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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

“

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

Thats the equivalent of an MRA troll posting ” you said all men are rapists”.

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”.

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…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.”)

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.