Civil War buffs on Confederate flag debate: It's complicated

This situation is a bit different since it's a historical reenactment. Obviously the flag is part of the history. No one is trying to remove it from history books.

Outside of that, it's a flag exclusively for white people. It's something that shouldn't be flying on a government building.

Absolutely correct Super, private use of the flag should not be regulated. It is a symbol of the war between the states. Important not to forget. Not a white supremist symbol.

Dylan Roof can score a win with the controversy he triggered. He wanted a second war and in a way this currently is.

The flag to me represented a poor taste in the respect it maintained. Never have wanted to fly, wear or posess that flag. I've had that feeling for over 20 years. Why is it in a week, it became a taboo to sell, use or defend? Score one for Roof sad to say.

Why is it in a week, it became a taboo to sell, use or defend? Score one for Roof sad to say.

Getting rid of a flag that represents oppression to members of said formerly oppressed group is a point for Roof? Do you really think that a guy who was using flags that represent oppression would feel that he had scored by his actions causing a flag with similar associations to stop be flown from at state government buildings? I think not.

I object to this simplistic retelling of history where the South were fighting to preserve slavery and the North to eliminate it. To begin with, it completely ignores the nullification crises, and the fact that the country very nearly came to civil war nearly 4 decades earlier over the Tariff of 1828. If you had millions of Southerners ready and willing to go to war over federal tariffs, how can you say that the Civil War was only over slavery?

Bit like the Kyokujitsu-ki

@Illyas

Yeah, after they came very close to fighting around 1828, they reduced the tariffs to more reasonable levels. They remained low until they were increased sharply again in 1860. It’s very telling that this is never mentioned in the mainstream, at most we are told that some find it “complicated”; I wonder why…

Considering how much Americans are taught that the war was only/mainly about slavery, I am not surprised so many apparently find the flag offensive. If they had a more honest view of history, perhaps Americans of all races would express pride in the flag.

In the U.S.A. Neo-Nazis have the "civil right" to march and display the swastika, but American Southerners are denied the right to display the Confederate flag in honor of their heritage? The flag is an indelible symbol in American history.

Getting rid of a flag that represents oppression to members of said formerly oppressed group is a point for Roof?

Strangerland, for the love of god, this is a JT thread, not a legal proceeding. "Black Americans" or "African Americans" will do.

The War Between the States is the term that was used in the southern states in the first half of the 20th century in the USA for the northern states' Civil War term. Slavery was not the only reason the South rebelled against the Union. Most young men in the CSA army did not come from families' who owned slaves. They were "poor dirt farmer" boys who believed that the government headed by President Lincoln had gone too far by passing laws the restricted other commerce and the states' right to determine what was best for its citizens. The issue of "States' Rights" continues today in issues such as voter ID (which President Obama's government opposes), education (Creationism as a required subject in Texas' biology classes), and health insurance. Slavery was and is wrong.

American Southerners are denied the right to display the Confederate flag in honor of their heritage?

False. Anyone can march and display the Confederate flag to their heart's content.

Businesses can still choose to sell them, or not. People can still wear them, fly them...

Reenactors are quick to note that the rectangular “rebel flag,” embraced by hate groups and displayed by Dylann Roof, the man accused in the South Carolina church shootings, in pictures he posted on the Internet, was not one of the Confederacy’s three official flags, but instead a Confederate navy banner and the flag of the army of Tennessee.

http://www.confederate-flags.org/confederate%20army%20of%20tennessee.html

The protestors do not seem to understand that the flag that they are protesting was never a flag of the government of the Confederate States of America (CSA).

It was a battle flag. It also appeared as a battle ensign. Not a government flag but a military flag.

It is complicated.

Considering how much Americans are taught that the war was only/mainly about slavery, I am not surprised so many apparently find the flag offensive. If they had a more honest view of history, perhaps Americans of all races would express pride in the flag.

That's kind of a weasel-worded. The war was very much about the preservation of the institution of slavery. That's a fact.

Five myths about why the South seceded

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html

The South seceded over states’ rights. Secession was about tariffs and taxes. Most white Southerners didn’t own slaves, so they wouldn’t secede for slavery. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery. The South couldn’t have made it long as a slave society.

It was a battle flag. It also appeared as a battle ensign. Not a government flag but a military flag.

Which actually makes it less relevant as a flag of "heritage" to be flying on State grounds.

The war was very much about the preservation of the institution of slavery. That's a fact.

It's fact because..?

Do you deny the facts outlined by Illyas and I? That they came close to fighting in 1928 over unfair tariffs (was slavery also an important issue back then?). Fighting was averted by reducing the tariffs to more reasonable levels, where they stayed until they were sharply increased again in 1860. How can one possibly think that tariffs were not a major cause? And why are these tariffs NEVER mentioned?

So you actually believe that the North went to war (resulting in over 600,000 deaths) mainly because they wanted to liberate slaves!!!!

And why is my comment "weasel-worded"? I disagree with what is reported as the popular opinion, but I also believe that their opinion is completely understandable considering what they have been taught. I don't criticize the general American public, but rather their education.

Do you deny the facts outlined by Illyas and I?

I reject the point you seem to think you made. See the link I provided. Myths 1, 2, and 3.

So you actually believe that the North went to war (resulting in over 600,000 deaths) mainly because they wanted to liberate slaves!!!!

I didn't make that claim about the North. Please read carefully my post and the linked Washington Post article. My point is about why the South went to war. And, again, see the link I provided, myth 4.

To be clear, for the South this war was principally, mainly, mostly about preserving slavery.

gcbel,

I had a look at your WP "opinion" piece. It had many serious omissions. For example, it stated:

"Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816."

Your opinion piece makes absolutely no mention of the Morrill Tariff Bill, which congress passed in May, 1860. Such an important omission is just plain dishonest, in my opinion.

The Morrill Tariff Bill basically reset conditions close to where they were in the 1820's, when they previously came close to fighting (above, I mistakenly wrote 1928, instead on 1828).

Your opinion piece makes absolutely no mention of the Morrill Tariff Bill, which congress passed in May, 1860. Such an important omission is just plain dishonest, in my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion and it's worth what it's worth. The reason why the Morrill Tarriff Bill isn't mentioned is because it just simply another of those red herrings that the "Lost Cause" advocates grasp at as reason. It's a myth that it was of any significance. The MTB was more a result of Secession than a cause.

Slavery was the principal motivation for the South, fact. The Morrill Tarriff Bill was not.

http://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/

It is a symbol of the war between the states. Important not to forget. Not a white supremist symbol.

Uh, the war was about slavery. Of black people.

Yeah, that's white supremacist all right.

gcbel,

Not only is the Morrill Tariff Bill never mentioned, but the article you referenced stated that the tariff "rates were lower than at any point since 1816." That is pure dishonesty.

Just as when many articles talk about the resurgence of the flag during the civil rights movement, without mentioning the fact that they were approaching the war's centennial, which I believe is the main reason for the flag's resurgence.

I am sure that if anyone looks at all the facts (such as the changes in tariffs over time, who was affected by those tariffs, when the different states and countries got rid of slavery), they will tend to think that slavery was NOT the main reason for the war.

But all you're doing is attack my comments using terms like weasel-worded, red herrings, lost cause, and myth; and then conclude, without any supporting statement, that: "Slavery was the principal motivation for the South, fact. The Morrill Tarriff Bill was not."

I am sure that if anyone looks at all the facts (such as the changes in tariffs over time, who was affected by those tariffs, when the different states and countries got rid of slavery), they will tend to think that slavery was NOT the main reason for the war.

But all you're doing is attack my comments using terms

Whining aside, I have no doubt you're sure of that. It fits your narrative but it doesn't comport with the facts. Slavery was at the heart of it. And I'm certain any objective review of the facts without any preconceived deeply-held attachment to a particular narrative, would find slavery at the very center of the cause of the war, not a trivial secondary cause you seem to making it out to be. Not the only reason mind you, as I said, but certainly not the "excuse" for war you make it to be. You can toss in other grievances, southern honor, conscription (I'm pretty sure my ancestors who fought for the South did so for a number of reasons)

But for argument's sake, even if slavery were not THE main reason for the war, would you say it was a very important secondary reason, or not a reason at all?

http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war

http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Slavery (central) vs. tariffs (not so much)

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

http://blogs.britannica.com/2011/04/slavery-american-civil-war/

So, not the only cause but certainly a primary cause.

Uh, the war was about slavery. Of black people.

Confederates were not shy about that fact. They stated in plainly leading up to and throughout the war.

Here's an important quote from an important man of that time, laying out the Confederate cause for starting the Civil War:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition

Thaddeus Stevens, Vice President of the Confederacy, March, 1861.

The Civil War was about slavery.

@Black Sabbath

So once again we're going to conveniently ignore the nullification crises and the fact that the country nearly came to war decades earlier over a completely separate issue. Slavery was the flash-point in a battle of supremacy between state and federal power. The Civil War has deeper causes than just slavery, just like WWI is more than just 'Archduke got assassinated'. But because thy myth of the Civil War being only due to slavery is convenient to the left, they'll happily teach it to the gullible masses.

@Illyas. Sure, LOL if you say so. Lefty, gullible masses, thing. Vast majority of historians disagree with you, the evidence disagrees with you but I guess the gullible minority might go along.

Illyas

You've mischaracterized the nature of the Nullification Crisis. That was an issue of federalism, and what to do when federal law conflicted with state law. IOW it was a procedural problem on how to resolve to when states and the feds conflicted on substantive issues.

The paramount substantive issue from the mid 1830s onward was slavery.

The Civil War was about slavery, about the South's desire for white supremacy. You ignore that. You ignore the words of the confederates themselves. You ignore the Cornerstone Speech I posted above. If you like, I can post example after example saying the say thing.