Isn't opposing the Confederate flag basic decency?

[Monk Of Reason]

Honest question, if someone displayed German pride by displaying the Nazi flag, would you be swayed by an argument that the flag was not a racist symbol?

Millions of Germans died during the Second World War. The swastika flag was the national flag of Germany, an actual nation, for 12 years, far longer than the existence of the Confederacy. If ethnic Germans started displaying the flag as a representation of their heritage, would we be justified in condemning it because of its dubious, indeed horrifying, symbolism?

People do.

I get that there is mindless, knee jerk anti-Southern prejudice. But when someone tells me that I am maligning their heritage by condemning the Confederacy and its symbols, I get very annoyed. I am not opposed to the flag because I am opposed to Southerners or their culture. I am opposed to the flag because I consider flying it to be deeply offensive, and totally inappropriate being waved on public property. In fact, it is disturbing that people interpret opposition to the flag as anti-Southern, because to me that conflates the South with the Confederacy. Is that really the message the flag's defenders are trying to send?
.

The nazi flag has always been a flag of hate. Confederacy hasn't always been a flag of hate. The confederate flag has continued to be used for the last 150 years after the civil war and it has developed into a symbol that many people feel is not one of hate. Or at least that is the way many in the south view it. To you and to many others it is nothing but hate. I get that. But what you also don't get is that it isn't that way for others. There are knee-jerk anti-southern issues and that was what I was primarily debating about earlier. However the usage of the confederate flag isn't new I do not agree that it has a right to put on public ground but I do not agree that it is a hateful symbol anywhere but in the north.

 

[leibowde84]

Slavery was an issue no doubt. Part of it had to do with the new western territories and how slavery had been banned there. Much of the south saw this as favoritism towards the north as the North could still establish factories and many of their industrial opportunities were allowed but the plantations and agricultural systems of the south could not have spread. This began a divide between the power of the federal government and the power of state governments.

There were smaller issues having to do with tariffs levied at a much higher rate than internal taxes on many of the agricultural and base material exports (as nearly 80% of all exports were from the south). The distrust of a larger federal government to impede upon state rights was the primary fear. Slavery being the chiefest of the issues. However at this point in time much of slavery had still been considered a "necessary evil" or "the way things were". Not a defensible position at all of course and they should not have been allowed to simply become their own country for the good of the people involved as well as myself most likely (were I to be born in some strange alternative history line anyway).

It reminds me a lot of the current ideas and concepts of the tea party.

I disagree that rebellions are only as valid as the reasoning behind them. They are as valid as they are successful. But just to point out it doesn't matter if they "deserved it" or not the north was the force behind the war. The only justification of this is that the lives lost were worth stopping the south form succession. Ultimately, where all of the lives lost in this endeavor worth it? I tend to think so.

But, isn't your mentioning of the plantations and such not being permitted in the western territories an example of the southerners trying to cling to a way of life that was heading toward extinction? I don't see any honor in trying to keep things the way that they are. And, a "necessary evil" to own and, often, torture/rape human beings is no excuse. It was only "necessary" because the south had failed to develop sufficiently in industry. All of this feels like an unwillingness to change.

 

[metis]

The Confederate flag was a battle flag, and it has long been viewed as representing division, typically reflecting anti-"yankee" hatred. Obviously, the issue of slavery was attached to that as well, which is one reason why blacks long have had problems with it.

IMO, put it into museums as a reminder of division, hatred, and discrimination.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But, isn't your mentioning of the plantations and such not being permitted in the western territories an example of the southerners trying to cling to a way of life that was heading toward extinction? I don't see any honor in trying to keep things the way that they are. And, a "necessary evil" to own and, often, torture/rape human beings is no excuse. It was only "necessary" because the south had failed to develop sufficiently in industry. All of this feels like an unwillingness to change.

You will view it as such. You won't see it any other way. For the record I agree with you for the most part. I am just able to see it from their perspective having at one point in time been there.

 

[gsa]

The nazi flag has always been a flag of hate. Confederacy hasn't always been a flag of hate. The confederate flag has continued to be used for the last 150 years after the civil war and it has developed into a symbol that many people feel is not one of hate. Or at least that is the way many in the south view it. To you and to many others it is nothing but hate. I get that. But what you also don't get is that it isn't that way for others. There are knee-jerk anti-southern issues and that was what I was primarily debating about earlier. However the usage of the confederate flag isn't new I do not agree that it has a right to put on public ground but I do not agree that it is a hateful symbol anywhere but in the north.

Sorry, but this position is ahistorical. The Confederate battle flag at issue was in retirement for nearly 100 years, and re-emerged as a political symbol during the desegregation debates in the 1940s, 50s and 60s. We do not get to rewrite history to pretend that the flag was resurrected for "heritage" purposes, except to the extent it was resurrected for the purpose of promoting racial apartheid.

Indeed, look at the case of Mississippi, which voted to retain the X in its flag in 2001. This has to be one of the most disingenuous uses of the flag, because according to Mississippi law, the design isn't related to the Confederacy at all. No, those 13 stars represent the original states, not the Confederacy:

Miss. Code Ann. § 3-3-16 (2014)
§ 3-3-16. Design of state flag


The official flag of the State of Mississippi shall have the following design: with width two-thirds (2/3) of its length; with the union (canton) to be square, in width two-thirds (2/3) of the width of the flag; the ground of the union to be red and a broad blue saltire thereon, bordered with white and emblazoned with thirteen (13) mullets or five-pointed stars, corresponding with the number of the original States of the Union; the field to be divided into three (3) bars of equal width, the upper one blue, the center one white, and the lower one, extending the whole length of the flag, red (the national colors); this being the flag adopted by the Mississippi Legislature in the 1894 Special Session.


Yet the proponents of this flag cite "Southern heritage and history" when defending the flag and arguing that it should be retained. But here you have the Mississippi state legislature claiming that the battle flag stars represent the original states! But the actual history of the flag's revival demonstrates it is inextricably tied to white supremacy: Incorporated into school events at the University of Mississippi to protest Truman's civil rights agenda (note that this university rioted when forced to accept black students), adopted by the Dixiecrats for the same purpose (and sales skyrocket), raised by George Wallace in Alabama to protest desegregation orders in 1963, incorporated into the Georgia state flag in 1956 to protest desegregation, etcetera. If people believe that this flag represents their heritage, they are wrong, but free to fly the flag in their own homes.

Indeed, even the Georgia state senate produced a report in 2000 that demonstrates the actual racist history of this symbol:

Since the incorporation of the battle flag into Georgia’s state flag occurred long after the Civil War ended, the central question arises as to how that adoption refers to any racist connotations that the battle flag may have acquired since then. It must be understood how the meaning of the battle flag has changed since the Civil War and explore what it meant at the time Georgia and other states adopted it or paid homage to it. From the end of the Civil War until the late 1940s, display of the battle flag was mostly limited to Confederate commemorations, Civil War re-enactments, and veterans’ parades. The flag had simply become a tribute to Confederate veterans. It was during that time period, only thirty years after the end of the war and fifty years before the modern civil rights movement, that Mississippi incorporated the battle flag into its own state flag – well before the battle flag took on a different and more politically charged meaning. In 1948, the battle flag began to take on a different meaning when it appeared at the Dixiecrat convention in Birmingham as a symbol of southern protest and resistance to the federal government – displaying the flag then acquired a more political significance after this convention.3 Georgia of course, changed its flag in 1956, two years after Brown v. Board of Education was decided.

In 1961, George Wallace, the governor of Alabama, raised the Confederate battle flag over the capitol dome in Montgomery to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of the Civil War. The next year, South Carolina raised the battle flag over its capitol. In 1963, as part of his continued opposition to integration, Governor Wallace again raised the flag over the capitol dome. Despite the hundredth anniversary of the Civil War, the likely meaning of the battle flag by that time was not the representation of the Confederacy, because the flag had already been used by Dixiecrats and had become recognized as a symbol of protest and resistance. Based on its association with the Dixiecrats, it was at least in part, if not entirely, a symbol of resistance to federally enforced integration. Undoubtedly, too, it acquired a racist aspect from its use by the Ku Klux Klan, whose violent activities increased during this period. However, it is important to remember that in spite of these other uses, there remained displays of the battle flag as homage to the Confederate dead, with no racist overtones.


Mark Ambider says it best in a recent column:

Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history. Not Vietnam. Not opposition to Northern culture or values. Not tourism. Not ObamaCare. Not anything else.

There's only one uncontrived association that's a step removed from racial subjugation, and it's the initial post-war use of the flag: to celebrate the victories of the Confederate army and to mourn those who died while fighting in the Civil War. But today, 150 years later, such flags are best and most appropriate displayed in museums and at cemeteries.

It should not be controversial to say that people should not spend their days mourning relatives they never knew from a war that ended 150 years ago, especially if that feeling is so paramount that it outweighs the sense of brotherhood they might feel toward fellow humans who are alive, and for whom the flag's presence and endorsement by the government is the personification of the evil of white supremacy.

 

[leibowde84]

You will view it as such. You won't see it any other way. For the record I agree with you for the most part. I am just able to see it from their perspective having at one point in time been there.

I see your point. I just don't feel that way about culture in general. We should welcome change, imho.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news....
'Hazzard' actor, now a store owner, defends Confederate flag - Yahoo News

Tis clear that no matter how fervent & detailed the argument that the flag represents only one thing, the existence of other meanings is still there.
Objects don't have intrinsic meaning.
It exists only in the minds of people.

 

[gsa]

In the news....
'Hazzard' actor, now a store owner, defends Confederate flag - Yahoo News

Tis clear that no matter how fervent & detailed the argument that the flag represents only one thing, the existence of other meanings is still there.
Objects don't have intrinsic meaning.
It exists only in the minds of people.

I agree that there are multiple meanings that one can associate an object with (including intended and original meaning), but there's no evidence that the flag had some amorphous, "Southern heritage and pride" meaning, either. Not if we judge its historical usage, where the predominant meaning becomes relatively clear.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree that there are multiple meanings that one can associate an object with (including intended and original meaning), but there's no evidence that the flag had some amorphous, "Southern heritage and pride" meaning, either. Not if we judge its historical usage, where the predominant meaning becomes relatively clear.

Is historical meaning attributed to an object always the current meaning for all people?
If the answer is affirmative, then how does one pick which meaning to attribute as the sole meaning?

 

[gsa]

Is historical meaning attributed to an object always the current meaning for all people?

No. But when proponents of the Confederate flag claim that it is a longstanding symbol of Southern heritage and culture, that's simply not true. I do not have to agree with their historical revisionism, no matter how sincerely held the belief is. And let's be clear: The flag that we are actually debating was originally the battle flag of a traitorous insurrection that resulted in the deaths of over half a million people, for the purpose of defending the despicable institution of slavery. Whatever meaning it has gained or lost over the years, I'm not really moved by people who claim that this flag, given its origin, somehow has magically transformed into a symbol of all the good things that ever happened south of the Mason Dixon line, in the years following the Civil War. And indeed, when we examine its history, we find its popularization is closely associated with racists defending the white supremacy, while it had a more limited use as a way of honoring dead Confederate soldiers before the 1940s.

Again, I wonder how many proponents of the Confederate flag would dare claim the same status for the Nazi flag? My guess is very few. And that flag used an ancient symbol that has a completely different meaning from the one promoted by the Nazis, but somehow we can call b.s. on attempts to conflate the Nazi flag with German pride and culture.

If people want to fly the flag on their own time and dime, let them. I don't even agree with the recent Supreme Court decision that lets states prohibit confederate vanity plates on the grounds that the messages are "government speech." But that flag does not belong in state capitols, and its history cannot be divorced from slavery and white supremacy, at least not in an American context.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. But when proponents of the Confederate flag claim that it is a longstanding symbol of Southern heritage and culture, that's simply not true.

Since meaning is given by the observer (not by the object) then your claim otherwise is demonstrably false.

I do not have to agree with their historical revisionism, no matter how sincerely held the belief is.

I don't see claims that its history is about southern pride instead of rebellion against the north.
What revisionist claims do you find?
I say the salient point is that that many now view it as about regional pride.

And let's be clear: The flag that we are actually debating was originally the battle flag of a traitorous insurrection that resulted in the deaths of over half a million people, for the purpose of defending the despicable institution of slavery. Whatever meaning it has gained or lost over the years, I'm not really moved by people who claim that this flag, given its origin, somehow has magically transformed into a symbol of all the good things that ever happened south of the Mason Dixon line, in the years following the Civil War. And indeed, when we examine its history, we find its popularization is closely associated with racists defending the white supremacy, while it had a more limited use as a way of honoring dead Confederate soldiers before the 1940s.

Again, I wonder how many proponents of the Confederate flag would dare claim the same status for the Nazi flag? My guess is very few. And that flag used an ancient symbol that has a completely different meaning from the one promoted by the Nazis, but somehow we can call b.s. on attempts to conflate the Nazi flag with German pride and culture.

If people want to fly the flag on their own time and dime, let them. I don't even agree with the recent Supreme Court decision that lets states prohibit confederate vanity plates on the grounds that the messages are "government speech." But that flag does not belong in state capitols, and its history cannot be divorced from slavery and white supremacy, at least not in an American context.

To argue the history of what the flag meant to "traitors" does not change the meaning given by many today.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Question from the bleachers...or Australia, which amounts to the same thing in this case...

Why is it a battle flag, rather than one of the actual Confederate Flags, that is displayed?
And what is this particular version of the flag's historical linkage to South Carolina?

 

[Curious George]

I voted no. But I used to have Nazi flags in my room and wear Fascist pins to school. So I'm not exactly politically correct.

Why?

 

[Neo Deist]

Being born and raised in Alabama, I will speak from the perspective of one who actually likes the flag and what it means in both American history, and on a personal level...

For starters, it is NOT a symbol for slavery or hatred. Some will interpret it that way, but they do not understand where the South was coming from. The Southern states were in the Bible Belt, and countless laws and ordinances were based off the Bible, including slavery. The OT spoke of having slaves and it being perfectly legal and moral. God even commanded the Hebrews to take slaves, how to treat them, etc. The Southern states were also mostly agricultural, with the Northern states being industrial. To work massive plots of farmland, slave labor was "a must"...or so they thought.

Slave and plantation owners made up for approximately 5% of the Southern population. Only the wealthy could afford slaves and hundreds (or thousands) of acres of land. Most Southerners were poor farmers that tried to scrape by with their families, and did not own slaves. They were lucky to have the clothes on their backs.

The Northern states, being industrial, did a lot of trading with Europe. They also wanted the Southern states to buy Northern goods almost exclusively, so they jacked up taxes and tariffs on European imports, and then raised prices on their own merchandise. When the Northern law makers said "Territories can't have slaves," that was the final straw.The South protested and eventually said "screw you...we'll secede and form our own trade pacts, and do things our way." When Lincoln ordered the Union Army into Virginia, he was invading a foreign country. That rallied many Southerners to come to the defense of a sovereign nation under attack. It also gave them something to do, wages, clothes, food, and shelter (a tent is better than nothing).

Slavery and the abolishment of it was not a concern for Lincoln or the Union Army until two years after the Civil War started. Lincoln wanted France to blockade the eastern seaboard as well as the Gulf of Mexico (like Mobile Bay, Alabama). The French, who helped the American Colonies win independence from England less than 100 years earlier, was an American ally. They agreed to help, but only if slavery was made illegal and all the slaves were given their freedom. Thus Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863.

I had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. Not a single one of them was ever a slave owner. They fought because a "foreign army" had invaded their homeland, and they felt a sense of duty. To put it in perspective, think of the movie "Red Dawn." The Union Army was North Korea and the Wolverines were the Southern rebels fighting the invaders. That is exactly how many Southerners felt. They could have cared less about slavery...95% did not own slaves.

Many people this day and age see the Confederate flag as a symbol of States' rights. These are the same people that want a smaller, less intrusive federal government. They don't want "Big Brother" having its fingers on every little detail of life.

So, for many people, especially long time Southerners, that flag is a part of our heritage. To ban it would be along the same lines of saying:

No more MLK Day. Screw your heritage.
Spanish is illegal to speak here. Screw your heritage.
No more Irish pubs. Screw your heritage.
(you get the idea)

Now let's talk about slavery and what is NOT taught in school. Many people do not realize that the Europeans who went into Africa and started shipping slaves over to North America, did not actually conquer the natives and enslave them. No, no, no...African tribes would be at war with each other and the victor would enslave the loser, sell them to the Europeans in exchange for goods (clothing, food, alcohol, weapons) and that is how the slave trade got started in North America. Blacks would enslave other blacks and sell them off.

All of that being said, do I agree with slavery? Absolutely not. It is an inhumane practice that should be illegal, period.

 

[Neo Deist]

The Confederate Government was STUPID to even think they could ever beat the North
even though the north sure as heck tried to loose with their worse Generals screwing
up battle after battle.

Actually, the CSA was pretty much kicking the Union's *** strategically, even though it was outnumbered 2 to 1. By the war's end, the Union Army had suffered ~200,000 more casualties than the CSA. Lee's army almost destroyed Grant's army at Shiloh, TN. If Grant had not received reinforcements, the outcome of the War would have been much different.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, the CSA was pretty much kicking the Union's *** strategically, even though it was outnumbered 2 to 1. By the war's end, the Union Army had suffered ~200,000 more casualties than the CSA. Lee's army almost destroyed Grant's army at Shiloh, TN. If Grant had not received reinforcements, the outcome of the War would have been much different.

Inevitability of the North's victory is an easy perspective to have with 20-20 hindsight.
Change a few key battles & alliances, & many wars could've turned out differently.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Slave and plantation owners made up for approximately 5% of the Southern population. Only the wealthy could afford slaves and hundreds (or thousands) of acres of land. Most Southerners were poor farmers that tried to scrape by with their families, and did not own slaves. They were lucky to have the clothes on their backs.

I read your post, and found it interesting. But I'm a bit time poor, and I really wanted to address a couple of things quickly, so apologies on the cherry-pick.

1) Whether the bulk of the population of the South cared about slavery or not doesn't speak to the involvement of slavery in the decision to go to war. Think many medieval peasants cared which royal cousin could press a claim for a foreign throne? I get that there was more to the war than just slavery, and it wasn't as simple as North being anti-slavery and South pro-slavery. But slavery was the single largest issue in the formation of the confederation, and a quick look at the formative documents of the states clearly indicates this.
I can link to evidence if you like/disagree, just not enough time to do so right now.

2) More importantly, the 5% figure you are offering up as slave ownership is not credible.
Some key 1860 Census figures for the 7 initial Confederate States.

South Carolina
46% families owned slaves
57% WERE slaves (which is a key often ignored when people raise the '8% of families owned slaves' figure I commonly see bandied about - which was the national average of the time)

Mississippi
49% families owned slaves
55% were slaves

Florida
34% families owned slaves
44% were slaves

Alabama
35% families owned slaves
45% were slaves

Georgia
37% families owned slaves
44% were slaves

Louisiana
29% families owned slaves
47% were slaves

Texas
28% families owned slaves
30% were slaves

(Link to source : 1860 Census Results

 

[Curious George]

I voted no. But I used to have Nazi flags in my room and wear Fascist pins to school. So I'm not exactly politically correct.

Inquiring minds need to know why?

If you don't care to share, I respect that, but I keep looking at this thread, because I am hoping you will.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Inquiring minds need to know why?

If you don't care to share, I respect that, but I keep looking at this thread, because I am hoping you will.

It's not that interesting. I used to be into NS as an ideology, have always had an attraction to that period of history and I enjoy the aesthetic.

 

[Neo Deist]

2) More importantly, the 5% figure you are offering up as slave ownership is not credible.
Some key 1860 Census figures for the 7 initial Confederate States.

My numbers are credible. The census you speak of shows that only 5% of the US population owned 95% of the slaves. Southerners owned 85% of the land that the slaves worked. That census skews the data as it counts all family members instead of the actual slave owner as a single entity. In other words...

Mr. Smith owns 100 slaves
Mrs. Smith, though married to Mr. Smith, is also counted as a slave owner even though it is the same 100 slaves that her husband owns
Little John Smith, age 10, is also counted with his parents as a slave owner

What should have been done is to calculate the total number of slaves and divide them by the actual number of slave owning households, not combined individuals within the same household. When you do that, you get the correct ~5% ratio.