I'm not disputing your statement that the confederate flag is a terrible symbol, at least today. When a symbol stops meaning what it was suppose to mean then its usefulness as a symbol is diminished. I guess I'm ignorant or maybe hopeful because I do suspect that majority of southern soldiers fought for reasons other than the continuance of slavery. I don't know the statistics but would suspect that most rebel soldiers weren't slaveowners. Most probably weren't even property owners. How did slavery help them? If anything they were competition for the working class which likely filled their lines. At worst the majority may have been duped into believing a lie spread by those who would profit. The documented bravery and persistence of the soldiers would suggest otherwise. Why would we want to think the worst of so many peoples ancestors with only a hint of evidence? Should we also lower the American flag. After all, there were greedy landowners among the founders, some also slaveholders, who were instrumental in the rebellion against England.
I mostly address this below in reply to HPS' comment. Some things specifically you bring up that he doesn't are about competition. Slaves were not perceived to compete for a niche with the non-slave whites. This was an era before Marxist thought was a popular idea in the US. Whether they did compete or not is something I am not an adequate enough historian to answer.
You bring up a strong point about the intense bravado of the Southern resistance. Indeed many of them were fighting for their home rather than something as esoteric as a law or ideal.
I'm not recommending that we whitewash the the past but to say that it was all bad can be inflammatory. Hopefully, we can learn from the past, be better, and not repeat past mistakes. That was the point of my last entry.
I agree with your main point. I hope I'm not coming across as having no respect for others. It is hard to talk about these issues, especially when you support certain unsavory sides, without sounding like a ****.
Addressing heedpantsnow's individual points:
As you say, slavery is vile. And, whether southerners admit it or not, the Battle Flag of the Confederacy has come to be the symbol of modern day bigots and racists, who I would imagine most southerners would not want to be identified with. So while it might be trampling on the rights of some to say they can't fly the flag of their choosing, I think it does need to be removed from public places.
At the core, true freedom demands that no person or group have any freedom taken from them at the behest of any other person or group. Perhaps I fail to acknowledge legitimate gray areas, but I believe all rights must be granted to all parties at all times. No exceptions. While I agree that flying the (unaltered) confederate flag on government grounds is wrong for treason reasons, I say that inclusion of the confederate flag within state symbols is not wrong, just in poor taste.
However, I do think that saying the reason to fight was slavery, for the average Civil War era southerner, is in itself a whitewashing of history by the victors of the war.
Several facts support this:
Less than 6% of Confederate men owned any slaves at all.
Lincoln himself states in his inaugural address that the war is about preserving the union, not ending slavery.
While it may not have been 100% of the reason for all parties (I doubt that the black Confederate troops were fighting for their own chains), it cannot be ruled out. The masses could not afford slaves, but they fought against banning slavery because it was challenging their worldview. The social order existed and would be defended. The state's rights issue was just a vessel for the slave issue.
Owning a slave was not a prerequisite for supporting slavery. I would parallel that being in the 1% is not a prerequisite for supporting pro-business legislation today. However, the perception of the Civil War by the North and the South was very different. Few Northern fighters had strong abolitionist leanings, and those few are dwarfed by those in the Southern ranks who supported slavery. (
Wikipedia citation because this is just an internet discussion not a book) The American Revolution barely had majority support with the colonial citizens (if that), yet it still succeeded and became the law of the land.
The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the south, with Grant quoted as implying it was mainly a military tactic to encourage rebellion from within.
Another interesting tidbit is that a section of NYC was also rumored to try to secede because of their dependence on the cotton economy. The Union stationed troops on every block to put down any secessionist movements.
Totally. The Emancipation Proclamation was not only a tactic, but a hollow one at that. It only freed slaves within the South on paper - not in reality.
I didn't know the tidbit about NYC. It has been a while since History class.
