Offended By Confederate Flag

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, this diatribe of yours defending the southern condederacy, and your lame excuses regarding the undeniably BRUTAL treatement of slaves in the confederate south is disgusting, racist, and I am very, very deeply offended by it.

The condition of blacks improving in the south before the civil war? Liar, liar pants on fire!

You have offered historical revisionism at it's worst. The Civil war WAS about slavery dammit. Read! Pull your head out of your racist ass. I am seriously angry now. To suggest that blacks would have been happy without forced emancipation and slavery would have ended, peacefully without military intervention is unbeliveably stupid. Go back to school!

1. I haven't defended the confederacy -- go back and read.
2. "Undeniably BRUTAL" is a fallacious generalization.
3. If I'm racist, then I guess I'm down on both whites and blacks, because there were black slave owners, not just white ones -- as I've pointed out and documented, the greatest portion of slave owners in Charleston, S.C. at the time of the war were black women.
4. Yes, the conditions for blacks was improving: more were becoming free, more were property owners, the trend was towards keeping families together, and more. I'm sorry if that offends your sense of "It was all evil!", but tough; oit's true, so live with it.
5. The War of Northern Aggression was about states' rights -- that's the Southern view. The Civil war was about keeping the Union together -- that's the Northern view. In the North it wasn't about slavery until late in the war, when Lincoln invoked it as a way to keep support for the war going.
6. Economists of all stripes have agreed that slavery would have ended anyway. Economically, it was doomed; socially, it was doomed. All the European countries ended it peacefully, more due to economics than anything, but also because of moral persuasion. All that the Civil War accomplished was to generate the sort of hatred that gave birth to the KKK.

"Go back to school"?

In the past year I've read Appommatox, Mr. Lincoln's War, Lee and Grant, and another civil war book. The Road to Civil War is on my reading list.
You should do the same -- you'll find that things were a lot more complex than the politically correct version, and that some of what you think you know is just plain false.

Learn to not generalize, as well. I'm not defending anything or anyone in this thread, I'm pointing out that Madonna's fairy-tale version of things in stark black and white is false.

 

[Kulindahr]

I love you hon! And honestly.. he actually said that slaves loved their owners and were fighting to protect their land as well as their owners... yeah someone needs to go back to school and and watch the history channel.

Apparently you didn't get taught to think clearly in school.
Is this generalization fallacy thrown out as the way to think about issues? It's pretty pathetic.

If your statements are meant as the generalizations they appear to be, then you're lying about my position. If they're not meant as generalizations, then you're wrong: there were slaves who loved their masters, and there were slaves who fought to protect their homes, and there were blacks who owned slaves and fought to protect their homes, too.

You can get that on educational channels, BTW -- and I don't recommend the History Channel; it sensationalizes things, and twists them, and pretends things are history that just aren't -- we used to laugh about it in college.

I've watched two specials about the South, especially the Civil War, over the last couple of years; one was a six-hour presentation over three nights, and one was a long series, about six weeks at two+ hours per week. Those are where I discovered that, contrary to the lies taught us in school, there were slaves who loved their masters, slaves who were on a first-name basis with their masters, slaves who learned to read, slaves who were owned by blacks, and that the only real had and fast rule about slavery was that whites couldn't be slaves.

Your blanket generalizations are pretty sad, because they deny what people actually experienced, and what people now are actually proud of -- like the black guy I knew who was proud that his ancestors had fought in the Armies of the South.

Open your eyes, dude.

 

[Kulindahr]

Honey this is what Kind of people I argue with on this forum. I started this topic honestly thinking people would have common sense. If the gay community wants to be supported equally then they have alot to learn. He probably has something to object to THIS post... and to say I'm twisting it around to justify his corrupt racist morals. But you know its like talking to a brick wall. As minorities we all have been there and done that. Read this entire thread and you might be as horrified as "I" am. But people were raised like that.. the same way people read black print in the bible that says we are all from the devil. Its how people are brought up. People defending the confederacy really have some corrupt beliefs drilled into them. This is nothing against the south its against the right wing racist MANIACS

I've told you how I was brought up, so stop with the condescending lies, already.

It's a matter of having an education, and learning that things weren't black and white. You're sticking with a politically-correct fairy tale of the Civil War and the South, not the real thing.

BTW, show me where "the bible says we're all from the devil" -- actually, you can't; that's another statement out of ignorance, just like your position that all slave owners were evil brutes.

 

[Kulindahr]

While I do have issues with some parts of Kulindahr's post, there are two points that I'd like to defend.

First, I don't see where he said that the war wasn't about slavery; I read his post as arguing that slavery wasn't the only issue behind the war. This is the case--the antagonism between the North and South dates back to the days when slavery was still legal even in most Northern states. When you have a country that's divided geographically between densely populated states with manufacturing-based economies and sparsely-populated states with agricultral economies, there's bound to be tension regarding issues like tariffs, representation in Congress and, yes, slavery. Slavery certainly was an important issue, but it was also an issue that was useful for mobilizing voters, much like gay marriage today. It's a more emotionally charged subject than tariffs (as evidenced by the comments in this thread), and it's a much more tangible rallying cry than states' rights.

As for whether or not slavery would have ended without a war... Most of the Western world had already abolished slavery by 1860, with no bloodshed and little outcry. The US tends to be a bit behind the times when it comes to human and civil rights, but I do think that slavery could have ended without a war. It's just a question of how quickly it would have happened.

Quite so. In a way, slavery was behind the war, but it's not what set it off, and until late, when Lincoln invoked it (did you know there was a peace movement in the North that was willing to let the South go? I hit jaw on floor when I learned that) to sustain emotions to keep going.
That it wasn't the main issue is evidenced by how many states, and then the whole Confederacy, gave slaves their freedom for serving a year and a day in the armies.

Slavery would have ended within a generation, though I doubt it would have been any more pleasant for the freed slaves: machinery came to replace them, and as it was adopted, plantation owners would have just tossed their slaves out to fend for themselves. But at least there wouldn't have been the animosity, and the hatred that sought a scapegoat... and gave birth to the Klan.

For those who think I stand with the Klan, opposing them runs in the family -- my grandmother fought them organizing here (Oregon!) when blacks started moving in as agricultural and factory workers, my mom opposed their resurgence during WW II, and I've told a couple of Klannies in south county, to their face, that membership in the Klan makes them barbarians.
Sometimes I wish one would get mad and attack me so I could shoot him... but then I tell myself they're probably not worth the effort.

 

[Kulindahr]

What are you blind? He says right in his post that the civil war "wasn't about slavery," which is why I suggested he take his ignorant ass back to school. And you can go back there with him, and learn our history.

It's irrelevant when and how slavery ended in other parts of the world and in other times. The FACT is that slavery ended in the United States of America as a result of the Union Victory over the stinking southern conderacy via the Civil War. And that's what we're talking about. Duh... It is pure conjecture as to how U.S. slavery might have ended otherwise. Please stop offending people of african heritage and persons good conscience and character by defending a great evil (slavery) perpetrated by horrible people (confederates). Please stop insulting my ancestors who were victims of genocide.

You should both be ashamed! Ashamed! You are no better than the Nazi apologists who claim the holocaust never happened, or could been stopped without military action. Sheesh! God bless America. The America that I know and love. That the Union victory gave to the world.

Okay, I thought you were just misinformed; now I see that you're blind.

The point about slavery in other parts of the world is that the Civil War was a mistake that resulted in worse racism than had existed, gaving birth to the Klan. It resulted in untold misery and suffering for blacks and whites alike.

How it would have ended without that sad war is not "conjecture", it's been the subject of serious study by economists and historians, who look at the existing trends in both north and south.

Your lie that anyone here is defending slavery shows me how ingrained the propaganda is wherever you learned your politically correct version of history. That version exists because it serves black and other leaders' political purposes; fairy tale versions of events generally do. It's meant to stir up emotions, just as Lincoln did when he finally said something about slavery as having something to do with the war.

LOL -- if your ancestors were victims of genocide, you wouldn't be here. And slavery wasn't genocide; that's pure inflammatory mendacity.

As for your comparison to the Holocaust, that's bunk -- just find me one historical analyst who thinks that it could have been stopped without military intervention. There are hundreds who say that the Civil War, far from being needed, did irreparable damage to the American racial situation -- damage we have yet to recover from.

 

[Kulindahr]

Is that not a racist statement or WHAT?! He's against Lincoln declaring all slaves free and seizing property? Slaves never were property [Inappropriate text: Removed by Moderator]

No, it wasn't a racist statement -- that you think so shows your head isn't screwed on straight. Here's what Matt said:

It should be noted that technically, this may not have been a legal action (a President is not given the authority under the Constitution to make law, nor to seize "property" without due process.)

There's nothing in there about race, only about the technically legality of a particular action by a president. And he's quite correct, except timid: there was no legality to the Proclamation; Lincoln himself knew that, but he also knew he needed to reverse the waning support for the war and stop the peace movement, and the Proclamation focused everyone's attention on the emotional issue.

 

[jdoe4822]

Okay, I thought you were just misinformed; now I see that you're blind.

The point about slavery in other parts of the world is that the Civil War was a mistake that resulted in worse racism than had existed, gaving birth to the Klan. It resulted in untold misery and suffering for blacks and whites alike.

How it would have ended without that sad war is not "conjecture", it's been the subject of serious study by economists and historians, who look at the existing trends in both north and south.

Your lie that anyone here is defending slavery shows me how ingrained the propaganda is wherever you learned your politically correct version of history. That version exists because it serves black and other leaders' political purposes; fairy tale versions of events generally do. It's meant to stir up emotions, just as Lincoln did when he finally said something about slavery as having something to do with the war.

LOL -- if your ancestors were victims of genocide, you wouldn't be here. And slavery wasn't genocide; that's pure inflammatory mendacity.

As for your comparison to the Holocaust, that's bunk -- just find me one historical analyst who thinks that it could have been stopped without military intervention. There are hundreds who say that the Civil War, far from being needed, did irreparable damage to the American racial situation -- damage we have yet to recover from.

allright Kuli I'll humor you here for a second. How do you think Lincoln should have reacted to the secession of the southern states? Do you think he should have allowed them to create a seperate country? Do you think that if he had just allowed them to go, we'd still be two seperate countries?

 

[JUB]

I find it offensive that you are promoting a digitally-altered image as an official flag from the State of Georgia.

Here is the unaltered image:

Georgia State Flag, c. 1956-2001​

That unaltered image is still offensive to me. Just because its the state flag of georgia doesn't make it right

 

[opinterph]

Just because its the state flag of georgia doesn't make it right

Was, not is.

 

[LilBit]

But the current Georgia state flag is almost an exact replica of another one of the flags used by the Confederacy. Interesting that only the battle flag raises people's ire, while the actual "stars and bars" are used with nary a complaint.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

But the current Georgia state flag is almost an exact replica of another one of the flags used by the Confederacy. Interesting that only the battle flag raises people's ire, while the actual "stars and bars" are used with nary a complaint.

The stars and bars isn't used by the KKK or Neo-Nazis.. but the stars and bars is just as offensive to me. However the Stars And Bars resemble the American flag somewhat because we have red and white bars too. It's more vague so I find it something I can compromise with and I feel many feel the same way

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, you and I have gone a long way toward keeping discussions alive when we are on very opposite ends of the issue, and we've occasionally found common ground.

In this thread however, you have "jumped the shark" so to speak.

No one loves anyone that they are obliged to call "Master."

You need to get that into your head, and you owe an apology to anyone who has read that remark, and also to decency and reason themselves while you're at it.

Sorry, no apology, because it's true. the PBS special series on the Civil War included excerpts read from the diaries of black slaves who followed their owners to war, and not a few referred to the affection and love in which they held their masters.
I was amazed when I heard it; I would have had no trouble believing loyalty to masters who treated their slaves as equals in all but legal status, but "affection" and "love"?! Yet there were the words in those journals -- and words of masters saying the same things about their slaves, along with vows to free them, as they had proved themselves by their conduct in the war.

Then, thanks to Sherman more than any, those bonds between the races vanished after the war, and the revisionist history commenced.

 

[opinterph]

But the current Georgia state flag is almost an exact replica of another one of the flags used by the Confederacy. Interesting that only the battle flag raises people's ire, while the actual "stars and bars" are used with nary a complaint.

You make a good point about the stars and bars. I suppose public reaction relates to how symbols are generally/commonly recognized. Below is the first “official” Georgia State Flag, circa 1879 – 1902. (A Confederate veteran designed it.)

 

[Kulindahr]

You guys should check out the Muslim bashing in another thread. You'll see that Kulindahr is only against absolutist statements and willing to look at "complexities" when it's issues like denying the brutality and racism of slavery, or the inherent racism associated with the confederate flag. When it comes to bashing Muslims or anything else that's right up his alley, he's more than willing to see things in the same "black and white" that he accuses Madonna of endorsing.

I wish people like this would just admit that they don't like Blacks and Muslims instead of sneaking their bigotry and white privilege into multiple threads. You guys should know, you're not that subtle and you never have been.

Nice fabrication, Nik. The problem in that thread and this is that you fallaciously generalize, as well as engage in the fallacy of changing the meaning of terms.

It's amazing. People on this board have found so many ways to channel and disguise (though flimsily) their bigotry. Really, some of you guys deserve a medal. You've turned it into an art form!

You mean Madonna and BabiGayPimp. It's easy to be bigoted when you won't look at the truth.

allright Kuli I'll humor you here for a second. How do you think Lincoln should have reacted to the secession of the southern states? Do you think he should have allowed them to create a seperate country? Do you think that if he had just allowed them to go, we'd still be two seperate countries?

A blockade ought to have been more than sufficient.
More realistically, things should never have gotten that far.

This is richly hypocritical coming from you! Generalization is your m.o. in other threads when and where it serves your purpose.

Nik, this is a cheap defense of your own mendacious imagination concerning my posts. I generalize only when applicable -- but you pretend I generalize in order to attack me.

 

[Sammie13]

You make a good point about the stars and bars. I suppose public reaction relates to how symbols are generally/commonly recognized. Below is the first “official” Georgia State Flag, circa 1879 – 1902. (A Confederate veteran designed it.)

​

In my opinion (as well as my GA history professor's), this was the best looking flag in the state's history. Shame it was so short-lived.

I'm utterly amazed at how many people on this thread use the word "offended"...damn, ya'll are some sensitive people. This was 140 years ago...can you not move on? To me, the over-zealous 'offended' types are no better than the rednecks who still get caught up in all that hate and prejudice. Both parties are still trapped in the 1860's. We've got new wars and conflicts now. You may recall there are some evil people who really hate us and flew into some towers in NYC.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

In my opinion (as well as my GA history professor's), this was the best looking flag in the state's history. Shame it was so short-lived.

I'm utterly amazed at how many people on this thread use the word "offended"...damn, ya'll are some sensitive people. This was 140 years ago...can you not move on? To me, the over-zealous 'offended' types are no better than the rednecks who still get caught up in all that hate and prejudice. Both parties are still trapped in the 1860's. We've got new wars and conflicts now. You may recall there are some evil people who really hate us and flew into some towers in NYC.

You tell that to gays and Jews when they see a swastika on someone's car and they say it's my german pride and my grandfather died in WW2 fighting for Germany which was poor and desolate. He can give a whole other side and say how his father was fighting to rebuild Germany and what he had to go through during the great depression and how incorrect history showed Germany and the Nazi Party to be. He can say What the nazis did by killing wasn't what his grandfather did and that shouldn't justify all German Nazi soldiers. He actually told me there was a whole other side to the Nazi party such as creating jobs for really poor people that lost their jobs due to lay offs and once had high paying jobs. Just like the Confederates.. not all owned slaves. How do I know this? I went to highschool with a kid that told me this. He got suspended and was forced to not wear swastikas to school. He then went on to say its the same deal with the Confederate Naval Jack symbol which was so "oh so misunderstood" as well. He said the same shit some of you are saying how there is another side and that the liberals tell another story to make the nazis look bad. He said Hitler did do bad things but he was one hell of a speaker and did good things in bringing Germany back together and fought with such elegance in rebelling against what the Treaty of Versal. originally stated as it was unfair to punish all Germans after WW1. He made good points but even though he was wrong.. he put it in a way to where it was hard to argue with what he was saying. He was very good at justifying The Nazi party. He said he had no hatred towards gays, jews, blacks, or non blue-eyed blondes. He also said the Nazis will rise again and help make the world a better place and how they are "eco-friendly."

Not all confederates owned slaves.. but the southern economy relied on alot of slavery and thats how many southerners stayed wealthy especially with foreign trade for cotton and certain crops.
Sure some slave owners were not as harsh.. and maybe some slaves did become close with their owners.. those are a select few.. so You justify a small group of black slaves and state that all of them were happy and content? Whatever. Most WERE treated harshly. I guess it depends on how you are brought up and educated.

I took interest in the civil war in High school. It was a private school and we had to read college textbooks as I was in Honors. My teacher used to be a college professor and went to teach high school. He made a statement and said to remember that if you read a southern history book even in college.. it tells an ENTIRE different story based on a conservative view. Slave owners would read to the slaves and use the bible to say that God put them on the earth to be loyal to their masters and not defy them and they would be rewarded in their own after life which would not be with the whites. Believe it or not.. I researched that in the bible and it is in there. But Conservatives are not people we should trust seeing as how all gays are going to hell according to them and how we can't have the same legal rights to marry as str8 people.

 

[Kulindahr]

You tell that to gays and Jews when they see a swastika on someone's car and they say it's my german pride and my grandfather died in WW2 fighting for Germany which was poor and desolate. He can give a whole other side and say how his father was fighting to rebuild Germany and what he had to go through during the great depression and how incorrect history showed Germany and the Nazi Party to be. He can say What the nazis did by killing wasn't what his grandfather did and that shouldn't justify all German Nazi soldiers. He actually told me there was a whole other side to the Nazi party such as creating jobs for really poor people that lost their jobs due to lay offs and once had high paying jobs.

There's no way that the Swastika stands for German pride; it wasn't a symbol of Germany, but of the "Aryan Race" and the Nazi Party. But yes, they did do some good -- otherwise they wouldn't have made it into power. As the war wore on, though, they did less and less good.

Not all confederates owned slaves.. but the southern economy relied on alot of slavery and thats how many southerners stayed wealthy especially with foreign trade for cotton and certain crops.
Sure some slave owners were not as harsh.. and maybe some slaves did become close with their owners.. those are a select few.. so You justify a small group of black slaves and state that all of them were happy and content? Whatever. Most WERE treated harshly. I guess it depends on how you are brought up and educated.

I haven't seen anyone try to justify slavery, just to point out that your black-white version of things was false. It's good to see you acknowledging that there was more to it. From that TV special series, I gathered that most slave owners treated their slaves pretty much like family -- but that most slave owners had only one ro two, so the result is that the vast majority of slaves were treated as just beasts of burden, pretty much, some pampered, others abused.
But economically, it was foolish to treat one's slaves harshly; a harshly-treated slave works poorly compared to a well-fed, well-housed one that can trust his master not to be arbitrary and cruel.

The economic reliance on slavery, BTW, was why slavery was doomed: come mechanization, slaves would be far from cost-effective, and those who kept them would have gone bankrupt; they would have been turned loose, on their own.

I took interest in the civil war in High school. It was a private school and we had to read college textbooks as I was in Honors. My teacher used to be a college professor and went to teach high school. He made a statement and said to remember that if you read a southern history book even in college.. it tells an ENTIRE different story based on a conservative view. Slave owners would read to the slaves and use the bible to say that God put them on the earth to be loyal to their masters and not defy them and they would be rewarded in their own after life which would not be with the whites. Believe it or not.. I researched that in the bible and it is in there. But Conservatives are not people we should trust seeing as how all gays are going to hell according to them and how we can't have the same legal rights to marry as str8 people.

Um... that is and isn't in the Bible; mostly it isn't. For starters, the Bible does not endorse making war to get slaves. Further, it requires that slaves be set free after a certain time. More, it specifies no race or people as being put here to be slaves. Last, it says nothing about any separate heaven for whites.
But it does say that slaves should be loyal to their masters -- though the masters generally skipped the part about treating their slaves like brothers (unless maybe they all hated their brothers).

 

[TX-Beau]

...I gathered that most slave owners treated their slaves pretty much like family -- but that most slave owners had only one

Yeah, this sentence pretty much offends me as a southerner and a person. It perpetuates the “Gone with the Wind” justification and implies that some slavery wasn’t all that bad because they were really just like family. This sentiment is one small step from the one that says “they were better off with the free housing, and food, and no responsibility." Slavery was a monstrous institution all around, the slaves weren’t family they were property, all around, they weren’t Mammy or Uncle Peter, or any of the caricatures that come down to us from southern guilty conscience. Anyone in the south who felt so kindly towards them that they wanted to treat them like a brother had only to free them. If they were just like family why didn't that happen all the time? They weren’t family, they were chattel.

You don’t own your family, you don’t buy them on the block, and you don’t hunt them down when they leave home.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, this sentence pretty much offends me as a southerner and a person. It perpetuates the “Gone with the Wind” justification and implies that some slavery wasn’t all that bad because they were really just like family. This sentiment is one small step from the one that says “they were better off with the free housing, and food, and no responsibility." Slavery was a monstrous institution all around, the slaves weren’t family they were property, all around, they weren’t Mammy or Uncle Peter, or any of the caricatures that come down to us from southern guilty conscience. Anyone in the south who felt so kindly towards them that they wanted to treat them like a brother had only to free them. If they were just like family why didn't that happen all the time? They weren’t family, they were chattel.

You don’t own your family, you don’t buy them on the block, and you don’t hunt them down when they leave home.

All I can say to that is grow up and face the truth. That special had readings from diaries, some of them slave diaries, and those slaves who followed their masters to war regarded them with affection, which was returned.

And that's not one step from your inane accusation, it's just plain fact. "No responsibility"?! What fairy tales have you been studying?

I'm not talking about caricatures, I'm talking about what slaves themselves said, and the masters who owned them -- remember, those who took a slave to the army usually had just that one, so we're not talking the big plantation owners; these are slaves who shared the master's house because that's all there was.
One item was particularly poignant: a young man in the Confederate army noticed his slave companion looking wistfully on as someone read out about a directive from Jefferson Davis concerning slaves who were to be freed. On inquiring why the mood, the owner was told that the slave thought freedom a wonderful thing -- and responded puzzeledly "You aren't?" "No master" (and the account said the young owner was cut deeply by that word). "Well, we'll take care of that soon as we can get an officer", the young man decided.

Slavery in the South, when it wasn't a matter of masses of humanity, not uncommonly became like slavery in ancient Roman households, where there was little distinction between sons and slaves, and slaves even held authority over non-slaves. On the plantations, slavery was more after the fashion of ancient Egypt, except you had to take care of your slaves enough to keep them alive, because you couldn't go start a war to capture more.

Now if you'd stop dealing in absolutes, and acknowledge historical facts, you wouldn't be offended. As it is, the only offense that exists is in your own imagination -- and if reality offends you, you'd better learn to live with it.

 

[TX-Beau]

However you justify, the basic truth remains, one was master and one was slave; and therein lies the evil, no amount of "treating them nicely", like some kind of pet, changes that, and if reality offends you, you'd better learn to live with it.