Talk Elections

I have just finished a book on the life of Jefferson Davis, and I began to wonder this. I say even Billy Greys (Union name for Confederate soldiers, in case you didn;t know) deserve to fly their flag to remember those Southern boys who gave thier lives in the "Lost Cause."

No flags should be banned.

Apart from the Nazi swastika. But that's another topic entirely, I think.

That's a tougher one, but I am generally very sceptical about banning things, evenif I really don't like them. I usually defend Nazi's freedom of speech...doesn't mean I agree in anyway with their message, of course.

Wrong!   No flags should be banned.

Good point.

No

We shouldn't even ban that.

The Nazi flag should be banned... by the Battle Flag shouldn't... it shouldn't be misused by hate groups though...

I don't think you should ban any flag.

i am somewhere to the left of kennedy and even i think it shouldn't be banned.
it's history and revising history to please a group is silly.

it's not a left/right thing.  it's something from the vertical axis.

Pro-ban=authoritarian
Anti-ban=libertarian

It shouldn't be banned, but no one should be proud of it. Basically, I'd like to just see it vanish.

bump

im ashamed that conservatives in south carolina dont have the political balls to stand up and say the confederate flag needs to come down from the statehouse in columbia.

it shouldnt be banned, of course.  however, it is a very divisive symbol.  you cant move forward by constantly looking back.

If you support not banning the Confederate flag, then what about the Nazi flag? I don't care that the Confederate flag is a historical flag, blah blah. It is fill with racist imagery.

I support for consistancy in our law. I would vote for NOT banning the Confederate flag and ANY OTHER flag.

Walter Mitty, why sell out your homeland? S.Carolina has every RIGHT to fly the flag from their statehouse capitol if they wish. It is a proud symbol of their history and has been hijacked by hate groups. Although, the U.S. flag has been hijacked by the KKK and is used more by them then the CS Flag. I will post pictures of every CS Flag shortly.

im not selling out my homeland.  i just think the south needs to move forward and leave divisive symbols behind.

if 25%+ of your state's population is offended by the flying of the flag, then by all means, it should be taken down.

now here in nc there are some school districts that are having problems with students wearing confederate flag t-shirts.  im a southerner and i can say ive never had an urge to purchase or wear a shirt displaying the confederate flag.

i can think of reasons why someone would want to wear a confederate flag shirt, unfortunately, i can think of no positive reasons.

Banned from private use:  No

Banned from use by the state:  Yes

Anyone can fly whatever they want on their private property, but a state government should not fly a flag that symbolizes rebellion against the federal government.

Apparently westerners like 'em too.  I see plenty of those battle flags out here.  Anyway, if 25% of the people were offended by a burning flag, should we make an amendment prohibiting it?  Hell, no!  Let folks fly their confederate battle flag high if they want.  I think it's very pretty.  I don't have one, but I have a jamaican flag on the wall in my office.  Srew 'em if they don't like it.

individuals have a right to fly any flag they want.  i was talking about the state flying it.

Exactly. Let those who love the confederate flag wrap in it, just don't make the states do it.

I don't think that states should fly the Confederate Flag...I just don't think that you can stop them.

No, it shouldn't be banned. It shouldn't be flown on government property, but it certainly shouldn't be banned.

But you can't stop them from flying it on government property.

The state's have the right to fly any flag they want.

yes, I agree.

Why in heaven's name would you want that at your state capitol? Whenever they gaze onto the lawn, a quarter of South Carolina's citizens are reminded that they are still second class citizens in the minds of many. If any state professes to value its residents and treat them as equals, it cannot maintain such a deeply offensive anachronism. I also do not buy this historical argument. The swastika is a historical symbol. The flag of the Crusaders is historical. But no one would support keeping them in a prominent place, because no one would be so disrespectful of the rightfully held feelings of Jews and Muslims.

I also find your "homeland" argument ridiculous, StatesRights. Your homeland is the United States of America, one nation indivisible where all men are created equal, not the Confederacy. You cannot deny that your alleged homeland was created to perpetuate the most grievous wrong that ever happened in this country, and glossing over that reveals more about your compassion than it does about our history.

Take it down. Its time has passed.

If the states vote that they want it up. Let them. It's not the business of the ACLU or whoever to come in and stop them.

First National:

()

Couldn't find the Second. Its the Third but w/out that red stripe.

Third :

()

This is the true "battle flag" This was used by the Army of Northern Virginia. The western flag was slightly different.

ANV Flag

()

This is a Western Flag

()

If anything the state capitols should fly the Third National to be accurate. Thats my opinion.

It's exactly your "type" that have made southerners feel bad about their heritage for so many years. Obviously you know very little about history. Because if you actually took the time to pick up a book you would see that both blacks and whites fought under the C.S. Flag. I know you would deny it because you would hate to swallow the fact that, yes, blacks DID fight for the CSA and it was BEFORE the Northern Armies allowed it. I am an American, you are right, but I am a SOUTHERN American and have every right to be proud of what my people have done and accomplished for this nation.  Southerners, both black and white, built this nation and have had more troops die for the USA then any OTHER region in the U.S. If your ancestors hadn't been so hypocritical and had layed off of taxing the South to death, this little war situation would have never happened. So many of your rich elitists, who were so called "abolishonists" in those days built their fortunes on the slave trade and enslaving the Irish in their Hellhole factories.

I did not know that statesrights.  They're all very pretty flags, for sure.  I do agree that this is a matter for the good people of the state of South Carolina to decide.  It is not for Floridians, californians, New Yorkers, etc., to decide for them.

Most of us, myself included, don't have an appreciation for this issue.  But if you're one of that 12.5% of the population for whom the flag conjures up memories of the Klan you might have a strong feeling about it.  Or if you're one of that 12.5% of the population whose ancestors fought the good fight in the name of liberty, even for the lost cause of states' rights, you might have a strong feeling about it.  I don't think anyone who is neither black nor descendents of southerners really gets it, because for the other 75 percent of us, it's just, "Hey why don't you just take it down?"  But if this is important to you, then fly it high, that's what I say.

"Now, watergate does not bother me.
Does your conscience bother you?"

Yes, blacks did fight for the Confederacy. They did so once the South realized it needed everyone it could get. Just like they also worked in your mines, picked your fields, and made your armaments.

Yes, my ancestors were abolitionists and Radical Republicans. And I am proud that they saw the profound stain upon our national conscience, and they worked to right it. I have no shame that they wore wool instead of cotton, pamphletized with a fervor, and were sometimes hanged by pro-slavery mobs. Remember "Bleeding Kansas"? I am proud that we abolished slavery, and were on the right side of history.

It is true that MA became the first state to abolish slavery, around 1781 I think.  I guess the fire-and-brimstone are known for other things besides prohibitionism and witch-burning.  By the way, it is a little mentioned fact that the first victim of the Salem Witch Trials was a black slave named Tichiba.  (as long as we're engaging in this sort of ridiculous historical condescencion).

[quote ]
Yes, blacks did fight for the Confederacy. They did so once the South realized it needed everyone it could get. Just like they also worked in your mines, picked your fields, and made your armaments.

They started forming regiments at the beginning of the war out of loyalty to their homeland.


Bleeding Kansas? Oh, wasn't that when the "great" John Brown was catching infants with their pikes and killing women and children in their beds? If you think the North set out with the goal of freeing slaves you are fooling yourself. At least 90% of Northerners didn't give two craps about the black man. And as all undergarmets were made of cotton I am at least 99.9% sure they wore cotton which was imported from Egypt that was picked by the natives enslaved by the British.

You're nastier than I am.

No, you're more elitist.

No, you come from planters, so you're the real elitist.

Well, you come from uptight moralists trying to save the world from itself.

Well, you have scabies.

Well, you have cooties.

Your scabies have cooties.

Your cooties have scabies.

You can't have your flag.  I am better than you.

You aren't better than I am.  I believe in liberty.

No I believe in liberty.

No I believe in liberty.

(oh, wait, we agree)

            yeah, right.  dream on.

I have no feeling in favor of the confederate flag but I don't favor banning it.

Aside from free speech and constitutional considerations, there are 2 reasons I don't think it should be banned:

-I don't trust the agenda of those pushing to ban it.  Many of the people pushing to ban the flag think that American society is fatally compromised by past mistreatment of blacks, and they will not be appeased by the banning of this flags.  If they win this battle, the stars and stripes are next.

-A fight against the confederate flag is diverting energy from issues that matter to blacks, like job training, family structure and education.  In my opinion, many black groups would much rather fight the battles of the 1960s, which they already won, and which put all the onus for action on other people, than deal with the issues and conditions that exist today.  This confederate flag issue, like most issues raised today by groups like the NAACP, is more a dodge from reality and an avoidance of dealing with real problems than an actual issue.

Angus and Dazzleman both make excellent points.

I believe that the flag should stay.  I was against it being taken down in South Carolina.  The fact is that it is a symbol of heritage and flying it doesn't make one a racist.  If it does then I suppose that I am a racsist because I have flown that flag in the past.

Not necessarily a racist, but one who has cast an aspersion on the fine state you live in, supersoulty.

I am also baffled by your omnipresent use of the word "elitist". I do not understand it. Fighting for equality of all citizens is the ultimate in humility and denial of self-importance. But you need your label. You have labeled those who have fought for freedom of decision and freedom of love, and those who have tried to foster camaraderie among all people such. If being humble is the alternative, than we in our allegedly cloistered, narrow-minded Yankee ways take pride in our elitism.

Two questions: Why do you use that word? Do you agree that it was correct to abolish slavery?

Of course I think abolishing slavery was the proper thing.  I don't believe that the Confederate flag nessesarly repressents slavery.  It represents hertitage.  That's all.  What to interpriet that as is a individual matter.

As for your second question (please be patient, because I have had more than a few glasses of Jim Bean) political theory shows us that there are two types of of theorists, elites and populists.  I am more of a populist.  Clearly most people who come for the "intelletual havens" of the northeast are elitists.  I have said in the past that I respect you because you are genuine.  But I see in liberals more of a distainful attitude toward conservatives then the other way around.  Many liberals seem to make quite a habit of putting down southerners and rural people in general.  It is the elitests type attitude that they take toward southerners, ruralites and the poor in general that I can't stand.  I personally see little in the way of striving toward camaraderie in how they approch these people.  I am certainly one to fight for equality for all citizens, for I believe that all people are equal in the eyes of God.  I believe that most people of my persuasion see it that way, it is just that liberals have mischarecterized many of our possitions into the idea that we are a bunch of racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes and this is not the case.  At the same time, if there are those who see things such as homosexuality as a sin, then I respect their beliefs, just as long as they don't HATE homosexuals.  If there are those who believe that abortion should be legal, I don't understand their views, but I believe they are entitled to their opinion as long as they aren't militantly against those who see it differently.  I know that that may be a rarity amoung conservatives, but conservatives tend to believe that pro-abortionists are just misguided, while pro-abortionists seem to maintian the belief that anti-abortionists are terrible people, bigots and are anti-womens rights.

Anyway getting back to the point.  There are elitests on both sides, but New England liberals seem to have developed it into a way of life.

I believe it was in the long run correct to abolish slavery. The manner in which it was done I disagree with. A slow method over 20-50 years would have had much less of a detrimental effect on the economy of the south.

I believe that most pro-life people do what they sincerely think is right, and have the best of intentions, but I do not see how anyone could be described as supportive of women's rights if they cannot support the foundation of her liberty, the right to govern her fertility.

Personally, I feel taking the flag off of the capitol building was the right thing to do.  Heritage or hate were irrelevant.  South Carolina is not a part of the CSA, that nation no longer exists.  Therefore, the only flags that have any right to be on the statehouse are the American and SC flag.  I am, however, against the removing the flag from the monument, and against the NAACP boycott, although it appears to be having no negative effect other than bringing negative publicity to the state.

Exactly what do you mean by "banned"?  Should it be illegal to have one in your posssession?  Even as a bumper sticker?  Absolutely not.  The flag has historical significance, and I think that is within a person's fundamental rights to display the flag if they choose.

It should be removed from all state flags, but each state must take care of that themselves.

So a state has no right to decide what they put on their flag? Ridiculous. IF the people vote with a majority to change the flag and put the CS Flag on it, it's in their RIGHT as a state.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but don't you see a contradiction in this statement Fritz?  Look carefully.

Perhaps I wasn't very clear.  I believe the Confederate flag *should* be removed from state flags.  However, it is within each states rights to have whatever flag they choose for their state.  I would be in favor of the legislatures of those states voting to remove this divisive emblem from their state flag.  I would not be in favor of the federal government stepping in, and mandating that the Confederate flag must be removed from state flags.

Was that more clear?

got it.  yes that's everyone's position except the massachusetts moralist, as far as I can tell.  

I also think Hawaii should get rid of the British Union Jack on their state flag....not really sure why they have it there...

Why should they remove the British Union Jack? Hawaii was discovered by the British. It had heavy British influence. Should we next remove the colors of our flag because those colors were adopted from the Union Jack. The Confederate Flag is developed from the british flag as well.

Ok fine, I don't really care to argue the point and it's not something I feel strongly about.

While I find the confederate flag to be very offensive, I would never support the banning of it or any other flag.

I believe that anyone has the right to display whatever flag they want, to use the N-word, and to spout hate.

I also believe that everyone else has the right to mock them for being the tiny people that they are.

outstanding.  that's how I read the first amendment also.

I agree. Excellent point.

There are limits, though.  It is one thing to say that all Norwegians are a bunch of herring-eating block-heads.  It's quite another to advocate that people rise up in violence against Norwegians.  When hate-speech turns into inciting violence, right-to-life-and-limb takes precedence over right-to-liberty.

But otherwise, fly your Confederate flag, and fly your Nazi flag, so we know to make fun of you.

Are you comparing the Confederate flag to the Nazi flag? Seems that you are since you are lumping the two together. More crimes have been committed under the Stars and Stripes then the Stars and Bars.

It's all about perceived meaning.  To a Black person in this country, the Stars and Bars is a slap in the face.  To a person of Hindu faith, the Swastika is a revered religious symbol.  Our Indian neighbors across the hall had swastikas drawn on their doorstep.  It came as a shock to us (as we have an obviously Jewish name, and thought it might be against us), until we realized that they had no intention of offending anyone.  Likewise, to YOU the Stars and Bars may be a symbol of rebellion against tyranny, or the cultural heritage of the South.  But to a Black person, it is a symbol of slavery and racism.  That is why I lump the two together.

I will grant you, the intent of those who fly the Stars and Bars usually isn't to advocate white supremacy, whereas that's almost the universal intent of the Nazi flag.  But since I believe both are protected speech, does it matter?

Not all blacks percieve the Stars and Bars as a symbol of hate. Maybe up there in Wisconsin. But down here I know plenty of blacks that are NOT offended by me wearing or having CS Flags. I even know quite a few blacks who wear them themselves!

I don't find anything wrong with the confederate flag.  Lately it just has become a symbol of the south, not as a promotional symbol of slavery.  Even back in the days of the confederacy, the flag didnt' stand for slavery, it stood for southern pride.  It was a symbol of being from the land of dixie, a farmer of cotton, a devout person of faith, and a good ole boy.  It was just used to represent their desire for independence and now it's just a symbol of pride.  It's just like putting any other flag of nationality up.

So break out the rusty dodge pickup and blare that dixie horn, with your confederate flag on the back!

I think it is all a matter of perseption, I see the Civil War as the final conflict between the Federal vs. Confederate ideas. States' Rights. Slavery was the embodiment of this issue. Therefore in my mind I see this as a war on ideology, not slavery. So no the flag should not be banned.

As for the Flag of Nazi Germany, I don't think it should be banned, the reason I think that it should not be banned is that it is an important part of the History of Germany, Europe, and the World. Those things we forget tend to haunt us later, like in Rwanda and Yugoslavia, we should take heed of Nazi German and always remember it and not bury it in the past.

Siege

I don’t see anything wrong with the confederate flag… being ¼ Louisianan and ¾ Midwestern… I see it as a symbol of “States Rights”, YES I used the term and NO I do not equate that term with the evil of segregation and racism, but it is time that people saw slavery as not the cause of the civil war but a symptom of the profound different beliefs in the role of government between the north and the south, with federalists in the north and those in favour of a much more loose “confederacy” in the south… I see a reason to reject totally the misuse of the confederacy’s flag, as some in the UK (where I am at present) for example misuse the Union Flag… I think to ban the CSA’s flag is to rewrite history in black and white… to quote from Faulkner in “Intruder in the Dust”…

“For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two oclock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is stll time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armstead and Wilcox look grave yet it's going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose and all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago....”


…I do not think that anyone with an ounce of southerner or American in him can deny that these men in both armies fought for great things than simply abolishing or preserving slavery, I will never give into racism or intolerance and have nothing but contempt for the south’s ridged opposition to Civil Rights and its treatment of the African American population after and before the civil war right up until the 1970’s, that said I think mistakes where made by both Johnson and Nixon in their handling of the issue…and with that in mind I am proud of the confederate flag and the real values it represents not those it was hijacked to represent…            


As for the Nazi Flag of Germany... I dont think you can ban it... but it is a symbol of such a hatful ideology and destructive system of belife that I think that any display of it should most certainly be frowned upon... having said that... who the hell would fly the Nazi Flag?!?!?!?!

   

great post Ben
couldn't agree more

Thanks... Faulkner quote was probably a little bit dramatic but hey where would this broad be without a little drama :) and it reflects my deep attachment to the confederacy and the good values it stood for not the things it was hijacked by both the right and left to represent…  

I do not equate flying the Confederate flag with being Anti American. More Southerners have died in US wars then any other region of the nation. I am as proud to be an American as ever, and I have a CS Flag bumpersticker on my truck (you can call me a redneck, ha ha), and I have a CS TShirt that says, "Proud descendent of a Confederate Veteran".

Same way out here in California.  Most folks that have CSA decals on the bumper or flags stitched into their black felt five-gallon hats are very patriotic.  Usually they also have old glory within reach as well.  I don't think that's inconsistent.  As far as I can tell, the insurrection against King George III was more illegal, technically, than the SC legislature's vote to secede.  And those two rebellions were started for very much the same reason:  the right of self-determination.

Taxes and Tariffs as well.

Reading the thread I'm a bit confused. Is it allowed to fly the Nazi flag in the US ?

I would imagine it is, but very few people would dare to do it.  I don't think any flag is outlawed in the US, not should they be.

Of course it is.  Germany is the only country I know of which has expressly forbid it.  Netherlands is the only country I know of which has banned the book "Mein Kampf."  Though I'm sure there are others.

My reading of the constitution convinces me that banning of any symbol is illegal in the Republic.  Any constructionist (but not necessarily any activist) justice would recognize this, regardless of how 'liberal' or 'conservative' he or she was socialized.

Israel o/c banned both

That's the way that Swedish law is made...what we call 'agitation against group', or something to that effect.

So, freedom of blacks is less important than the economy of the South? ???

I voted NO, but only because of it as a Free Speech issue. Certainly individuals have the right to wear/have any flag they want.

However, I would say that I disapprove of the (Confederate) flag at State Legislatures. Yes, the state of S.C. can do what it wants, but I think it's wrong. The CS Flag is divisive symbol that only represents part of the population--not only does it offend many blacks, it does not carry any positive meaning for anybody whose ancestors lived either in the North or overseas at the time of the Civil War.

I also find it amusing that people who wear/have CS Flags say it is a symbol of "States Rights", yet most of them would turn around and support a Federal Marriage Amendment that would limit the powers of the states to define marriage.

But the problem is that if a marriage is lawful in one state, all other states would, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, have to recognize it.

nclib,
I had relatives who fought against old glory in world war one.  I imagine many patriotic americans did.  Does that mean the US flag shouldn't fly just because of that?  of course not.  your argument is specious.  

emsworth,
I think that's at the heart of the amendment debate.  why not amend the constitution to make it neat and tidy?  a federal solution to interstate relations.  I think it's a bad idea.  limit rights.  set precedent.  anyway, one of the worst reasons to amend the constitution is to win votes.

A lot of the problems the south had was due to the way the slaves were "liberated". A slow freeing would have not flooded the economy of the south w/jobless people. Blacks had quite a few freedoms on the plantation. And I believe racism wouldn't have gotten as vile if it had been a slow process.

values internalized are solid.  enforced values are resented.  nobody knows whether the 13th amendment would have been passed if those legislatures in rebellion weren't required to sign it in order to get back in the club.  or even if would have been necessary, given that slavery was becoming less fashionable around that time.  Hell, even Brazil freed its slaves around 1888.  besides, it's all historical speculation, and racism now exists even in those states whose legislatures emancipated slaves long before the secession, and isn't a pecularly american phenomen anyway.  

StatesRights:

Are you sayig that the Emancipation proclamation should have been delayed?

 Slavery was a terrible institution that treated blacks as sub-human.  I think the Confederate flag is an ugly reminder of it. It represents hate and bigotry.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave! If you read it you will laugh and see that it was a political ploy to keep Britian and France out of the war. I believe a slow emancipation spread out over 30-50 years would have had less of an economic shock on the Southern economy. To say that all of slavery was "horrific" is a ridiculous statement based on all heart and no fact. To say the Southern Flag is all about racism and hate would be turning a blind eye to all the atrocities committed by the US Government under Old Glory.

That is correct.  I hate to admit this, but the lack of historical understanding among Americans is apalling.  We get made fun of for that and we deserve it.  I usually don't side with those who pick on our public schools, but when I do, it isn't for fun, it is to try to improve them.  The first state to free its slaves was Massachusets in 1780, followed by CT in 1784, NY in 1799, etc.  By around 1820 those states in which the climate wasn't conducive to profit-worthy slavery had forced slaveowners to relinquish their slaves.  Some offered reasonable compensation, others didn't.  The thirteenth amendment freed the remaining slaves.  The emancipation proclamation was a carefully worded document written to ensure that no slaves were actually freed, but in order to get France, England, Prussia, etc., to stop sympathizing with the CSA.  It was sleazy in the sense that Bush's connecting Iraq to the terrorists attacks in 2001 was sleazy, but it seemed to have worked.

My only argument is that releasing 15 million people who are jobless into a population of 25 million and probably
8-9 million are looking for paid work would be devastating to any economy. If today 100 million people were dropped into the US all at once and looking for work our economy would be devastated and poverty would soar. My only positive belief about Lincoln is that if he lived I strongly believe slavery would have been ended gradually over a extended period of time.

I am afraid I agree with States Rights... the end to slavery was done in the worst possible way, a gradual emancipation process would have been best, the Emancipation proclamation its self merely freed slaves in the regions which where openly in revolt against the United States Government… however morally slavery should have been ended immediately really… that said looking at it in the long term both morally and economically a more drawn out gradual process of emancipation would probably have been best however with a long war and the re-election of Lincoln over McClellan in 1864 this option was really never available…      

it wasn't politically expedient.  lincoln may have been viewed as a moron by the NYT, the Democrats, and many of his comtemporaries, but he is viewed now largely to have been a shrewd politician.  If he had made noises about freeing slaves in Maryland, DC, Delaware, Kentucky, or Missouri, there would have been political problems.  He may not have been reelected, etc.  By saying, "I won't free slaves in areas which I have some authority, but I'll write a paper saying slaves are free in areas in which I have no authority to enforce that" but doing it a bit more diplomatically with better speechwriters, it guaranteed foreign governments wouldn't send money and troops to aid the CSA, lest they suffer politically in their own nations.  Very shrewd, indeed.

13th-15th amendments combined to creat several million citizens in haste, no doubt.  And it was one of the few instances where new citizens flocked politically to the GOP.  In almost every other instance where the market was flooded with millions of new citizens, the went politically with the democrats.  But we have discussed this in other threads.  Interesting nevertheless, that the GOP was so shrewd politically.  They still are, in many ways.

The flag does not represent hate and bigotry...the flag was a symbol of Southern Independence, it wasn't a symbol of Hey!  We are keeping our slaves...It was just a symbol of your not telling us what to do, just like "Don't tread on me"  The South have eventually banned slavery anyway...it was just the North was telling them to end slavery without any consideration on what it would do to their plantations.

I'm not saying slavery should have continued a day longer, but if there would have been more compansion for plantation owners, a war might have been prevented.

This poll wins the award for 'most lopsided'

The northerners were much more racists than the southerners. The southerners considered the slaves fully human, while the notherners only considered them 1/5 human (the 3/5ths decleration was made to please both the southerners and northerners). The southerners actually used to baptize their slaves, and brutality was very uncommon. The northerners did not consider the slaves as equals at all, and didn't want to have anything to do with them.

The northerners really wanted to keep the southerners an agricultural society- and they succeeded. They put the southerners in a very awkward position, forcing them into independence. This gave the northerners an excuse to attack the south to keep the south an agricultural society so that they wouldn't compete with the north.

As a matter of fact, the Vatican sided with the south because the northerners were so power-hungry and racist.

So no, the confederate flag is not a symbol of racism- it's a symbol of how the south was abused by the north, and prevented the south from being what it truly was.

Wow.  Talk about reactionary southern propaganda.

there was a 93-3 vote in the senate yesterday on extending a ban on internet tax.  do a poll on that if you want a lopsided poll  ;)

Woaaah, slow down there.  Freedom is better than slavery, even if those in the free society are racist.

I believe the true difference is this:

-Northerners professed to love the race but were racist whenever they had contact with an individual African-American.

-Southerners were racist against the group but were significantly better when dealing with the slaves personally.  Many of them were reared with a Black nanny etc.  This simply came from so much contact with them.

The whole country was racist then, don't you try and justify what the South did.   The war was fought over the State's right to decide slavery, a society that would sacrifice millions of lives to keep this is RACIST.

So, Lunar you belive that whole war was fought over slavery? Why do you deny the facts that preceded slavery? Such as unfair export tariffs and unfair taxes on the south? Don't you think they had a valid complaint that very little of their tax money sent to Washington was being used to build up THEIR infrastructure? Do you really think it's fair to judge the 1860s South by todays standards? If the north had so much compassion for the black race then why did the abolishonist movement represent only about 5% of the Northern population? If the South was into slavery so much why were slaves only owned by 2% of southerners?

Oh please.

1607- first permanent colony founded in Virginia.
1861- South secedes.
1877- end of reconstruction.
2004- today.
Total years, history of the Southern United States: 397 (I am going to Jamestown for the quadricentennial :) ).
Total years, Civil War & Reconstruction total: 16 (4%)

I dont mean to sound crude, but 96% of the South's history was not defined by this civil war crap. Who cares what the civil war was fought over- its over. Anyone still for shooting each other?

Maybe 4% but from 1776 or earlier up until 1860 WAS a build up to the Civil War. Disagreements between the North and South almost broke apart the constitutional convention.

This build up was the result of geographical-economic differences between North and South whose consequences go a long way towards defining the differences between the regions, of which the civil war was one side affect, but certainly not the only one. These geographic-economic forces lasted up until the 1960s, when the civil rights movement & exit of blacks to the North deprived the Southern economy of cheap labor & incentivized it to retool away from its agrarian focus. Coincidentally it was at this same time that America was moving away from an industrial to an information economy. The results have been a blessing for most of the South.

Though you say it is a small 4% and I agree that is a small percent the south HAS been defined by the civil war. Over 300k Southerners died in that war. Wounds run deep and take a LONG time to heal. If we are still like this in another 100 years then I can agree with you. But I still believe the war has an effect on those living. I mean most of us are only 2-3-4 Generations out of the war. I know some people whos' grandaddy fought in the war. I mean 140 years is really not a long time in the collective conscience of a few million. The way the south was decimated during and after the war and the way it was just left that way left a bad impression on those who lived through it. The so called "Reconstruction" reconstructed very little. Farming is a way of life whether one has a good or bad opinion of it. Though you say the changes have been a blessing on some points of that I would disagree. I think the many of thousands of farmers who have lost their livelyhood would disagree. Some may see the South as "behind" somehow, but I think that is to THEIR standards. Each region of the nation is different and diverse. What is good for New England might not be good for the west coast or the heartland.

The primary issue was the fear of government infringement on a state's right to decide whether to have slavery.  Sure, other things such as the Tariff of Abominations and the infrastructure stuff also hurt but that wasn't what caused South Carolina to secede after Lincoln was elected.



No, but I can compare them to the 1860's North through my modern viewpoint.


The abolishonist movement was simply not very powerful.  It's like judging the amount of people who care about the environment by the number of members in the Sierra Club.  However, if you really want to look at the numbers for who supported slavery and who was against its expansion I would look at the election results in 1860.  The states that voted for Republican ticket,  basically a reincarnation of the Free Soil party, were against slavery.

Like I said though, the entire society was racist.  The North and the South had different types of racism and it seems many in this thread are trying to skew the horrid things the South did and glorify them.


Ah.  It really depends on what parts of the South you are averaging in and what year you do it.   The information I have says 36% in 1830 26% in 1860 however.   A couple more sources verify the 26% number.  However, your point is still correct about the vast majority of Southerners not living on plantations (most of the slave owners were smaller ones).  BUT the majority of Southerners supported slavery, minus areas like Appalachia which were more rebellious and did not share the Southern culture.

Plantation Owners were the Hollywood movie stars of today. A lot of southerners strived to be planters.

Yes, that's a good point.  The reason why many supported slavery was because they dreamed of becoming rich.

I looked into it and I see where you get your very low number for percentage of slave ownership.  Your number simply took the number of whites who owned slaves and divided them by the total white population.  The problem is that not many children or adult women owned slaves, and also some non-whites owned slaves as well.  

The much better indicator is household ownership.

Yes, but I still believe that the majority of the soldiers fought against a threat, whether real or percieved. They believed they were doing an honorable thing and that is why I respect what they did. I have no problem going to their grave markers and dedicating monuments to them and their spouses. I have no problem going out and reenacting the battles. Most of us in Southern heritage societies know that our flag has been hijacked by racial groups but we are very weak to really do anything about it. The sad fact is that the U.S. flag is used more by the Klan and the Neo-Nazis then the CS Flag is ever used.

Well in 100 years we'll all be dead. Heres the thing though. I don't see the French and Russians today complaining about how the Germans invaded them in WW1 and WW2, even though that cost them a lot more lives. Not that they have forgotten or anything like that but they realize it's over. It's always a choice whether to dwell on the past or realize that it poses no limitations on your present or future. That's not my choice to make, since I don't feel as much of a southerner as you do, but I feel that a lot of people in the south walk around with a chip on their shoulder whose cause is created to a large extent within their own minds. Maybe it's because this country has so little "dramatic" history (which is a blessing) that we have to cling to what little we had. European countries have so much history that if they psychologically identified themselves with their historical political movements so much, they would find themselves identifying with fascists, communists, and monarchs. We're so starved of conflict and strife ("history") that we don't know when to let go of it.

I would certainly be skeptical of blacks who say they simply can't succeed and deserve reparations or handouts today because they were discriminated against until the 1970s, even though that was only one generation ago, and to some extent their claims are valid. But I wouldn't indulge them to dwell on that previous generation because they have opportunities to succeed now; even if not equal opportunities, but at least a reasonable chance to have a middle class living. Dwelling on that is just holding them back now. But for the Civil War, its even more strange when I think of somebody carrying around a resentment of Northerners over this issue. It was not just one generation ago but six or seven generations ago. Most of the South today is not disadvantaged at all but quite the opposite. The conflicts of the past have disappeared-- tariffs, states' rights (an issue originally raised most aggressively by New England, ironically), have been settled in comparison to the vicious debates that occured in the past. Heck, today it is the conservative President who is pushing for more Federal power. The substance of these debates really shifts with socioeconomic factors, and in the end, it is all about protecting one's interests. The interests that the South has today is not the same as it had 100 or 150 years ago.

I agree with most of your post. I do not walk around with a chip on my shoulder or say "The south will rise again". I realize we are united again and am willing to move forward. I also think we should never forget the sacrifices of the brave men both North and South who fought for what they believed in. I see nothing wrong with those who wish to join genological socities such as the SCV or UDC or DAR or SUV or whatever. I disagree with you on two points. I believe that some of the issues of the war were NEVER solved and were swept under the rug and occasionaly rear their heads. States rights and Tariffs. I still believe secession is the right of a state as that issue has never been resolved either. Yes, I know New England basically started that idea. Daniel Webster advocated New England seceding from the US in the 1830s.