Confederate Flag Misunderstood?

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-24-2015, 02:53 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Isn't that flag there because there is a civil war memorial there on the grounds and its a part of that memorial...

The flag was removed from the dome in 2000 as a compromise it was allowed to be displayed on the memorial near the entrance to the capital. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-24-2015, 02:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Same responses could be there for whether the treason was against "their country" when the CSA seceded, since they declared independence as well. Perspective is always an interesting thing when looking at history.

Let's not even address the point I made earlier about the differences in the reasons for independence. I would argue there is a huge difference between colonies and states were admitted into a federal union. I also think we can see the difference when we compare the efforts put forth to regain these lost territories. Britain essentially decided it wasn't worth it to try to keep 13 of their 27 plus New World colonies (might be off, but there were 20 alone in North America).

We can also look at the argument of foreign recognition.

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-24-2015, 02:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It is sad that the major takeaway from this tragic event is that we should start making the decision to not display this flag. Not because the flag should be honored, but because there's a lot more we should be talking about regarding this tragedy.

Though, to be fair, many have opposed its continual display for years.

Well to be honest...that is the major takeaway across the US...Here in Charleston that just happens to be one of the issues at hand.  The Tragedy is of greater importance here.

[BmorePat87]

(06-24-2015, 02:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's pretend I asked you.

Was England "our country' before the Revolution?

Of course. Was it "our country" at the start of the Revolution? No.

[BmorePat87]

U.S. Flag Recalled After Causing 143 Million Deaths

http://www.theonion.com/article/us-flag-recalled-after-causing-143-million-deaths-17248

[BengalHawk62]

Here is the article that got me thinking about this whole issue.  I guess the point I was trying to make is that the Confederate Flag, the Stars and Bars, represents many different things to many different people.  And, as someone already pointed out, its all about perspective, Heritage or Hate. Originally, the Civil War was never started over slavery, it was started because of many issues, states rights being one of those issues, but slavery was one reason way down the list.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/dukes-hazzard-star-ben-jones-defends-confederate-flag-article-1.2269598

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-24-2015, 03:08 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Here is the article that got me thinking about this whole issue.  I guess the point I was trying to make is that the Confederate Flag, the Stars and Bars, represents many different things to many different people.  And, as someone already pointed out, its all about perspective, Heritage or Hate. Originally, the Civil War was never started over slavery, it was started because of many issues, states rights being one of those issues, but slavery was one reason way down the list.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/dukes-hazzard-star-ben-jones-defends-confederate-flag-article-1.2269598

I challenge you to read the articles of secession and find the numerous issues that are mentioned prior to slavery. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-24-2015, 03:08 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: states rights being one of those issues

A state's right to continue slavery being the biggest one. If you read a few of the documents declaring secession, "slavery" or "slave" are in the first few sentences.

[*Nately120*]

(06-24-2015, 03:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A state's right to continue slavery being the biggest one. If you read a few of the documents declaring secession, "slavery" or "slave" are in the first few sentences.

Call my a cynic but it all comes down to money.  People can say wars are for freedom or rights or god or country or magic beans as long as they put a nice spin on things, but it all comes down to money.  The North was going to (short-term) torpedo their economic backbone...or maybe not, unlike a lot of people who complain about stuff I tend to admit I don't know a lot about anything.

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2015, 02:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Let's not even address the point I made earlier about the differences in the reasons for independence. I would argue there is a huge difference between colonies and states were admitted into a federal union. I also think we can see the difference when we compare the efforts put forth to regain these lost territories. Britain essentially decided it wasn't worth it to try to keep 13 of their 27 plus New World colonies (might be off, but there were 20 alone in North America).

We can also look at the argument of foreign recognition.

Differences in reason? They are very much the same, to be quite honest. A government that they felt was not representing them at best, oppressing them at worst. There is a difference between colonies and states, but that does nothing to negate the claims and in fact would bolster those that saw actions by the federal government as an affront to their sovereignty and rights given as there was an agreement to guarantee them. As for the efforts, it was less costly for the fight to be maintained with the lack of the Atlantic, the improvement of transportation methods, and of course since the war lasted half as long.

As for the lack of recognition there were a number of contributing factors, not the least of which being the lack of success on the battlefield which just goes back to the idea that if they had been able to peacefully secede that would not have been as much of an issue because even though the anti-slavery sentiment hurt their cause, the perceived inability to sustain independence was the biggest reason they were hesitant.

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2015, 03:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Call my a cynic but it all comes down to money.  People can say wars are for freedom or rights or god or country or magic beans as long as they put a nice spin on things, but it all comes down to money.  The North was going to (short-term) torpedo their economic backbone...or maybe not, unlike a lot of people who complain about stuff I tend to admit I don't know a lot about anything.

That's exactly it, really. Southerners were not ready to give up the economic model they had relied upon for so long. Which is why you saw more rural areas like in WV and in my area where the majority didn't want secession. They didn't care so much because their economy was less reliant on it.

[*Nately120*]

(06-24-2015, 03:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's exactly it, really. Southerners were not ready to give up the economic model they had relied upon for so long. Which is why you saw more rural areas like in WV and in my area where the majority didn't want secession. They didn't care so much because their economy was less reliant on it.

Right, money is the motivator but we need to come up with a zillion more noble reasons for war because all-too-often we send those who won't be making any money off to do the killin 'n' dyin'.

[BmorePat87]

(06-24-2015, 03:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Call my a cynic but it all comes down to money.  People can say wars are for freedom or rights or god or country or magic beans as long as they put a nice spin on things, but it all comes down to money.  The North was going to (short-term) torpedo their economic backbone...or maybe not, unlike a lot of people who complain about stuff I tend to admit I don't know a lot about anything.

No, that's correct. When someone says "the causes were states' rights and the economy", it was about a state's right to have slaves and the impact on the economy of the South if slaves were freed.

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2015, 03:46 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: But there is a lot talk about being, FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES all over the Secession Articles as well.  Not limiting themselves to just the issue of slavery.

Yes, the sovereignty of the states was the reason for secession. However, the issue that brought this all up was the ability for the states to determine whether they were to be free or slave. The states in the south saw that by entering more states into the union as free states they would very shortly be outnumbered in Congress and lose the edge they had thanks to the 3/5ths compromise. Because of this, they feared the federal government would succeed in emancipating the slaves in their states which would, in their eyes, economically devastate them.

So, yes, the CSA was formed from the secession of states that felt their sovereignty was being threatened, but the issue that was threatening their sovereignty was the ability to remain a slave state.

[BmorePat87]

(06-24-2015, 03:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Differences in reason? They are very much the same, to be quite honest. A government that they felt was not representing them at best, oppressing them at worst. There is a difference between colonies and states, but that does nothing to negate the claims and in fact would bolster those that saw actions by the federal government as an affront to their sovereignty and rights given as there was an agreement to guarantee them. As for the efforts, it was less costly for the fight to be maintained with the lack of the Atlantic, the improvement of transportation methods, and of course since the war lasted half as long.

As for the lack of recognition there were a number of contributing factors, not the least of which being the lack of success on the battlefield which just goes back to the idea that if they had been able to peacefully secede that would not have been as much of an issue because even though the anti-slavery sentiment hurt their cause, the perceived inability to sustain independence was the biggest reason they were hesitant.

I can call compulsory schooling "oppressive". Hell, St. Lucifer just called allowing trans people into bathrooms "oppressive". Doesn't mean we can't actually look at the differences in what they're calling oppressive. Big difference between "the federal government won't let me own men anymore" versus "the King is refusing to let us pass laws during times of immediate crisis and disbanded all of our legislatures.".

And I'm sure the British and French would have recognized the Confederacy if it was in their best interest, but the fact that they were never recognized versus the fact that the revolution was openly supported by many world powers is huge.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-24-2015, 03:08 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Here is the article that got me thinking about this whole issue.  I guess the point I was trying to make is that the Confederate Flag, the Stars and Bars, represents many different things to many different people.  And, as someone already pointed out, its all about perspective, Heritage or Hate. Originally, the Civil War was never started over slavery, it was started because of many issues, states rights being one of those issues, but slavery was one reason way down the list.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/dukes-hazzard-star-ben-jones-defends-confederate-flag-article-1.2269598

Wow you fail at history.   You're one of those that refer to it as "The War of Northern Aggression" aren't you.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-24-2015, 03:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, that's correct. When someone says "the causes were states' rights and the economy", it was about a state's right to have slaves and the impact on the economy of the South if slaves were freed.

This

[*Nately120*]

(06-24-2015, 03:53 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Wow you fail at history.   You're one of those that refer to it as "The War of Northern Aggression" aren't you.

Hey, if it's unpatriotic to think so fondly of a time when Americans were killing each other in an effort to divide our great nation in twain then call me Eggs Benedict Arnold!

[SteelCitySouth]

Most people in this thread, in the United States, as well in most of the states that were a part of the Confederacy have not read the Articles of Succession. We are blessed that the leaders of that failed country had the forethought to document so clearly what they thought would be the beginning of their new countries rich history. It is within that documentation that historians are easily able to brush of the idea that Slavery was not the key issue.

[*bfine32*]

(06-24-2015, 03:53 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Wow you fail at history.   You're one of those that refer to it as "The War of Northern Aggression" aren't you.

So ends the civil discussion.