Confederacy & Civil War

Discussions on other historical eras.
Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 11 Jun 2003 20:40

R.M. Schultz wrote:
Caldric wrote:You guys are getting Slavery and Civil War mixed up as though North and South went to war over Slavery. That my friend is the biggest myth of the 19th Century... Sorry.


The facts of the matter are clear. The tremendous rise in sectional tensions before the war were over the issue of whether slavery would be allowed to spread. The Mexican War, Bleeding Kansas, Dread Scott, the Fugitive Slave Law, the beating of a Senator in the senate chamber itself, all of this shows that slavery represented an "Irrepressible Conflict." It is plain that, just as the war began when a president pledged against the expansion of slavery was elected, so too did slavery end with the war. It is a pious fraud, used to sanitised the Southern record, that the underlaying cause of sectional conflict wasn't the South's "Peculiar Institution."


Umm wrong. If you think men went to war over slavery you have a lot more confidence in them then I do. Slaves were not freed until war was already raging.

The fraud is the use of Slavery and Civil War to wash ones hands of a dirty history.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 11 Jun 2003 22:35

Caldric wrote:If you think men went to war over slavery you have a lot more confidence in them then I do. Slaves were not freed until war was already raging. The fraud is the use of Slavery and Civil War to wash ones hands of a dirty history.


The facts are plain: the South seceded to protect slavery.

1] It was the election of a president who had vowed not to let slavery spread that sparked the secession.
2] The Confederate constitution was virtually identical to the American constitution except that it explicitly protected slavery.
3] As a senator, Confederate president Jefferson Davis repeatedly threatened secession in the face of what he thought were threats to the South's "Peculiar Institution."
4] Confederate Vice President admitted as much in his famous speech saying that Slavery was the "great truth," "cornerstone," and "foundation" of the Confederacy.
5] After years of racist denial of the importance of slavery in sparking secession, recent historians have at last acknowledged the all pervasiveness of this issue. See Bertram Wyatt-Brown, Don Fehrenbacher, D.W. Brogan and especially the anthology "Myth of the Lost Cause."
6] All other sectional differences (the tariff, internal improvements, the imperialist war with Mexico) derive from the economic consequences of slavery and are thus a posteriori to this issue.

Sure, the average American soldier thought he was fighting for the Union, and sure the average Confederate insurrectionist believed that he was "defending his homeland," but the oligarchy that controlled the South knew full well that that had started the war to protect their "right" to hold chattel slaves.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 11 Jun 2003 22:50

Well we will never agree on that Shultz, it all sounds good and makes the United States look better in history, but fact remains war was about economics and state rights or what the leades assumed were rights.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 12 Jun 2003 03:32

R.M. Schultz wrote:
Germanica wrote:As far as I know the Confederate Flag is flown to exert a feeling of pride in one's Southern heritage, and the only one's who'll see wrong in that are the anti-patriotic, politically correct liberal-left...so yes, I agree with you Scott.

If the Stars and Bars are just an emblem of Southern heritage, and not the banner of racism, then why don't any Negroes fly it?

Not any?

Not ever?

You'll have to ask them what it means to them. It may be different than what it means to Whites. However I don't know if any of them fly the Swedish flag either, but by your logic that would make it a racist flag. Besides, Blacks did fly the Confederate flag as incorporated in the Georgia state flag until recently and I believe another state (can think of which one at the moment) voted to keep their Confederatesque state flag. I guess all those Blacks must have been disfranchized by Jim Crow when they voted in large part to keep it.

Besides, nobody has ever really flown the Stars and Bars since the Civil War. The Confederate Navy Jack was adopted by Confederate war veterans and that is why it symbolizes Southern heritage.
:)

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 12 Jun 2003 03:39

R.M. Schultz wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
R.M. Schultz wrote:That the Confederate Battle Flag is not the flag of slavery / racism / segregation but is somehow an emblem of "Southern heritage."

Of course it is the symbol of Southern heritage, you stupid twit. It did not become a symbol of racism until the Civil Rights era of the 1960s. (And if anybody doesn't like it they can kiss off.)

All of this talk of Southern Heritage and the sacred Battle Flag has got me to thinking: Just what is Southern Heritage?

It is not the Revolution, the Bill of Rights, Patrick Henry, or even slavery itself, for this heritage belongs to all of us as Americans.

I suppose it would be John Calhoun who pushed for secession. It would be Moon Pies and Crispy Creme doughnuts, Jim Crow and Lynch Law, riots at Ole' Miss' when a black man tried to enrol, moon-shine and stock car races, "Niggers who know their place," slave dealers like Nathan Bedford Forrest who are held up as heroes, little girls blown up in Church bombings, literacy tests and poll taxes, a whole body of racist distortions like "Gone With The Wind" and "Birth Of A Nation," and poor whites who are kept so busy "keeping the nigra in his place" that they can never see their own exploitation at the hands of a degenerate oligarchy.

Yes — go and fly your flag of Southern heritage!

You seem to be forgetting that Old Glory was the flag of Slavery until Lincoln made it an issue to beat-up the seceding southern states (after he needed some good propaganda since the war wasn't going so well for the North). The Emancipation also helped him solidify support from the northern radicals at a time when the public was questioning his leadership mid-war. In any case, some of the Northern states were slaveholding and that never changed until the 13th Amerndment, which was passed with the cooperation of the South.

Don't forget to burn the Stars and Stripes while you're at it. It is legal you know.
:)

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 12 Jun 2003 05:34

Scott Smith wrote:
R.M. Schultz wrote:If the Stars and Bars are just an emblem of Southern heritage, and not the banner of racism, then why don't any Negroes fly it? Not any? Not ever?

You'll have to ask them what it means to them. It may be different than what it means to Whites. However I don't know if any of them fly the Swedish flag either, but by your logic that would make it a racist flag.


I doubt that there are any Ameican Negroes of Swedish heritage, so that flag would mean nothing to them. The issue at hand is that most American Negroes are of Southern heritage and they do not accept the "Confederate Navy Jack" as an emblem of that heritage, rather they see it as a symbol of slavery. This is prima facia evidence that this flag is not a neutral symbol, but his freighted with race hatred and ALL men of good will, no matter how attached to their Southern heritage, would chose some other symbol NOT IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED with the revolt of the slaveholders.

Similarly, I am in part of German extraction and I have a "Kaiser Bill" flag hanging in my shop. I WOULD NEVER EVER AT ANY TIME FLY A SWASTICA FLAG! It is disingenuous, it is false, it is morally repugnant to PRETEND that this flag, and the "Confederate Navy Jack" are anything but the flags of racism and hatred to many people around the world. Decent people are cognisant of the symbols they chose. I doubt that the Hopi Indians use their ancient swastikas anymore in their sand paintings because, unlike you, they know that offensive symbols are only used by offensive people.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 12 Jun 2003 05:53

Scott Smith wrote:
R.M. Schultz wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
R.M. Schultz wrote:That the Confederate Battle Flag is not the flag of slavery / racism / segregation but is somehow an emblem of "Southern heritage."

Of course it is the symbol of Southern heritage, you stupid twit. It did not become a symbol of racism until the Civil Rights era of the 1960s. (And if anybody doesn't like it they can kiss off.)

All of this talk of Southern Heritage and the sacred Battle Flag has got me to thinking: Just what is Southern Heritage? It is not the Revolution, the Bill of Rights, Patrick Henry, or even slavery itself, for this heritage belongs to all of us as Americans…

You seem to be forgetting that Old Glory was the flag of Slavery until Lincoln made it an issue to beat-up the seceding southern states …


Are you paying attention?

I just finished saying that our American heritage INCLUDES slavery!

Haven't I said in post after post that, as a patriotic American, I am deeply ashamed of our slave past! That I renounce slavery, racism, lynching, the Confederacy, the internment of Japanese-Americans, our involvement in WW1, the Philippines, and Vietnam. I am ashamed of Jim Crow laws, segregation, the Haymarket Massacre, the House Un-American Activities Committee, Roe v. Wade, both Gulf Wars, the KKK, the Weathermen, and virtually every CIA engineered coup around the world! I love my country, I love its people and their achievements, the first man on the moon, Norman Borlag, George Washington Carver, Henry Wallace, the superheterodyne circuit, the Model-T Ford, "Nutz" at Bastogne, Paul Robeson, William Lloyd Garrison, even Levitown Long Island!

This is a wonderful country and it makes me sick that a lot of racists parade around with their flag of hatred!

Can't we do better?
Last edited by R.M. Schultz on 12 Jun 2003 18:34, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 12 Jun 2003 07:42

R.M. Schultz wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
R.M. Schultz wrote:If the Stars and Bars are just an emblem of Southern heritage, and not the banner of racism, then why don't any Negroes fly it? Not any? Not ever?

You'll have to ask them what it means to them. It may be different than what it means to Whites. However I don't know if any of them fly the Swedish flag either, but by your logic that would make it a racist flag.

I doubt that there are any Ameican Negroes of Swedish heritage, so that flag would mean nothing to them.

Actually, my ex was once married to a Jew (who is a famous film director) and a Swedish Negro. Just thought I'd toss that out.
:D

The issue at hand is that most American Negroes are of Southern heritage and they do not accept the "Confederate Navy Jack" as an emblem of that heritage, rather they see it as a symbol of slavery.

That's because there are few black soldiers from the South and they have been taught to hate the Confederate flag. Malcolm X was not a product of the South but the North with all those enlightened liberal White folks.

This is prima facia evidence that this flag is not a neutral symbol, but his freighted with race hatred and ALL men of good will, no matter how attached to their Southern heritage, would chose some other symbol NOT IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED with the revolt of the slaveholders.

It wasn't a revolt of the slaveholders. The southern states would not accept the election of Lincoln and the high tariff. Their political power was waning and these state Constitutionally seceded from the union. Lincoln refused to vacate federal property in these states and raised an Army to use force.

Similarly, I am in part of German extraction and I have a "Kaiser Bill" flag hanging in my shop. I WOULD NEVER EVER AT ANY TIME FLY A SWASTICA FLAG!

You might if you were a German from the Third Reich era and were not brainwashed by the victors. And certainly so if you were an Axis veteran of WWII. It is hardly democratic to ban political parties like the Nazis and the Communists, even if they do not believe in Democracy. But democratic principles are hypocrisy if applied selectively.

I doubt that the Hopi Indians use their ancient swastikas anymore in their sand paintings because, unlike you, they know that offensive symbols are only used by offensive people.

Thoughtcrime sucks. Here in Arizona the Governor is forcing the name of Squaw Peak to be changed because someone somewhere decided it was sexist. You cannot control what weird people think. As long as there is freedom of expression if someone is offended then that is their problem. Btw, they are going to name the peak after an Indian girl who was killed in GWII. She didn't do anything heroic, unlike thousands of Arizonans who are veterans of real wars but she was in the wrong place at the wrong time and she died and so she is a feel-good symbol. And we need feel-good symbols so that we don't have to think. But real change is wrought with acid upon tablets of phosphorous.
:)

User avatar
Einsamer_Wolf
Member
Posts: 855
Joined: 19 May 2003 06:49
Location: New York, NY

Post by Einsamer_Wolf » 12 Jun 2003 09:19

R.M. Schultz wrote: The issue at hand is that most American Negroes are of Southern heritage and they do not accept the "Confederate Navy Jack" as an emblem of that heritage, rather they see it as a symbol of slavery. This is prima facia evidence that this flag is not a neutral symbol, but his freighted with race hatred and ALL men of good will, no matter how attached to their Southern heritage, would chose some other symbol NOT IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED with the revolt of the slaveholders.



A lawyer in our midst--and lefty, self-described Bolshevik one at that! The problem with your suggestion that a prima facie case that the Confederate ensign is racist because many blacks feel it is is that you presuppose that blacks generally are some authority on what is racist, and what is not--an authority above and beyond other people. However, all too often the black community has proved over-sensitive about things like this. Some factions in the black community have taken especially ridiculous positions on various issues rangign from reparations for slavery some 138 years after it was ended, to affirmative action, to the conspiracy theory some years back that the CIA was deliberately distributing crack cocaine to minority neighborhoods, to overwhelmingly supporting the acquittal of Orenthal Simpson. Frankly, all of this would suggest to me that, at the very least, black leaders are not necessarily a good inditia of what is racist, and what is not. It is interesting to note your subtle racism that suggests that because someone is black, they are a better judge for what is racist, and what is not.
In any case, in undergraduate school, as an English major, I learned in literary theory that symbols in all but the most extreem cases are subjective. I suppose given the Confederates defesne of the institution of slavery that some blakcs and others might regard it as a racist symbol. But I can also assure you that those who don the COnfederate flag do so for historical reasons to honor those rank and file who fought for the South. This rebuts whatever prima facie case you would try to create from the ramblings of "Reverend" Jackson, "Reverend" Sharpton (neither one of whom, as far as I know, went to seminary) and those of similar ilk.

Einsamer Wolf

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 13 Jun 2003 02:11

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:The problem with your suggestion that a prima facie case that the Confederate ensign is racist because many blacks feel it is is that you presuppose that blacks generally are some authority on what is racist, and what is not--an authority above and beyond other people.


Let me put this into a formal logical syllogism:

MAJOR PREMISE: If the Confederate Jack were just the symbol of Southern Heritage, then ALL Southerners would reguard it as such.

MINOR PREMISE: Southern Negroes regard do not regard the Confederate Jack as the symbol of Southern Heritage.

CONCLUSION: Since some Southerners see the Confederate Jack as symbolising something else, then it is not "just" the symbol of Southern Heritage.

I am reminded of how Diego Rivera's wife, Freda, would scandalise parties thrown in their honour in Grosse Pointe mansions. Though she could speak perfect English, she would often throw out the words "shit" and "fuck" and then, when all the ladies at the table were aghast, would ask in all innocence, "What did I say?"

Crackers (and Northern racists too) fly the Confederate flag and then, when accused of racism, spin out all of this crap about "Southern heritage." The difference is, that while Freda Kahlo could fool Grosse Point society matrons with her dirty words, NO ONE IS FOOLED BY THE RACISTS WHO FLY THAT FLAG!

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:In any case, in undergraduate school, as an English major, I learned in literary theory that symbols in all but the most extreme cases are subjective.


Name something more extreme than slavery? Wait, I know — genocide!

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:I suppose given the Confederates defesne of the institution of slavery that some blakcs and others might regard it as a racist symbol.


Case closed.

User avatar
Einsamer_Wolf
Member
Posts: 855
Joined: 19 May 2003 06:49
Location: New York, NY

Post by Einsamer_Wolf » 13 Jun 2003 03:28

R.M. Schultz wrote:
Einsamer_Wolf wrote:The problem with your suggestion that a prima facie case that the Confederate ensign is racist because many blacks feel it is is that you presuppose that blacks generally are some authority on what is racist, and what is not--an authority above and beyond other people.


Let me put this into a formal logical syllogism:

MAJOR PREMISE: If the Confederate Jack were just the symbol of Southern Heritage, then ALL Southerners would reguard it as such.

MINOR PREMISE: Southern Negroes regard do not regard the Confederate Jack as the symbol of Southern Heritage.

CONCLUSION: Since some Southerners see the Confederate Jack as symbolising something else, then it is not "just" the symbol of Southern Heritage.

I am reminded of how Diego Rivera's wife, Freda, would scandalise parties thrown in their honour in Grosse Pointe mansions. Though she could speak perfect English, she would often throw out the words "shit" and "fuck" and then, when all the ladies at the table were aghast, would ask in all innocence, "What did I say?"

Crackers (and Northern racists too) fly the Confederate flag and then, when accused of racism, spin out all of this crap about "Southern heritage." The difference is, that while Freda Kahlo could fool Grosse Point society matrons with her dirty words, NO ONE IS FOOLED BY THE RACISTS WHO FLY THAT FLAG!

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:In any case, in undergraduate school, as an English major, I learned in literary theory that symbols in all but the most extreme cases are subjective.


Name something more extreme than slavery? Wait, I know — genocide!

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:I suppose given the Confederates defesne of the institution of slavery that some blakcs and others might regard it as a racist symbol.


Case closed.


No, the case is not closed. I already indicated how blacks often are overly sensitive about these mattters and positions taken by the black community generally, at least in my view, are erroneous. This, in my eyes, discredits them as some sort of preeminent authority on racism. That is not to say what the blackl communty has to say is irrelevant. it is just that I will not, nor should anyone, take what they say without scrutiny. Actually though, this applies to any group or constiituency. Because I am a Republcian, does that mean I should take what the Washington Times or National Review asserts without critical analysis of my own? No. Why? Because what you are doing was one of the logical error questions I rememver from my LSAT: an illogical appeal to authority, without analyzing the substatntive merits of the argument. Even if blacks were some sort of authority on what is racist and what is not, one cannot conclude that somethign is racist merely because they say so.
Notwithstanding the demonziation of the Confederate Flag, the confederate war ensign is a prominent, if not the most prominent, symbol of souther heritage because the War Between the States was perhaps the defining moment for this region. In any case, as I indicated before, symbols are subjective. To some the confederate ensign may be a symbol of racism, to others not. It is all about what is intended. Same with a Nazi war ensign. For example, a skinhead who dons a nazi war ensign definitely conveys a racist message because he intends to do so. Conversely, a modeller who exhibits a nazi war ensign on a scale model of U boat does not necessarily make a political statemetn by such a display. It is all about the inetnt of the author, the intent of the person who is brandishing the symbol.

EInsamer Wolf

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 13 Jun 2003 03:58

Einsamer_Wolf wrote: To some the confederate ensign may be a symbol of racism, to others not. It is all about what is intended. Same with a Nazi war ensign. For example, a skinhead who dons a nazi war ensign definitely conveys a racist message because he intends to do so. Conversely, a modeller who exhibits a nazi war ensign on a scale model of U boat does not necessarily make a political statemetn by such a display. It is all about the inetnt of the author, the intent of the person who is brandishing the symbol.


The usage of the Confederate Jack by segregationists in the 1960's has set the tone and pattern for its usage ever since. Just as Skinheads use the swastika to associate themselves with Nazi intolerance, so to do Southern racists use the Jack — they just won't admit it.

And your analogy of Skinheads and modeller's is utterly specious. The modeller's use is entirely private, while we are talking about the public use of an inflammatory symbol.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 13 Jun 2003 16:18

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:All I can say about the Confederate ensign is that you are wrong. It is as simple as that. A number of southerners embrace the stars and bars--and yet are not racist. That is the truth of the matter


Damn, wrong again! I is hoomiliated! They fly a flag associated with slavery, segregation, and racism, yet they are not racist! (I guess I am just too provincial to understand this apparent, yet non-existent, contradiction. Forgive me if you can!) I take back all of my compelling logic and yield to you, as you seem to know it all!

User avatar
Einsamer_Wolf
Member
Posts: 855
Joined: 19 May 2003 06:49
Location: New York, NY

Post by Einsamer_Wolf » 13 Jun 2003 16:56

R.M. Schultz wrote:Damn, wrong again! I is hoomiliated! They fly a flag associated with slavery, segregation, and racism, yet they are not racist! (I guess I am just too provincial to understand this apparent, yet non-existent, contradiction. Forgive me if you can!) I take back all of my compelling logic and yield to you, as you seem to know it all!


Compelling to you perhaps, but not to me, I can assure you. Only some associate the Stars and Bars with slavery, segregation, and racism. That association is subjective, and context specific. I readily concede the Confederate can at times operate as symbol of white supremacy, but it does not always do so. Sausseren theories on semantics teach us that any meaning of any signifier is contingent upon its context. In this way, the context in which a symbol--which has multiple meanings--is controlling. Thus, for example, a Confederate Emblem donned at a Ku Klus Klan rally is a racst symbol. But it is NOT a symbol of racism or hate at gatherings at Civil War Museums, cemetaries, or other functions that otherwise acknowledge or celebrate the history of the South in atmosphere that lacks any real, discernible atmosphere of racism. Why is it that someone who purports to be so smart can be so utterly stupid in discerning these subleties? Perhaps because your mind, like most liberal do-gooders, is clouded by left wing dogma that eschews careful consideration of the issues in exchange for mind numbing mantras blindly shouting racism and intolerance.
Finally, as I have indicated several times before, your appeal to authority of black leaders, in an attempt to invalidate any dissent, is flawed not only because it fails to validate such authority through independent analysis, but also because these same constituency groups are shown to espose questionable positions on other issues, like reparations for slavery, affirmative action, the acquittal of Orenthal Simpson, to name just a few matters. If black leaders are wrong on these issues, they may also be wrong on this issue as well, as I am convinced they most assuredly are. No authority is immune from error, but certainly not this one. This important contention, though reiterated several times, has not been refuted.

Einsamer Wolf

User avatar
ckleisch
Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 08:03
Location: Elizabeth City, NC USA

Post by ckleisch » 16 Jun 2003 20:13

I was surprised by the position of the original poster on a case of revisionist history that has been growing within the thread. I purpose that the Abolition of Slavery was not the Union goal in 1941 and I will give you factual history any bonifide researcher can confirm:
Within days after the confederates fired on Fort Sumter, Union military leaders had to decide what to do with slaves who came within their lines.
One week after having been made a major general of US Volunteers Benjamin F Butler offered assurance to Governor Thomas H Hicks of maryland- a state where slavery was legal: "I am anxious to convince all classes of persons that the forces under my command are not here tom interfere with, the laws of the state", he wrote.
In West Virginia Major General George B McClellan addressed an open leter to the men of western Va. "Notwithstanding all that has been said by the traiters among you that our advent amomg you will be signalized by interference with your slaves, understand one thing clearly-not only will we abstain from all such interference but will on the contrary, with an iron hand crush any attempt at insurrection on their part"
at fort monroe va maj general wool reported to US Sec of war Chase he had put runnaway slaves to work building redoubts, railroad and other roads. cameron favored this method of dealing with "all negro men capable of performing labor"
In Kentucky Brig-general William T Sherman heard disturbing news that a Col John Turchin had permitted negro slaves to take refuge in his camp. Sherman ordered under laws of the US and Kentucky that "all negroes shall be delivered up on claim of owner or agent"
A formal ruling on slaves was written by Maj general henry Halleck on 12-26-61: " to prevent any person in the Army from acting in the capacity as negro catcher or negro-stealer. the relation between the slave and his master or pretended master is not a matter to be determined by military officers. One object in keeping fugitive slaves out of our camp is to keep clear of all such questions.

The war started because of a Constitutional and States right issues. It was not until 1862 with the US government failing in its war efforts and a declining enlistment and mounting casualties that slavery was issued to stir the issues.
Documents abound in writing and in bookd penned by the people of the era that support that the war was a States rights issue. i have over 400 pages of these documents. So to have someone say the war was all over Slavery I am sorry is grossly uninformed. And by the way my Confederate flag is flying outside as we speak. Many African-Americans dont even know what it is because the official government flag and the Stars and Bars a Battle flag are two entirely different flags.

Return to “Other eras”