So this is a pretty heated topic right now, and seems to only be getting hotter. This was something being debated in another topic, after it had gotten derailed.

Ebay, Amazon, Apple, Walmart are all starting to ban sales and remove anything associated with the Civil War, more specifically the Confederate Flag. Politicians and comedians alike are throwing their opinions out there from Jon Stewart to S.C. Gov. Nikki Hailey. People are claiming that "Gone With the Wind" should be banned because it 'sympathizes' with the South. All of this has started due to the shooting of a mostly black church in Charleston, SC by a white racist, which is an atrocity to say the least. 

What is making me, literally sick, is the way that people want to erase the Civil War and the CSA from history. To bring down monuments and flags that are around the Southern states. The media and liberal groups are bashing the CSA as nothing but racist slavers, and being compared to Nazis. That the Confederacy was the "face of slavery". Is there going to come to a point where we, as Americans, deny our heritage? Deny that my father killed his son in battle? That my brother killed his brother in battle? Deny that differences were so bad in the United States that it led to families killing each other?

 

Now many of you think that I'm making this a bigger deal than it really is, but look what it's coming to. Ebay stated they'd suspend sales of Confederate flags (yet they still allow symbols of nazism). Amazon, has quietly removed any listings to the Confederacy. Apple pulled any games that are related to the Civil War. People are reporting that some Wal-Marts are pulling anything to do with the Civil War; as it reminds people of the Confederacy. A song, written back in the '50s by Johnny Horton, is now catching a lot of hate. "Johnny Reb", was once considered to be a meaningful tribute to the Confederate soldiers who fell in battle, (which still has powerful imagery to this day in my opinion)but is now being labeled as a racist song.  Everyday, it's getting worse. In S.C. there are talks that they want people to vote on whether or not to keep the confederate flag up. 

 

I don't care whether or not you agree with the South or the North, but the improper portrayal of the CSA is getting out of hand. The Confederate flag is not a symbol of racism. It never was. If that was the case, then the US flag should be included in there as well, as racism lasted longer under the Stars and Stripes than it did underneath the Stars and Bars. 2 months ago, people would look at the Confederate flag and only think of treason, NOT racism. Now, all of a sudden, it's become a symbol of racism. Why? Because some racist posed with it, before he shot up a mostly black church? How come is wasn't a big deal back in the mid 1900s? The KKK is almost always seen with it, and nobody cried. But now it's a big deal? Because it gives the liberal groups and media a platform to spew their agenda?

 

Then, what really makes me sick to my stomach, is the defacing of Confederate monuments, especially the ones honoring the fallen confederate soldiers. That IS NOT acceptable, by any means. You are desecrating the grave and memorials of someone's son. Of someone's brother. Of someone's father. I don't care if you're a 'Yankee' or a 'Rebel', if you gave you're life fighting for your beliefs, than you deserve to be honored (don't post stuff about "then you must be ok with the Swastika" because it's not even close to the same thing). 

 

This is not meant to "stir the pot". But merely to express my views on how the media and liberal groups are bashing the CSA, and are not portraying them honorably or historically correct. Also, I'm not a native southerner. 

 

If you don't believe they should be treated honorably, just know that when Abraham Lincoln went to address the nation on the North's victory at the end of the Civil War, the Confederate flag flew just as a high as the US flag, and they played Dixie. 

Thank you.

Political correctness my friend, it's spreading like a disease.

If it continues like this, the CSA and all those that gave their life will be remembered much like the Nazis are nowadays. 

It will continue like this. It's unfortunate but it's just the way America works right now.

I'm sorry, but very little of what you said about the Confederate flag, the Confederacy, or the Civil War is in any way accurate.

 

The Confederacy seceded for a primary purpose of preserving slavery. This is not a point subject to reasonable debate. I will repeat from the other thread: The actual vice president of the Confederacy, who had some idea what it was about, labeled slavery and subjugation of blacks as the cornerstone of the Confederacy. It contained a line in its actual constitution explicitly protecting slavery, with no end date. It is absolutely legitimate to consider the Confederacy the face of slaver, since that was actually a (if not the) primary point of contention between them and the United States. In fact, their support of slavery was a factor in their loss of the war: Europe had economic reasons to support them, but no European country could justify supporting a nation seceding for the absolutely abhorrent reason of protecting slavery.

 

The Confederate flag is, in fact, a symbol of racism. It has been recognized as this for a very long time; if you didn't know that, you should probably have paid more attention. Confederate flags were not flown at the SC state capitol in the mid-1900s. Quite conveniently, they were added when the civil rights movement was taking off (in 1962), and people were telling Southern states to be less of racist fuckwads. Ever since then, it has been routinely condemned as a symbol of racism, because, to be clear, it was the actual emblem of people who literally fought a war to preserve the right to own human beings based on race. The "heritage" it represents is, in fact, one of extreme racism. Yes, there has been racism under the US flag, but the United States was not in fact established for the purpose of preserving the institution of slavery. The Confederate battle flag was simply not such a big thing until the South clung to it when they couldn't cling to Jim Crow laws as much anymore.

 

As for memorials: It's actually instructive to look at German war memorials in France. It's quite possible to respect the soldiers who died without in any way glorifying their cause. Few people object to respecting people who died in battle. That doesn't mean you pay any tribute at all to their cause, which, again was perpetuating the institution of slavery. Germans who died in WWII are in memorials that don't honor the cause they fought for. I see no reason why a memorial for soldiers who died should necessarily honor their cause.

Why are you mad that companies are pulling CSA items off their shelves? That's capitalism. They're responding to the market.

The CSA is (literally) the symbol of the organization that committed the largest action of treason in the history of United States, all in the effort to defend their right to hold slaves. They hated being Americans so much, that they literally left it. THAT is history. If Walmart and Amazon don't want to sell products that celebrate that fact, they have every right to. That's not political correctness, that's a free market at work.

Nobody is telling anyone they can't have one on their private property. It just doesn't belong on public land. That's not "political correctness" or disrespecting the dead, that's part of being on the winning side of history.

Edited June 27, 201510 yr by Riley24

Germans don't hoist the Nazi flag to "celebrate their heritage". Just saying.

 

Also, William T. Thompson (man who designed the flag) was a white supremacist, and labeled the confederate flag "the white man's flag" (But the confederate flag isn't a symbol of racism though....) sips tea.

Edited June 27, 201510 yr by TheSandwichStealer

 

That's not "political correctness" or disrespecting the dead, that's part of being on the winning side of history.

"History is written by the victors" -attributed to Winston Churchill

The victors don't always write history the way it accurately happened. Just sayin'.

"History is written by the victors" -attributed to Winston Churchill

The victors don't always write history the way it accurately happened. Just sayin'.

Right, but no amount of altered perspective will change the fact that they fought for the right to enslave other human beings, and murder, rape, and torture them. A flag that honors those people belongs in a museum, not a capitol.

Germans don't hoist the Nazi flag to "celebrate their heritage". Just saying.

 

Also, William T. Thompson (man who designed the flag) was a white supremacist, and labeled the confederate flag "the white man's flag" (But the confederate flag isn't a symbol of racism though....) sips tea.

Well, slavery didn't kill millions of people like the Holocaust did.

Edited June 27, 201510 yr by MayhemMercenary

Right, but no amount of altered perspective will change the fact that they fought for the right to enslave other human beings, and murder, rape, and torture them. A flag that honors those people belongs in a museum, not a capitol.

Uh, no. Just now. That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Slavery may have been the reason they went to war, but tell me where they fought for the right to rap, murder and torture them. Because the the North did just that, too. Lynch mobs, and racism were still rampant. 

 

 

But yes, history is written by the victors, which is a big reason why the CSA is the black sheep.

I'm sorry, but very little of what you said about the Confederate flag, the Confederacy, or the Civil War is in any way accurate.

 

The Confederacy seceded for a primary purpose of preserving slavery. This is not a point subject to reasonable debate. I will repeat from the other thread: The actual vice president of the Confederacy, who had some idea what it was about, labeled slavery and subjugation of blacks as the cornerstone of the Confederacy. It contained a line in its actual constitution explicitly protecting slavery, with no end date. It is absolutely legitimate to consider the Confederacy the face of slaver, since that was actually a (if not the) primary point of contention between them and the United States. In fact, their support of slavery was a factor in their loss of the war: Europe had economic reasons to support them, but no European country could justify supporting a nation seceding for the absolutely abhorrent reason of protecting slavery.

 

The Confederate flag is, in fact, a symbol of racism. It has been recognized as this for a very long time; if you didn't know that, you should probably have paid more attention. Confederate flags were not flown at the SC state capitol in the mid-1900s. Quite conveniently, they were added when the civil rights movement was taking off (in 1962), and people were telling Southern states to be less of racist fuckwads. Ever since then, it has been routinely condemned as a symbol of racism, because, to be clear, it was the actual emblem of people who literally fought a war to preserve the right to own human beings based on race. The "heritage" it represents is, in fact, one of extreme racism. Yes, there has been racism under the US flag, but the United States was not in fact established for the purpose of preserving the institution of slavery. The Confederate battle flag was simply not such a big thing until the South clung to it when they couldn't cling to Jim Crow laws as much anymore.

 

As for memorials: It's actually instructive to look at German war memorials in France. It's quite possible to respect the soldiers who died without in any way glorifying their cause. Few people object to respecting people who died in battle. That doesn't mean you pay any tribute at all to their cause, which, again was perpetuating the institution of slavery. Germans who died in WWII are in memorials that don't honor the cause they fought for. I see no reason why a memorial for soldiers who died should necessarily honor their cause.

Well I've lived in 4 different states: Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and California, and no one viewed it as such. It's exactly why no one had a problem with it for years. And I never said I was explicitly talking about the SC confederate flag. The CSA flag has been flown at many sites and events following the end of the Civil War.

The words of one man, do not speak for a nation, just as racist remarks made by our politicians today aren't made on behalf of the nation. Nothing in their Constitution or Declaration of Secession points to slavery as a racist institution. Yes, many of their politicians were racist, but slavery was not practiced because of racism, but because of necessity (no, I am not justifying slavery). Slavery was socially acceptable since the times of Romans and nobody cared. Now all of a sudden it was wrong and evil. Much of the world still agreed with slavery and accepted it. Our civil war occurred right when the anti-slavery movement was happening across the world. Slavery was not universally viewed as evil and wrong, back then. 

History is written by the victors. Our education system teaches that the South was racist and a bunch of slavers, and the North was the angel from God that went to war to end slavery and they weren't racist. The North was just as racist as the South, that didn't care to end slavery.

My point is that the South did not go to war because they were racist and hated blacks. Slavery was not officially viewed as a form of racism by the CSA (Nothing in their official documents suggest it was a form of racism). Sure many people owned slaves because they were racist, but that was not an official view. Which is why many in the CSA did not support slavery but still fought for them.  Robert Lee was quoted numerous times stating that he was against slavery, but we're still going to lump him in with racist slavers? 

If you're going to argue that the South was racist, then you'll have to include the North with that. It's about slavery, not racism. And yes, you can have one without the other.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not going to argue on why they went to war and all that. It's all a debate, and neither you nor I are right. The south was racist but so was the north. Just as much. Lincoln didn't care either way if slavery was ended (that's a written fact). 

Germans don't hoist the Nazi flag to "celebrate their heritage". Just saying.

 

Also, William T. Thompson (man who designed the flag) was a white supremacist, and labeled the confederate flag "the white man's flag" (But the confederate flag isn't a symbol of racism though....) sips tea.

The words of one man do not define the views of an entire country.  

Ya'll might enjoy this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBCuHIpNgU

Ya'll might enjoy this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBCuHIpNgU

But the media won't actually acknowledge that, so it's pointless. It's sad, actually.

What is making me, literally sick, is the way that people want to erase the Civil War and the CSA from history. To bring down monuments and flags that are around the Southern states. The media and liberal groups are bashing the CSA as nothing but racist slavers, and being compared to Nazis. That the Confederacy was the "face of slavery". Is there going to come to a point where we, as Americans, deny our heritage? Deny that my father killed his son in battle? That my brother killed his brother in battle? Deny that differences were so bad in the United States that it led to families killing each other?

 

 

I don't care whether or not you agree with the South or the North, but the improper portrayal of the CSA is getting out of hand. The Confederate flag is not a symbol of racism. It never was. If that was the case, then the US flag should be included in there as well, as racism lasted longer under the Stars and Stripes than it did underneath the Stars and Bars.

 

If you don't believe they should be treated honorably, just know that when Abraham Lincoln went to address the nation on the North's victory at the end of the Civil War, the Confederate flag flew just as a high as the US flag, and they played Dixie. 

Nobody wants to erase the Civil War from history. They just want to start flying the flag of a rebel cause that fought to keep slavery alive. Nobody wants to deny anyone's heritage either. You can acknowledge your heritage and be proud of it without flying the flag of a racist nation. Germans are proud of their heritage but they don't feel the need to fly the Nazi flag and they still realize that they were wrong during WWII.

The Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism. The country who flew that flag fought the US to keep slavery. If that is not a symbol of racism then I don't know what is. And yes, slavery and racism was around much longer under the Stars and Stripes however we learned from our mistakes and accepted that it was wrong. Our nation grew up and said that slavery was wrong and it should be around anymore. The South did not do that. The South fought to keep slavery.

Nobody is saying that CSA soldiers shouldn't be treated honorably. People just don't want a flag that represents slavery, racism, and rebellion to fly on government property.

Well, slavery didn't kill millions of people like the Holocaust did.

Actually I'm willing to bet slavery has killed millions of people. Also, why are you down play it? So if something doesn't kill as many people as the Holocaust it makes it not as bad? Wrong is wrong, I don't care if it killed 10 people or 10 million people.

Uh, no. Just now. That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Slavery may have been the reason they went to war, but tell me where they fought for the right to rap, murder and torture them. Because the the North did just that, too. Lynch mobs, and racism were still rampant. 

 

 

But yes, history is written by the victors, which is a big reason why the CSA is the black sheep.

Yes, many of their politicians were racist, but slavery was not practiced because of racism, but because of necessity (no, I am not justifying slavery). Slavery was socially acceptable since the times of Romans and nobody cared. Now all of a sudden it was wrong and evil. Much of the world still agreed with slavery and accepted it. Our civil war occurred right when the anti-slavery movement was happening across the world. Slavery was not universally viewed as evil and wrong, back then. 

History is written by the victors. Our education system teaches that the South was racist and a bunch of slavers, and the North was the angel from God that went to war to end slavery and they weren't racist. The North was just as racist as the South, that didn't care to end slavery.

My point is that the South did not go to war because they were racist and hated blacks. Slavery was not officially viewed as a form of racism by the CSA (Nothing in their official documents suggest it was a form of racism). Sure many people owned slaves because they were racist, but that was not an official view. Which is why many in the CSA did not support slavery but still fought for them.  Robert Lee was quoted numerous times stating that he was against slavery, but we're still going to lump him in with racist slavers? 

If you're going to argue that the South was racist, then you'll have to include the North with that. It's about slavery, not racism. And yes, you can have one without the other.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not going to argue on why they went to war and all that. It's all a debate, and neither you nor I are right. The south was racist but so was the north. Just as much. Lincoln didn't care either way if slavery was ended (that's a written fact). 

You keep saying that slavery is not the reason they went to war. Are you denying history? It is written everywhere. As cp207 said, the CSA revolved around slavery. Their whole country was founded because they wanted to preserve slavery. And nobody is saying that the North wasn't racist, but the North still thought that slavery should be abolished. And the reason the CSA are "the black sheep" is not because they lost, it is because they fought to keep slavery.

Yes, slavery was necessary to the South's economy but racism was a part of it. Why do you think all slavery were African American? If slavery wasn't about racism then why did they only have black slaves? Why did they treat African American's (slaves or free men) like shit? Why did we have racist laws in our country up until the 1960s? Just because people thought slavery was ok in the past doesn't mean that we cannot evolve and realize that what we had been doing for hundreds of years was wrong.

I don't know where you went to school but when I was in school they taught me history. They didn't put a spin on it, they didn't say that the South were a bunch of evil slave owners, and they didn't say that the North were angels. They taught me that the South wanted to keep slavery both for economic reasons and because of racism. They taught me that even though free African Americans in the North were treated better and had more freedoms in the North they were still discriminated against.

I feel like I am repeating myself for the fourth time but I'll say it again: the South was racist and wanted to keep black slaves. That is an indisputable fact of history and there is plenty of evidence supporting it. You can continue to deny it but it doesn't change the truth. I have never in my life saw so many people that deny facts of history. And nobody is saying that the North wasn't racist and nobody is saying that the North were perfect little angels. I don't understand why defenders of the CSA are saying "well if you are going to call the South racist you have to call the North racist too". We have all acknowledged that fact, it is part of history, I have not heard one person say that the North wasn't racist.

Well, slavery didn't kill millions of people like the Holocaust did.

Okay seriously is this a joke, not only did slavery kill thousands, where in that comment did I mention slavery? You don't like what Hitler did in the holocaust, but what the south did is all find and dandy, typical hypocrite.  

I think banning US Civil War games is clearly a knee-jerk reaction. However, pretending the battle flag of the grandest act of treason ever committed against the United States, which was done specifically to maintain slavery, and was then used by white supremacists, KKK members and anti-civil rights activities for the last hundred years doesn't carry just a little bit of negative history to some Americans is stupid. The only real government based banning I've heard kicked around is the idea that states shouldn't be flying the flag on public property. 

Also, to those of you that have heard the Lost Cause narrative and truly believe that the war was about States Rights, and not a single right (the one to slavery) please check your history. I could drop some articles discussing how the south trampled on the rights of other states, both those entering the Union and those north of the 38th parallel (look no further than the fugitive slave act). Maybe instead you would like verified historians discussing the issue. However, whenever possible, we should ask people who were there what their opinions are. From this comment:

Well, it was about "states' rights". It's just that the "right" in question was the one to keep humans as property.

From South Carolina's Declaration of Secession, the first state to secede:
"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

From Mississippi, the second state to secede:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. ...

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England."

Alabama's 1861 Constitution has a whole section about slavery, reproduced here:
"Section 1. No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country.
Section 2. The humane treatment of slaves shall be secured by law.
Section 3. Laws may be enacted to prohibit the introduction into this State, of slaves who have committed high crimes in other States or territories, and to regulate or prevent the introduction of slaves into this State as merchandise.
Section 4. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes, of a higher grade than petit larceny, the General Assembly shall have no power to deprive them of an impartial trial by a petiti jury.
Section 5. Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave."

The way most people claim "states' rights were the cause of the civil war" is as an alternative to the "slavery was the cause of the civil war" explanation. This is entirely incorrect. However, I think that it can be accurate, so long as the "states' right" in question is the right to have a legal system that treats humans as property. After all, that is what many of the people involved said.

Yes, division and dissention within the union occurred for other reasons. The economic split -agrarian south vs. industrializing north- was a real and persistent internal division that put real centrifugal force on the union. So was the changing cultural character of various states due to non-uniform levels of immigration, and political battles over financial, legislative, and judicial priorities. Regardless, many of the seceding states themselves identified their own positions with the institution of slavery. I have yet to see a plausible reason why they would do so falsely. It wouldn't give them domestic or international popularity, and wouldn't serve to 'paper-over' an uglier reason. The most parsimonious reason why they identified their political causes with slavery is because that's what their real political cause was.

Edited June 27, 201510 yr by BroCop
fixed a couple spelling mistakes

I think banning US Civil War games is clearly a knee-jerk reaction. However, pretending the battle flag of the grandest act of treason ever committed against the United States, which was done specifically to maintain slavery, and was then used by white supremacists, KKK members and anti-civil rights activities for the last hundred years doesn't carry just a little bit of negative history to some Americans is stupid. The only real government based banning I've heard kicked around is the idea that states shouldn't be flying the flag on public property. 

Also, to those of you that have heard the and truely believe that the war was about States Rights, and not a single right (the one to slavery) please check your history. I could drop some articles discussing how the south trampled on the rights of other states, both those netering the Union and those north of the 38th parrallel (look no further than the fugitive slave act). Maybe instead you would like verified historians discussing the issue. However, whenever possible, we should ask people who were there what their opinions are. From this comment:

Well, it was about "states' rights". It's just that the "right" in question was the one to keep humans as property.

From South Carolina's Declaration of Secession, the first state to secede:
"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

From Mississippi, the second state to secede:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. ...

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England."

Alabama's 1861 Constitution has a whole section about slavery, reproduced here:
"Section 1. No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country.
Section 2. The humane treatment of slaves shall be secured by law.
Section 3. Laws may be enacted to prohibit the introduction into this State, of slaves who have committed high crimes in other States or territories, and to regulate or prevent the introduction of slaves into this State as merchandise.
Section 4. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes, of a higher grade than petit larceny, the General Assembly shall have no power to deprive them of an impartial trial by a petiti jury.
Section 5. Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave."

The way most people claim "states' rights were the cause of the civil war" is as an alternative to the "slavery was the cause of the civil war" explanation. This is entirely incorrect. However, I think that it can be accurate, so long as the "states' right" in question is the right to have a legal system that treats humans as property. After all, that is what many of the people involved said.

Yes, division and dissention within the union occurred for other reasons. The economic split -agrarian south vs. industrializing north- was a real and persistent internal division that put real centrifugal force on the union. So was the changing cultural character of various states due to non-uniform levels of immigration, and political battles over financial, legislative, and judicial priorities. Regardless, many of the seceding states themselves identified their own positions with the institution of slavery. I have yet to see a plausible reason why they would do so falsely. It wouldn't give them domestic or international popularity, and wouldn't serve to 'paper-over' an uglier reason. The most parsimonious reason why they identified their political causes with slavery is because that's what their real political cause was.

Very well put. I can tell you did much more research on the topic than me, lol. That is pretty much what I think every time someone says "the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about state's rights". They are only half right. Like you said, it was about state's rights...the right to have slaves.

The Confederate Flag does not offend me; I don't like the flag and I don't have a like seeing it flown everywhere (Florida is full of them), but I also think it is someone's 1st Amendment right to fly whatever flag they want whether it be the US flag or the Confederate flag (shit you could fly the ISIS flag for all I care). The only thing I disagree with is flying the Confederate flag on government property. The only flags that should fly on government property are the US flag and the state flag.

Look, I'm not going to argue for or against the South and the Civil War. That's not why I created this topic. It remains a debate, and will always remain a debate. People will have their own opinions about it.

My main point, is people who fly the flag are not racist, just as some people that fought under the flag were not racist. On the flip side, just as many people were racist under that flag fighting for the south, as there were for the North. 

 

I had a great great great grandfather who was a cavalry officer for the Confederacy. By all official documents available, he was not a slave owner, nor did his family own slaves. Was he racist? I don't know one way or another on that. I have a confederate plate on the front of my car and I'm not racist. I have friends and neighbors that fly the confederate flag that aren't racist. A lot of people fly the flag today and are not racist, just as many people claimed citizenship with the CSA, and did not own slaves and/or held no racist beliefs. 

And a lot of people fly it to resent what the North did to the South. Which is wrong, no matter who you are, or which side you agreed with.

 

If you were a member of the Confederacy, that didn't mean you owned slaves or supported slavery. It didn't even mean you were racist. If you were a member of the Nazi party, it was quite clear you were a racist and supported the eradication of Jews. You had to, if you wanted to be a member. That's why there were two separate arms of their military: the SS and the Wehrmacht.