Proof The Confederate Battle Flag is Not a Racist Flag.

July 13, 2015. | Republican1795.

[SkyDancer]

Well to go back several years when a lot of this was going hot and heavy. Point number one: There was the United States of America. There was no "War of Secession" going on at the time. Ft. Sumter was an American fort (you know, Francis Scott Key and all that) in what was the United States of America. South Carolina was in the United States of America at the time the South attacked it by firing upon it. Prior to that VMI cadets had fired on a supply ship going to the fort. It was only >after< the attack the war actually started. So to repeat as you have done (and is why I quit in the battle of words back then) - your innuendo and surly response that I don't know where SOUTH CAROLINA is is out of line.

It does not matter where that fort is located. It was a federal fort in the United States of America and hence, SOUTH CAROLINA being part of the United States of America was on American soil/water/harbor/where ever.

Americans at the time were Americans and not "foreign troops" as you mentioned. And just as a further thought to you. SOUTH CAROLINA was a holdout signing the Constitution because they wanted to keep slavery in it.

Thus ends my response to you and the end of this argument. It would have been a pleasure to debate with you on this but considering your opening sentences smacks of pettiness.

Have A Nice Day.

R/Janey

[RipSawyer]

Yes, sadly I have come to realize that the bottom has dropped out of the market for logic in this country.

[sport]

It is a waste if time to reason and argue.[With them]

I learned that during the Clinton Regime.

[TomGuy]

If you have Netflix, you might check out Field of Lost Shoes

http://www.netflix.com/title/80013929

“In 1864, dozens of inexperienced teenage cadets at Virginia Military Institute are thrust into battle to protect the Shenandoah Valley from the Union.”

[x]

How many troops do you think the US could have kept in Fort Sumter, or the other remaining forts?

The reason for holding on to Sumter wasn't to attack anyone or collect taxes. The reason was that so long as the US still had a foothold in the rebel territories they could claim that the union was intact. I know it may sound silly now, but it was a way the country could save face, bide time waiting for cooler heads to prevail, a way of not confronted the worst crisis and worst failure of our history head-on.

That kind of stand-off situation is something we've become very familiar with over time. It's something that a smarter, more capable Confederate government could have coped with, playing for time and jockeying for advantage as Lincoln was doing. But instead, they started the war. Don't just accept the propaganda. Consider other options that might have been available to the secessionists at the time.

[ought-six]

“The FACT is nearly EVERY southern state issued a secession statement and in those statements slavery is mentioned above all reasons.”

Not true, not true, not true.

Thirteen states had Acts or Articles of Secession. Of those thirteen only four even mentioned slavery (South Carolina, Texas, Mississippi, and Georgia; Virginia just mentioned that it was in agreement with the slave states). Of the thirteen, eleven actually ratified their respective Acts or Articles of Secession.

[ought-six]

“Ft. Sumter was an American fort (you know, Francis Scott Key and all that)....”

Key penned his poem about Ft. McHenry, not Ft. Sumter. Just sayin’.

[ought-six]

“In 1864, dozens of inexperienced teenage cadets at Virginia Military Institute are thrust into battle to protect the Shenandoah Valley from the Union.”

And they actually accounted themselves well.

[SkyDancer]

My >big< mistake. I was so involved in that I totally missed it. Thanks for pointing that out. Big embarrassment. Think I’ll go hide for a while.

[clearcarbon]

"Proof The Confederate Battle Flag is Not a Racist Flag."

Was their any proof submitted that it was a racist flag?

[CWCoop]

Firstly, you are confusing articles of secession with secession statements. Not all the states issued secession statements. But even of the Articles of secession, your claim that secession was because of the north invading the south is unsubstantiated. In fact, only TWO of the thirteen mention invasion at all. And both of those states were never central southern states in the Confederacy.

It is telling that the early seceders all mention slavery, that the next few avoid mentioning direct causes, and the last few mention being invaded by the north as reasons.

It seems pretty clear that the political priorities of the core Confederate states that left the union did so almost solely over slavery.

Secession Statements that Mention Slavery as a Cause
-South Carolina does.
-Mississippi mentions slavery as a main cause
-Georgia also focuses on slavery.
-Texas mentions slavery as a main cause.

States With Oblique references:

-Alabama specifically said they were joining the “slaveholding States of the South.”
-Virginia does obliquely by saying that the US govt is entering into the “oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.”

States With No Mention of Specific Causes At All
-Florida’s was short and to the point and didn’t really elaborate on any direct causes of its decision to secede.
-Louisiana makes no mention of causes.
-Arkansas makes no mention of causes.
-North Carolina mentions no causes.
-Tennessee mentions no causes.

States that Issued a document, but was never a major part of the Confederacy
-Kentucky mentions being invaded, but also mentions “property.”
-Missouri mentions that the north invaded.

Further more, slavery was a key discussion in all the states’ conventions whether the issue ended up in a secession statement or an ordinance of secession or not.

So, your claim that invasion by the north was the main reason does not hold water. Only two states even mention that issue and neither ended up being major parts of the south. They were also not early joiners nor 100% vested in slavery.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Lincoln flat out lied to the Southern delegation in D.C. considering Fort Sumter.

Never happened.

He manipulated the situation to start the war on purpose, willing to kill and did 600K lives to insure the Northern states dominance over the pesky South.

"That darn Lincoln tricked us into starting a war."

The North could have at any time from the 1840 to the time of secession emancipated the slaves just in the same way that England did but the greed of power and political dominance by the North did not allow that option.

Oh, do tell how that would have worked, given that the south had numbers in House and Senate that would have blocked any such constitutional amendment. Hell, until 1844, southerners wouldn't even allow the issue of slavery to be brought up in the House, enacting a Gag Rule.

[Republican1795.]

No you just do not get it. Those so called Secession Declarations were just a political stunt used by a small slave owning elite that held sway over the politicians. They were simply trying to hop onto the secessionist bandwagon once they saw its star rising. The ACTUAL reason for secession was over the Morill Tariff which was bankrupting the south. The slave owners were initially OPPOSED to secession and wanted to remain in the Union as they had a better deal BUT they got nervous when they saw the south taking steps to secede and finally decided to get on board as a matter of self interest. They simply did not want to find themselves in the same position as the north.

The “official” version of history is often based on lies that were authored by the victors. It was certainly no different in this case. The slave owners did not even want to secede! It was the average NON-SLAVE OWNING impoverished Southron spurred on by the North’s oppressive tariffs that was the main cause of secession. The slave owners and their politicians were just opportunists.

The tariffs caused the problem not the slave topic.

[CWCoop]

So, now you are deciding that what they actually said isn’t what they meant? I think that is pretty weak sauce for trying to interpret history. I do agree that tariffs were also a problem and had been for well over 20 years before the war. But they were a secondary cause, not a primary one. Slavery was the primary cause.

[ought-six]

“So, your claim that invasion by the north was the main reason (for secession) does not hold water.

Please point to my specific comment where I said invasion by the north was the main reason secession was the main reason for secession. Damn it, you made the claim now support it, or shut the f**k up. You can’t support it, because I never made such a statement.

You employ the standard tactics leftists use when in a discussion (and it’s an Alinsky dictum, as well): Misrepresent what your opponent says rather than face head on what he did, in fact, say.

[Republican1795.]

O good grief what a total distortion. I never said that the slave owners who authored those declarations did not mean what they wrote BUT they were Johnny Come Latelys because they initially were OPPOSED to secession. What I am pointing out is that their opinions [ which were noted in those specious political Secession Declaration documents ] were an obscure position among the vast majority of Southrons who wanted to seceded and who fought to maintain their independence. An independence that the North would not recognize... hence the animus for the war. The tariffs were the biggest problem facing Dixie. THAT was the whole reason why Dixie ever wanted to secede in the first place. Those tariffs were bankrupting Dixie... thus it was the MAJOR point of contention that Dixie had with the North. The issue of slavery was a minor issue only supported by a very small elite who were able to reflect their views onto the official declarations. The average impoverished Southron were not able to reflect their views on any documents as they simply did not have the power to do so. The victors wrote the "history" to ensure that the CSA was defamed and distorted. The vast majority of the people of Dixie had no interest nor link to the institution of slavery and were fighting to prevent being slaves of the North.

[Republican1795.]

There was once a very informative site put up by a Northerner who investigated the topic and discovered that slavery indeed had virtually nothing to do with the CSA struggle for independence entitled: THE CONFEDERACY, THE UNION, AND THE CIVIL WAR: A LOOK AT FOUR CLAIMS ABOUT THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES. From Michael T. Griffith. A comment by that author is up at: at this link. His essay outlined the true reasons for the war.

[CWCoop]

Oh, I agree with you that slavery per se wasn’t why most Southerners went to war. I think that is beyond a doubt. But there is another problem with your claim that northern invasion is why the Confederacy was formed. The “poor” and lower class southerners WEREN’T the ones who created the Confederacy. It was those rich, planter class folks whose main reason to separate was slavery who did it. While I agree that most southerners weren’t fighting specifically for slavery that doesn’t matter a whit because it wasn’t they who invoked secession. Wars are started by the powerful, not the lower classes. So, in essence, what the average southerner was fighting for did not make the slightest bit of difference to the beginning of the war OR secession.

[DoodleDawg]

The Confederate flag is a piece of cloth, an inanimate object incapable of feelings and therefore incapable of being racist. It is the people who misused the flag for their own purposes that were the racists.

[DoodleDawg]

The North could have at any time from the 1840 to the time of secession emancipated the slaves just in the same way that England did but the greed of power and political dominance by the North did not allow that option.

At what point prior to the Civil War did the North ever have sufficient non-slave states to get the two/thirds vote necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to end slavery?