Offended By Confederate Flag

[calvar]

... the fact that the Confederacy began freeing the slaves before the totally symbolic (and politically motivated) Emancipation Proclamation.

Do you want to cite something that supports that fact? Because, as far as I know, first act of Confederate Congress regarding the emancipation of slaves (and restricted to those slaves who enlisted as soldiers) was not passed until March 13, 1865 (less than a week before the Confederate Congress adjourned for the last time). That puts Confederate action not only 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect but also months after the 13th Amendment was passed in Congress with the ratification process well underway in many states...

It's true that proposals to emancipate slaves who enrolled in the Confederate military did start circulating in Confederate political and military circles in 1862-63, but it's also true such proposals found little support and did not become Confederate policy until the war was virtually over, and obviously lost. Unless you've got information to the contrary...

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you want to cite something that supports that fact? Because, as far as I know, first act of Confederate Congress regarding the emancipation of slaves (and restricted to those slaves who enlisted as soldiers) was not passed until March 13, 1865 (less than a week before the Confederate Congress adjourned for the last time). That puts Confederate action not only 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect but also months after the 13th Amendment was passed in Congress with the ratification process well underway in many states...

It's true that proposals to emancipate slaves who enrolled in the Confederate military did start circulating in Confederate political and military circles in 1862-63, but it's also true such proposals found little support and did not become Confederate policy until the war was virtually over, and obviously lost. Unless you've got information to the contrary...

I don't know if I still have the book around here, but one I read recently about the Civil War said that Jefferson Davis had ordered that slaves who served (a term?) in the army would be free, before the symbolic Emancipation Proclamation.

And it was symbolic: Lincoln had no authority to free slaves in the United States, so the measure extended only to... enemy territory.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

No, the Union did not begin hostilities. The road to war began in January of 1861 with the seizure of Federal arsenals and forts by several Southern states. The first act of hostility was from the Confederate ship Star of the West on Ft. Sumter, SC on Jan. 9, 1861.

Depends on how you're defining hostilities, of course. Had The South been allowed to secede as they wanted, it's unlikely that there would have been hostilities from The South. Because The North wouldn't let them secede The South felt it necessary to fight. If they hadn't attacked Fort Sumter, they would have been attacked soon anyway.

Note that I'm not really defending The South here. As slavery was on the way out (due to economic issues more than anything else, both due to its unsustainability and that countries were beginning to stop accepting goods from The South), and that The South was basically an agricultural economy, they were due for some serious hard times. In effect, the war actually saved them on a number of levels.

As for the flag itself: Although I can understand why people would associate it with racism, it needs to be noted that it earned its rep as a symbol of rebellion first, especially against government agencies (as in the Reconstruction). It's interesting that there is a major outcry against it due to its racist background when few people actually use it that way...

RG

 

[Kulindahr]

Note that I'm not really defending The South here. As slavery was on the way out (due to economic issues more than anything else, both due to its unsustainability and that countries were beginning to stop accepting goods from The South), and that The South was basically an agricultural economy, they were due for some serious hard times. In effect, the war actually saved them on a number of levels.

As for the flag itself: Although I can understand why people would associate it with racism, it needs to be noted that it earned its rep as a symbol of rebellion first, especially against government agencies (as in the Reconstruction). It's interesting that there is a major outcry against it due to its racist background when few people actually use it that way...

RG

I've read analyses which maintained that if Lincoln had just let the South secede, without recognizing the Confederacy or anything, their economy would have collapsed within a few years, and they could have been brought back into the Union far more easily. I don't know that I buy the idea, but it's based on what you note, that slavery was doomed anyway.

As for the flag -- come to think of it, most people I know like it as a symbol of independence and 'rebellion'... even when they are bigoted rednecks.

 

[calvar]

I don't know if I still have the book around here, but one I read recently about the Civil War said that Jefferson Davis had ordered that slaves who served (a term?) in the army would be free, before the symbolic Emancipation Proclamation.

I've read extensively on the Civil War, and have encountered no such attribution to, or support for emancipation from, Davis in 1862. Though it's true, I believe (but cannot prove), that Davis expressed reluctant support for the Bill that was passed in Richmond in 1865, but again that was well after both the Emancipation Proclamation was proclaimed and the 13th Amendment was passed by Congress in Washington. It's also true that the 1865 Bill was never formally enacted/implemented (the Confederacy having collapsed by then).

Indeed, when when Confederate General Patrick Cleburne proposed emancipating slaves who enrolled into the army at the beginning of 1864, his proposal, when forwarded to President Davis was returned with the comments: "While recognizing the patriotic motives of its distinguished author, I deem it inexpedient, at this time, to give publicity to this paper, and request that it be suppressed. J.D." So if Davis had supported such a proposal in 1862, he'd apparently abandoned or forgotten it by early 1864... http://www.civilwarhome.com/armingslaves.htm

Moreover, since you argue (correctly, I believe) that Lincoln had no authority to free slaves in the US, but only in areas designated in being in rebellion ('enemy territory'), how can you then turn around and argue that Davis had the power to do so in the CSA, when his Presidential powers under the Confederate Constitution were virtually identical to Lincoln's in the US in that regard??

It's true that the idea emancipating slaves who were enrolled into the CSA army was discussed in certain circles withing the Confederacy as early as 1862 (in the Alabama State Legislature, for instance), but I've never seen anything to suggest that it was ever adopted as policy by the Confederacy until the war was virtually over (and clearly lost by the South).

And it was symbolic: Lincoln had no authority to free slaves in the United States, so the measure extended only to... enemy territory.

Saying the Emancipation Proclamation was 'symbolic' ignores the very real fact that tens (and perhaps) hundreds of thousands of slaves were liberated under its provisions as Union armies moved forward into the Confederacy (or the 'states/areas of states being designated as in a state of rebellion', if one prefers) after it went into effect on January 1, 1863, more than 2 years before the war's end.

The irony here, Kulindahr, is that I'm probably a lot closer to your position vis-a-vis the Confederate Flag than most of your opponents, but I don't think that gives you the right to to present vague recollections as 'facts' unless you're willing to back them up...

 

[calvar]

Note that I'm not really defending The South here. As slavery was on the way out (due to economic issues more than anything else, both due to its unsustainability and that countries were beginning to stop accepting goods from The South), and that The South was basically an agricultural economy, they were due for some serious hard times. In effect, the war actually saved them on a number of levels.

One irony that has been often noted that it was a 'northern' invention - the cotton gin, invented by Eli Whitney (from Massachusetts), that did so much to extend the use of slavery in the South in the first half of the 19th Century. The cotton gin made the large scale cultivation of cotton using slave labour very profitable and did much to enhance the political power of the slaveholding minority in the southern states. It's interesting that while the overwhelming majority of the white population (75-80%) in the South did not own slaves, an even greater majority of their political representatives did. The 'disconnect' between the people who chose the route of secession and war and those who actually fought for it makes for a fascinating study...

I'm not sure about Robin's position that slavery was in economic decline in the South is accurate. Indeed a review of southern cotton exports to Europe and the northern states show them rising almost every year until the war's outbreak - making his assertion that countries were "beginning to stop accepting goods from The South" a hard one to support.

What undoubtedly did have an impact in opening up new sources for cotton (particularly British India) and diminishing the South's importance as a source of cotton was the war itself. Events like the Southern cotton embargo (designed to force Anglo-French recognition/intervention), an increasingly effective Union blockade, followed by the economic devastation caused by the war and inadequately addressed (and even prolonged in some cases) through Reconstruction. Whether the economic movement away from the South as a source of cotton would have occurred anyway, without the war, is something we can only speculate about - I don't think a firm conclusion is really possible here.

That also applies to the assertion that the war 'saved' the South in many ways. The white southerners who voted Democrat (as opposed to Republican) for generations after the Civil War are unlikely to be sympathetic to that view. Certainly, the war transformed the South as its need to wage a modern industrialized war against a much larger foe ended up trampling over the agrarian views and 'devolved' federal structure (i.e. 'states' rights') that the CSA, in the eyes of its founders, was supposed to defend. But again, it's impossible to claim any certainty about how (or whether) the South would have evolved without the war, particularly as the war also transformed the North (particularly the western states) too.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've read extensively on the Civil War, and have encountered no such attribution to, or support for emancipation from, Davis in 1862. Though it's true, I believe (but cannot prove), that Davis expressed reluctant support for the Bill that was passed in Richmond in 1865, but again that was well after both the Emancipation Proclamation was proclaimed and the 13th Amendment was passed by Congress in Washington. It's also true that the 1865 Bill was never formally enacted/implemented (the Confederacy having collapsed by then).

Indeed, when when Confederate General Patrick Cleburne proposed emancipating slaves who enrolled into the army at the beginning of 1864, his proposal, when forwarded to President Davis was returned with the comments: "While recognizing the patriotic motives of its distinguished author, I deem it inexpedient, at this time, to give publicity to this paper, and request that it be suppressed. J.D." So if Davis had supported such a proposal in 1862, he'd apparently abandoned or forgotten it by early 1864... http://www.civilwarhome.com/armingslaves.htm

Interesting. It sounds like maybe the book I read was twisting things; it certainly didn't include that item from Davis.

Moreover, since you argue (correctly, I believe) that Lincoln had no authority to free slaves in the US, but only in areas designated in being in rebellion ('enemy territory'), how can you then turn around and argue that Davis had the power to do so in the CSA, when his Presidential powers under the Confederate Constitution were virtually identical to Lincoln's in the US in that regard??

That wasn't an "argue", it was just a statement of from where my statements arose. I'm thinking that one possibility is that the author imported material 'from the future', so to speak, into a discussion of how Lee felt about arming slaves (he gave a lot of weight to Lee's views on everything).

Saying the Emancipation Proclamation was 'symbolic' ignores the very real fact that tens (and perhaps) hundreds of thousands of slaves were liberated under its provisions as Union armies moved forward into the Confederacy (or the 'states/areas of states being designated as in a state of rebellion', if one prefers) after it went into effect on January 1, 1863, more than 2 years before the war's end.

At the time it was symbolic, though that symbol served its purpose well: people who'd been turning against the war rallied to the cause again, which was what Lincoln needed -- "preserve the Union!" wasn't much of a rallying cry, but "Free the slaves!" was.
That support made it possible for the symbol to become one with substance.

The irony here, Kulindahr, is that I'm probably a lot closer to your position vis-a-vis the Confederate Flag than most of your opponents, but I don't think that gives you the right to to present vague recollections as 'facts' unless you're willing to back them up...

Okay.

 

[TX-Beau]

I live in Georgia and I do see some flags and bumper stickers. It does offend me and makes me uneasy but they have every right to have that flag or bumper sticker. I don't agree with them though but I don't believe in censorship unless it endangers the lives of others or it comes with a sign that reads "kill all fags".
Besides, it's like a tag. It lets you know that they're ignorant and who they are and where they live.

I do think it's funny, and not a little ironic that people who aren't even Southerners feel like they somehow know what that symbol means in the south.

 

[TX-Beau]

And it's ironic that people who were born after 1945 and 15,000 miles away from Berlin feel like they somehow know what the swastika meant in Germany.

Never said otherwise. But there remains the fact that there are plenty of people alive now that fought in that war and have direct experience of Nazi Germany who are perfectly willing to discuss this.

What do they say about the Swastika? What do the actual Germans say? A symbol of national Pride?

Right.

 

[AsianDream]

And it's ironic that people who were born after 1945 and 15,000 miles away from Berlin feel like they somehow know what the swastika meant in Germany.

The swastika has a very bad connotation for everyone - including Germans. Just as the Confederate Flag has.

It is not actually possible to be 15,000 miles away from anywhere while still remaining on the Earth's surface - this is because it is a ball of rock about 8,000 miles in diameter.

The "direct line" distance between any point on the surface is thus always less than 8,000 miles from any other point. In terms of distance measured over the surface - this is always less than about 12,000 miles.

 

[Kulindahr]

The swastika has a very bad connotation for everyone - including Germans. Just as the Confederate Flag has.

It is not actually possible to be 15,000 miles away from anywhere while still remaining on the Earth's surface - this is because it is a ball of rock about 8,000 miles in diameter.

The "direct line" distance between any point on the surface is thus always less than 8,000 miles from any other point. In terms of distance measured over the surface - this is always less than about 12,000 miles.

I guess you haven't been reading the thread.

The swastika is an ancient symbol of peace for many, many people, and of holiness and fertility. Do you think they should reject their ancient symbol and regard it as evil because of latecomers to the scene?

No symbol means the same thing to everyone; no symbol "has a very bad connotation for everyone". Further, no symbol's meaning is set in stone: a good example of that is the cross, once a symbol of terror to many, then a symbol of hope, then a symbol of duty and obedience... and again a symbol of terror to some while duty and dominance to others. The Iron Cross is another good example: most today would take it as a symbol of racism, of white power, but it began as a symbol of nobility, of self-sacrifice, of devotion to duty and to others far beyond the norm -- and it has gone through many changes since that origin, even while for some that heritage remains.

 

[Kulindahr]

I teleport to the planet Zwztcfkdg but realized that if I said 15,000 parsecs, no one would believe me.

I didn't realize that Zwztcfkdg was across the galaxy from us.

 

[AsianDream]

I teleport to the planet Zwztcfkdg but realized that if I said 15,000 parsecs, no one would believe me.

Unfortunately - even using 15,000 miles (rather than parsecs) no one will believe you either.

I do think your claim to have teleported to the planet Zwztcfkdg is one that should be taken more seriously than any of your previous comments - but still find this rather unconvincing.

 

[AsianDream]

I guess you haven't been reading the thread.

Yes I have read the thread - I hope you will appreciate my restraint in not using the phrases "condescending" or "know it all" in my reply.

The swastika is an ancient symbol of peace for many, many people, and of holiness and fertility. Do you think they should reject their ancient symbol and regard it as evil because of latecomers to the scene?
.

The meaning of symbols are those that are assigned to them (and understood) by the majority of people.

The Swastika and Confederate Flag are equally symbols of Evil and oppression that are understood as such by most people.

Therefore most people are Offended by the Confederate Flag - just as they are by the Swastika.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

1) Actually, you can't be more than a little over 12,000 miles away from anyone, barring the guys in space. I realize that the Earth may only by 8K in diameter, but people tend to measure distances that they can travel. Very few can travel through the Earth....

The meaning of symbols are those that are assigned to them (and understood) by the majority of people.

Apparently, as long as those people agree with you. Otherwise, just ignore what they say, right?

The Swastika and Confederate Flag are equally symbols of Evil and oppression that are understood as such by most people.

Nope. Pointing out really quick that a lot of noted that the swastika goes the wrong way; too anyone noticing the swastika's rotation, it's pretty much universally panned as an evil symbol.

Therefore most people are Offended by the Confederate Flag - just as they are by the Swastika.

Actually, the Confederate Flag isn't as offensive as you would think. After looking at several polls online, it would appear that roughly more than 2/3 of those polled would disagree with you....

RG

 

[TX-Beau]

Actually, the Confederate Flag isn't as offensive as you would think. After looking at several polls online, it would appear that roughly more than 2/3 of those polled would disagree with you....RG

Where are these polls? Who did they Poll? What did they ask?

Fuck that. I grew up in the south, I know who's flying the stars and bars, they're the people I grew up with, from the culture I know. I know what they say, the code they use, what they think, and what they stand for.

Frankly I find it incredibly amusing that the Yankees in here are so fond of defending the rebel cause.

Talk about perversions of history.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Where are these polls? Who did they Poll? What did they ask?

Sorry; I know I should have tracked the URL's, but I was looking for some sort of pattern more than anything else. The question was usually some variation of "Do you find the flag offensive?" or "Do you see the flag as a symbol of racism?". As noted, it was somewhat interesting to see that, on average, 2/3 didn't.

Fuck that. I grew up in the south, I know who's flying the stars and bars, they're the people I grew up with, from the culture I know. I know what they say, the code they use, what they think, and what they stand for.

Apparently not as well as you would think. After all, the idea of the Stars and Bars as a symbol of rebellion against the government (and by extension against society in general) had its start in The South. I think that if I had to argue that The South had one lasting, positive effect, not letting the government run roughshod over the citizenry would probably be it. Even allowing for where it came from.

Frankly I find it incredibly amusing that the Yankees in here are so fond of defending the rebel cause.

I think you would be surprised at how many Rebels are doing the same...

RG

 

[TX-Beau]

Sorry; I know I should have tracked the URL's, but I was looking for some sort of pattern more than anything else. The question was usually some variation of "Do you find the flag offensive?" or "Do you see the flag as a symbol of racism?". As noted, it was somewhat interesting to see that, on average, 2/3 didn't.

My dog ate my homework?

Apparently not as well as you would think. After all, the idea of the Stars and Bars as a symbol of rebellion against the government (and by extension against society in general) had its start in The South. I think that if I had to argue that The South had one lasting, positive effect, not letting the government run roughshod over the citizenry would probably be it. Even allowing for where it came from.

Apparently you fail to understand that modern usage of that flag is tied to the Civil rights movement and the threat to Jim Crow.

I think you would be surprised at how many Rebels are doing the same...

RG

There are no more Rebels in the South. Well, Except for Perry. There's just some rednecks and racists who've sold you a bill of goods. The rest of us know better.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

My dog ate my homework?

Nah; more of "I'm doing other things right now"...

Apparently you fail to understand that modern usage of that flag is tied to the Civil rights movement and the threat to Jim Crow.

Well, if it really was tied to the threat to Jim Crow that would be a good thing right? That said, you're failing to understand that people do see how it is tied to racism, but that it's also tied to the argument of personal and state rights versus those of the government in general, and as well as the rights of the working-class man. A lot of people believe that there were valid issues raised during the build up to secession regarding the rights of individual states, and that the South should have been allowed to secede. It would have been suicide for those states, but they should have been allowed to do it anyway.

Of course, it doesn't help the flag's cause in this regard that those arguments have shifted to Midwest for the most part...

There are no more Rebels in the South. Well, Except for Perry. There's just some rednecks and racists who've sold you a bill of goods. The rest of us know better.

It is interesting that the flag still flies on a number of government buildings...If it was seen as such a menace to racial harmony, then you'd think that more drives to remove it would be successful...

RG

 

[TX-Beau]

Nah; more of "I'm doing other things right now"...

I see, well, you've guaranteed that next time you quote a poll, I'm not going to take you seriously.

Well, if it really was tied to the threat to Jim Crow that would be a good thing right?

Huh? the people who revived the stars and bars wanted to keep Jim Crow. You did realize that right.

That said, you're failing to understand that people do see how it is tied to racism, but that it's also tied to the argument of personal and state rights versus those of the government in general, and as well as the rights of the working-class man. A lot of people believe that there were valid issues raised during the build up to secession regarding the rights of individual states, and that the South should have been allowed to secede. It would have been suicide for those states, but they should have been allowed to do it anyway.

What you fail to understand is that I've heard these arguments all my damn life, and maybe you, not understanding where these arguments came from (except that bit about the working class - that has nothing to do with the stars an bars at all. This is the south boy, not some union infested Yankee paradise), you may have bought into it. I who grew up with it know exactly what the people who came up with this were talking about.

Of course, it doesn't help the flag's cause in this regard that those arguments have shifted to Midwest for the most part...

Maybe with the KKK. But the Midwest has no claim on the stars and bars and that, bad history and bad symbol and all, I will defend. Whatever it is, it's ours.

It is interesting that the flag still flies on a number of government buildings...If it was seen as such a menace to racial harmony, then you'd think that more drives to remove it would be successful...

RG

If it wasn't seen as a menace to racial harmony we wouldn't be having this argument, there wouldn't be lawsuits and bad blood, if it wasn't seen as racist, this conversation would never have happened.

That seems patently obvious.

Just because you want to apologize for it's history, doesn't mean you have a leg to stand on.