That's irrelevant. The American flag isn't primarily (or exclusively) associated with a slavery conflict, and it does not provoke deep reactions of offense in the majority black people today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, Lincoln was Republican, not Free Soil.

 

 

The Republican Party was virtually a single-issue party that ran on a free soil platform. 

 

  State rights did include slavery, and nullification, and tariffs,

 

 

No one was going to fight a war over the Nullification Crisis of 1833. The only issue in this list that could provoke secession and protracted war was slavery.

 

 Free blacks were more likely to be captured and put into slavery in the North than the South. 

 

 

Source? I have a suspicion this is because there were more free slaves in the North. In any case, southern plantation owners who actually owned slaves were at least as complicit in this system as any northerners who kidnapped free blacks.

 

The Fugitive Slave Act

 

 

 

Was passed as part of the Compromise of 1850 to placate southern interests in exchange for the admission of California as a free state among other concessions to free soilers. Further, it's silly to act like the actions of the Union in 1850 represented only Northern interests when it was in fact dominated by the Democratic Party, whose voter base resided largely in the South.

 

Regardless, I'm not claiming that the North was free from racism. Frankly, I grew up in Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina, and I don't especially care about whether the North was more or less 'moral' than the South. What I am convinced of is that slavery was the political issue from 1831 - 1870, that the South was an extremely racist society both before and after the Civil War, and that the Confederate Flag in a modern context represents racist ideas to most people.

 

 

 

  As I said before, the leading generals of the Confederacy did not support slavery in the least.

 

This would explain why Robert E. Lee said of the Emancipation Proclamation that it was a "brutal policy" that left the South with no choice other than "success or degradation worse than death."

Yes, Lee and others offered vague overtures to the idea that slavery was in principle a bad institution. In practice, however, they also argued that slavery was integral to the South and could not be abolished without undermining the southern way of life. They opposed emancipation and fought to prevent it.

 

Again, I'm not interested in offering moral judgment one way or another. People are a product of their environment, and the 19th century was an extremely racist time both in the North and the South. However, it's foolish in my opinion to pretend that the South was not always deeply invested in a culture of slavery and, in consequence, a culture of racism. 

 

 

 

Crossing the Mason Dixon line doesn't change anything.

 

Aside from, with a very few exceptions, whether or not slavery is legal.

Again, I have no doubt that Lincoln was a racist man. However, he still led a party founded almost entirely on anti-slavery sentiment and free-soil policy, a movement that took root mostly in the North and which so upset the South that they fought a war over it.

 

 

 

 Those Republican legislators you talked about were brought in because the military ruled state wanted legislators that agreed with their opinions. There was no voting in those legislators. When the military left, the people appropriately kicked the legislators out of office. Governor Holden was power hungry, and Union supporter, and wasn't even voted in, he was appointed the governorship by the president. The legislature found his flip-flopping decision making was too weak, so they kicked him out. He basically had the same problem as the legislature did, no one voted him in or wanted him there.

 

This vague character assassination completely ignores:

 

-The suppression of black voters (who were legitimate voters) by terrorist organizations. Your response to the combined influence of the KKK and the Redshirts is "historians exaggerate their influence," which you offer without evidence. I'm sorry, but lynching voters is a big deal.

 

-The willingness of the South to tolerate and even protect the Klan demonstrated in the events of the Kirk-Holden war.-

 

-The institution of racist policies like the Grandfather Amendment on those rare occasions when black voters achieved political power, as in the 1890s.

 

Yes, the Civil War was disenfranchising to a great many white southerners (who rebelled against their government in order to protect slavery). However, the bulk of Southern voters never had any interest in disestablishing slavery, and they fought consciously to minimize the influence of black voters as soon as the war was over, and this reflected racist attitudes. Whatever blame the North may share, it's ultimately a red herring as to the question of whether the Confederate Flag represents racism in a modern context.

Edited by Chris-M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republican Party was virtually a single-issue party that ran on a free soil platform. 

  Oh, sorry. There was actually a party called the Free Soils at this time, I misunderstood

 

Most nullification controversies arose around issues concerning slavery.

 This is just plain wrong. I do not know of any nullification crisis involving in slavery. The Nullification Crisis of 1832, the largest one of all, was a conflict between South Carolina and the US Government over money, not slaves. The government had instituted laws that unfairly tariffed the South, so South Carolina passed a bill nullifying that law within state borders. The government responded with authorization to take over a state with the military if they refused to obey. This went back and forth for awhile, and was a major cause of tension between the two sides.

 

Source? I have a suspicion this is because there were more free slaves in the North. In any case, southern plantation owners who actually owned slaves were at least as complicit in this system as any northerners who kidnapped free blacks.

  "The Politically Incorrect guide to American History" nice book, anyone who likes history and wants to know the truth need to read it. The North did not have to enforce the law, so it wasn't just because a Democratic Congress. Southerners actually respected the free slaves better, due to them having more interactions than a Yankee did at the time. I don't see why the plantation owners needed to know these slaves were once free? The Yankees would just come down and sell them for an extra buck.

 

This vague character assassination completely ignores:

-The suppression of black voters (who were legitimate voters) by terrorist organizations. Your response to the combined influence of the KKK and the Redshirts is "historians exaggerate their influence," which you offer without evidence. I'm sorry, but lynching voters is a big deal.

-The willingness of the South to tolerate and even protect the Klan demonstrated in the events of the Kirk-Holden war.-

-The institution of racist policies like the Grandfather Amendment on those rare occasions when black voters achieved political power, as in the 1890s.

   I would like to see some sources, you offer this without evidence. My source is "North Carolina: The History of an American State". I have a lot of history books so don't be expecting any websites. You basically just ignored my response to all those questions without any evidence. While racism did happen, it was in both the North and South. Ohio passed a law that imprisoned black men if they didn't have a house or $100, numerous other northern states did similar. And if the South was all that bad, why did the blacks mainly stay in the South until the 1890s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see some sources, you offer this without evidence.

Generally, sources are not required when a piece of information is widely available to not be at all unique to any given source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, sources are not required when a piece of information is widely available to not be at all unique to any given source.

 

 I know that, thank you

 

However, Chris-M kept on pressuring me for sources, so I gave sources. History in a discussion like this does not need to be referenced, as it is not copyrighted, it simply happened. The evidence is the fact itself

 

I am curious of why you asked me this instead of the multiple times Chris-M did it

Source? I have a suspicion this is because there were more free slaves in the North. 

 If you want to change my mind, you'll need to provide some actual evidence.
which you offer without evidence.
You need to provide evidence. for this kind of claim
Edited by PlasmaHam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  I would like to see some sources, you offer this without evidence

 

 

My knowledge of the Kirk-Holden War and the rise of Fusionist politics in the 1890s comes mostly from undergraduate coursework I've taken on Civil War and North Carolina history at North Carolina State University. In terms of events surrounding the Civil War and Reconstruction, most of my information can be confirmed in North Carolina: Change and Tradition in a Southern State by William A. Link. As for the influence of racial politics in the Progressive Era, that comes from The Paradox of Tar Heel Politics by Rob Christensen.

 

My opinion of Robert E. Lee and his generals' politics, meanwhile, come from online lectures by

from the University of Virginia. 

 

As for the KKK and Redshirts, those have shown up in all of my textbooks across multiple classes and, as Caleb points out, are really just a well-known part of the history. 

 

The North did not have to enforce the law, so it wasn't just because a Democratic Congress.

 

 

Calling the North pro-slavery because it didn't break the law seems a bit silly to me. Northern voters by and large opposed slavery and supported free soil platforms. That's a big part of why they elected Lincoln and why they abandoned Zachary Taylor after he passed the Compromise of 1850.

 

Yes, Northerners and  northern institution were often racist in their own ways. However, they were not invested in a culture of slavery. The South was. That's a huge deal. 

 

 I don't see why the plantation owners needed to know these slaves were once free?

 

 

I'm not saying they did. My point is that it's hard to stomach the idea that Northerners were more racist than the people actually practicing slavery just because some Northerners were willing to illegally engage with kidnapping.

 

While racism did happen, it was in both the North and South. Ohio passed a law that imprisoned black men if they didn't have a house or $100, numerous other northern states did similar.

 

 

True. However, Ohio did not fight a war to protect slavery, and its flag does not represent that military effort. Moreover, the Ohio flag was not part of the arsenal of those defending white supremacy in the 20th century. The 20th century KKK and white supremacists did appropriate Confederate icons as part of their persona, including the rebel flag. Because of that, the Ohio flag does not have the cultural baggage of the stars and bars--sorry.

 

 I do not know of any nullification crisis involving in slavery

 

 

Aye, this is true and I apologize. You'll notice that I edited this bit shortly after posting, once I thought twice about it and did some quick research.

Edited by Chris-M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am curious of why you asked me this instead of the multiple times Chris-M did it

 

 

Probably because controversial claims like "The KKK weren't that big of a deal" require more evidence than more common knowledge claims like "the KKK lynched black people and white Republicans as a form of voter intimidation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because controversial claims like "The KKK weren't that big of a deal" require more evidence than more common knowledge claims like "the KKK lynched black people and white Republicans as a form of voter intimidation."

Precisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because controversial claims like "The KKK weren't that big of a deal" require more evidence than more common knowledge claims like "the KKK lynched black people and white Republicans as a form of voter intimidation."

Precisely.

 

 That still seems contradictory, and most of your claims aren't that common either. History does not need to be sourced traditionally, and if it does, all the stances, common or not, should be required.  Perhaps its because of the stances...

 

Anyway, why are we talking about Reconstruction Era politics anyway? Most of post-Civil War racism in the South was caused by the Reconstruction, not by the Civil War. And the Confederate Flag did not represent Post-Reconstruction South. Perhaps we should back up a few years.

 

And the South was fighting a defensive war, the North was the aggressors.

I've heard it both ways.

 

Southern tactics clearly indicated it was a defensive war. The whole plan was to just defend the borders and hope that Northern support for the war would dry out. They had no want to invade the North, they just wanted freedom. There were a few occasions where they fought offensively, but those were uncommon and were almost always defeats(Gettysburg). 

Edited by PlasmaHam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 why are we talking about Reconstruction Era politics anyway?

 

 

Because the Confederate flag is associated with people who engaged with political terrorism in the Reconstruction era.

 

And the Confederate Flag did not represent Post-Reconstruction South.

 

 

I mean, I can see what you're saying, but I disagree for two reasons. First, the Confederate Flag, for better or worse, just has changed in meaning. Today, many, many people associate it with white supremacism. They associate it with the KKK. Whether anyone likes it or not, that's just the meaning our cultural context gives the flag.

 

Second, even if we accept that the Confederate Flag only represents the ideals of the antebellum South, we're still talking about a society dependent on and fighting to preserve a slave economy. They were not quiet about their support of slavery. Even famous southerners morally opposed slavery made a big deal about why slaves at that time should have remained slaves. This was their central political point, one of their main reasons for being. I'm sorry, but I can understand why that alone would make the flag offensive to people descended from slaves.

 

That still seems contradictory, and most of your claims aren't that common either. History does not need to be sourced traditionally, and if it does, all the stances, common or not, should be required.  Perhaps its because of the stances...

 

 

Eh, you're probably right that I'm probably getting too demanding xP I honestly shouldn't be citing secondary sources anyway. Primary evidence is what I was looking for--but that's a lot of research to do for an online argument.

 

I just...I mean, it's just hard to stomach something like "the KKK wasn't a big deal." It seems like an idea that would be very difficult to prove ("how many suppressed votes per lynched man?" is a difficult question to quantify :P ), so part of me wanted to know where this idea had even come from.

Edited by Chris-M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the Confederate flag is associated with people who engaged with political terrorism in the Reconstruction era.

  If someone starting bombing people waving the Christian flag as they did it, would you ban the Christian flag? 

 

Second, even if we accept that the Confederate Flag only represents the ideals of the antebellum South, we're still talking about a society dependent on and fighting to preserve a slave economy. They were not quiet about their support of slavery. Even if they morally opposed slavery, they made a big deal about why slaves at that time should have remained slaves. This was their central political point, one of their main reasons for being.

  Nearly every society has used slaves, I have no idea why the Confederacy is so singled out about it. The North did not abandon slavery because they felt all sympathetic about slaves. They quit because their economy shifted and they needed skilled labor. If depending on a slave economy is so bad, why isn't the US flag banned? The US was dependent on Southern trade and their main purpose of fighting that war was to regain the Southern economic influx.

 

 Their economy was centered around slavery, and you are right that many wanted to keep slavery despite seeing it as immoral. Slavery was the basics of their economy, taking away the slaves would send the Southern economy into a downward spiral. So yes, they did support slavery, but not necessarily because they saw blacks as inferior. 

 

 

 I'm sorry, but I can understand why that alone would make the flag offensive to people descended from slaves.

   This brings up another discussion, albiet off-topic a little. Why are black people so offended about events that never happened to them. White folks are told to just let go of the past, yet the blacks are told that they should avenge the past.  You guys just need to let it go. Doesn't the Bible say not to hold grudges? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 This brings up another discussion, albiet off-topic a little. Why are black people so offended about events that never happened to them. 

 

 

Well, because a lot of people think that racism continues to be a serious and destructive part of our culture, and they think that the Confederate flag is part of the culture that supports and perpetuates that racism.

 

 

  Nearly every society has used slaves, I have no idea why the Confederacy is so singled out about it.

 

Because Confederate icons and heritage are part of the conversation about modern racism, thanks in part to the way organizations like the KKK and the Jim Crow south used the stars and bars.

 

 

The North did not abandon slavery because they felt all sympathetic about slaves. They quit because their economy shifted and they needed skilled labor.

 

 

If this was the case, why did so many northern voters care about what happened with slavery in other parts of the United States? And why were southerners so worried about abolitionism? Many people during the antebellum period were morally opposed to slavery. Abolitionism was a big, politically visible idea. Sure, some northern politicians were just pragmatic regionalists, but a lot of them were serious radical Republicans.

 

Regardless of motive, however, the point is what each side represents as historical symbols. However complex the situation may have been, to a modern eye the Confederate flag represents a society where blacks are legally and materially inferior to whites--and that's what matters in a modern paradigm.

Edited by Chris-M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me explain what I meant earlier about the KKK. When I said that the tales of the KKK were exaggerated, I meant that true. But the reason why there are so many exaggerations is because the KKK focused on fear tactics. They knew they couldn't stop every black man from voting so they spread rumors and threats to scare them from voting. And while they did occasionally foray into lynching and murders, most of their activities were simply rumors. Overtime, these rumors have been accepted as actual lynches and murders despite no evidence to support those claims.

 

 

This argument is circumnavigating itself, so I am probably going to wait and get some new voices into the discussion. I think we might be scaring everybody off, with our constant barrage of historical facts, theories, and what not. I didn't expect anyone to actually counter with a legitimate argument, nevertheless engage me in a long debate, so I commend you for that. Caleb tried, but I could see it wasn't his strong suit. Perhaps we should do more historical debates, this is fun.

Edited by PlasmaHam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a difference between the flag being racist (overt racism - i.e. this flag is only used to denote the racist elements of the old South etc.), and the flag being associated with racism (inferred racism - i.e. the flag might have other representations, but it gets associated with racism, or is seen as a representation of racism, because of the way it has been used). I think the Confederate flag ultimately falls into the second category - it's not racist in and of itself, but you can't take it out of context; there is a certain capability for menace in that flag that people will exploit. Then again, I am torn when I consider things like Stephens' Cornerstone Speech

 

I firmly believe that nothing in this world occurs in isolation. So it's all well and good talking about the flag's way back in the Civil War... but you also have to look at the meanings that flag has had attributed to it in the time that has passed since then. It is a flag with ugly connotations, there's no denying that, and it's certainly divisive; it makes sense not to fly it on state buildings etc. Whether or not it should be banned is an utterly different question, and I'm erring on the side of no, because ultimately it's someone's choice if they want it flown on private property. 

 

I do wonder, though, whether approaching this from a Christian perspective would define the flag as an idol, considering the societal mess surrounding it. Thoughts? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caleb tried, but I could see it wasn't his strong suit. 

 

 

Not to duck in again after going on too long already, but Caleb's probably the best we have at CTF for an argument :'D If anything, he just has a more mature sense of restraint than many of us.

 

I firmly believe that nothing in this world occurs in isolation. So it's all well and good talking about the flag's way back in the Civil War... but you also have to look at the meanings that flag has had attributed to it in the time that has passed since then. It is a flag with ugly connotations, there's no denying that, and it's certainly divisive; it makes sense not to fly it on state buildings etc. Whether or not it should be banned is an utterly different question, and I'm erring on the side of no, because ultimately it's someone's choice if they want it flown on private property.

 

This more or less sums up my views in an eloquent way <3

Edited by Chris-M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to duck in again after going on too long already, but Caleb's probably the best we have at CTF for an argument :'D If anything, he just has a more mature sense of restraint than many of us.

 

  I wasn't saying that he was a bad arguer, he is great. I've spared with him multiple times over theological subjects. 

 

I was just saying that American history isn't his strongest subject. Caleb rarely added his own information and he wanted to turn the argument into more of a theological debate. His debate tactics were great, he just didn't bring anything new to the table.

 

 You on the other hand knew American history pretty well, and North Carolina history, which is an odd coincidence with myself. Anyways, you were able to bring new information, good rebuttals, and were able to stay on topic. You might not be as good as Caleb at arguing, but your unique skills and knowledge puts you at an advantage in this debate.  

Edited by PlasmaHam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he wanted to turn the argument into more of a theological debate.

In my mind, pretty much everything already is a theological debate. ;) :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the Battle Standard of the Army of Northern Virginia isn't racist.

 

I'd prefer that the Third National Flag of the Confederate States be flown from all Southern government buildings, once we've regained our independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the Battle Standard of the Army of Northern Virginia isn't racist.

 

I'd prefer that the Third National Flag of the Confederate States be flown from all Southern government buildings, once we've regained our independence.

 

THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :bigguns:   YEEHAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yea, common myth about the Battle Standard being the flag of the Confederacy, but I like it over the others.

 

The first Confederate flag was too Yankee

The second Confederate flag had a serious design flaw

The third Confederate flag was oaky, but I still prefer the battle flag.

Edited by PlasmaHam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :bigguns:   YEEHAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yea, common myth about the Stars and Bars being the flag of the Confederacy, but I like it over the others.

 

The first Confederate flag was too Yankee

The second Confederate flag had a serious design flaw

The third Confederate flag was oaky, but I still prefer the battle flag.

Since the 1st National was the Stars and Bars, I'm confused as to what you're referring.

 

Privately I really prefer the Bloodstained Banner (3rd National) over all the others, with the 2nd National and the Battle Standard tied for my least favourite.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×