---

but it seems to me that most of the people who take such pride in being sons or daughters of the Confederacy and display the flag with pride, or in secret, are in sympathy with and wholeheartedly support that history and symbolism and in many ways continue the pro-segregation/anti-integration attitudes that have remained in the South since the Civil War. it's not an innocent symbol that got misused, it is by its very nature loaded with symbolism and a wounded perception of *national* pride.

---

Those who feel that they have legitimate justification in favor of honoring the Confederacy will point out that the War was not about race or slavery but about "States' rights."

For the beginning two thirds of the Civil War, indeed until the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln himself referred to the War as a matter of preserving the Union.

And so there are those who are comfortable with the notion that race and slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War.

I, of course, do not belong to this school but the fact of the matter is that it is a popular "explanation" for what happened and, depending on the political trends of the day, it gains currency or recedes among the history minded communities here.

You are right. This is often a statement like "I am a redneck and pruod of it".
On the other hand I think many of those Confederalists want to make a statement "Against Washington" or "Against Administration" or the like than "For Slavery".

---

I think many of those Confederalists want to make a statement "Against Washington" or "Against Administration" or the like than "For Slavery".

---

Yes and no. Certainly, there are many who would point to the theme of "States' Rights" as being exactly as you say.

The irony in this, if one follows American politics, is that it is the Party of Lincoln, the Republican Party, which advocates what in the modern day would equate to the "States' rights" of yore. That being the case, one need not in the modern day, point to the Confederacy as means of attacking big government in Washington DC. Rather, they merely need to vote for Republicans when federal offices are being contested, so to speak .

And this is why I do not agree with that school of historical interpretation about the Civil War. The fact of the insitution of slavery existing in the exact same states that fought for "States rights" in the Civil War inextricably cements the fact that the "right" which the Confederate states were fighting for, was to be able to perpetuate the institution or at the least decide for themselves whether slavery was wrong and should be abolished. So that as the US expanded westwards, slavery could be exported into the new territories and the slave holder property rights of southern "owners" must be legally enforced in the non-slave states, etc.

Indeed many of the most important "political moments" in Washington DC in the 19th Century decades leading up to the Civil War were motivated by slavery (i.e. "The Missouri Compromise" ).

<Edit>

Corrected misidentified historical compromise legislation.

Edited by - Indy11 on 10/5/2005 1:22:23 PM

Slavery, was what the media ran with and it stayed in the forefront of attention. But in truth it was a minor issue due to people in the north having slaves as well. There is a lot more depth to that war that is not put in school history books. Those that lived in the south, wether slave owners or not, and not all could even afford to own slaves, wanted thier life style, not what the north wanted. There is record of some southern families that were themselves devided over the issue. To want to keep memory of your heratige, is not a problem. People here still do that of a country they came from, even though they are several generations removed from that time frame.

The individual flags still represent the individual countries of the UK (did the confederate flag represent a country/nation? - my US history is rusty) its just that the reason they aren't seen as often is because we are "one nation" - we are the United Kingdom. We aren't England in the EU, its the UK. We aren't England at war, its the UK. We aren't England at a summit - its the UK. So at every major function, whether it be Blair or the Queen, they represent the United Kingdom - never just England.

Only in sport do you see the St George, simply because its England. Same for Scotland and Wales. Unfortunately, it means that the flags are seen whenever there is trouble for each national team... which links the flag to "trouble".

It would be like each state of the US has its own flag, but you aren't allowed to display it because its potentially "racist". To make it even more stupid, researchers (for the news) asked ethnic minorities if they found the flag offensive. They found it offensive that people thought they would find it offensive - that is what makes it so flippin stupid.

I think that is actually what gets my goat - it has been said many times that people aren't offended by the St Georges flag, seeing it doesn't make them feel threatened or that the person/business displaying it is making a racial statement - yet it continues to be banned for that reason! Regardless of what the very ethnic groups whom its supposed to offend are saying, it is being banned simply for "PC" reasons - which don't exist. It's madness!

Edited by - Mike G on 10/5/2005 10:00:21 AM

It's interesting how every country has people who want to get away.
I guess people think that things are better in another place, but maybe thats only because they are not aware of what the country they want to go to is really like, they only see the image the country want to project.
I know for a fact many S Africans are moving to the UK, because they think it will be better there...but ok, chances are that it is much better there than here. A while ago they released a lot of criminals...to give them another chance...most of these people are back in jail...its where they want to be...
Anyways, thats besides the point. If you're a white male in SA, it is almost impossible to find a job, which is why most people are going to the US, UK, Oz or Canada...is it better there? Who knows
IN some senses maybe...others not.
Oh well

-make 'em bleed-

""States' rights.""

not that old chestnut. this keeps popping up in the US ever few decades or so, always by revanchist Southerners.

ok. I know full well the Civil War wasn't about slavery, not directly anyway. it was an inevitable clash between two economic blocs that had radically different modus operandi, and were developing along divergent paths - the North, industrialised and ruthlessy capitalistic, the South rural and agrarian and paternalistic, and subsidised by slavery. The Union didn't embark on the War to end slavery, but to preserve the Union and a sa war aim destroy the economic base of the Confederate states. Lincolm was personally an abolitionist but he initially favoured a gradual process of emancipation and only issued the Declaration as a political legerdemain when it appeared that Britain might join with the Confederacy against the Union. Indeed, had he not had a *victory* of sorts (a draw really) he would not have had the political clout to declare Emancipation at all! Imagine what consequences that might have had!

without slavery there couldn't have been a Confederacy, it underpinned society and industry in every way. States Rights, in principle perfectly laudable, was a mask for slavery, an excuse. States Rights de facto meant the right to keep slaves, regardless of whatever pretext of autonomy was being justified. The South seceded precisely because they wanted to keep their slaves, because without slavery their economy would have been destroyed (as effectively as it was after the war anyway)

however I will accept that over the years the myth of the War Against Slavery has overtaken much historical fact. The Union dressed itself up as the Great Emancipating Army and has enshrined the freeing of the slaves as a signal moment in US history - which of course it is, but let's just take away some of the rosy tint. The Union freed the slaves because it was expedient to do so - it did the Union no real harm as most Northern industry was free labour, but dealt a death-blow to the South - internal revolts, desertions, no foreign intervention, supplies from Britain cut off because Britain could not be seen to be supporting a slave nation against a non-slave nation (even though the non-slave nation had slave-keeping states throughout the entire war)

interestingly Robert E. Lee was also an abolitionist but chose his state as his loyalty.

Slavery was not the direct and politically precipitating issue of the Civil War.

But the fact of slavery, and the right of States to choose to keep it and the right of for it to be expanded beyond the confines of the States that ultimately constituted the Confederacy, was the cause of the Civil War. In the decades leading up to the Civil War, one of the main struggles in Congress was whether to curtail the expansion of slavery into new territories. The Mason Dixon line was defined by slavery. The Missouri Red Legs and the Kansas Jayhawks were all about slavery. When California was to be made a State in the Union, the key issue raised against it by States Rights spokesmen like Sen. John C. Calhoun, probably the best known, opposed admission of California because it was to join the union as a Free state. Arguments over Oregon, Missouri and other states basically were centered on the same issue. Should it be a Free State or a Slave State.

So my apologies everyone but I disagree. Slavery was a central theme before and during the Civil War. Perhaps it was not the legal or political issue as defined but it had everything to do with what ended up happening. To say that slavery was a minor issue is more of a rhetorical device than a frank statement about why this country ended up in a Civil War.

It is true that the two economies of North and South differed very greatly but, again, the profitability of a plantation economy of ths South relied upon slavery to keep American cotton competitive in the world market place.

It is true that Britan was swayed by Lincoln's decision to emancipate the slaves but why? Because Britain opposed slavery. It is true that the emancipation itself was motivated by "political" strategems as much as if not more so than by some sense of altruism. But why would emancipation prove to be a political weapon at all if slavery were a minor issue?

If the statement is that, in fact, racism in America was such that the idea of having African slaves was not, of itself, repugnant to the majority of American voters of that day, this may be true. But if the statement is that the majority of Americans did not care whether slavery existed or not so that it had nothing to do with the Civil War, then it is completely false. Politically, economically and socially, slavery was a condition that caused a lot of argument, especially in Congress, throughout the 19th Century in America, leading up to the Civil War.
(And the chief proponents against slavery were the activist Christian religious groups).

Edited by - Indy11 on 10/5/2005 11:09:29 AM