Confederate Flags Belong in Museums Not at Speedways
| February 21st, 2007Apparently, many NASCAR fans have a penchant for Confederate Flags, and some of them are upset about this editorial discouraging people from flying the Confederate Flag at a race at the California Speedway. They decided to come into the newspaper’s website and overwhelm the comments section with all the typical arguments. The same kind of comments I delete from here nearly every day.
Check out a few of the lovely comments. Let’s begin with this racism apologist RT:
We are constantly reading from sports writers like yourself that too many times politics are brought into sports yet here you are starting a debate that doesn’t need to be debated. The fighting of the Civil War was not about slavery but of state’s and man’s freedom to govern themselves. Once that war ended the healing between brothers started and continues. Shame on you for fueling this debate and stick to what you are supposedly paid to do and write about sports. Or better yet, transfer to the commentary section.
What strikes me about RT’s comment is how he decided that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about “man’s freedom to govern themselves.” Geez, I guess he has forgotten that slaves did not have the freedom to govern themselves because they were enslaved. (Grammarphiles I know this is a tautology :)) ) I’m also curious who the healing was with; does he mean between whites in the north and the south? Does he mean whites and blacks? I’m not sure, but this is the classic, “why are you even daring to talk about racism strategy?” Where some racism apologist minimizes racism, pretends to be a neutral/unbiased observer, and subsequently chastises the person acknowledging racism by telling them politely to shut up. Classic colorblind racist strategy.
Next we have GM. Who decides to play the “southern heritage card,” follows it up with nice rant against California, and then argues that he is a college professor who teaches constitutional law.
No, I agree as a proud Southerner who grew up in the shadow of the Darlington raceway and knew many of the early NASCAR drivers that the Confederate flag should not be flown at NASCAR events–in California that is. We would not want the proud symbol of our heritage and coursge in withstanding 142 years of illegal US occupation of our homeland to be smeared by being flown in the most socialist and un-American state in the union. To ignorance we can only say that no slave ship ever flew a Confederate flag. Our ancestors fought for the freedoms that had been written into the Constitution. When Lincoln proposed a Constitutional amendment that would protect slavery if the South would support his tariffs that would have, and did, bankrupt the South, the reponse was that slavery was dead and they would not support him. So please don’t fly our flag. As an educated, non-racist, Southern college professor who teaches American Constitutional history and government, I do not want it desecrated by ignorance Yankees who have no idea what it means.
I love how all of these southern heritage folks very conveniently forget that racism is part of that heritage. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think racism is unique to the south, but this country was built on the blacks of slave labor (I caught this typo and decided not to change it because it is just too ironic-the word is supposed to be backs.). The Confederacy was organized, in part, to uphold the state’s rights’ to retain slavery. If this guy has a PhD, I would hope that he had learned this in his history classes.
Next we have LDT, who can’t find anything “racist and regressive” about the south. In fact, I think LDT is still fighting the Civil War.
Lincoln fought against the constitution of the United States and everything that the U S stood for. He began the striping of power from the people that is so obvious today. He also did away with the only power that the people and that States had to keep the federal government within the constitution and that was the right of secession!
I wonder what LDT thinks about the Iraq War. Ok, sorry…I just thought the Civil War was over.
Next up is the classic “you are the real bigots strategy.” It is first used by a poster with the initials HBO, but then Charles comes in to save the day for the “you are the real bigots” racists.
Why is OK for blacks and other minorities to display pride in their heritage but when whites (especially southern whites)display pride or even indicate that they are proud of their heritage, they are immediately labeled racist and insensitive to others? This double standard has got to stop. If you are offended you have every right to leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay. If someone were to found a White Coaches Association or a National Association for the Advancement of White People you can bet Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have a field day with the ensuing media circus. NASCAR’s roots aren’t in the north or the west or the east, it was started in the south and people should be proud of their heritage. There was a time when you weren’t anybody in NASCAR unless you had some “shine” in your background.
If you only knew, how many times I hear this crap. The NAACP was founded for the same reasons as the Confederacy? Well let’s investigate this. You can find more about the origins of the NAACP here, but I would just like to highlight this quote:
The NAACP was formed in response to the 1908 race riot in Springfield, capital of Illinois and birthplace of President Abraham Lincoln. Appalled at the violence that was committed against blacks, a group of white liberals that included Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard, both the descendants of abolitionists, issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice. Some 60 people, only 7 of whom were African American (including W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, and Mary Church Terrell), signed the call, which was released on the centennial of Lincoln’s birth. Echoing the focus of Du Bois’s militant all-black Niagara Movement, the NAACP’s stated goal was to secure for all people the rights guaranteed in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution, which promised an end to slavery, the equal protection of the law, and universal adult male suffrage, respectively.
Gasp!!!! The NAACP was founded by white people, gasp again!!! I guess they were race traitors, sell-outs, or anti-white bigots because giving black people their rights under the law obviously means taking rights away from white people. Especially, their right to own slaves and fly the confederate flag. (Yes, I know I’m being unusually sarcastic and snarky, but how else do you respond to these people.)
Then, we have the “I know a black man who supports the Confederate Flag” argument. Because if we can find one Black person who supports this, then it must be Ok. This guy doesn’t realize it works better when the one black guy you cite is also your friend, but I digress. Let’s get to the quote from LF:
We’ve been through this many times before: hate groups have no right to define the meaning of the Confederate flag. The flag means different things to different people. I have even heard that a black man said that he wanted to kiss this flag because it reminded him that he is probably much better off in the USA than he would have been in Africa. The Civil War is by far the greatest legend of American folklore. Without Confederate flags, America would not look like America anymore. These attacks on Confederate flags are cultural genocide. To me, the flag has little or no present-day political or social significance. I see the flag as a fun thing and also as a symbol of the South, peace, tolerance, and national unity. When we fight over this flag, we set a very poor example for places where civil wars are still going on, like Northern Ireland. Also, censorship and attempted censorship of Confederate flags impair objectivity in the interpretation of history concerning the Confederacy.
I’m not even going to bother with the rest of the argument, but I have to admit that it is rather hilarious to bring up genocide. Dude why don’t you go talk to some American Indians about genocide. Now that’s a real genocide. Plus, doesn’t genocide involve mass killings. When was the last time white southerners were killed in mass, and don’t use the Civil War because nobody was fighting to kill off white southerners. The fight was over maintaining the Union. And last but not least, you have to ask yourself why the KKK and other hate groups so love the confederate flag. Which came first the KKK or the Confederate flag?
Ok, this guy GL just can’t judge time properly, and he uses the “I know a black man who supports the Confederate Flag” argument, so I had to throw him into the mix for a good laugh.
The Rebel Flag is not a hate symbol, racist, It has nothing to do with that this is all opinion not fact because it happened almost 2000 years ago and you people who want to ban it from sports and everything need to get over it! I can give you millions of people who will play sports with the rebel flag flying above and most people can and will do it because it is a flag not a hate and racist symbol. I know Cowboy Troy played with charlie Daniels with the flag draped behind them and Cowboy Troy is black too and the guy who played Sherrif Little on the dukes goes to dukesfest every year and signs General Lee’s with the flag on top and I know a black man in one of the carolina’s also had the flag on a pole and walked up and down a Highway and proved the flag does not and will never stand for racism and a lot of black people fought for that flag wether you wanna believe it or not. So leave our flag alone dang you people!
If these folks don’t think the flag is offensive and it is about southern pride, not white supremacy, can somebody please tell me why they always have to find somebody black to back them up? However, I am very happy to learn that the US has been around for well over 2000 years!
Now if all else fails and you can’t convince them that the Confederate flag is not a symbol of hate, you can always blame the Jews like JM:
Any sign of white racial consciousness and racial solidarity is deemed “hate,” “racism,” — evil-ism by egalitarianists, and pretend-egalitarianists, (with 99.9% of the politically correct in the latter). While Jews and nonwhites are encouraged to be racially conscious, to organize along racial lines, to appoint racially defined leaders, and to discriminate when it serves their ethnic interests — whites are punished for showing just a hint of racial aggression. Why do you think that where Jews live as a majority, Israel, they aggressively, sometimes violently promote the interests of the majority. Where Jews live as a minority, they aggressively, sometimes violently, promote the interests of minorities.
Racists, you gotta love ‘em. It doesn’t matter what the subject most of their arguments are the same–ignore the topic at hand, chastise the person willing to acknowledge racism, deny/minimize the existence of racism in the past or present, say your opponents are the real bigots, look for a lone person of color to support you, and blame the Jews.
Before we get to the comments, I would like to admonish people to stay away from shameless NASCAR or southerner jokes. The problem isn’t auto racing or southerners; it is racism. While there may indeed be survey data that suggests racial prejudice is higher among white southerners, they are by no means alone in using these arguments. There are also many white southerners who are on the side of racial progress, and many northerners who are not; let’s not turn this thread into an excuse to make blanket generalizations about southern folks. These kind of arguments come up every time the subject is racism.
Footnote: Several of these people put their first and last names. I am not reprinting their names in their entirty because I don’t want them Googling themselves and trolling around this site. I am not trying to protect their identities, and if you want to see their names, you can click on the link to the article.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:50 am
God- I just read the article, and I have to say my favorite was the guy going on about “The War of Northern Agression.”
I mean, it’s like wearing a white sheet over your head and insisting that since you’ve decided that it means you like Jell-o or something ridiculous, that people shouldn’t feel offended by it. I mean, the swastika used to be a symbol of peace- once upon a time- it doesn’t mean that now- so if someone were to fly a giant flag at a sports event, I’m pretty sure it might upset some people, even if they insisted that, to them, it didn’t mean that.
Frankly, I wish these people who consider themselves “Confederates” would just secede again and get it over with, and stop annoying others.
This comment was written by Miss Robyn.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
[...] read more… [...]
This comment was written by Jokes Blog Search » Blog Archive » Confederate Flags Belong in Museums Not at Speedways.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
This country was built on the backs of slave labor? Honestly, how much lower do you think our per-capita GDP would be today if we’d never had slavery?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Frankly, I wish these people who consider themselves “Confederates” would just secede again and get it over with, and stop annoying others.
They already tried. You shot at them until they stopped. This has created the perception that such a move is not, in fact, welcome. ;)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I was just amazed at finding these sentences so close to each other:
“Without Confederate flags, America would not look like America anymore.”
and
“To me, the flag has little or no present-day political or social significance. ”
How does that make any sense at all?
This comment was written by Barbara P.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
You know, maybe we should let them separate. Is there any other better way to let them see for themselves how unsustainable their economy and way of life is?
This comment was written by Mackenzie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Either let them separate, or let my own “most socialist and Un-American” state go *its* own way. New England and the metropolitan Mid-Atlantic can come too, I suppose, but they’d have to detach and come down here where the weather’s sensible. Yes, we’d probably be easier to split off, what with the fault lines and all, but if it snowed regularly in San Diego I would become annoyed.
This comment was written by The Stranger.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Brandon Berg -
Who the hell knows? Quite possibly it would be higher. It sure would be distributed a lot differently. I think Rachel was just stating the obvious reality, not endorsing that reality for having been the best of all possible foundations for our ecconomy.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Count me in as a liberal southern ex-patriot neo-confederate. I call it the Let’s Help ‘Em Pack” movement.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
The Stranger - you’d better take Oregon with you, too. Nothin’ but us pinko hippies up here anyway.
And I know it’s really pointless to pull any particular dumb statement out of the mess of quoted stupidity, but this just especially irked me:
Could someone please show that guy a newspaper from the last twelve years or so?
This comment was written by defenestrated (/trillian).Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Actually, the Civil War was about “states’ rights” - the Constitutional principle that States and the people should retain all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government. However, the problem was that one of the rights that the States involved asserted was the power to keep slavery legal, despite both the humanitarian horror that it comprised and the economic disaster that it brought on for 98% of the population. No government rightfully has such power.
The defenders of the Confederacy would have you believe that one of the main reasons for the start of hostilities was an unfair tariff and taxation structure that kept the supplier of raw materials such as cotton, etc (i.e., the South) subservient to the industrialized North. But if they had abandoned slavery, the former slaves, getting to keep the fruits of their labor, would have raised the economic power and position of the South. Of course, that would have raised their social standing and political power as well, and would have depressed the standing and power of the people who occupied the top of the pyramid at the time. Neither result suited those in charge in the South at that time. They just couldn’t see, or couldn’t bear to face, that the change was inevitable. Even if the Civil War hadn’t come, how long would the black population have gone on before open revolt?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Also, censorship and attempted censorship of Confederate flags
Which no one is proposing, unless there’s a suggestion to make the display of Confederate flags illegal that I missed.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Well, as a southerner and a Native American, I really dont have a problem with the confederate flag. It protests political dominance (which still happens to this day..there’s a reason southern states are so damn poor and it isnt because we arent self sustainable. We actually are.) especially after the way the north thought it would be a good idea to come in after the war and burn everything in sight and rape any female who couldnt get away fast enough, while pretending to have ended slavery out of a noble belief rather than simply just not needing slaves anymore. The north didnt abolish slavery because it was a good thing to do. Slaves were disposable and the idea was to ship them all back. Northern inability to acknowledge that is another motivation behind the confederate flag. That and their insistance at stereotyping southerners as stupid racist backwoods rednecks. The only time people give a shit about the south is when a hurricane hits. And the norths track record against my own people leaves me rolling my eyes when they get all high and mighty about human rights. Trail of Tears ring a bell?
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
And point of fact, immediately after the war it was illegal to fly the confederate flag. Attempting to strip people of their culture and heritage generally results in defiance.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
MacKenzie writes: You know, maybe we should let them separate. Is there any other better way to let them see for themselves how unsustainable their economy and way of life is?
And Pheeno responds: …there’s a reason southern states are so damn poor and it isnt because we arent self sustainable. We actually are.
There’s no such thing as a self-sustainable country anymore. Every country trades. If the South and the North US split today, the South’s economy would be sustainable because they’d trade for what they need; not because they’re self-sustainable.
Pheeno, in the end, I think what matters isn’t s0 much why people do things as what they do. You’re right that the North didn’t abolish slavery only because it was the right thing to do; but for many in the North, abolishing slavery simply because it was immoral was important. The abolitionists aren’t a part of history that should be whitewashed away to make Southerners feel better.
The simplistic “the North was comprised of saints who cared only for freeing slaves” narrative is overly-simplistic garbage. But the opposing “the North was comprised of demons who didn’t give a damn about the slaves and victimized the poor, innocent South” narrative — which you haven’t quite endorsed here, but you’ve certainly veered close — is likewise overly-simplistic garbage.
By the way, no one here has claimed that Northerners are free of racism, currently or at any earlier time in history. So you’re mostly attacking a straw man.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
pheeno -
The reason the North ended slavery was that democracy for poor white men took hold there better than in the South, and they realized that the slavery of blacks was against their own ecconomic interests: there is no way to get a fair wage when you are competing against slave labor. This is not a “sytems” answer; it is the explicit reason the abolishonist movement went mainstream. This was called the “Free Labor” movement. Lincoln was a moderate free labor supporter known as a “Free Soiler”, meaning he opposed extending slavery to new states so poor whites could move there and earn fair wages.
I agree that Northern refusal to acknowledge its own racism was catestophic. Reconstruction failed, imo, due to the failure of the U.S. to impose it on the North as well as the South.
It is also true that there is horible stereotyping of Southerners. However one unfortunate result of the stereotyping is that Southern whites define themselves by these very stereotypes and often try to live up to them.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Since the Jews have been dragged into this for some reason, can anyone explain to me why it is that whenever Europeans or their descendants go off the rails they become, in addition to anything else, anti-Semitic? It doesn’t seem to matter what rails they went off or in what direction.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
My theory is that the Jews survived in Christian Europe by filling the niche of doing things that society needed but that had for one reason or another had been condemned, essentially setting the Jews up to be the needed scapegoats for everything. Take the greedy moneylender thing. The medievel church had pronounced ALL interest to be usuary and Christians who charged interest could be tried in church courts. But how could the European ecconomy survive without credit, and who is going to lend money for free? So the few Jews who had extra cash and were not allowed to invest in “honest” businesses became moneylenders. So many Christians only interacted with Jews when they needed to borrow money, and, shockingly, many of these moneylenders seemed a bit greedy. Jews also did a lot of the medical autopsies in Medievel Europe because this was “unclean” work. I suspect a similar dymanic was at work regarding records showing Jewish names as slave traders. Christians needed dirty work done by someone they could scapegoat, and Jews needed to survive. I think this tendency to blame the Jews for everything has just survived then for centuries like many stereotypes.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“Pheeno, in the end, I think what matters isn’t s0 much why people do things as what they do. You’re right that the North didn’t abolish slavery only because it was the right thing to do; but for many in the North, abolishing slavery simply because it was immoral was important. The abolitionists aren’t a part of history that should be whitewashed away to make Southerners feel better.”
Um, abolisionists existed in the South as well. Abolitionists weren’t the motivator behind the civil war. Lincoln wasn’t one, btw. In fact, many abolistionists didnt like him and didnt consider him anti slavery. Lincoln never mentioned slavery until 1854, so this whole “we wanted to end slavery, those racist Southerners didnt and thats *all* the war was over” is inaccurate. The truth shouldnt be whitewashed to make people in the North feel self righteous and smug.
Abolishing slavery because it was *important* is a horse of a different color, and both northerners and southerners contributed to that. But for some reason, whenever the civil war gets discussed and abolition is brought up, it becomes glaringly one sided.
“By the way, no one here has claimed that Northerners are free of racism, currently or at any earlier time in history. So you’re mostly attacking a straw man. ”
That claim is pretty implicit in statements such as ” let them separate, we’ll help them pack! hawhaw”. Really? And does this extend to the *numerous* Sundown Towns one finds in the North as well? Somehow I think thats conveniently forgotten when this subject comes up.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
“It is also true that there is horible stereotyping of Southerners. However one unfortunate result of the stereotyping is that Southern whites define themselves by these very stereotypes and often try to live up to them. ”
That sounds an awful lot like racist apologists saying black people define themselves by ghetto rapper steretotypes and try to live up to them. Which is a passive way of saying ” its only a stereotype because its true”.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Since Lincoln explicitly said that he didn’t want to free the slaves (and the Emancipation Proclimation came late in the war), there is evidence to back the claim that the confederate flag isn’t about slavery. And since the North is every bit as racist as the South (and sometimes more segregated), um, well, might the NASCAR people have something of a point?
Ok, yeah, symbols change meanings over time, and the Confederate flag has come to represent racism to many. But some of southerners complaints about being unfairly picked on ring true.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
“There’s no such thing as a self-sustainable country anymore. Every country trades. If the South and the North US split today, the South’s economy would be sustainable because they’d trade for what they need; not because they’re self-sustainable.”
My point (which wasnt made very well, sorry) is this
The south wouldnt crumble and fall to dust because we’re no longer part of the whole, anymore than the north would just cease to function if the south seceeded. So the whole quite childish attitude of ” let them leave and see what happens” type of comments is just..well…stupid.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Lincoln specifically exempted most areas occupied by federal troops in the Emancipation Proclomation…essentially the slave states. Those slave states not in rebellion ( mostly Union states) weren’t ordered to free any slaves.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Oh and just to let people know
I personally have no problem with the flag, but I am in no way suggesting other people cannot or should not have differing opinions on that.
My only problem is the stereotype the slave owning racist southerns bandwagon that never fails to drive by and aquire passengers.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Actually, economically speaking, the North was dependant on the South. Industrialization was based on looms. The North needed the South to have a source of cotton under it’s control. This was very much an issue at the time and is a big part of the reason we had gotten into a war with Mexico shortly before that. We wanted Texas’ cotton. the North wanted to keep the south around to exploit them and to maintain it’s industrialization. Remember that escaped slaved had to go to Canada because the North was happy to send them back to the plantations.
That said, the thing that was exceptional about John Brown wasn’t the degree of violence, but the side he was on. Abolitionists and others were routinely brutally murdered. Southern Gentlemen were often exceedingly violent when enforcing hegemony. Which is to be expected given that they owned other human beings.
Tangentally, places I’ve been surprised to see Confederate flags include a bar in Connecticut (um, weren’t y’all fighting on the other side?) and in Paris, France. Jack Daniels sells Confederate flag decorations in Europe. Given what that flag has come to mean for many (or most) Americans, it was extremely surprising to see it plastered on Parisian vehicles. I imagined a German company using it’s defeated war flag to advertise products overseas.
Anyway, if people want to use the confederate flag in a non-racist manner, they should come up with some way to specifically re-contextualize it as non-racist.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 7:01 pm
The right that the south really wanted to protect was the right to own slaves.
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm
They didn’t want to give up slavery and realized they might have to do so as part of the union.
From what I’ve read on Lincoln I think he would have liked to end slavery. He personally didn’t like it. But he wasn’t motivated enough to do it. He had a pretty hard line to walk. There was a lot of racism on both sides and he was trying to win a critical civil war. Everything he did after the start of the war was focused on winning the war. He made that very clear on a number of occasions.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 7:19 pm
He personally didnt like it? Doesnt explain why he defended a slave owner over a runaway slave.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 7:23 pm
If nothing else, the Confederate flag represents treason. Shouldn’t that be enough to not fly it?
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Is it treason to resist an act that violates the constitution?
Lincoln invaded the South without the consent of Congress, declared martial law, blockaded Southern ports without a declaration of war, illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; imprisoned without trial thousands of anti-war protesters, including hundreds of newspaper editors and owners; censored all newspaper and telegraph communication ect ect.
Replace Lincoln with Bush and imagine.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Kind of related, though not directly, FEMA is using its funds that are supposed to allocated to the rebuilding of Katrina vitcim’s homes and community to rebuild a confederates house, a historical landmark apparently. I find it a bit ironic that much of this money would go to disenfranchized people, many poor, many of color, and yet they have still found a way to divert it to white people, and more so, a white person who was mostly certainly a racist.
“The retirement home of Confederate Pres. Jefferson Davis, tattered by Hurricane Katrina, is about to get a facelift, and US taxpayers will be paying for most of it. While countless blacks remain displaced after the 2005 storm season battered the Gulf Coast, $4 million will be spent to preserve just one home of a long-deceased slave owner and slavery defender. Three-quarters of that cost will be footed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, faulted for its continuing failure to meet the needs of Hurricane survivors.” AP.
This comment was written by Dylan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Pardon my citation, it is wrong. That direct quote is from The Daily Standard, and was their critique after reading the article from AP.
This comment was written by Dylan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Of course they did. But the abolitionist movement was larger in the North, while violence against abolitionists was a larger problem in the South.
The issue of slavery — which was kept on the front burner partly by abolitionist activism — was one of the major motivators behind the civil war.
I know. In many ways, Lincoln was an asshole, and from a lefty perspective there are enourmous reasons to be unhappy with his presidency. So what? That Lincoln was often a scumbag doesn’t change the fact that the white Southern leadership class was also comprised of scumbags.
Actually, whenever I fantasize about the South going its own way, what I think of is things like no more President Bush and single-payer health care and reasonable union-formation rights and stuff like that. In other words, I like to fantasize about living under a less right-wing government. And although certainly not all southerners are right-wingers, there are a lot more right-wing voters in the South than in the North; President Bush would not have been electable without the Southern vote, for instance.
Again, I doubt that anyone here would deny that racism is a big problem in the Northern states. Try letting go of your stereotypes about Northerners for a moment, please.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 11:18 pm
What makes the confederate flag a symbol of racism and slavery is that the leadership of the confederacy was explicitly dedicated to preserving and defending a system of racist slavery. That Lincoln was also a scumbag in many ways doesn’t magically absolve the Confederacy of being pro-slavery.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 21st, 2007 at 11:55 pm
What makes the confederate flag a racist symbol is that the confederate flag was resurrected from obscurity in the 1950s by avowed racist southerners. The question of what the Confederacy was actually fighting for in the Civil War is largely irrelevant (they were fighting to preserve slavery, but it isn’t relevant to why some Southern whites like to fly the Confederate flag).
For plenty of white Southerners, the recent racist history of the Confederate flag has become blurred into a general positive association with Southern culture (and with the absurd white Southern sense of oppression).
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:39 am
“Of course they did. But the abolitionist movement was larger in the North, while violence against abolitionists was a larger problem in the South. ”
Yes it was. They were fighting for their own livlihood and what they percieved as a major threat to being able to make a living. After being illegally invaded by their own country’s military.
“The issue of slavery — which was kept on the front burner partly by abolitionist activism — was one of the major motivators behind the civil war.”
Major? Hardly. Not by those in charge at any rate.
“I know. In many ways, Lincoln was an asshole, and from a lefty perspective there are enourmous reasons to be unhappy with his presidency. So what? That Lincoln was often a scumbag doesn’t change the fact that the white Southern leadership class was also comprised of scumbags.”
So the leader of the country was not interested in freeing slaves anymore than the southern leaders were. Ship them all back to Africa was his lovely little compromise. He took advantage of a semi popular movement to gain more support.
“Actually, whenever I fantasize about the South going its own way, what I think of is things like no more President Bush ”
Thats funny, considering he was born in the north. The south going its own way would have meant we’d have never had him for a governor and he could have remained your problem.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:40 am
“What makes the confederate flag a racist symbol is that the confederate flag was resurrected from obscurity in the 1950s by avowed racist southerners. ”
It was around long before that.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:46 am
Pheno,
I haven’t read entirely upthread, just the last few comments so keep that in mind.
Are you seriously arguing that the confederate flag is not racist and there’s absolutely no problem with NASCAAR endorsing its use?
Because, isn’t that the topic at hand? I thought only white supremicists argued that the confederate flag was about “southern pride” and not racism.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:08 am
Pheeno,
You’re right, the north was racist. In the Boston and New York are this manifested as anti-Irish discrimination (among other things). The union was NOT made up of good progressive people. But at least most of the people there didn’t want to buy and sell blacks like livestock.
But all of your points just skirt around the fact that the south wanted to leave the union to preserve the institution of slavery. Prior to the election of Lincoln the country was increasingly divided about the issue. Whether the USA would continue as a slave holding country or not was THE key question. The answer was being determined by whether or not new territories would enter the union as slave or free states. The argument that the succession was about rights just obfuscates the issue. The right in question was the right to buy and sell black people as property. They left the union to preserve that right. They left the union to preserve the right to buy and sell human beings. That’s what the battle flag of the confederacy represented. (I posted a link upthread to a comparison of the US constitution to the CSA constitution. take a look.)
But I think this is academic. Most people who like this flag aren’t having a historical debate. I think for them it’s cultural.
I think it’s because they don’t view themselves as part of a privileged class. It’s hard to get the standard of living they want doing what they want to do. So they struggle. And they’re told by the cultural elite that their demographic is responsible for a lot of bad things. And they feel that their culture is under attack. It used to be normal to be a white Christian. Now when they go to the store everyone doesn’t automatically acknowledge their religious holiday. They used to be able to put a temporary religious display in the center of town. They remember it from when they were kids. Now they can’t. So they want to take pride in who and what they are. This gives them a way to do that. They don’t intend it to be offensive or racist. So they don’t think it is.
But I think the history debate is just as interesting.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:33 am
I am a white southerner living in the north for 8 years.
Despite what they still teach in public schools in the south, the Civil War was not The War of Northern Agression, and the Civil War was about slavery. Please read DuBois on this question, it is very convincing.
However, Pheeno, you are right that the issue was not the humanitarian aspects of slavery which concerned the North’s industrial capitalists, nor, for the most part, its white working class who opposed the spread and in many instances the continued existance of slavery. it was the economic ramifciations of slavery which were under dispute in the civil war.
I will also grant you, though, that you are not alone among southerners who insist that the flag is not about racism, but about resistance to economic and political domination. That is in one sense true; the civil war was not about racism, exactly, since all parties were pretty much racism. Slavery on the other hand, was very fundamentally about racism. This is widely recognized by all but the very extreme right wing in this country.
Thats why if the civil war was about economic relationships structured by the existence of chattel slavery in the south, there confederate flag since the at least the 1950’s connotes a kind of insurgent racism in contemporary politics.
You aren’t by the way from southern LA, are you? I met a bunch of self-id’ed Native Americans there who took your same position on the confederate flag. The arguement that convinced them a bit on this issue boiled down to “ok, but what about the fact that black people who see you with this tattoo/liscense plate/t-shirt/bumbersticker see it as a racist attack directed at them, which you dont want, and which you can’t explain to each and every person, and even if you could, you are unlikely to change their mind. cant we come up with some other symbol of pride and resistance that doesnt have all this baggage?”
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 am
ok terrible with the typos but hopefuly you get my drift
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:53 am
I don’t have a problem with the idea that Confederate flag is a racist symbol. I do have a problem with the assumption that all those who wave the flag are closet (or open) racists. We might think phrases like “the war of Northern Aggression” are hooey, but they’re often taken very seriously by the folks who use them. The number of intelligent, kind, thoughful people who continue to believe that this war was primarily a struggle for self-determination between a rapidly industrializing north and a still agrarian, feudal south is surprisingly high. Some of them are racists, some aren’t. Like any flag, that of the Confederacy can be used to symbolize many things.
In my California high school, the Confederate flag symbolized a kind of working class white rebellion against authority. The kids who had the decals on the backs of their Fords and Chevys belonged to a clique of tobacco chewin’, hat wearin’, denim-clad youngsters who saw the Stars and Bars as astatement of working class pride. In my all-white high school, it wasn’t about race — but about class. It differentiated them from the Lacoste and Ocean Pacific clad upper-middle class kids. No one was consciously thinking of the race implications.
The best argument against flying the flag is that it causes deep injury and offense. Whether the flag ought to cause offense isn’t as relevant as the fact that it does. The banner’s history is less the issue than the hurt it still apparently inflicts.
This comment was written by Hugo Schwyzer.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:23 am
Since my husband’s family had forebears who actually served in the army of the CSA, I learned fast that there really are people who are nuts about preserving their own history, whether it’s that of their family or their region. I’ll bet you’ve never heard of Colonel Dahlgren, the murder of James Fleet and the plot to assassinate Jefferson Davis, but I know the story in some detail, and it’s interesting and generally a good thing that it will be preserved. I’m okay with this kind of fascination, but the overwhelming majority of those who promote the use of the Confederate flag do it either as a general show of rebellious tendencies or a screw you to Yankee “elitists” (especially the latter — I mean, Southerners are acutely aware of the fact that a lot of Northerners look down on them, and The Flag is sort of a substitute for other choice gestures that are too rude to be made in the presence of women and children). And yes, it’s also a tacit assertion of privilege over African Americans — if for no other reason than it states, quite clearly, that they don’t care what African Americans think about the matter. I assure you it would be considered rude by the same peopole to use language or symbols that offended Christian or female sensibilities.
In short, real Civil War buffs use the flag only in context (and probably find it too boring to display their usually in-depth knowledge of all things Union and CSA — my father in law once ran into a Civil War re-enactor in Taunton, England who knew more about the confederacy than he did, which is seriously weird). Everyone else has an agenda. And really, the complaints should be directed, as always, at advertisers and sponsors. Those flags will come down real quick if, for instance, Honda and Ford tell their teams that they won’t place their marks on cars with teams that use the flag anywhere — and the distancing will spread over time to include official displays by race courses.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:52 am
This is one respectable analysis of the War Between the States, one which no good scholarly treatise could ignore.
However, any use of the word “primarily” in this context is problematic. The War Between the States was a very complex event, sort of an historic “perfect storm” in which a number of very different factors came together to make one giant catastrophe from which we have yet to fully recover.
That said, no respectable analysis can ignore the enormously important factor of bond slavery. Northerners were of course by no means as virtuous on this matter as they imagined themselves, but the fact remains that abolitionists and their sympathizers had a tremendous impact in bringing this conflict to open violence. And it is also true that a great number of Northerners who were not themselves abolitionists were nevertheless very uncomfortable with slavery. Abraham Lincoln was one of them, as any fair-minded review of his speeches (ALL of them, not just a selected few) will reveal.
And there is simply no painting over the fact that the “charming” “feudal” “agrarian” culture of the Southern states was built on the brutality of slavery, that anyone who voiced any misgivings about the “Peculiar Institution” south of the line was liable to ostracism and worse in the years before the war, and that the privileged whites of that region were prepared to fight to the death for, among other things, the right to hold other human beings in bondage. The flag under which they fought meant a great number of different things at the time, and means a great number of different things now, but there is no responsible way of separating it entirely from the fight to maintain slavery.
When the descendants of those slaves take offense at that flag, they have good reason for it. When whites wave that flag around, they know very well that a defense of slavery is inextricably entangled in that action.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
“Are you seriously arguing that the confederate flag is not racist and there’s absolutely no problem with NASCAAR endorsing its use? ”
No, I’m not. As another poster has since written though, not everyone who has a confederate flag is a racist who supports the ideas of slavery or racial oppression.
It doesn’t mean the same thing to all southerners, and those that are NOT racist shouldn’t have their beliefs invalidated by those that are. And I take issue with the implications that never fail to rear their heads when this discussion comes up. Stereotyping an entire region weakens any arguement against using the confederate flag. If you (general use of you here) have to resort to stereotypes of southerners then your arguement seems biased and shows an ignorance of an entire region of people.
The southern states are among the poorest in this country and when the wealthiest start dictating how the poorer population MUST feel about a flag, there’s a problem. There’s an inherant dismissive attitude and wilful ignorance many people display towards southerners, and an unwillingness to learn about the people’s beliefs surrounding the flag. You may not agree, but your disagreement doesn’t make their beliefs secretly motivated by racism. If someone says that to them, that flag is a symbol of something other than racism, your agreement isnt needed to validate it or make it accurate.
And for those that insist its always racist, then the American flag is a symbol of deportation, since that was the ultimate goal and can never mean anything else.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
In my opinion it is in fact (historically and into the present) very difficult to seperate this from racism either explicit or implcit. Its not that I am not sympathetic to the oppression of white working class people or that I dont believe that they have legit complaints wrt economic oppression (the organizing Ive done has been largely among such folk, and I come from a union family from Texas) but when the rebellious attitude is a badge of white identity and especially when it includes a confederate flag, racism of all sorts is part and parcel.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
“But all of your points just skirt around the fact that the south wanted to leave the union to preserve the institution of slavery.”
That was one reason out of many. The most unjustifiable and repugnant reason, but still not the sole reason.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
“Yeah, we’ll just forget about all those people — it’s so much easier to paint them all with one broad stroke based on the intentions of a few. Just so long as we don’t do that to Southerners, right? ”
Yup. Thats exactly what I said and meant. Thank you so much for informing the ignorant native american woman about injustice and womens rights.
Whatever would I have done without you? I might have gone through life as a half breed and never known it!
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
“I thought only white supremicists argued that the confederate flag was about “southern pride” and not racism. ”
When you base your thoughts on stereotypes, that can happen.
I’m not white and certainly dont fall into a white supremacist category.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
“You aren’t by the way from southern LA, are you? I met a bunch of self-id’ed Native Americans there who took your same position on the confederate flag. The arguement that convinced them a bit on this issue boiled down to “ok, but what about the fact that black people who see you with this tattoo/liscense plate/t-shirt/bumbersticker see it as a racist attack directed at them, which you dont want, and which you can’t explain to each and every person, and even if you could, you are unlikely to change their mind. cant we come up with some other symbol of pride and resistance that doesnt have all this baggage?” ”
My counter to that (and no Im not from there) is
Great. Find another symbol for the american flag, unless you’d like a detailed explaination of what *I* percieve when I see it. And it doesnt conjure up images of abolistionists. It conjures up images of invaders happily murdering my people in the most cowardly manners possible.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
That goes for the eagle too…and dont even get me started on Mt Rushmore. Carving our murders faces into our sacred lands. Nice.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
sure, I agree with you about the American flag. No argument from me there.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
They used to be able to put a temporary religious display in the center of town. They remember it from when they were kids. Now they can’t.
IIRC, the First Amendment is not interpreted to bar a municipality from setting up a creche in the center of town, as long as they give equal access to other faith groups in town to do similar things during their holidays.
Oh, I would not at all be surprised to find that the reason why a lot of people display the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism, and a lot to do with the idea that it pisses liberals off. Not that I’m going to be using the Stars and Bars for that or any other purpose.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Its actually a good comparison though–I might be pro-American revolution, but I could recognize that the American flag represents not only that revolution but also jackson’s campaigns against native americans right through the vietnam war, and that if I run around with a US flag on my hat, its not up to me how my vietnamese neighbors interpret it. In fact, i might recognize that there are intellectual and historical connections between the revolution itself and the crimes represented in the flag.
ditch the stars and bars. It maybe an emotional sticking point, but your defense of it doesn’t mesh with your other comments on this blog w/r/t racism.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
So you’re saying that it isn’t racist if the people using it don’t intend it to be racist?
I suppose…But can’t that argument be used to excuse just about anything? Theme parties for instance to pick a recent topic.
It was the main reason.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Pheeno wrote:
This rebuttal to Bean only holds water if we assume that if someone points out history your post didn’t acknowlege, they must be doing it to condescend to you, because they are racist. I don’t think that’s a fair assumption to make.
This implies that Bean called you a “half breed” or in some other way made a derogatory comment about your ancestry. She did not, and for you to imply otherwise is dishonest.
Please read the moderation policies , and attempt to be more civil in your approach to dialog on “Alas” from now on. Thanks.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:11 pm
pheeno, the eagle has been used by various cultures around the world as a symbol, including those of the cultures that many of the founders of this country came from. It’s use in the U.S. is not a rip-off of Native American culture.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Pheeno has a valid point. If the Confederate flag is indubitably bound up with racism, a yearning for slavery, etc. - and, by the way, I would agree that it is - then the question is perfectly valid: what’s indubitably bound up into other group symbols and totems?
Slave ships flew the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes (recall that the transatlantic slave trade had been shut down well before the Confederacy came into being). Indigenous groups were massacred under those flags, as well as under the Spanish flag. (And probably others.)
It wasn’t the Confederate flag flying above the internment camps, which in living memory held Asian Americans captive. The Confederates didn’t drop any atomic bombs on Japanese civilians, or firebomb Dresden. No stars and bars on the Enola Gay.
And so on and so forth.
There are probably folks on the left who would say that the US flag, too, is awful and bad and shouldn’t be displayed, and exists on the same moral plane as the Confederate flag. That’s certainly one viewpoint.
Another viewpoint, with perhaps more popular appeal, runs something like this: history happened. And there was, and is, a lot of bad shit going down. Nobody can honestly look back at their ancestral past or their group identity with smug virtue; Germans have killed a lot of people, and so have Jews. Capitalists have done a lot of damage to the world, along with their Communist brethren. The white settlers were brutal to the Indians, who in turn had been brutal to one another, and to their now-extinct forebears. People suck.
But along with the suck, there are always virtues. And part of constructing a heritage and a history is finding those virtues, emulating them, and expanding their role in a society. Iconography plays a part in that process, and flags are a big part of most nations’ iconic history. The Revolutionary battle flag brings a lump to the throat of an American patriot; why wouldn’t the Confederate flag choke up someone whose great-great-granddaddy died at Antietam?
Sometimes iconography exceeds the bounds of what we can permit as a society - and the virtues of one group are the vice of another. Very few people would be happy to see Germans flying Nazi flags as a remembrance of the vitality and exuberance of the Third Reich. It’s questionable to me whether the Confederate flag ought to rise to quite that level of moral revulsion; the Confederates weren’t genocidal. They were just somewhat more racial-supremacist than was fashionable for the time; the War Between the States was a war fought by two armies made up mostly of people who thought blacks were inferior to whites. The disagreement was about how the blacks ought to be oppressed and controlled by whites, not whether.
I see the point of those who feel the Confederate flag is oppressive to them personally or to blacks generally. I also see the point of people for whom the Confederacy is a significant piece of history - and I definitely see the point of Southerners feeling put-upon by culturally imperialistic Northerners coming around and telling the Southerners how bad and racist and evil they are. Pot, meet kettle. Racism seems more differentiated in terms of implementation, not in terms of geographical presence or absence; I had to live in the North before I saw blacks living in one part of town and whites another, and I had to live in the South before I saw private schools for one race only.
Maybe we should all back off a little bit and allow each other a bit of presumption of good will. Racism and hatred aren’t easily hidden. They have a way of popping out, even when the conscious mind is fighting hard to keep them down; cf. Michael Richards. I think it becomes pretty clear pretty quick when someone is flying the stars and bars as a signal to their black neighbors, rather than as an honest expression of heritage.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
“So you’re saying that it isn’t racist if the people using it don’t intend it to be racist?”
No, Im saying the people using it arent always racist.
“It was the main reason. ”
No, it wasnt. Slavery wasn’t even brought up until much later.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“This rebuttal to Bean only holds water if we assume that if someone points out history your post didn’t acknowlege, they must be doing it to condescend to you, because they are racist. I don’t think that’s a fair assumption to make.”
Bean pointed out history my points didnt ackowledge, which had nothing to do with the points I made at all. I didnt say anything negative at all about abolistionists, and didnt broadly paint them with any brush whatsoever. I didnt generalize abolitionists. My post he quoted was about the southerners that violently resisted abolition. It had nothing at all to do with generalizing abolitionists or leaving out women.
”
This implies that Bean called you a “half breed” or in some other way made a derogatory comment about your ancestry. She did not, and for you to imply otherwise is dishonest.”
Thats not what it implies. What it implies is that as a native american, I dont need lectures on discrimination or injustice and as a woman I dont need lectures on womens rights. I live it, thanks.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
“pheeno, the eagle has been used by various cultures around the world as a symbol, including those of the cultures that many of the founders of this country came from. It’s use in the U.S. is not a rip-off of Native American culture. ”
I didnt say it was a rip off. I said it was a symbol of murder, racism and oppression.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Pheeno Wrote
I agree. They’re not. But I think this is like white people using the N-word. Maybe the people that know them well understand how it’s meant. But if you use it around strangers they’re going to make some reasonable assumptions that put you in a bad light.
I think that many of the people use the flag want to be anti-pc. I think many of them are the same people who think that Black History Month is racist and that it’s unfair there isn’t a National Association of White People.
I’m not saying the North went to war to end slavery. It obviously didn’t. It went to war to preserve the union. Lincoln made it very clear that he’d do whatever it took with regards to slavery to win the war. (Partly this was to appease northerners that weren’t abolitionists and were racists that the war wasn’t being waged just to help black people.
I’m saying that the south left the union to preserve the right to own slaves. The union would have let them back in as slave states at any time if they’d asked.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“I agree. They’re not. But I think this is like white people using the N-word.”
That’s where I disagree. That word had negative meaning prior to it even being used racially. With the exception of slang (and Im not even convinced then) it has no other possible defintion. A symbol however, can and is subject to differing interpretations.
Take the american flag for example. Many people see it as a symbol of freedom. Personally, I see it as the ultimate ( rivalling with the swastika) symbol of murder and oppression. But that in no way means if you’re an advocate of native american oppression and slaughter by flying the american flag. A great deal of Native Americans have an entirely different interpretation of the american flag, but we allow the fact that our interpretation doesnt dictate the rest of the countries. If we didnt, the controversy around the american flag would mirror the controversy surrounding the confederate flag.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
guh. Ignore typos and horrid grammar. I’m chasing around a weinie dog with a death wish. He keeps trying to mate with the cat.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Joe, you beat me to the theme party thing, with which I totally agree. If one is aware that a symbol provokes a feeling of oppression, then choosing to display said symbol is an active display of oppression. Whether or not that was the main intent is irrelevant if you know that people will be offended by it. If I throw a swastika patch on my bag, I don’t get to claim that I’m celebrating an ancient symbol of peace and expect a pass.
But I got confused here:
Did you mean to type ‘would have let them back in as non-slave states,’ or am I missing something?
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
and pheeno, the image of a dog lustily chasing a cat is cracking me up, thank you for that :D
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
pheeno–is there a particular history you are citing here? In what world did “slavery only come up much later?” I thought I was marginally familiar with southern revisionist historiography, but plase, out of curiousity, when did slavery come up, if not with bloody kansas & john brown?
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
The abolition of slavery idea wasnt the motivation behind Lincolns desire to keep the union intact. It was merely the opposition of *expanding* slavery.
The south didnt want to seceed over the slavery issue in and of itself. It was part and parcel of a huge bag of issues they had with states rights. You cant just cherry pick one and ignore all the rest, and declare that one as the main reason and sole reason.
“I was marginally familiar with southern revisionist historiography”
Then enlighten me, because I’ve yet to read any “southern revisionist historiography”.
My poly sci class was taught by an Irishman, with no bias towards either the north or the south.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“Joe, you beat me to the theme party thing, with which I totally agree. If one is aware that a symbol provokes a feeling of oppression, then choosing to display said symbol is an active display of oppression. Whether or not that was the main intent is irrelevant if you know that people will be offended by it. If I throw a swastika patch on my bag, I don’t get to claim that I’m celebrating an ancient symbol of peace and expect a pass. ”
And yet, the american flag and all the american symbols are proudly displayed with no regards to who in this country it offends.
Regardless, I personally am not advocating people just fly the confederate flag in public and expect no questioning to take place.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Oh and I have to say, southern revisionist history gives me a chuckle. Who’s unbiased description of events was revised? The norths? I wouldnt think that was an unbiased description to begin with.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Pheeno, we seem to be arguing about the extent to which the south’s desire to protect their ‘property rights’ motivated the succession.
My contention is that absent the issue of slavery the succession would never have happened. That it was the main factor.
My first piece of evidence is the comparison of the CSA and USA constitutions i linked to earlier.
No. I meant that the union would have perpetuated slavery if it had ended the war quickly. There came a point where this wasn’t true anymore but early on I think they could have worked something out.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Just for good measure, I should clarify that I’m not saying that the Confederate flag and the swastika are one and the same, just that they are both symbols which hold different meanings to different people, some of which are strongly negative.
Actually, pheeno, I don’t entirely disagree with you about the American flag. And on a much smaller scale than what you’re talking about, when I was knocking on doors for the Dems in New England, an American flag on a house was a pretty clear “Republican lives here” signal. And not the nice, fiscally-conservative-but-fed-up-with-Bush Republicans who often gave us lots of money, but the warmongering, angry types who’d sic their dogs on you. I actually had a guy run out of his house after I’d left his property, screaming “Hey! You see this flag?! It means get the hell off my lawn!”
At the same time, though, our perceptions are not necessarily the dominant ones, whereas it seems like the majority of people feel the racist connotations of the Confederate flag. I think the difference partly lies in the fact that while what we did to the Native Americans was truly atrocious, the country didn’t expand westward in order to wipe out a race. If the South had kept slaves in order to fight the Civil War, rather than the reverse, then the association wouldn’t be as strong in people’s minds.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Joe - ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. :)
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Just got a scary thought about when GWB says “Clash of civilizations.”
This comment was written by Joe.the last one of those the US was involved in was the westward expansion.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Regarding the American flag: If someone starts a movement for a new flag, because of all the evils that took place under the old one (primarily, but not exclusively, the genocide of the Indians, and slavery), then I’ll be glad to sign on.
I think you’re mistaken. Read the confederate constitution, for example; slavery rights were held to be more important than states’ rights. (Under the Confederate constitution, States didn’t have the right to abolish slave ownership within their own borders). Statements by essential Confederate leaders and intellectuals before and during the war made the centrality of slavery clear.
From Mississippi’s seccession statement :
So slavery is the very first reason they list for leaving the Union.
From Georgia’s statement of seccession :
Clearly, what they find objectionable about the Republican party is that it was anti-slavery. And this is why Georgia felt it had to leave the Union.
From South Carolina’s seccession statement :
And from Texas’ statement of secession :
It is revisionism to claim that the leaders of secession did not see slavery as one of the primary issues causing dissolution; in fact, it could reasonably be argued that the Southern leadership class saw protecting “the beneficient and patriarchal system of African slavery” as the primary issue.
As Alexander Stephens, best known as the vice-president of the Confederacy, said in a speech (bold added by me):
So let’s see no more claims that the Southern leadership didn’t see the Civil War as a war to protect slavery.
Regarding President Bush:
So if the USA split, he couldn’t be President in the south (due to being born a Northerner), and he couldn’t be President in the north (due to lack of southern votes).
Sounds like a win-win situation to me. :-P
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“I think you’re mistaken”
by “those in charge” I was talking about the Union government, not the confederate. Abolitionists were the only ones who truly held ending slavery high on the priority list.
And again, I’m not arguing the south didnt include slavery as a reason to seceed. I’m saying slavery was not the *sole* reason and Lincoln and his leaders didnt go to war because they merely wanted an end to it. He wasnt that noble, and the south wasnt upset over one single repugnant issue. If I take away your primary source of feeding yourself and your children, then triple your taxes it would be dishonest to later claim you were just upset over having your taxes tripled.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
“So if the USA split, he couldn’t be President in the south (due to being born a Northerner), and he couldn’t be President in the north (due to lack of southern votes).
Sounds like a win-win situation to me. :-P ”
me too.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
But the point is that the confederate flag is a symbol of southern heritage, a heritage that is deeply entwined with slavery and racism. The confederate flag was a symbol used to represent southern states who declared that they considered slavery as an integral part of their social and economic systems, and further that there was an inherent superiority to the white race (per the quotes provided by Amp above).
The northern states didn’t create the flag, didn’t impose the flag as a symbol for the CSA and didn’t write the declarations of secession. How else are we to interpret a self-chosen symbol for a society that proudly declared its right to own and subjugate a particular race of people?
This comment was written by bradana.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
But the point is that the confederate flag is a symbol of southern heritage, a heritage that is deeply entwined with slavery and racism.
And the American flag is a symbol of American heritage, ditto.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Pheeno, you’ve said repeatedly that slavery wasn’t the main cause for the secession of the slave states. People have offered evidence that it was. You don’t find that evidence compelling. That’s fine. But what do you think the reasons were? Specifically? As far as I can see the only right they cared strongly about to leave the union was the right to own slaves.
I’ll admit that there were other grievances but I don’t think they were nearly as important to the confederacy as the right to own slaves.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I find it extremely bothersome the degree to which black people and in particular southern black people have become completely invisible in this discussion.
That the confederate flag offends northern white liberals is not really the salient point. The idea that the confederate flag represents Southern cultural heritage omits an extremely important word. White Southern cultural heritage. The confederate flag doesn’t represent black Southern cultural heritage.
You’d think, from this discussion so far, that there weren’t any Southerners who are black.
This comment was written by Charles S.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Some people see the conf. flag as racist, others see it as a symbol of heritage, others might see it as a symbol for rebellion and non-conformity, still others as something else. I certainly wouldn’t be presumptive enough to preach to any of the respective groups about what it really means or doesn’t. Like most symbols there is no objective truth about what it “really” means; it’s subjective. To each’s own.
I think Lincoln was a disaster and his likeness should be removed from Rushmore at the earliest possible convenience. He established precedent that for the executive branch following the constitution and rule of law was optional.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
“That the confederate flag offends northern white liberals is not really the salient point. The idea that the confederate flag represents Southern cultural heritage omits an extremely important word. White Southern cultural heritage. The confederate flag doesn’t represent black Southern cultural heritage.”
It represents mine, and Im not white.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
“Pheeno, you’ve said repeatedly that slavery wasn’t the main cause for the secession of the slave states. People have offered evidence that it was. You don’t find that evidence compelling. That’s fine. But what do you think the reasons were? Specifically? ”
The rights as a State to govern themselves. Specifically. Be it concerning slave owning or anything else. Up to and including NOT being illegally invaded and having martial law declared.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
You’re saying that the south was invaded and placed under martial law prior to it’s secession from the union?
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
“But the point is that the confederate flag is a symbol of southern heritage, a heritage that is deeply entwined with slavery and racism. The confederate flag was a symbol used to represent southern states who declared that they considered slavery as an integral part of their social and economic systems, and further that there was an inherent superiority to the white race (per the quotes provided by Amp above). ”
The entire countrys heritage is entwined with slavery and racism. Slavery was upheld under the US flag as well. Racism continues to this day under that flag. But now it means something else, and people like to think it means freedom.
If the symbolism behind the american flag can change, why cant the meaning behind the confederate flag change?
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
“You’re saying that the south was invaded and placed under martial law prior to it’s secession from the union? ”
The union rejected any right of secession. If they didnt recognize it, then they invaded and imposed martial law.
This comment was written by pheeno.Lincoln himself called the seccession legally void. According to the Union, that seceession didnt exist.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I’m confused so I’ll try again.
I think the south wanted to leave to mainly preseve their right to own slaves.
What do you think was the main reason the south wanted to leave the union?
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Amen, to Charles’ point. We also should not forget that there were many black abolitionists.
And on #83, pheeno, you’re not going to find very many self respecting African Americans that consider a confederate flag a symbol their heritage; especially not something they want to put in a bumper sticker on their car.
This flag causes a very visceral reaction in many people (I wish I could say all people, but I’m rapidly losing faith in the idea that it causes a visceral reaction in many whites). No matter what the intention of the person waving it, many rightful view it as a hate symbol.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I’m a bit confused, Rachel and Charles S. Yes, the culture/heritage that’s being celebrated by the flag is white southern culture, not black southern culture. And the point is…? Not every celebration is going to include every other culture. Do Muslims have to stop doing the hajj because it ignores my tradition? No.
If your objection stems from the fact that the symbol in question is provocative or challenging to blacks, or some other group, well, I can’t argue that. It surely is a challenge to many people. I’m not sure where the problem comes in, however. Groups challenge one another all the time.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
If your objection stems from the fact that the symbol in question is provocative or challenging to blacks, or some other group, well, I can’t argue that. It surely is a challenge to many people. I’m not sure where the problem comes in, however. Groups challenge one another all the time.
So do people as individuals. If you repeatedly challenge me in an offensive way I’m going to think you dislike me.
Now what’s the word for people that dislike blacks…
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Robert,
I am specifically objecting to the use of “Southern culture” to mean “Southern Culture excluding all black people,” which pheeno in particular (but far from exclusively) has been doing continuously.
The provoking and “challenging” of black people by the dominant white Southern culture is indeed a long and storied tradition, but I’m not sure why you are pretending to think that it isn’t a problematic history and practice. If people want to celebrate this history and continue this practice of “challenging” black people, I think we can fairly call them racists and shun them. I don’t think that this is what pheeno is arguing in favor of, but in order to avoid arguing in favor of that while defending the flag, it is necessary to make race disappear from Southern culture. That vanishing act is what I am highlighting and objecting to.
The celebration of “Southern” culture with a symbol that is extremely offensive to a major component of Southern culture (black people) is the basic problem. Failing to acknowledge the existence of black people as a part of Southern culture makes it very easy to frame the issue of the flag as those nasty white liberal Northerners picking on the oppressed Southerners and denying them the symbols of their culture.
This comment was written by Charles S.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:26 pm
pheeno,
Are you aware that the Confederacy forbade secession to its members? While the southern states wanted to utilize the right of secession to dissolve their bond to the United States, they were careful to correct the oversight that arguable granted them this right. So it is hard to argue that they seceded in order to preserve their right of secession. Furthermore, the southern states had been ardent opponents of state’s rights up until the point they decided to secede, forcing the fugitive slave act down the throats of the Northern states (which is why escaped slaves had to flee to Canada - Southern hostility to state’s rights, not Northern hostility to black people (of which there was certainly plenty)).
This comment was written by Charles S.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Robert,
I think the objection was that “southern history” was presumed “white southern history”. “Southern history” should emcompass both.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
The provoking and “challenging” of black people by the dominant white Southern culture is indeed a long and storied tradition, but I’m not sure why you are pretending to think that it isn’t a problematic history and practice. If people want to celebrate this history and continue this practice of “challenging” black people, I think we can fairly call them racists and shun them.
But it isn’t just black people. As someone said upthread, there is considerable energy invested by flag fans in rejecting white liberals. That’s hardly racist.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Great post, Charles.
* * *
Pheeno, trying to say what the South was fighting for if not slavery, writes:
You’re wrong about this point; the right for states to govern themselves concerning slave owning was something the Confederacy was explicitly against. All states had to fully support and legalize slavery, according to the Confederate constitution.
* * *
The most-often flown confederate flag is the battle flag. And the battle flag IS, without any doubt, a hate symbol; it represented white supremacy from the moment of its design.
The idea for the battle flag — which is the one I’ve seen flown the most often — first came from William Thompson in 1863, when he wrote: “As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause…. Such a flag would be a suitable emblem of our young confederacy, and, sustained by the brave strong arms of the South, it would soon take rank among ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world WHITE MAN’S FLAG.”
Given its history, Robert, I think “insulting” might be a more accurate word than “provocative” or “challenging.” If someone says “I love my black-enslaving heritage,” that’s not a “challenge” to blacks; it’s an insult.
You ask, “Do Muslims have to stop doing the hajj because it ignores my tradition?” But the confederate flag isn’t a tradition that “ignores” blacks, any more than a bunch of folks getting together in Nazi uniforms and goosestepping up and down the public thoroughfare could be said to be continuing a tradition that “ignores” Jews.
Of course, I realize that not everyone who displays a confederate flag hates blacks. But I think that virtually everyone who displays it is aware that an effect of flying the confederate flag is to make many blacks feel less welcome and more like outsiders, wherever that flag is flown. And they’ve decided that whatever faux-rebel thrill (”I’m doing the exact same thing as a million other people! What a rebel I am!”) they get out of flying it is more important than the negative message sent to blacks.
That’s fine; they have every right to fly their flag, and I have every right to think they’re acting contemptibly.
As Hugo wrote:
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I think the objection was that “southern history” was presumed “white southern history”. “Southern history” should emcompass both.
There was only one Confederacy, and it had black people in it. (And plenty of native Americans, too.) If the history encompasses both, then the Confederate flag encompasses all the peoples of the Confederacy.
If people(s) don’t want to be seen as under that banner, then that’s perfectly OK. But you can’t quit the Y and then call the Y evil because not everybody is a member.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Amp:
The best argument against flying the flag is that it causes deep injury and offense. Whether the flag ought to cause offense isn’t as relevant as the fact that it does. The banner’s history is less the issue than the hurt it still apparently inflicts.
OK, Amp. Now reconcile this with your position on Amanda Marcotte.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:46 pm
As I’ve pointed out before, the position of C.S. Lewis on the virgin birth logically implies that you should welcome as a growth opportunity any hurt you feel at Amanda’s comparison.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Robert, The Amanda thing is for another thread.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
[Response to Robert regarding Amanda moved to another thread.]
Robert, quoting Charles, wrote:
So as long as we add on “white liberals” to “black people” in the list of people we’re rejecting, it’s magically no longer problematic to be continuing a long practice of “challenging” black people?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:58 pm
So as long as we add on “white liberals” to “black people” in the list of people we’re rejecting, it’s magically no longer problematic to be continuing a long practice of “challenging” black people?
I don’t know whether it’s problematic; it’s not simple racism at that point.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Quite right. It’s now complicated racism.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Ampersand:
The quote from William Thompson refers to a white flag, which suggests to me that he was referring to the second national flag of the CSA, not to the battle flag. In fact, Googling the quote brings up this page, which says that he was indeed referring a proposed (and later enacted) redesign of the national flag.
That the battle flag, and not the peacetime flag, is used as an emblem of Southern pride is, IMO, mitigating rather than damning. While secession was mostly about slavery, the war was not. The war was about the North refusing to let the South secede peacefully, not out of a desire to end slavery, but out of a desire to “save the union.”
Slavery, of course, is reprehensible, but the right of secession is a legitimate issue, and that’s what the war was ultimately about. Not that I think the typical person waving the Confederate battle flag around is actually thinking about the right of secession, but he’s probably thinking about something a lot closer to that than to “Yay, slavery!”
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Wow, a whole buttload of posts, so I apologize in advance if I miss any.
“So it is hard to argue that they seceded in order to preserve their right of secession. ”
it’s a good thing Im not arguing that then. :)
“You’re wrong about this point; the right for states to govern themselves concerning slave owning was something the Confederacy was explicitly against. All states had to fully support and legalize slavery, according to the Confederate constitution.”
Hmm, Im not finding that.
http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html#A6Sec5
here’s a link, if you could point it out for me because I could just be missing it.
“I am specifically objecting to the use of “Southern culture” to mean “Southern Culture excluding all black people,” which pheeno in particular (but far from exclusively) has been doing continuously. ”
Slavery is as much a part of black history as it is white history. And, my own people’s history, seeing how blacks weren’t the only slaves. We just got sold off to people in the carribean more often than kept here.
So when Im discussing southern culture, Im including my own. Which isnt white.
” Not that I think the typical person waving the Confederate battle flag around is actually thinking about the right of secession, but he’s probably thinking about something a lot closer to that than to “Yay, slavery!” ”
At least Im not. Im not that much of a masochist and dont own a confederate flag and think WEEEE! My ancestors were captured and sold! Awesome!
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
First, I was born north of the Mason-Dixon line and at least one of my ancestors fought on the Union side (one Jonathan Davis, a wheelwright from Pennsylvania …), while there are none who are known to have fought for the Confederacy :)
As late as the 1850’s the stereotype of the stupid southerner was being advanced as a justification for disenfranchising the south in order that the northern objective of abolishing slavery might be achieved. What should have been a matter of amending the Constitution turned into a game of brinkmanship with the northern states bent on taxing the southern states into oblivion. The primary source of revenue for the entirety of the United States was import duties and the majority o that burden fell to the southern states.
It’s worth pointing out that slavery was not abolished in the north due to morality, but rather because it became an economic burden. Northern farmers sold their slaves down south, then slowly worked to outlaw the ownership of the slaves they’d owned.
The present situation as regards such issues as same-sex marriage, the right to die, medical marijuana are, constitutionally speaking, quite similar to the matter of slavery. Under the terms of the Constitution, slavery was permissible regardless of how morally reprehensible it might have been to those who were so inclined to believe so. The legal right to regulate slavery, solely within the confines of a state’s border, belong to each state separately, with the Federal government having only the right to regulate slave trade between the states (see “Commerce Clause”).
What the northern states could not accomplish within the confines of the Constitution it attempted to do through protectionistic tariffs which served primarily to funnel wealth from southern states to northern. After a half century of such behavior, the south was greatly impoverished and forced to seek capital from the north.
While I find the Battle Flag of the Confederacy a particularly troublesome thing to fly, the sentiments of many who plaster it all over everything they own are ones I can agree with — the Federal government does not have the power to create a single homogeneous culture and legal environment. If California wants medical marijuana, Oregon wants death with dignity, Massachusetts wants same sex marriage, and Utah wants polygamy, the Federal government should have no say in the matter. It is because of the same appeals to “morality” that we find ourselves in our present situation. Opposition to all four of those examples is not based on Constitution amendments requiring a super majority of 3/4ths of the states, but rather on ordinary legislation requiring 50% plus one vote. Legalized morality is the legacy of the Civil War and the abolition of States Rights its political outcome.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Quite right. It’s now complicated racism.
Exactly. Which puts it right in line with pretty much everything we do here in America.
I don’t particularly like the Confederate flag, or Confederate nostalgia. Although my sensibilities are, theoretically, in favor of anyone who claims a right of disassociation, on balance I find myself supporting the Union side of the question, precisely because the disassociation was sought for evil ends.
But at the same time, so many heritages which are held by their owners as being precious have things at their heart which are every bit as evil or even worse. It is part of being a fallible species; we make terrible mistakes even as we pursue the good. I’m equally uncomfortable telling Red-diaper grandbabies to pretend that grandma never belonged to the party.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 am
Section 9 Clause 4
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
So the confederacy could never end slavery.
Article 4 section 2
(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.
So if you own a slave in one state you owned it anywhere.
Article 4 section 3 clause 3
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Basically any new state had to be a slave state.
They also added the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute “bills of credit.”
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:39 am
Oops, i forgot to close a tag up there. Also, they don’t require that all states be slave states, but you had to start out that way, and you had to honor the property rights of another states slave owner, and the CSA could never make you not be a slave state.
So, it’s not explicit that everyone be a slave state forever. But that’s about the effect.
The south left so that they could own slaves.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:42 am
Joe,
I’m not a student of Confederate constitutional law by any stretch, but I believe that the issues with the preservation of slavery within the Confederate states were related to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
As I wrote above, slavery within the Northern states was not first outlawed. Slave owners in those states found that slavery was not economically viable. States such as New York, which at one time had been quite agricultural, slowly industrialized and slavery was ill-suited to industry. Northern slaves were sold down south. It was after the north had been rid of slavery, with the south paying for those slaves, that the north sought to outlaw, without promise of compensation for those slaves.
Here’s the Fifth Amendment –
It’s good that we think of slavery as morally reprehensible today. It helps people understand that slavery is wrong everywhere it happens, even if the laws of that region say it is legal. But at the time the ownership of African slaves was not viewed as universally morally reprehensible — there were those Americans who believed slavery was appropriate and those who did not. Right or wrong, owning people — white, brown, red, yellow — was viewed the same way one might own a tractor or plow or combine today. A slave was property and the United States Constitution guaranteed to property owners that their property was not going to be confiscated.
There is no doubt in my mind that slavery would have continued to fall out of usage in much the same way it had gradually fallen out of usage in the 200 years prior to 1860. Virginia, at the time the Confederacy was forming, looked to be going towards the Union side. It would not have been the only slave state, or the only state with slaves, to have sided with the Union. It was the use of military force against a state by the Federal government which pushed Virginia to side with the Confederacy.
Northern Profits from Slavery
Against that sort of history, laws preserving slavery strike me as less about preserving slavery and more about avoiding a repeat of the experience of one region concluding that slavery was wrong, and then exporting that decision to other states.
It was not hard to see where freed slaves went. Northern states which had had African slave populations became increasingly white. As the 1840’s drew to a close and the majority of northern states purged themselves of their African populations, the political pressures against southern and slave owning states intensified. Whereas northern states which outlawed slavery might have compensated slave owners for the property they’d lost, there was no such proposal on the table for southern slave owners. The move towards abolish in the north, which had become nearly complete in the 1840’s, set the stage for the Compromise of 1850.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 am
FurryCatHerder I pretty much agree with you.
My point is not that the Union went to war to end slavery. They didn’t. They went to war to keep the south from leaving the union. My point is that the slave states left the union primarily because the wanted to preserve their right to treat black people as property.
I think it’s disingenuous to say that it was about states rights and not be specific on the right in question; The right to own other people.
And I agree, the move away from slavery was motivated more by economics than morals.
This comment was written by Joe.One of the nice things about using capital to allocate resources is that free people typically out produce slaves.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:30 am
Joe,
I don’t think it’s the least bit disingenuous to claim that it was about States Rights. Would you say that DOMA is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Or that it’s just about keeping queers down? If you focus too closely on the specifics of what DOMA and the Civil War were about you miss the larger picture — the use of force and coercion to control the actions of others in an extra-Constitutional manner. The irony is that the Constitution was drafted precisely to limit the powers of the Federal government.
Yes, of course, the Civil War was fought about Slavery. It was fought about Slavery, however, because Slavery was the issue that others (the North) used to justify violating the Constitution. But once the Constitution had been “broken” through the use of Slavery as the excuse, subsequent violations of original intent — that the Federal government existed to protect from foreign invasion, make trade uniform, and provide for a republican form of government — became easier. It is not by accident that the Commerce Clause is so easily used to violate States Rights. The events of the 1850’s, as well as the preceding decades, proved to states that to resist the federal government was to invited armed occupation. States have not forgotten that lesson.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 am
There was a way out of this catastrophe, the Civil War. In my considered opinion. (Did I mention that I hold a graduate degree in American History, not that that means much?) Furthermore, I will contend that some people at least in leadership in 1800 in the United States knew what the way out was, but no one wanted to pay the price. (I think I could pretty much prove that last statement given enough time.) (By 1850 it was probably too late.)
Here’s the way out:
1. Gradual emancipation of the slaves, probably over two generations. (Children born after Date X to be freed at Age Y.)
2. An intensive education program for those destined for freedom, and probably for all slaves. Perhaps a provision that even older people would be eligible for freedom upon completion of X years of education. The North would have had to pay for the lion’s share of this because the South did not have the capital.
3. Some kind of stake for the newly freed. Maybe not the “40 acres and a mule” which was much discussed at the time, but something. Again, an expense mostly borne by the North.
4. Fair compensation to the slaveowners for the loss of their human capital. Ditto.
No one had the balls to sign up for this, partly because it would have required all sides to admit the justice of their opponents’ positions, partly because no one, North or South, was prepared to integrate the African slaves into American society on terms of equality, and partly because it would have been very very expensive, even considered in money.
Expensive unless you compare the cost to the alternative, to what really did happen: an entire region of the country devastated (much of which has yet to recover), the death of a substantial proportion of an entire generation (to say nothing of collateral damage), the release of hundreds of thousands of illiterate and impoverished former slaves into an economy which had no place for them, the permanent anger and sense of grievance of millions of people on both sides, black and white. Makes the other program look like a good deal, huh.
Furry, I pretty much agree with you about States’ rights. It’s a great pity that the issue over which this was fought was human bondage, which indeed painted the better cause - a limit on federalism - in irretrievably dark colors.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 am
“4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
So the confederacy could never end slavery.”
Individuals could. They just couldnt force everyone else to follow suit through laws.
“3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Basically any new state had to be a slave state. ”
If a slave state joined, they could remain a slave state without worrying about being forced into abolition. If they wanted to become a slave state they could. If someone wanted to live there and they owned slaves, they could. A state didnt HAVE to be a slave state to enter into the confederacy, but they could not force residents to free their slaves. Basically, the government, state or federal couldnt force you to give up slaves.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:08 am
I absolutely can not believe that on a progressive blog we can’t all agree that the confederate flag is offensive and shouldn’t be a part of public events. But I suppose that is what good debate is all about.
Bottom line, anything that is held up by the KKK as a symbol of pride is something I would deem racist.
I don’t have a problem with being proud of who you are or where you are from, and I think the stereotypes against the south as horrible, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to utilize a symbol that is so wrought with racist baggage, whethere or not you INTEND for it to be about racism or not (here we get back to that sticky intent issue).
I’ve said in other forums (not here) that I think the “white trash” parties that stupid college and 20 something professionals have - yes it is a rising trend - is just as problematic as the “gangsta” parties because they are. I’m not suggesting that poor or working class southern whites haven’t experienced hardhsip or discrimination - they most certainly have and do, but that doesn’t make using the confederate flag as a symbol of pride any less offensive.
Whoever said upthread that the confederate flag is just as much about states rights as the swastika is a tibetan peace sign is right. It may have started out one way, but no average person is going to see a bumper sticker with a swastika on it and think, “Wow, I bet that person is a peacelover.”
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 am
Susan,
Yeah, there was an out. And you’re right, no one wanted to give an inch on either side. Which has been one of my points when I started posting (its since spread out *L*) as a response to the snarky ” shoulda let em leave, southerners are just racist” type comments. Contrary to popular belief, the north wasnt a shining example of abolition and humane treatment. And for people to act like it was while making snarky comments that stereotype the south is like..well, its like the “Injun” killers calling the slave owners evil. Neither side should be held as an example of equality defenders.
That all men are created equal left out women, Native Americans, the Irish, the Polish, ect ect ad naseum.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Kate L:
Hah, I thought this inability to come to an consensus on anything was what being a liberal was all about ;D
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
How come my blockquotes always come out bold? They don’t look like that in the preview. Weird.
[Dephenestrated: Make sure that you put a blank line both before the opening blockquote and after the closing blockquote. --Amp]
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Kate: This is a progressive blog insofar as all the bloggers are progressives. But it’s not safe to assume that all the people writing comments are progressives. (Robert, for instance, is an unabashed conservative.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Article 4 section 3 clause 3
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
So a new confederate state did have to be a slave state.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Pheeno writes:
With all due respect, Pheeno, have you noticed that nobody on this thread has made any such claim?
I think your anti-stereotype arguments would have more credibility if you weren’t so obviously invested in stereotyping folks from the North.
No one has claimed that Confederate law forced every individual to own slaves. That’s a red herring.
By the way, what’s wrong with governments forcing people not to own slaves? This seems to me like something all decent governments should do; that the confederacy elites didn’t want to do isn’t a point in their defense, it’s further evidence that they were a bunch of racist assholes. (Which doesn’t mean that I think the folks running the North were non-racists, or were saints.)
This makes no sense. First of all, by definition, if a state cannot “force residents to free their slaves,” then it’s a slave state. That’s what being a slave state means.
Secondly, you’re wrong to say that a state “didn’t HAVE to be a slave state to enter into the confederacy.” “In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government…” That means that all entering states have to have “the institution of negro slavery,” or they couldn’t join up.
Edited to add: Whoops, cross-posted with Joe, who made the same point I did. Sorry about that.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“With all due respect, Pheeno, have you noticed that nobody on this thread has made any such claim? ”
I’m sorry, I didnt realize every sentence I posted had to be directed specifically to the posters here. Notice I didnt say ” contrary to the popular belief on this thread”. You might take that into account before you assume things.
“No one has claimed that Confederate law forced every individual to own slaves. That’s a red herring.”
No, it’s interpreting the line you quoted. If Im going to claim people here are arguing that, I’ll add ” people here claim yadda yadda”.
”
By the way, what’s wrong with governments forcing people not to own slaves? ”
Nothing.
“That means that all entering states have to have “the institution of negro slavery,” or they couldn’t join up.”
No, it means the institution of slavery will be recognized (as in allowed) and upheld (as in enforced, so people didnt have “property” taken by the state). If no one in the new states owned slaves, they could still join. They just couldnt prevent anyone from owning slaves.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:55 pm
A slave state is one where it’s legal to own slaves.
Is there some other definition for ’slave state’ that I’m not aware of?
Again pheeno, why do you think the south wanted to leave the union? If your answer is ’states rights’ than specifically which rights?
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:18 pm
If a new state joined and no one in that state owned slaves, they couldnt be forced to start owning slaves. By asserting any new state HAD to be a slave state or they couldnt join you’re ignoring that completely and inaccurately claiming new states had to have slaves and owners or they’d be denied.
“If your answer is ’states rights’ than specifically which rights? ”
specifically
the right to own property(including but not limited to slavery)
This comment was written by pheeno.the right against illegal property siezure (including but not limited to slaves)
where governing laws and regulations should come from
the right of their people to govern themselves
Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
As far as I’m concerned any state the views people as property is a slave state. If it’s legal to own slaves you’re in a slave state. Even if for some odd reason no one in your state chooses to do so. So it looks like we’re just disagreeing on what a slave state is.
“If your answer is ’states rights’ than specifically which rights? ”
specifically
the only difference between the CSA and USA from the above list had to do with slaves.
Just out of curiosity, are you playing devils advocate? Or do you actually believe your position?
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Really?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Which “people” have this right to govern themselves in a slavery-friendly state? Only some people, right?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Blacks, women and Native Americans (just to name a few) didnt have the right to govern themselves living in non slavery states either, so only some people had that right period, no matter which side of the mason one lived.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:01 pm
“Just out of curiosity, are you playing devils advocate? Or do you actually believe your position? ”
Do you actually believe states rights ONLY encompassed the right to own slaves?
Had the north also tried to outlaw horses, ownership of horses would have been specifically included in the confederate constitution.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:05 pm
A little off topic, but this kind of thing, statements that “the people of the South wanted or thought this or that” (or pheeno’s statement about the “right of the people to govern themselves”) used to burn me up back in the 1960’s when I was a graduate student in American History.
Because of course it wasn’t “the people of the South” or “the South” or “Southerners,” it was some people in the South, to wit, the white people. In some places the white people weren’t even in the majority.
This kind of talk, formerly common in academic circles (and I am hoping that it is now extinct) is a tacit statement that the black slaves weren’t people, right? They were property. That’s what the white people in the South thought before 1865.
But when statements like that get made in 1965 or even in 2007, something is gravely wrong. Because really the black people were people, just as much as the whites were, and someone who cannot yet figure that out is a public menace.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Kate writes:
There’s more to politics than “I’m progressive, therefore I think thusly”. I’m a political mutt — right of Reagan on some things, left of Marx on others. One thing I have learned over the decades is to look at positions without regard to party affiliation of the position holders.
The Civil War is an important lesson — Civil Wars tend to be that way. Unfortunately, many of the lessons of the Civil War aren’t taught, except by people who wave Confederate flags. They might be bigots, but they are still out there trying to teach a lesson that’s long since been forgotten.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
No i believe that the south left the union mostly from a desire to preserve the institution of slavery. That was the ‘right’ they cared most about.
But at least now I know you’re sincere.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Yay, thanks!
This comment was written by defenestrated.(funny typo: dephenestrated was my IM name for years, until I forgot the password, got a new computer, and got locked out of the account and had to ditch it)
Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Joe writes:
Did you read any of what I wrote about how the North was taxing the South into oblivion?
Slavery wasn’t abolished in much of the north until the 1840’s. But during that same time massive wealth transfer was occurring from the south to the north. Slavery was the straw that broke the camels back, it was also the issue which the North could use best to its advantage. It couldn’t hardly admit that it was unfairly passing laws that took money from the south and sent it up north.
Study the damned war. What happened is too important to just repeat the tired old “The south wanted to preserve slavery” line. In the early 1800’s the south was stripped of much of its wealth by the concerted efforts of northern states. Given that slavery wasn’t outlawed but less than 20 years prior to the attack on southern soil by northern troops (and New Jersey was a slave state until the END of the Civil War …), slavery just wasn’t the reason.
After the war the North continued to strip the South of wealth, both in terms of spoils of war and in terms of carpetbaggers.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
If the north had tried to outlaw, say, murder - would any state have seceded? But it wasn’t about murder, or horses; the specific right at issue was human slavery (unless you have a non-hypothetical one you’d like to mention). Slavery isn’t just any random right, it’s the right to rob other people of every one of their rights.
So when you say something like
it sounds disturbingly as though you agree with the premise that human beings can be deemed property - which is about half a step away from being a-ok with slavery overall. The enslavement of a race can’t be discussed only in the abstract, as though real people weren’t involved. I’m sure that some hardcore animal rights activists would disagree, but to equate people to horses in this case strikes me as either disingenuous or sociopathic.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
“it sounds disturbingly as though you agree with the premise that human beings can be deemed property ”
Human beings *were* deemed property. Acknowledging that isn’t anywhere NEAR agreeing with it. It’s not even in the same universe. And my post sounds *nothing* at all like I agree with it.
“but to equate people to horses in this case strikes me as either disingenuous or sociopathic.”
if you bothered to read, you’ll notice *I* didnt equate people with horses. I said if the north had outlawed horses ALSO, horses would have been specifically mentioned AS WELL.
The “rights” (since I now evidently have to qualify each and every word lest someone think I agree with slavery or think it was a right for fucks sake) the north specifically attacked were specifically placed into the confederate constitution. Had the north specifically attacked something else, whatever else that may have been would also have been specifically placed into the confederate constitution.
“The enslavement of a race can’t be discussed only in the abstract, as though real people weren’t involved.”
Well *my* people were involved and look, Im discussing parts of it in the abstract. So obviously it can be, unless you think Im racist against myself and advocate the slavery of myself and my race. If you’d prefer, I can name names of family members related to me that were enslaved when discussing it.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:41 pm
FCH,
Your version of history seems to require that the South did not hold significant power in the Federal government (”In the early 1800’s the south was stripped of much of its wealth by the concerted efforts of northern states”). This is strangely out of sync with my understanding of the distribution of power in the pre-Civil War period. Given the majority control of the Supreme Court by Southerners, the routine control of the Presidency by Southerners (only the two Adamses, Van Buren, Pierce, and Buchanan were not Southerners (and none were elected without substantial Southern support)), and the careful legislative balance between the South and the North in the Senate, how exactly was the North enforcing these unjust laws on the South?
In fact, the tariffs were supported by a mix of Northerners and Southerners (certainly, predominantly Northerners), and were only extremely high between 1828 and 1832 (during Andrew Jackson’s presidency). At the time of the Civil War, they had been substantially reduced since the Walker Tariff of 1846.
Two interesting web sites this discussion has led me to:
Tax history
Slavery in the North
Anyway, can you cite some sources for the claim that “the south was stripped of much of its wealth?”
This comment was written by Charles S.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
defenestrated,
While I’m not agreeing with pheeno on much, I definitely think that the accusation that pheeno is supporting slavery is both silly and offensive.
pheeno,
So you agree that the property right that the southern states seceded in order to defend was the right to own slaves? But you feel that this is only because that is the property right that they believed that the the Federal government was likely to attack? That seems like a distinction without a difference from saying that the southern states seceded in order to protect the right to own slaves, i.e. the secession happened over slavery.
This comment was written by Charles S.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Ditto.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Ok, one more time
Slavery was not the *only* reason for *either* side.
The north cared less about slavery than is being promoted and the south had a handful of other issues along WITH slavery for seceeding.
Honestly, how many of you would believe a government stripping you of a “right” is going to stop at one? And after they used force and several hundreds of thousands of people were killed (not all white, male, soldiers or slave owners mind you) would that validate your fears or invalidate them? Would you be likely to forget that even to this day as you drove by a wal mart sitting on what had been family owned land for generations, with the knowledge that ancestors were NOT slave owners, yet had their property taken by the government and given to someone else? Would that confederate flag take on an altogether different meaning for you? For me personally, the US flag that flew over the Union was waved by people who not only slaughtered and enslaved my Native American ancestors, they stripped land from my few white ancestors who werent even slave owners. Yet it holds less offense or racist implications than the confederate? Not from where Im sitting.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 1:48 am
I entirely understand how my comment read that way, and I’m sorry that it did. My emphasis (in my head) on the abstraction of the whole subject to the extent that we’re no longer talking about what actually went on; on the ‘disingenuous,’ because that’s what I feel like the horse hypothetical was in the context of having been asked what specific rights apart from slavery were at issue. I was being overly rhetorical in trying to make that point, but I really didn’t mean to imply that anyone here supports slavery.
Again, apologies. Carry on.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 1:49 am
…emphasis ( ) was on…
This comment was written by defenestrated.verbs help, no?
Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Okay, if you’re switching back to arguing about how the war was viewed after the fact, and what the war meant (and means) in retrospect, than I can see your point somewhat more. Certainly, in retrospect, the Civil War is viewed by white Southerners as something more complicated than just slavery (although, strangely, it never seems to be viewed as being about how the white ruling (slave-owning) class completely fucked over the white non-slaving owning class, which it certainly was).
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 7:20 am
I don’t think anyone is agreeing tahtthe flag doesn’t offend someone.
The disagreement comes from the question as to whether offending someone = “should not be part of public events”.
I have no trouble with the fact that some folks view the flag as racist. I have no trouble with the fact that some folks view it as nonracist–as a symbol of personal struggle, or family heritage, or conservatism.
This is especially apposite because this was a battle flag, and (hello? Why is this not acknowledged here in this discussion?) most of the people who fight in wars are ordinary folks. Cannon fodder, as it were. Some probably fought because they wante slavery;… many probably fought, and died, for other reasons: their friend ws fighting; they were embarassed not to go; they knew their lands would be destroyed by the Union army; they were drafted; etc etc etc. There’s obviously some place for memories that aren’t attached to “blacks are property”.
What’s wrong with offense?
I’m offended by overt displays of religion.
I’m offended by overt public displays of sexuality.
I don’t especially like a veriety of things (as do we all)…
So what?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Honestly, how many of you would believe a government stripping you of a “right” is going to stop at one?
I know! And the Confederacy NEVER stripped anyone of their rights, no suh!
It’s like he doesn’t understand that enslaving people IS stripping people of rights, regardless of whether the law deems those people human or not.
[Flame-war-bait deleted by Amp.]
This comment was written by justicewalks.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Is anyone talking about making it illegal to fly a confederate flag at the speedways?
Or are people just saying it’s in incredibly bad taste and incredibly offensive and the people who do it are jackasses for not finding it important that their actions tacitly condone the hideous abuses that were enacted on enslaved Africans?
If no one’s talking about using a government club to take the flag out of the event, then I fail to see how you asking “do people have the right not to be offended?” is relevant, Sailorman. If the offended people aren’t talking about making it illegal, then they’re discussing the fact that they’re offended.
Do people who are being offensive have a right not ot be criticized?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 9:32 am
“Okay, if you’re switching back to arguing about how the war was viewed after the fact, and what the war meant (and means) in retrospect, than I can see your point somewhat more. Certainly, in retrospect, the Civil War is viewed by white Southerners as something more complicated than just slavery (although, strangely, it never seems to be viewed as being about how the white ruling (slave-owning) class completely fucked over the white non-slaving owning class, which it certainly was). ”
The non slave owning class was fucked over by both sides. Non whites were fucked over by both sides.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 9:32 am
In certain situations, surely… one can (and should) be just about as wary of someone flying the US flag as of someone flying or displaying the Confederate battle flag.
Me, though… while I assume, for safety’s sake, that anyone displaying or flying the Confederate flag is racist, there is not necessarily that immediate assumption of anyone flying the US flag.
This comment was written by Nanette.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 9:35 am
“It’s like he doesn’t understand that enslaving people IS stripping people of rights, regardless of whether the law deems those people human or not.”
she.
Who happens to be non white and happens to understand that more than you know.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 11:18 am
pheeno,
I’m not really sure that you do fully grasp the interconnections between confederate ideology and slavery in this case. I feel like your argument is more on the line of both the north and the south promoted racism, why single out the south. Why single out the confederate flag?
As much as I can agree that any symbol can be used for multiple purposes or misused, I don’t really see the Confederate flag in this day and age being used for good purposes. Like it or not the confederate ideology and state rights ideology is directly related to racist ideology. If people are not convinced of that, I highly suggest reading this blog, which tracks the neo-confederate movement. I have been reading for a long time, and you start to see the interconnections between neo-confederates other hate groups like the KKK, Aryan Nation, and Council of Conservative Citizens.
The link quoted from brandon Berg up thread leads to the Lew Rockwell blog, which is also a ne0-confederate site.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Like it or not the confederate ideology and state rights ideology is directly related to racist ideology.
Are the people of Massachusetts racist (sorry, part of “racist ideology”) for setting their own marriage laws? It’s states’ rights that allows them to do that.
I think it’s unhelpful to characterize theories of government according to the moral failures of one particular set of early adherents to the theory. If you want to play that game, as a collectivist you’re personally standing on a particularly blood-drenched patch of ideological ground.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 11:53 am
the confederate version of state rights ideology, not state rights ideology in general
I’m not aware that there’s a “confederate version”. States’ rights is states’ rights, whether you want the freedom to oppress blacks or the freedom to liberate gays, in contravention of the national position.
But I could be wrong. Rachel?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I think states rights are great. I’d LOVE to see more states tell the federal government to go away on a number of issues including but not limited to;
Marriage, minimum drinking age, assisted suicide, and drugs. I really think the federal government has far too much power.
But i know people use states rights as a cover when they really mean that they don’t like black people.
Racists stole a good idea (states rights) and messed it all up.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Omigod, I agree with Robert!
Both the North and South benefited from slavery, as many products which were made from raw materials tied in with slavery in the South were manufactured and sold as finished products up North. That’s one reason why Unitarians in New England for example, were late to join the abolitionist movement because many of them owned businesses that sold products manufactured from materials, i.e. cotton produced in the South.
The North knew that it relied on the raw products produced with slave labor in the South to benefit its own economy, and it’s much easier to secure that raw product cheaply from states within your own country than from another sovereign nation.
This country has a long tradition of trying to secure cheap access to resources in other sovereign nations, i.e oil in the Middle-East including Iran and bananas and other fruit in nations in Central and South America. When these nations try or succeed in nationalizing these industries or enforcing taxes or other expenditures on corporations in the United States, then the United States intervenes in different ways by sponsoring military coups to overthrow governments or to involve itself in assassinations of leaders or the overthrow of countries more directly through its military and/or intelligence resources. That’s happened in Iran, Iraq, Guatamala, El Salvador, and other countries.
So yes, Lincoln, a blatent racist himself, was going to rein in the South to “preserve” the Union. Yeah right. The Emancipation Proclaimation was not an ordered that valued the lives and even the freedom of Black men, women and children living under chattal slavery but interestingly enough, not in regions under the control of the Union forces in several states, but it was done through pressure of abolitionists in the North and to beef up military forces in regions of the South to fight the confederate army when its numbers were getting depleted, though the troops were racially segregated of course.
The Confederate Constitution makes it clear that slaveholding was never going to go away while that country existed if no single state could ban it under the federal body of law that bound the states together through their adherence to it. So as said on this one issue, “states’ rights” rights clearly took a backseat in importance.
Slaves would remain the backbone of the southern economy. Not every southerner would own slaves, in fact I believe most didn’t, but they all lived and benefited to various degrees from slavery if they were White. Just like the people in the North.
In fact, even when the 13th Amendment was passed, you had the sunset laws, the black codes(revised from the slave codes), debt peonage, “share-cropping” and other measures taken to get around the prohibition against slavery(except in the penal system). There’s other ways to exploit Black people and their labor besides chattal slavery. The end of slavery just pushed people to rethink their strategies for doing so. Jim Crow was able to exist and thrive for years before the federal government intervened.
That said, the confederate flag represents a system that fought for the continued enslavement of Black people to further its economic gains and the American flag represents a system that fights for the colonization and enslavement of Black people and other people of color to further its economic gains. Because the American flag is still around, there’s still a chance to change that meaning somewhat depending on what this country does to change its way of doing business in the present and the future though I’ll believe that when I see it. Hopefully, some day there will be a generation where that can happen, though I don’t think I’ll live to see it. And it has to be much more than just rewriting its history to make it more palatable and we haven’t advanced past doing that yet in our history.
Many obviously do see the Confederate flag as a racist symbol because I’ve seen a fair share of the confederate flag out my way including one on a huge flag pole across the street from a high school where over 90% of the students are Black. My boss and I were there for a press conference and she’s Black and from the South and just shook her head at it, sadly. Then she took out her camera and photographed it.
The confederate flag, however, would have to be elevated through revising history. There’s really no redeeming it. I found out one of my city’s police officers tattoed the confederate flag to his body, but no one except presumably fellow officers in the locker room what he had done. If people had known, they probably would have raised it as an issue in terms of challenging his right to police their communities.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Your intent here is ambiguous, and I’d like you to make it clear. What exactly is it that you want us to think about Lew Rockwell’s web site?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
“Oh, well, I for one assumed we were all following your lead and calling anyone one didn’t know (presumably b/c they couldn’t be bothered to actually pay attention to these sorts of things) “he”.
But, so long as we’re all clear that you’re not white and know more than us, we can all happily ignore all those African American voices. We have your voice to speak for all people of color. That’s helpful, it’ll make it so much easier to only have to go to one person to find out what my opinions should be. ”
Yours was a typo. Im aware you’re female and have been for some time. I may not post here as frequently as some, but I do lurk and read.
I *have* to make it clear Im not white because thats the assumption anytime I post, and there’s been several posts here alluding to the idea that *only* white supremacists defend the confederate flag. But, Im not black just indian so of course in a discussion of slavery we get overlooked. Evidently, slavery of blacks is the only allowed topic and viewpoint. My POC viewpoint isnt important at all, I guess because enough of us werent enslaved.
Maybe *you* havent noticed, but when discussion of slavery comes up its only black and white. Well, as a race belonging to neither, *I* notice and *I* give *my* voice that would otherwise be left out. Sorry if I dont feel my race is of lesser importance in a discussion of slavery.
Also, Im telling you what *my* opinion is. Not what yours should be. If you feel threatened by me stating my opinion as a member of a race left out of damn near every racial topic (unless its about mascots, thats the only one we ever get) thats your issue.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Charles S writes:
Sure — go read “Tax History”. It describes in detail what happened. You might also pay careful attention to Calhoun’s arguments and particularly his “40 bales theory”.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
“If you want to play that game, as a collectivist you’re personally standing on a particularly blood-drenched patch of ideological ground. ”
Pretty much.
And Im starting to find those that defend the Union about as offensive as they find the people who defend the confederates. They’re defending a nation of people who slaughtered mine in a mass genocide and stuck the survivors in dumps no one else wanted to live in, and starved them near to extinction. Oh but they had good intentions over ending slavery? Well how nice for them. A bit too late for a great deal of my race. And last i checked, to this day a great deal of us are stuck in shitholes suiciding left and right. But hey, the Union abolished slaves so YAY them.
Not.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
“Actually, that hasn’t been the argument here ”
Actually, yes it has. It’s been stated more than once.
” I thought only white supremacists defended the flag with states rights”
“racists use states rights to excuse slavery”
ect ect.
“that that doesn’t negate the offensiveness the symbol holds for so many people ”
Havent argued that. In fact, not once have I said anyone should not or could not be offended by that symbol. Not once. I have, however, more than once said these are *my* personal feelings over it. Mine. Alone.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
No dear, thats what you *think* Im doing.
What I’m actually doing is engaging in a discussion and giving my personal opinion about a symbol and what it personally means to me. And Im qualifying my race because it’s been assumed more than once that only white people could have a point of view that differs from the confederate flag is teh evol. (since we’re bringing up extrapolation of others intentions onto everyone else)I’m also qualifying my race because no one else factors mine in. You havent. Others havent. There was one token sentence in one post that mentioned “other races”. What you and others bring up is the symbol and what it means to one race. What about the rest of us? there *were* more than 2 involved in this issue. And if you dont mind, Im going to speak my opinion as one.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
And on that note, I would just like to say thanks to Rachel, who does manage to include Native Americans when she discusses race. (and not by delegating us into a vague “others” category. I cant tell you how lovely it is to discover Im an “other”)I know I dont speak for all of us, but many of us do feel rather discarded and forgotten about when the race topic comes up. And it doesnt help to get responded to with crap like ” you dont speak for all POC” as if Im white and trying to dictate what minorities feel based on my white priveledge POV, when I disagree with something. It’s as if we’re some non existant race that doesnt count, because we only existed in the cowboys and indian days of the wild west or something. We’re the dodo bird of races.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Pheeno and Bean, please cool it.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
This thread has turned into a fascinating display of left/liberal treatment of those oh-so-valued minority voices that don’t happen to be left/liberal. Although, actually, pheeno’s position is pretty left/liberal from an abstract perspective; it just doesn’t kiss the ass of white elite liberals and give them cookies for their brave stance against the Confederacy.
Pheeno has a genuinely different perspective than what’s ordinarily aired, and it’s revelatory just how much hostility and indifference towards that perspective exists here. I doubt that she and I agree on any policy issues (though we seem to have a lot of agreement on questions of fact) but I, personally, appreciate hearing your point of view, P, and I encourage you to continue articulating it.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
This is to Brandon and Robert,
As bean stated I am specifically referring to states rights in the context of neo-confederate ideology. The site I linked to is from an academic who specializes in the study of Neo-Confederate ideology. On his blog, he has links to neo-confederate sites, both those sympathetic to the cause and those whose primary purpose is to restore confederate ideology.
I would also add to Robert’s point about MA and gay rights by saying that while I agree with local municipalities being able to set some of their own rules. I think it is fair to say the governments can exerise disciminatory behavior on any level local, state, or federal. This whole neo-conservative view that the federal government is evil and state and local governments should have more control is revistsing some of the issues that we settled in the Civil War (well I thought we settled them.). People who support this view don’t realize that exploitation can come at any level, and personally I don’t like having different laws with regard to gay marriage or abortion in each state. My sense is that this divides us into feifdoms. I don’t mind zoning laws that are locally set, and I tend to think some issues probably work best on the local level, but I feel like core Civil rights issues should be set at the federal level-whether we are talking about freedom of the press, anti-discrimination laws etc. That said, different states are going to have differing climates, and they may change at different rates depending on the issue, but I do tend to believe in the Supremacy of federal laws and the US Constitution. I’m not saying this is a perfect document, but I just cannot accept the confederate ideology on states rights. There is a reason we chose the US Constitution and not the Articles of Confederation.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Robert, are you suggesting that comment-writers on “Alas” wouldn’t vehemently disagree with a white poster with Pheeno’s opinions on the confederacy, eagerness to debate, and (perhaps most importantly) frequency of posting? If so, I have to wonder if you’ve ever read “Alas” before.
In fact, to put Pheeno on a pedestal and not disagree with her at all about the confederate flag — or to disagree with her, but only in feather-gentle terms, rather than the sort of “aggressive but civil” tones that are the norm I try to encourage at this site — because she’s an Indian, would be (imo) racist.
Also, there have been several people here who have disagreed with Pheeno in a reasonably civil way — in fact, I think it’s a majority. I suspect you don’t acknowledge that because it would interfere with your simplistic partisan narrative.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I’m having a bit of trouble understanding Pheeno’s precise position since the South wasn’t particularly kind to any people of color, and since, as she correctly points out, Africans weren’t the only people who were enslaved.
What I find really depressing about this discussion is the way that the North gets a free pass on racism. It’s been my observation that while blacks are discriminated against in the South, at least there is a place (however limiting it might be) for Southern blacks, but in the North there is even less tolerance and even less of a “place” for blacks. This mirrors what I wrote upthread about the evolution of slavery — as it became economically unviable in northern industrial states, northern African slaves, and northern free people of color, were moved south.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
This whole neo-conservative view that the federal government is evil and state and local governments should have more control is revistsing some of the issues that we settled in the Civil War (well I thought we settled them.)
Well, first off, it has nothing to do with “neo-conservatism”. The original neo-conservatism was a recent movement of former Marxists who came to recognize the false-to-fact nature of some of Marxism’s foundational tenets, and in essence recalculated their entire political matrix, winding up somewhere close to traditional conservatism. Neo-con has come to be shorthand for “conservatives I don’t like”, probably as fallout from the bitterness and rancor that was created in some progressive Marxist circles when these folks left.
Secondly, there is literally nobody out there who thinks that the federal government is evil but that state and local governments are just ducky. All governments are evil, because the essential nature of government is the use of force to coerce certain behaviors, an inherently evil act. The classical liberal philosophy of government believes that this evil force can be turned to good purpose (much like Adam Smith thought that the evil impulses of business people can be used to create public welfare) through structural means and through an understanding of human psychology.
The reason for desiring to push power down the hierarchy - to starve the Federal beast and valorize the local one - is not that the local government will be any less evil. It won’t be. But local governments are much more susceptible to grass-roots political action by the people who are affected by their decisions - one of the structural constraints on government that keep it from becoming too evil to be used. In addition, local and state governments are much more subject to voting with feet - they can’t get too oppressive or people will leave and take their tax money with them. (Cf. the flight of business from California.)
None of these issues were settled by, or are even particularly germane to, the Civil War - other than reinforcing the principle that at the national/federal level, the “vote with your feet” constraint somewhat ceases to operate, because the national/federal state is powerful enough to stop you from doing it. The federalism question in the Civil War, which was settled, concerned whether the constituent states of the Union had a right to exit.
People who support this view don’t realize that exploitation can come at any level
Right. We disagree with you because we don’t have your vast wisdom. (Eyeroll.) Believe me, people who adhere to the classical liberal idea of governance are exceptionally attuned to the idea that exploitation can come in at any level.
and personally I don’t like having different laws with regard to gay marriage or abortion in each state. My sense is that this divides us into feifdoms.
I suggest respectfully that you would like it considerably less if you didn’t have your fiefdom, because the laws that a unified national regime would impose would be considerably less liberal than what you experience right now. A federalist structure of strong states provides the diversity and freedom to experiment that are a requirement for discovering which policies and laws work best in our society. That structure also serves as a check on the actions of the states within it; no governmental entity has the luxury of assuming that it is in possession of subjects, rather than citizens.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Robert, are you suggesting that comment-writers on “Alas” wouldn’t vehemently disagree with a white poster with Pheeno’s opinions on the confederacy, eagerness to debate, and (perhaps most importantly) frequency of posting?
No. I’m suggesting that commenters on Alas are, broadly, a group of people who would affirm the principle that the voices of people of color are uniquely legitimate when they are talking about racial issues, but that principle seems only to be adhered to when the POC in question are echoing white liberals.
Perhaps I’m mistaken.
I am a feminist, and as such, I reject any conflation of feminism with leftist or liberal beliefs.
Ooookay.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
It’s been my observation that while blacks are discriminated against in the South, at least there is a place (however limiting it might be) for Southern blacks, but in the North there is even less tolerance and even less of a “place” for blacks
In addition to questions of “place”, there’s a question of the personal relationships people have. Speaking very broadly, in the South people who are racist tend to come right out and be racist (”nigger, get out of my bar.”) People in the North who are racist pretend not to be (”everyone is welcome here. oh, but we’re closing in ten minutes. you should go somewhere else.”)
It’s arguable that the pretense is better, because it can become reality (as in the South Park episode about the South Park flag, where the children of racist-but-pretending white residents genuinely are color-blind and completely miss the point of the adult debate over the racist town flag) but it’s got to be demoralizing to never really know if the people you’re around hate you on the basis of your skin color.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
You’re vastly oversimplifying, at best. “Uniquely legitimate” doesn’t mean “POC are always right on everything, and we must never disagree, and context is irrelevant.” Such a view would be impossible to hold, for the obvious reason that all POC do not agree on everything.
I’m curious: Do you agree with me that to have refused to debate Pheeno’s views only because she’s a POC, or to have argued with her wearing kid gloves for exactly the same reason, would have been racist?
You may not be aware of this, but Bean’s perspective is reasonably common among radical feminists. Catherine MacKinnon, for example, has stated a view pretty similar to Bean’s (I don’t have a link, so I hope you’ll take my word for that), and if you read her work you’d see that huge portions of her writings are devoted to critiquing liberals. The blogger Heart has also said much the same thing.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
FCH wrote:
Almost every single poster in this discussion has agreed that the North was and is racist, and shouldn’t be given a free pass. So I don’t know what you’re responding to, but it’s definitely not the things people are saying in this discussion.
In an earlier comment, you wrote:
First of all, don’t imply that people who disagree with you must not have studied the topic. Not only is it rude, it’s inaccurate; there are college professors who have spent years studying this who disagree with you.
Secondly, in light of your apparent opinion that the south didn’t go to war to preserve slavery, could you please respond to comment #75?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“I’m having a bit of trouble understanding Pheeno’s precise position since the South wasn’t particularly kind to any people of color, and since, as she correctly points out, Africans weren’t the only people who were enslaved.”
My position can be boiled down to this (in the most simplistic of forms, it no way encompasses everything so bear with me)
The confederate flag doesnt symbolize MORE racism than the US flag. They can (and are) both be viewed as symbols of white peoples utter contempt for anyone non white. The north does NOT get a pass from me because they inadvertantly freed slaves. The souths constitution promoted slavery. The norths promoted genocide. That doesnt get undone by opposing slavery long enough to ship them “all back to africa”. My own personal view of the confederate flag is that its a nice big fuck you to the misplaced smug arrogance of people who think the north held anything other than equally contemptible beliefs towards minorities and acted out of any respect for minorities. I dont expect anyone else to share this viewpoint, and certainly would not demand it or tell them they cannot be offended. By *either* flag.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
“No. I’m suggesting that commenters on Alas are, broadly, a group of people who would affirm the principle that the voices of people of color are uniquely legitimate when they are talking about racial issues, but that principle seems only to be adhered to when the POC in question are echoing white liberals.
Perhaps I’m mistaken.”
Sorta feels like that to me, with regards to certain individuals.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Do you agree with me that to have refused to debate Pheeno’s views only because she’s a POC, or to have argued with her wearing kid gloves for exactly the same reason, would have been racist?
The former, yes. The latter, no. There are reasons you might use kid gloves in a discussion with a person who has characteristic [x], other than racism. (Not that I’m advocating anyone use kid gloves here.)
You may not be aware of this, but Bean’s perspective is reasonably common among radical feminists.
Write me when the radical feminists start voting for ANYBODY who can’t fairly be encapsulated as “liberal/leftist”. A distinction without a difference, in other words.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
“Not only is it rude, it’s inaccurate; there are college professors who have spent years studying this who disagree with you. ”
And there are college professors and historians who have spent years studying it and do agree.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Sorta feels like that to me
That I’m mistaken? Or that the special POC credibility disappears if the viewpoint isn’t white-liberal?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
“Or that the special POC credibility disappears if the viewpoint isn’t white-liberal? ”
That.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
[Pheeno vs. Bean flamewar deleted by Amp.
Pheeno, I asked you to cool it with Bean. Since you're not willing to do that, here's the new rule for this thread:
From now on, Pheeno is not allowed to respond to Bean. Any new Pheeno responses to Bean will be deleted.
And to keep things even, from now on, Bean is not allowed to respond to Pheeno. Any new Bean responses to Pheeno will be deleted.
Discussion of this moderation decision is off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss my moderation, take it to an "open thread," or discuss it with me directly in email.
--Amp]
“Nodding along. Yes! That’s exactly it. You’ve nailed my (and so many others) feelings and beliefs perfectly. Really, it was the use of the oh-so-not-condescing-in-any-way-whatsoever use of the term “dear” that made me open up and listen to what you were saying.”Note to self
Say everything sweetly and with a smile or your “message” may not get through. Its my job. I forgot.
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like MRA’s who bitch about women being “too angry”.
“That along with your utter lack of ability and/or willingness to listen to what other people were saying. ”
Oh yes, because I disagree I must not be able to listen. (also sounds like a familiar MRA tactic)
next.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Pheeno wrote:
I pretty much agree with you, Pheeno. I really haven’t thought much about the American flag as a racist flag before — I’ve thought of it more as an imperialist flag — but you’re right, it makes just as much sense to view it as racist. (And there’s obviously a huge amount of overlap between imperialism and racism, anyway.)
From a political plausibility perspective, however, I don’t see any chance of convincing anyone in the political mainstream that we should change the national flag to a new design. (Can you imagine what would happen to a politician who advocated such a thing?)
I do think, however, that it’s possible to reduce the display of the confederate flag. That’s unfair, but I’m not sure that just because it’s not politically possible to address problem “A” means that we should therefore ignore problem “B,” which can be addressed.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I’ve never suggested ignoring problem B, I’d just like to see more of problem A tied in when discussing problem B. Politcally, neither should have enforced bans or redesign. As much as its offensive, I hesitate to start demanding alterations or political action against something because it’s offensive. Basically the I may hate what you say, but defend your right to say it thing.
Politicians and the government arent people I’d be comfortable handing that power to. Their track record sucks.
A politician who advocated such a thing would get shot. Accidentally of course.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Pheeno, quoting me, wrote:
I agree. To imply that holding either view must be a result of not having studied the civil war at all is therefore incorrect. Right?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
“I agree. To imply that holding either view must be a result of not having studied the civil war at all is therefore incorrect. Right? ”
Yes, unless you’re dealing with someone who obviously hadn’t learned even the most basic about it. Example: the guy quoted in the original post who thinks it happened 2000 years ago. *L*
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Write me when the radical feminists start voting for ANYBODY who can’t fairly be encapsulated as “liberal/leftist”. A distinction without a difference, in other words.
I see your point, but I think it only works if you assume two things: 1), That voting is the only kind of political activism that counts, and 2) that it’s never legit to vote for a “lesser evil” candidate who doesn’t represent your views.
Many radical feminists are extremely politically active in ways other than voting. And it’s my impression that voting or not is an extremely unimportant issue among radical feminists; some wince and vote for the lesser evil, some boycott voting because they consider all the options too awful, and as I understand it either view is considered perfectly legitimate within radical feminism.
Of course, I’m not a radical feminist and can’t speak for radical feminism. That’s just my observation as an outsider.
Edited to add: On some levels, I agree with you (although I think it’s a significant problem with your critique of radical feminists that you don’t consider the possibility that many may not be voters at all). It’s a warped result of the two-party system, in my opinion. In all systems, people find themselves voting for the lesser evil sometimes, in that no party is likely to agree in every single issue with every voter. But this is particularly extreme in the US. If you vote in the US, you’re forced to prioritize issues in some pretty stark and un-nuanced ways.
In effect, nearly all feminists who vote are voting left or voting Democrat. And that does reflect the fact that most feminists, even if they can’t stand liberals, still prefer horrible liberal policies to even worse Conservative policies.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I don’t think anyone advocates that the government ban the private display of any flag. I certainly think that people should have the right to fly any flag they want: The US flag, the confederate flag, the Nazi flag, whatever.
On the other hand, it’s not censorship if the US government were to change the design of its official flag. Doing so will in no way prevent people from privately flying the old design, if they want to.
As far as “demanding alternations,” I think people have a free speech right to make any demands they want. I have a right to “demand” that Melissa take down her Confederate flag. And Melissa, in turn, has the right to ignore me.
(I suspect we pretty much agree on this stuff.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I have to agree with Amp #177, in all of these nearly 200 posts, I don’t think I have seen anybody suggest that northern racism is not a problem, and in the original post, I very specifically stated that I would not allow crude southerner jokes or NASCAR jokes.
My only regret with this thread is that it has gotten bogged down in a discussion about the Civil War and states rights, rather then the rhetoric tactics racists use to suppress discussions of race. While racism and slavery are certainly in the backdrop of where this discussion has gone, we have unfortunately ended up focusing more on the history of this issue rather than the present, and how the commenters quoted above use the same basic rhetorical tactics to talk about a race related issue as the students who decided that they were going to hold blackface parties.
I’m not saying the history isn’t interesting or important; however, I am saying that this seems to be the typical pattern in much of the discourse on race we just don’t deal with the current realities. Unfortunately, only one poster on this thread is Black (correct me if I’m missing somebody), and something is lost when we don’t have the views of the people who are the primary group targeted by groups like the KKK, who run around waving Confederate flags. It’s really sad that many of us can sit around waxing poetic about history, without really focusing on the fear that this symbol evokes in a large segment of the population.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
“I don’t think I have seen anybody suggest that northern racism is not a problem”
Well for me, Im not saying anyone is suggesting northern racism isnt/wasnt a problem.
What Im trying to say is that ” the war was over slavery, the north wanted to abolish it” isnt entirely accurate. On one hand you have a side that wanted to continue the practice of slavery, on the other you had a side that didnt want black people to reside in this country at all. Wanting to get rid of slavery so you can ship everyone out isnt really about finding slavery repugnant.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Pheeno,
Thanks for the explanation. I think we’re in general alignment on most points.
Amp,
I base what I write on contemporary discussions of the causes of the Civil War. I’d suggest you read more by Calhoun and less by those college professors. It’s politically expedient to blame slavery for the Civil War. That Johnson didn’t carry through on Lincoln’s dreams tells me that slavery wasn’t about blacks qua blacks, but was about the political power that was located within the plantation system. More to the point, slavery persisted in the north long after the first rumblings of secession in South Carolina in the 1830’s.
That States Rights were central to the issue is made clear by none other than Stephen A Douglas –
Lincoln campaigned, essentially, on a platform that invited war against the South and Douglas had him pegged.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Amp,
In response to your request that I respond to #75, I think several of us have already. If the North was outlawing horses, horses would have significant focus as the cause of the war, but the violation of the South’s rights as sovereign states would still have been the cause.
Lincoln brought the first credible threat that what had been prevented by Congress’ respect for States Rights on the subject of slavery was no longer going to be respected.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Thanks, Rachel, for bringing this post back on track. I’ve been following the thread and just haven’t chimed in yet. All of the talk on the Civil War and federalism has been interesting, and it’s made me think about my own opinions and why I hold them.
But at the same time, I don’t think that most people who are flying the Confederate flag today are really using it as a symbol to promote states’ rights and advocate less interference from the federal government. After all, many of the same people who argue “states’ rights” are the same people who argue for federal rules concerning regulation of marriage to prevent SSM.
The Confederate flag, while grounded in a particular time in history, has present day meaning which is likely to evoke feelings of exclusion and fear to certain individuals. If I see 3 houses–one with an American flag, one with a Nazi/swastika flag, and one with a Confederate flag, I will definitely feel unwelcome at 2 of those. The American flag bears distinction because it is used in a multitude of ways, from peace-loving anti-war protesters to the KKK. But the Confederate flag doesn’t seem to have as many facets to its modern message. When I see someone who has the Confederate flag on their car, to me, that’s a “F**k you” to people of color and of non-Protestant religions, and, to a lesser extent, non-Southerners. If someone wants to use that symbol, that’s fine. But they shouldn’t be surprised if I look disgusted or even scared when I see it. Freedom of speech works both ways.
This comment was written by DJ.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
When all you have is a hammer, the whole world is a nail.
Sure: if you want to limit the discussion to the viewpoint held by those who already believe that the confederate flag is inherently racist then sure, your conclusion fits.
Amp:
Huh. Am I missing something? Because so far as I can see, this thread started on Rachel’s premise that (simply put) black views of the confederate flag should be respected because they’re black.
this often seems to turn into a circular argument of the worst kind:
1) the flag is racist.
2) because the flag is racist, those who don’t think the flag is racist are racist.
3) because only racists think the flag isn’t racist, the flag represents racist views and therefore is racist.
This comment was written by sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
FCH:
“In response to your request that I respond to #75, I think several of us have already. If the North was outlawing horses, horses would have significant focus as the cause of the war, but the violation of the South’s rights as sovereign states would still have been the cause.”
I see the states’ rights issue, but I think the point is that the states’ rights (or white people’s rights) to allow slavery was the particular right in question that was the driving force behind the decision to go to war. A lot of things could have been banned or regulated by the federal government–horses, liquor, corn, (whatever, pick an arbitrary regulation), but those things might not have been important enough to go to war over. People might have grumbled over the intervention, but I doubt they’d be as eager to pick up a musket and risk their lives, homes, and property over it.
This comment was written by DJ.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Lincoln brought the first credible threat that what had been prevented by Congress’ respect for States Rights on the subject of slavery was no longer going to be respected.
I’m sorry, but that sounds completely absurd. The Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott that even Congress couldn’t outlaw slavery, never mind the President. Lincoln won the presidency with just 39% of the popular vote. As far as I can tell, he didn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of ending slavery unless the South chose to start a war.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
DJ:
Again, the war was not about slavery. Secession was more or less about slavery, but the war was about preventing secession, not about ending slavery.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
sailorman,
You totally missed the thesis of my post. In fact, you just came way out of left field. My thesis was this sentence:
Racists, you gotta love ‘em. It doesn’t matter what the subject most of their arguments are the same–ignore the topic at hand, chastise the person willing to acknowledge racism, deny/minimize the existence of racism in the past or present, say your opponents are the real bigots, look for a lone person of color to support you, and blame the Jews.
You are really insulting my intelligence here.
To all:
I feel like every time I post on this site a large contingent of commenters distort or misrepresent my views. They often try to summarize my views as: “Black people good; White people bad” or some variation of that.
I wasn’t angry in the post, in fact, I thought it was funny. I guess at least one person agreed because that person linked this post to a joke blog, but when the subject is race, people are often unable to see through their internalized biases.
I need to take a deep breath because this is really annoying me. I wasn’t angry when I posted, but I am now.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“Again, the war was not about slavery. Secession was more or less about slavery, but the war was about preventing secession, not about ending slavery.”
Brandon, isn’t that just semantics? Secession and the war were inextricably linked, no?
This comment was written by DJ.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Brandon, isn’t that just semantics? Secession and the war were inextricably linked, no?
Yes. But the link isn’t causally transitive.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I need to take a deep breath because this is really annoying me. I wasn’t angry when I posted, but I am now.
I blame the Jews for this. Amp, shame on you!
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Rachel:
The reason I asked you to clarify your comment about LRC is that it could be read as implying that Lew Rockwell et al are all a bunch of racists in the vein of the KKK and their ilk. That’s a pretty serious charge, so I’d appreciate it if you’d either make it explicitly or tell us that that’s not what you really meant.
Only in the sense that, e.g., questions about the relative merits of capitalism and communism were settled in the Vietnam War. One side beating the other into submission isn’t really settling anything.
I do realize that exploitation can come at any level, which is precisely why I prefer to have power devolved to the states. Bad laws at the federal level are much worse than bad laws at the state or local level, because it’s much easier to escape bad state laws than bad federal laws.
Would you like those states which now allow gay marriage or civil unions to repeal those laws and wait for the federal government to do something about it? When individual states started legalizing abortion before Roe v. Wade, would you have preferred that they had instead just asked their Congressmen to bring it up at the next session?
Depending on what you mean by “the confederate ideology” on states’ rights, I suspect that it’s much closer to what’s actually outlined in the Constitution than yours. And the Constitution, as actually written, is much closer to the Articles of Confederation than the Constitution as generally interpreted today.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
DJ:
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.No. Once the South seceded, the North had a choice. They could let them go peacefully, or they could fight to bring them back. War was not an inevitable consequence of the South’s choice to secede. It was a choice the North made, not for the purpose of ending slavery, but expressly for the purpose of “saving the union.”
Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Brandon,
“Inevitable” was not the proper choice of words on my behalf. I didn’t mean to imply that the North didn’t have a choice in what to do. But all of these arguments seem to separate “states’ rights” or “saving the union” into an abstract. The issue of states’ rights or secession would likely not have come up *but for* the issue of slavery, which was integral to the South’s economy and way of life. If the federal government tried to regulate something less crucial to their economics, I doubt secession would have been the result.
This comment was written by DJ.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Brandon,
The author of the anti-neoconfederate blog identifies Lew Rockwell as a neoconfederate blog. That’s my point.
I personally believe that most neo-confederates are racists of varying degrees, and I trust the anti-neoconfederate blog author’s judgements on what is a neo-confederate site. I don’t read Lew Rockwell, so I cannot offer my personal opinion on whether or not I think the blog is a racist blog on par with the KKK. The site does come up when I do searches for racist sites/concepts, but I have not read it.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Robert said, “I blame the Jews for this. Amp, shame on you!”
Ha ha ha, you’re so funny I’m dying. Ha ha ha!! NOT!!
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
DJ writes:
The point is that both Lincoln and Douglas knew that Congress had no right under the Constitution to limit slavery within the several states. It also didn’t have a right to limit horses, liquor or corn. In the 1850’s politicians were well aware that Congress lacked this power and that the only way to enforce such a ban was by force of arms. That’s what Douglas’s comments in response to Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech are about — how, exactly, does Lincoln suggest that the end of the “House Divided” is going to occur? He says in his speech that ending it would require that Kentucky invade Illinois, or Illinois invade Kentucky.
I encourage anyone who thinks the war was about anything besides States Rights to read Douglas’s speeches. Here’s one of them, which is an educational read if you can refrain from throwing up when reading the blatant racism. There’s also this speech in which Lincoln pounds his fist on the Declaration of Independence since he knows that his plans are in violation of the Constitution (and he admits as much, FWIW).
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“If the federal government tried to regulate something less crucial to their economics, I doubt secession would have been the result. ”
Thats kinda the point. They DID go for something rather crucial to their economics. Had the federal govenment tried to outlaw owning cotton or growing cotton, the result likely would have been the same. The southern states would have rebelled.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I feel like every time I post on this site a large contingent of commenters distort or misrepresent my views.
Welcome to the Internet. That’s unique to neither you nor this blog. Not that you’re not right, mind you.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I actually saw a Confederate battle flag once. No, not the reproductions we’ve all seen, but the real thing. For reasons that would take way too long to explain, I one day visited Washington and Lee University. I walked into a hallway and found myself in front of a display of a Confederate battle flag, along with 2 or 3 Confederate regimental flags. Sitting at a desk next to this was a quite elderly woman whose job it apparently was to talk to bumbling Northerners like me like me and explain what was going on. They were actual flags that General Lee had served under. She took pains to explain to me that the university’s name didn’t originally include General Lee’s until after he was dead; she was concerned that I would think that the man had an out of control ego. But all I could think about was that flag.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
It is a fascinating thing that in this discussion when people want to claim that the North sucked, they point out that even during the war Lincoln was very slow and then very selective about freeing the slaves, but when they want to claim that the Southern states seceded because their rights were about to be stomped on by Lincoln (actually, people have been reversing the flow of time in this conversation and claiming that the secession followed the trampling of the right to slavery, but I digress), they make it sound as though Lincoln was planning to free the slaves by force. This sort of double think is not unique to FCH and pheeno, it is central to the conceptual games that Southerners play when thinking about the Civil War.
The reference in Douglas’s speech to Lincoln advocating making war upon the institution of slavery in the South (which slides into talking as though Lincoln were advocating physical invasion of the Southern states) certainly demonstrates that this fantasy has deep roots, but Douglas is engaging in propaganda, not accurately describing Lincoln’s intended policies. If the Southern States had not seceded, Lincoln would have been in no position to enforce abolition in any form (and indeed, as everyone here as agreed, Lincoln was not an abolitionist, the immediate abolition of slavery was not even on his agenda).
Now, Rachel has pointed out that this argument of the basis of the Civil War is a side stepping of the actual issues that she raised, an attempt to avoid discussing the current situation, and the current meaning of the Confederate Flag. But this obsession with whether or not the Civil War was about state’s rights instead of slavery is fundamental to how non-black Southerners who are not avowed racists go about excusing to themselves glorifying a war in which the South was fundamentally on the side of evil. Pretend that the war wasn’t really about slavery, and it becomes okay to use the sigils of a government formed solely to protect slavery as symbols of regional pride, and of a sense of having been wronged by the wealthier North. These are the lies that Southerners tell themselves, the lies that allow them to view “the South will rise again” as some generic slogan of regional hope and pride.
But they do tell themselves these lies, so there are many non-black Southerners who fly the Confederate flag out of regional pride and a hatred of the North, and not directly out of racist hatred of black people. The fact that racist Californians like George Allen also love the flag, and that the racist neo-confederate movement, and the KKK also love their flag does not mean that everyone who flies it flies it with racist intent.
You’d think that the fact that very few black people see the Confederate flag as a symbol of regional pride (to say the least) and the fondness of the Klan, etc for the flag, would give some people pause (and I’m sure it does give plenty of people pause), but that expectation (that the love of racists for the flag would make others uncomfortable with it) requires believing that merely because someone isn’t a KKK supporter means that they aren’t a racist, or that it matters to non-black Southerners that a symbol of regional pride have any inclusiveness for black Southerners. Clearly, for plenty of Southerners, it does not.
Close family friends of mine, the Johnsons, with whom my family went to the beach in North Carolina every year for the first 30+ years of my life, always bought inflatable rafts that bore the confederate flag. Joyce Johnson was the daughter of fervently racist Virginians, but she never seemed any more racist than any other white person I knew (my sister is black, so I get to see people’s racism up close). The confederate flag inflatable rafts always bugged the fuck out of me, but I never objected. In probably the last year that we went to the beach with the Johnsons, my sister brought her friend Wendy to the beach with us, and Wendy (who is black) objected strongly to the confederate flag inflatable rafts, so they were put away. Southerner though I am, that is about my only really direct experience with the Confederate flag.
And Robert, way back up there you repeated the usual predigested horse shit about racism in the North verses racism in the South, where you had to go to the North before you found towns that were completely physically segregated, and about how at least racist Southerners are bluntly racist rather than pretending to not be racist. Obviously, you never came through my home town, the twin towns of Chapel Hill (traditionally white) and Carrboro (traditionally black), a structure far from unusual in the South. Likewise, on the relative styles of racism in the North and the South, I can assure you that the South teems with white people who pretend they aren’t racist, but still tail black customers and still wouldn’t let their son date my sister (”It’s not that we object, but we don’t want to upset our relatives. Maybe you can go to the prom together if you agree not to have pictures taken.” - true story). Likewise, I don’t think the young white men in New York City in the 80’s who chased a black man out of a pizza parlor and into the way of on coming cars were particularly subtle about their racism.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Charles, sorry to ask, but are you the same as Charles S? Which one of you is Amp’s RL friend? I ask because I always thought Charles S was Amp’s RL friend, but I know that the human person “Charles” is from Chapel Hill, and so now I’m confused.
Whichever one you are, I’m sorry that you think my personal life experiences concerning racism and geography are predigested horse shit; I seem to remember having to digest them myself. No, I’ve never been through Chapel Hill, although I have lived in Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida.
I am not shocked to find that my own personal experiences do not reflect the totality of the universe.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 2:21 am
Charles and Charles S are the same poster. I assume the difference is because he posts from two different computers; on one of them, the first time he posted, he filled in his name as “Charles,” on the other one “Charles S,” and now that tiny initial difference lives on forever.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 3:48 am
Robert,
I don’t think that your personal life experiences are predigested horse shit. I think that your presentation of your self digested life experiences happens to line up with the standard line on Northern vs Southern racism. Perhaps that is because your life experiences match up with the standard line (although, since you aren’t the subject of anti-black racism, I’m not sure why your digestion of your life experiences would tell you much about the differences between Northern and Southern racism in terms of blunt racism vs. covert racism, nor why you would have a strong opinion on which form of racism you prefer).
Sorry that was more than a bit ranty. This thread has been pushing me towards ranty for a few days now, and I’ve been holding back, but it finally slipped through.
Charles S is Charles is me is Amp’s real life friend is your RL acquaintance (born and raised in Chapel Hill, NC). Sorry for the name confusion. It is as Amp says a difference between which computer I’m on. I should try to pay better attention to it as I imagine it is confusing.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 7:53 am
“If the Southern States had not seceded, Lincoln would have been in no position to enforce abolition in any form (and indeed, as everyone here as agreed, Lincoln was not an abolitionist, the immediate abolition of slavery was not even on his agenda).”
He would have been in no position to legally enforce abolition. Since when has that stopped polititians? The Patriot Act violates so many rights it’s unbelievable, but you bet your ass it gets enforced.
”
they make it sound as though Lincoln was planning to free the slaves by force. ”
If I hit you with a bat, would you care how long (if at all) I’d planned to?
“(actually, people have been reversing the flow of time in this conversation and claiming that the secession followed the trampling of the right to slavery, but I digress”
Actually some of us have pointed out the right to seceed was not recognized, so technically, in the eyes of the federal government, no seccession happened at all.
“…
go about excusing to themselves glorifying a war in which the South was fundamentally on the side of evil. ”
For some of us non whites, the entire country was fundamentally on the side of evil, and trying to claim one region was “worse” is utter horseshit, and an insulting dismissal of genocide.
The south had slaves!
So did the North.
Yeah, but the South wanted them longer, so it’s worse!
The North was still busily killing off my people, so I think that makes it pretty even.
So just in my personal opinion, that soapbox for the north is standing on land they stole, and murdered to get. It’s not quite as stable as they want it to be, but like you said, people will tell themselves lies.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Charles,
I’m not a southerner. I live in the south, but I’m not from here and I don’t agree with a lot of what passes for “Southern Pride”.
I’m glad slavery was ended, and while I’m not shedding a lot of tears over the means by which it ended, I’m not ignorant of how it came to pass and the long term consequences of what happened.
You say that Lincoln never threatened war, and I say that authorial intent is just as dead today as it was when Lincoln said the things he said and Douglas interpreted them the way he did. I look at acts of violence which were committed in the territories against people who wished to bring slaves into the territories as well as against people who wished to exclude them. When a politician says what Lincoln said against the backdrop of the violence of the 1850’s, it is not a far stretch to believe that Lincoln was willing to go to war to bring about a change he knew he could not bring about through Constitutional means.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 11:06 am
So…this makes slavery OK, because other people besides Southern slaveholders were also wrongdoers? So, why try to exterminate any evil behavior at all? Why not simply authorize genocide, torture, human slavery, murder for gain, robbery, rape, whatever, on the grounds that everyone is totally bad anyhow? After all, rape victims have probably also committed some kind of previous wrong in their lives, so who are they to complain? For that matter, Native Americans were busy killing each other off long before the Europeans got here, so anything goes?
(Please, for the love of God, stop saying “the South” when what you really mean is “white slaveholders in the South.”)
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 11:40 am
“So…this makes slavery OK, because other people besides Southern slaveholders were also wrongdoers? ”
Did I say it made slavery ok?
Find and directly quote where I said that. If you can’t, it means something.
Hint
It means thats not what Im saying.
But I suspect you already know that. Its funny how people react when you point out both sides were bloodthirsty land stealing human enslaving assholes. And one wasnt any better than the other.Somehow that mysteriously gets translated into ” so its Ok”.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 11:42 am
“Please, for the love of God, stop saying “the South” when what you really mean is “white slaveholders in the South.”) ”
Thats the equivalent of an MRA troll posting ” you said all men are rapists”.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 11:49 am
As we talk about states rights, both in the way-back context of slavery and with the modern-day gay and reproductive rights, it seems like an important distinction is being missed. All of those are issues within which one side advocates categorically denying rights to a class of people (black, gay, female), and so are different from most areas of law, and most ways in which states opt to differ from one another. Civil rights seems like the right term, but maybe there’s a specialfancy way of phrasing it that I don’t know [Susan? You're the lawyer ;) ]. Ideally, imo, the federal government would limit states rights only insofar as the states rights can trample individual rights - in practice, not so much, of course, but protecting those limits shouldn’t necessarily be painted with the same brush as all federal involvement. I’m not entirely sure where that fits in with all of this, but it’s been in the back of my head for most of this thread, especially within this argument:
Which is about what I think I would’ve said at #135, if I hadn’t been so worked up. I tried to make both that point and this point at the same time, and screwed it all up. Within this paradigm, slavery isn’t a valid right to defend, or a valid right, period, because by definition it denies people that equality that we’re all supposed to be born with. If the federal government had banned horses, on the other hand, it would indeed have been overstepping constitutional boundaries.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 11:51 am
damn, I meant to say “Susan, you’re the famous lawyer.”
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Susan (the famous Lawyer) writes:
Wow. Not even sure where that came from.
Critically reviewing the attitudes of the North at the time of the Civil War is no where near suggesting that anyone should have just looked the other way.
Here’s some tidbits –
Despite believing that slavery was a moral wrong, many abolitionists did not view African slaves as the equal of whites.
There was no intention at the outset of the war to bring about the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. When the 13th Amendment was original sent to the House, it was rejected, despite the House being comprised solely of representatives from the North.
Kentucky had 30,000 slaves at the time the 13th Amendment was ratified. My home state had a number of “Apprentices for Life”, which is how slaves were reclassified in some states once reclassified when slavery was “abolished” in them. The difference between “Slave” and “Apprentice for Life” is lost on me.
Lincoln was a segregationist and believed in the superiority of the white race. While he was (obviously) an ardent abolitionist, he didn’t seem to have a problem with blacks — free or slave — being denied the vote. That was a legitimate States Rights issue in his mind.
Questioning the purity of Northern intentions gives us an opportunity to investigate why the Civil War failed to achieve equality for freed African slaves. It’s not just a matter that the North had slaves, too. The North had virulent racists, bigots, and all manner of other people whose singular saving grace is that they wanted an end to slavery.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I disagree. That one wasn’t any better than the other.
I persist in the belief that it is better to have a society where involuntary servitude is against the law (whatever other flaws that society may have) than to have a society where the economy is based on involuntary servitude. That the abolition of slavery in the country, however achieved, and however imperfect our society remained, was a giant improvement. It simply isn’t six of one and a half dozen of another between a society without slavery and one with it.
Unhappily, the abolition of slavery was the outcome of a devastating war. Slavery could have been abolished without fighting that war, but that wasn’t how it came out.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
The virtue of the North is not the question. No one here is defending the virtue of the North. The both the North and the South were actively pursuing genocidal war against Native Americans (one of the most important questions that forced the Civil War was the question of whether the spoils of that genocidal war would be turned into slave states or free states). Some of the Northern states still had a few slaves, and no one was moving towards abolition very quickly.
But that snail’s pace progress towards abolition was enough to push the slave owning (and ruling) class of the South into breaking off to form their own country, where slavery would be enshrined in the basic structure of government, and abolition would be incredibly difficult. The flag of the Confederacy is the flag of the people who sought to ensure that slavery would continue for a long, long time.
That Lincoln was a racist asshole, that both the South and the North had been waging genocidal war against Native Americans for centuries, and continued to do so for the next century as well (although the military phase of the genocide ended a bit earlier than the 1960s), and that both of them would have continued to do so even if the South had been allowed to secede without a war, none of that changes the fact that the Confederate flag is the flag of a nation founded with the primary goal of protecting the institution of slavery.
Indeed they will. And ignoring the origins of this country in genocide is a pretty standard lie that both Northerners and Southerners tell themselves.
Of course, black people have again vanished from your analysis, so that it is only Northerners who object to the confederate flag again here. Most black people’s ancestors didn’t really have much say in the genocidal wars against Native Americans.
Both the US and the Confederacy were founded with genocidal war against Native Americans as a major goal. Both were founded with an acceptance of slavery. But the Confederacy was founded out of a fear that US protection of slavery wasn’t enough, that it might weaken, and that slavery might be prevented from continuing. The purpose of founding the Confederacy was to ensure the continued survival of slavery. The flag of the Confederacy stands for the dream for the continued survival of slavery.
People overwrite that meaning with other meanings for their own purposes, but that meaning is fundamental to the history of the flag.
This country is soaked in the blood of Native American genocide and in the blood of slaves, and we fail perpetually to engage in dealing with the past. The flag of the US (although different versions) was flown by genocidal troops for a century and a half (and by the advocates of cultural genocide ever since). Does the bloody history of the US and its flag mean that no American can object to any other symbol of evil? Is it only Northerners who are required to shut up about symbols of evil?
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
“I disagree. That one wasn’t any better than the other.”
From my perspective, as well as a great deal in my local council, they were two peas in a pod.
“I persist in the belief that it is better to have a society where involuntary servitude is against the law (whatever other flaws that society may have) than to have a society where the economy is based on involuntary servitude. ”
The name “slave” got changed. Involuntary servitude still continued. Euphamisms for slavery dont really change much other than to make it legal.
And the side you think was better continued on in its genocide after the civil war. To me, that doesnt make them better.
Two sides of white people fighting over who treated minorities less like shit.
Sorry if Im not properly grateful or appreciative of the side so full of its own bullshit it thinks it treated us slightly better.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
“The flag of the Confederacy is the flag of the people who sought to ensure that slavery would continue for a long, long time.”
It wouldnt have.
“The virtue of the North is not the question. ”
Really? Because it sounds like some people here think it was better.
“none of that changes the fact that the Confederate flag is the flag of a nation founded with the primary goal of protecting the institution of slavery.”
And none of that changes the fact that slavery was just a soundbite for the Union and they didnt give one shit about the slaves, other than to want them the hell out of the country.
If I wanted to abolish owning cars because I hate cars, I’ll claim its out of concern for the environment. And given the fact the Union was chock full of liars, murderers, and enslavers, Im not inclined to take their word on it. They thought slavery was immoral. My brown ass they did.
“Does the bloody history of the US and its flag mean that no American can object to any other symbol of evil? Is it only Northerners who are required to shut up about symbols of evil? ”
Does the history of the confederate flag mean no non white person can point out the hypocracy of white people trying to justify the belief one side was any better?
We treated you minorities slightly better damn it! Acknowledge that and focus on the REALLY bad guys!
When you have 2 guilty parties, since when does including them both mean you’re excluding one or giving it a pass? What do people want? A thank you?
“
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
“I have heard talk, and talk, but nothing is done. Good words do not last long unless they amount to something. Words to not pay for my dead people, they do not pay for my country, they do not protect my father’s grave. Good words will not give me back my children. Good words will not give my people good health and stop them from dying. I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words, and all the broken promises.”
– Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekht (Chief Joseph), Nez Perce, in speech at Lincoln Hall, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., 1879
That sound like things got better?
“If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian, he can live in peace. There need be no trouble. Treat all men alike. Give them all the same law. Give them all an even chance to live and grow.
You might as well expect the rivers to run backward, as that any man who was born a free man will be contended when penned up, and denied liberty to go where he pleases.
We only ask an even chance to live as other men live. We ask to be recognized as men. Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself.”
– Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekht (Chief Joseph), Nez Perce, speech at Lincoln Hall, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., 1879; he died in exile from his own lands
Yeah…slavery ended. Thank you oh great white northern saviors.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 25th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
I’ve waited to see if *anyone* would bring this up but since no one has here it is
The reason I know in my soul the Union was not in any way shape or form different from the north can be summed up in one word
Reservations.
For people so hell bent on discussing how the Unions was responsible for abolishing slavery , explain to me just what you think reservations were. Holiday camp for the world weary Indian? No. They were Slave Camps. The Union had these slave camps all over their country, before during and after the civil war. They gave a fuck about ending slavery? Funny they didnt emanciate any slaves forbidden to leave a shitty patch of land. Or let them hunt for their own food. Or let them worship their own gods. Or work. Or do anything but die quietly like obedient little discarded slaves. In exhile from their own damn land. They “fought” against slavery while keeping slaves.
Pot
Kettle
Black
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 1:06 am
against the Greek system. Now that I am no longer at a women’s college, however, I can see how female undergrads could benefit from the … ■Comment on Confederate Flags Belong in Museums Not at Speedways by …（Google Blog Search: a-blog） http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/02/21/confederate-flags-belong-in-museums-not-at-speedways/#comment-247261 Charles, sorry to ask, but are you the same as Charles S? Which one of you is Amp’s RL friend? I ask because I always thought Charles S was Amp’s RL friend, but I know that the human person “Charles” is from Chapel Hill, and so now I’m …
This comment was written by a-blog馬鹿.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Pheeno, I think I understand where you’re coming from, but I must admit I would appreciate some clarification on a few points.
Are you equating the federal government with the North and the Union side of the Civil War when you talk about genocide and reservations? Because I believe at least some of the horrible things the U.S. did to Native Americans were initiated before the Civil War, and some of them after, and I’m not sure how many during, so I get confused when you (apparently) attribute federal actions solely to the Yankees. Since the white people grabbing real estate were immigrants from Europe, disaffected Southerners, and displaced Northerners, I think there is plenty of blame to go around.
This comment was written by Original Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
There is plenty of guilt all around.
But my point about reservations is that it comes down to a side who has slaves telling another side they cant. If you own slave camps, it’s pretty fucked up to say ” you can enslave race X in this manner, but not race Y in that manner”. And then for some to argue the north/the union worked to end slavery, an enslaved race is being ignored. We werent emancipated. The civil war did nothing for us. And the ones responsible for emancipation of african americans were still enslaving Native Americans and killing us and forcing us to live where they wanted, how they wanted. So for me, they dont get props or recgonition for jack. They didnt end slavery, they just went back to their original slaves.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Wow. I commented way above and its fascinated me how this conversation keeps going and going. The overarching thing that keeps running in my head is something my grandmother used to say all the time “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” I was initially upset over pheeno’s comments about the confederate battle flag, but I can see where she’s coming from. In the grand scheme of hideous things europeans and their descendants have done as they marched across the earth, slavery is just one more. Why is african slavery worse than the genocide of native americans? Why is the confederacy somehow more evil?
I don’t think that anyone here disagrees that whites in america have a bad history of treatment of non-whites. Nor do we intentionally negate the native american experience, however it does get marginalized in our history and in the discussions of racism in american. It’s almost like native americans don’t even exist, not only in part because europeans systematically destroyed them, but also because we neglect them in our history.
All of this is to say…i will still look at the confederate battle flag and associate it with people who would defend the right to own another person simply because they are black. That does not negate your experience, pheeno, it validates my own. My father’s family are from texas and oklahoma, both of his grandmother’s were descendants from native americans marched west on the trail of tears. My grandfather was extremely racist and refused any association with his ancestry. My father very proudly and prominently displays a confederate battle flag to this day as a symbol both of his southern heritage and of his white heritage.
I am both disgusted and amused when he does this, mostly because i know what the flag symbolizes for him and i know who he is and where our family came from.
This comment was written by bradana.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
” Nor do we intentionally negate the native american experience, however it does get marginalized in our history and in the discussions of racism in american. It’s almost like native americans don’t even exist, not only in part because europeans systematically destroyed them, but also because we neglect them in our history.”
Thats why I bring it into the conversation. It gets overlooked in every single civil war/slavery discussion. People talk about how it was the northern government that forced the confederacy to give up slaves…but they didnt. They kept *us* as slaves the whole time.
“My father very proudly and prominently displays a confederate battle flag to this day as a symbol both of his southern heritage and of his white heritage.
I am both disgusted and amused when he does this, mostly because i know what the flag symbolizes for him and i know who he is and where our family came from. ”
I find it sad. Thats the result of the federal government and white society oppressing Native Americans. They learned self hatred. Thats why you see african american children pick white dolls when they’re told to pick the nice doll, and black dolls when theyre told to pick the bad.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
OK, I get you now (I think). Thank you for the clarification. The recent GAO report just makes what you have said here sound even worse than it did before.
Sadly, I never really had Civil War history in school. It was fashionable at the time I took U.S. history to break the curriculum up into 20-year segments, of which a student got to choose 4. They did not have to line up in any way, shape, or form. Because of where my name fell alphabetically on the class list, by the time my turn came to select my 4 classes, I ended up with 3 sessions of Pre-Revolutionary War Colonial History, 1750-1770, and one session of Pre-Civil War History, 1840-1860. (You will notice from this that some decades got left out.) I was later able to swap one of my Colonial History classes for a TBD period, as one of the teachers had to go to reduced work hours for personal reasons, and this ended up being a 10-week session on the Bay of Pigs, because that was the topic of the substitute’s dissertation.
This comment was written by Original Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Native Americans tribes generally sided with the South during the American Civil War. The Confederate army had Cherokee regiments. Some tribes fought with the South because they thought the Confederate Congress would be easier to deal with than the U.S. Congress. And of course, virtually all tribes had slaves before and after the European discover of the Americas. A major purpose of inter-tribal warfare was to capture slaves. The tribes also had African-American slaves. All the states voted to abolish slavery at the end of the Civil War, but this left slavery legal in the Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). The federal government ended slavery by purchasing slaves from the individual tribes. The Cherokee were the last to give up their slaves. The Cherokee Nation made headlines last month by voted to deny tribal membership to the descendants of black Cherokee slaves.
This comment was written by Blair.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:07 pm
The reservations did have slaves, but the slaves weren’t Native Americans; they were African Americans. When the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickashe and Creeks were forced to move to the Indian Territory (Oklahoma) they took thousands of their black slaves with them. Slavery was still legal in the Indian Territtory following the Civil War. The U.S. government ended slavery by purchasing the African American slaves from the tribes. The Cherokee were the last to give up their slaves. The Cherokee Nation made headlines last month by voting to deny tribal membership to the descendants of their black slaves.
This comment was written by Blair.Report this comment to the moderators