Jump to content

Georgia State Flag Concept


illwauk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Well its easy to say "its stupid to be offended by a flag" when you're not part of a group targeted by organizations and movements that make prominent use of certain flags. Now he's come into contact with people outside of his own little bubble. Culture shock's hard to come to terms with ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Let's not forget that the South broke away from the rest of the United States because the North had moved away from slavery, while the South desperately held on to it.

The Confederate flag represents a nation founded on the specific belief that black folks were inferior and needed to be enslaved. Anyone who flies it now is either endorsing that view, ignorant of the facts or kidding themselves.

I'm surprised you think the Civil War started over slavery, or that the North was solely interested in ending slavery. There were abolitionist movements in both the Union and CSA, and the Emancipation Proclamation didn't even free all of the slaves.

===

The Proclamation applied only in ten states that were still in rebellion in 1863, thus it did not cover the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) which were Union states ? those slaves were freed by separate state and federal actions.

===

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Let's not forget that the South broke away from the rest of the United States because the North had moved away from slavery, while the South desperately held on to it.

The Confederate flag represents a nation founded on the specific belief that black folks were inferior and needed to be enslaved. Anyone who flies it now is either endorsing that view, ignorant of the facts or kidding themselves.

I'm surprised you think the Civil War started over slavery, or that the North was solely interested in ending slavery. There were abolitionist movements in both the Union and CSA, and the Emancipation Proclamation didn't even free all of the slaves.

===

The Proclamation applied only in ten states that were still in rebellion in 1863, thus it did not cover the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) which were Union states — those slaves were freed by separate state and federal actions.

===

Not to cheerlead for the Confederacy, because screw them, but BlueSky has a point. North-South tensions existed within the American union almost since the ratification of the Constitution. While those tensions were sometimes the result of slavery, they weren't always. The tariff crisis of 1828-1832 centred on, well, tariffs. The south thought they were getting screwed by a tariff imposed by the north and South Carolina even threatened to succeed over it. So while the impetuous for the successions following Lincoln's election and the formation of the CSA in 1861 was the slavery question, north-south antagonism ran deeper then that one issue.

Also, Lincoln famously remarked that if he could end the war and restore the Union without freeing a single slave he would. He only issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which had no practical effect, in an effort to keep Britain from recognizing the CSA, and even authored a proposed 13th Amendment during the southern succession that would have protected slavery in perpetuity where it already existed if the south would return to the Union.

Make no mistake about it, the CSA will forever, justifiably, be tainted by the spectre of slavery, and it deserves historical condemnation because of it. To view the war as a battle between pro and anti-slavery forces, however, or to state that the north-south divide was entirely due to the slavery issue, however, is to take a highly simplified view of one of the most tragic episodes in American history.

EDIT-

This seems as good a place as any to recommend the Southern Victory series of books by Harry Turtledove. It's an alternate history series of books that covers the time period of 1862-1945, after the CSA wins its independence in 1862. It's a very good read, and to be perfectly honest the post-WWI books were weird for me to read, but in a good way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Civil War was, of course, about more than slavery. All human interactions are complicated, motives are complex and many historical factors combined to drive the states apart. But let's not pretend that slavery wasn't one of, if not the single biggest, causes of the conflict.

In recent years, southern apologists have tried to recast the CSA as a champion of "states' rights." That's absurd on its face, as under the CSA's constitution states did not have the right to change their collective mind on slavery.

Don't take my word for it - ask the states themselves.

When Mississippi seceded from the Union, it said "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

Texas agreed, declaring itself to be "a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

Georgia, laying out the grounds for its sucession, said "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

South Carolina decried the North's "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery".

Virginia railed against the "oppression of the Southern slave-holding States".

Alabama indicated the "desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South" in a new government.

Now, not all states gave slavery as the reason. South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Louisiana, Florida passed the Ordinance of Secession without listing any specific complaints. Missouri, made unspecified allusions to its "institutions".

The only reason? No. But a primary reason. The South was founded "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." Don't let historical revisionism now claim anything to the contrary, or a love of the states as they are now wash past blood from their hands.

It is important that in our reasonable urge to accept the complexities of reality we do not then ignore the simple truths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Civil War was, of course, about more than slavery. All human interactions are complicated, motives are complex and many historical factors combined to drive the states apart. But let's not pretend that slavery wasn't one of, if not the single biggest, causes of the conflict.

In recent years, southern apologists have tried to recast the CSA as a champion of "states' rights." That's absurd on its face, as under the CSA's constitution states did not have the right to change their collective mind on slavery.

Don't take my word for it - ask the states themselves.

When Mississippi seceded from the Union, it said "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

Texas agreed, declaring itself to be "a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

Georgia, laying out the grounds for its sucession, said "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

South Carolina decried the North's "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery".

Virginia railed against the "oppression of the Southern slave-holding States".

Alabama indicated the "desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South" in a new government.

Now, not all states gave slavery as the reason. South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Louisiana, Florida passed the Ordinance of Secession without listing any specific complaints. Missouri, made unspecified allusions to its "institutions".

The only reason? No. But a primary reason. The South was founded "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." Don't let historical revisionism now claim anything to the contrary, or a love of the states as they are now wash past blood from their hands.

It is important that in our reasonable urge to accept the complexities of reality we do not then ignore the simple truths.

I don't disagree with a single word of this.

Like you said, any human conflict is complicated, and cannot be defined by a single issue or ideal. All I'm saying is that the other reasons, as small as they might be in relation to the slavery reason, have to be analyzed from a historical context.

Really, it's nothing on the CSA's side of things that makes the Civil War a battle between areas of grey rather then a fight between right and wrong. It's what was happening on Lincoln's side. Lincoln's the one who refused to make the war a war about abolishing slavery until Lee had been turned back at Antietam, he proposed a Constitutional amendment that would have guaranteed slavery's existence where it existed if the south would return to the Union, William Tecumseh Sherman's march to the sea would be categorized as a war crime today, and his top general U.S. Grant, who ultimately won the war, wasn't a big fan of the Jews. There isn't a single piece of historical evidence that can paint the Confederate States in a positive light, but the Union wasn't exactly Saintly either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right - the USA was the same complex, morally problematic country it has ever been. Good mixed with a dash of bad in the political compromise.

The CSA, on the other hand, was about as close to "totally evil" as a nation can be, founded as it was on the notion that black people are subhuman.

The CSA is not worthy of any "honor," only embarrassment and shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

Lets bring it back to the modernity though. In any American history class at the high school or 1st/2nd year university level you get plenty of blank faces when it's mentioned that Lincoln was a Republican. I think this is indicative of how crazy the GOP has gotten since the 80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also because the Democratic and Republican parties did a switcheroo in the 1960s. Before that, the Democrats were the party of the South, anti-civil rights and pro-"states' rights". The Democratic Party clung to the past out of fear of modernity.

Now the two parties are just the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loathe the whole "Republicans are just a bunch of out-of-touch old farts who are scared of change" cliche. It's equally as stupid as when the Tea Party blathers about how Democrats are "radicals" who "want to destroy America and rebuild it in their image". They're stereotypes and huge roadblocks to any productive debate.

xLmjWVv.png

POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also because the Democratic and Republican parties did a switcheroo in the 1960s. Before that, the Democrats were the party of the South, anti-civil rights and pro-"states' rights". The Democratic Party clung to the past out of fear of modernity.

Now the two parties are just the opposite.

It was even more convoluted than that. During FDR's reign up until the 60s, the key divide was North vs. South rather than Democrat vs. Republican. The south still felt animosity towards the Republicans because of reconstruction and thus supported the Democrats mainly by default, but the politics of Northern Democrats such as FDR and Kennedy were much different and far more accepting of change. In fact, the party was pretty much divided along state lines when it came to civil rights legislation.

I loathe the whole "Republicans are just a bunch of out-of-touch old farts who are scared of change" cliche. It's equally as stupid as when the Tea Party blathers about how Democrats are "radicals" who "want to destroy America and rebuild it in their image". They're stereotypes and huge roadblocks to any productive debate.

The fact that Michelle Bachmann has a legit shot at becoming president shows that this is indeed not a stereotype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I pointed out in another thread, my problem with people displaying the confederate flag isn't because I people who do so are necessarily racist (although the two tend to go hand-in-hand... often), it's because they're displaying a mentality that smacks of privilege and arrogance. What the hell makes you so great that you get to decide that only the things the flag means to you are what really matter and that implications of slavery that happened under the regime the Confederate soldiers were fighting for, as well as the terrorism committed by groups like the KKK and politicized racism of people like George Wallace simply "don't count" and those who see otherwise should just "get over it"?

To put this another way, I am a card-carrying member of the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin, one of the many peoples who traditionally recognized the swastika as a symbol of good luck. But if I got a swastika tattoo and then said to Jewish people ":censored: off... it's part of my heritage and means something different to me!" folks would (correctly) think I was a naive, insensitive dick. Fly the rebel flag if you must, just be prepared to deal with the backlash coming from outside of your narrow world.

Couldn't agree more! Its not up to southern whites to decide if the confederate flag is racist. Its not up to germans to decide if the swatztika is antisemitic. If the people that were most affected by these symbols are insulted by them, then out of respect other people that aren't offended by them should still avoid them.

The confederate flag (as we know it today despite it not really being THAT prominent during the civil war) represents the idea that slavery was at the very least a good way to keep the economy going. And at worst the proper way things should be given that the white race is far superior than the black race. Even if it technically did represent the geographic "south" or southern pride (whatever that means), it doesn't change its offensive nature.

The Nazi flag symbolizes the idea of genocide and an attempted global conquest through fear and destruction. It does not represent good beer and sausages.

goforbroke_zpsb07ade0a.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.