Man Murders Nine in Charleston Church

[EgonSpengler]

Doesn't this argument go both ways though? Ie that if one argues that the flag there has to be tied to the battles/war (while currently it has lost that connotation for most people, and is tied to the state getting independent in the South), wouldn't the actual war surely make slavery a secondary issue while the actual war rages on?
By which i mean: i am sure that far more 'white' people died during the actual war, than black people, so if one goes by the 'this is just the battle flag, battle-centered' etc, then slavery is in that context not the prominent event, surely?

(noting again that i definitely do not wish to be part of fighting here. It is not my issue at all. I am merely noting some - to my view - logical inconsistencies in the debate, which i suppose are even worse in the media...)

You're not wrong, but it's a secondary issue in the context of contemporary civil rights.

As a white man, the endorsement of slavery in that flag offends me but doesn't frighten me. However, as a Northerner, the display of the Confederate flag by a Southerner communicates to me that they could shoot me, in defense of things up to and including the utterly loathesome, if it suited them. I wouldn't expect a 21st-Century Southerner to endorse slavery, per se, but rather that "celebrating their heritage" includes - not just coincidentally, but specifically - killing people like me.

Like I say, I'm willing to have my own concerns take a back seat to those of black people when it comes to issues surrounding the display of the Confederate flag. But if we can allow ourselves to have a list of issues longer than 1 item, those flags are an undisguised "up yours" to everyone north of Virginia, and I don't think I would feel very welcome in the South.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're not wrong, but it's a secondary issue in the context of contemporary civil rights.

As a white man, the endorsement of slavery in that flag offends me but doesn't frighten me. However, as a Northerner, the display of the Confederate flag by a Southerner communicates to me that they could shoot me, in defense of things up to and including the utterly loathesome, if it suited them. I wouldn't expect a 21st-Century Southerner to endorse slavery, per se, but rather that "celebrating their heritage" includes - not just coincidentally, but specifically - killing people like me.

Like I say, I'm willing to have my own concerns take a back seat to those of black people when it comes to issues surrounding the display of the Confederate flag. But if we can allow ourselves to have a list of issues longer than 1 item, those flags are an undisguised "up yours" to everyone north of Virginia, and I don't think I would feel very welcome in the South.

I think many areas of the south now are predominantly American. The holdout areas with their loser flag flying and uncertainty about having lost their war are getting further and further dispersed. So you might find it less unwelcoming than you expect.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Doesn't this argument go both ways though? Ie that if one argues that the flag there has to be tied to the battles/war (while currently it has lost that connotation for most people, and is tied to the state getting independent in the South), wouldn't the actual war surely make slavery a secondary issue while the actual war rages on?
By which i mean: i am sure that far more 'white' people died during the actual war, than black people, so if one goes by the 'this is just the battle flag, battle-centered' etc, then slavery is in that context not the prominent event, surely?

If you mean could the flag could be properly used as a symbol of secession and treason against the US, I suppose so. But they still run the risk of being labeled racists.

But lets not forget there is only one reason why the South seceded from the North. That the states' rights they actually wanted and were likely to soon be denied was actually just one issue: slavery. So it is in no way a secondary issue. It is the entire reason for the war. This doesn't magically change the moment they declared war on the North to be something else, as so many try to argue.

Those living in the South could have certainly decided to not fight their own country. Many did.

Southern Unionist

The term Southern Unionist, and its variations, incorporate a spectrum of beliefs and actions. Some, such as Texas governor Sam Houston, were vocal in their support of Southern interests, but believed that those interests could best be maintained by remaining in the Union as it existed. Some Unionists opposed secession, but afterwards either actively served and fought with the Confederate armies, or supported the Confederacy in other ways. Others refused to fight, went North or stayed North to enlist in the Union Armies, or fought informally as partisans in the South. Some remained in the South and tried to stay neutral. The term could also be used of any Southerner who worked with the Republican Party or Union government in any capacity after the war ended in 1865.

A study of Southern Unionists in Alabama who continued to support the Union during the war found that they were typically "old fashioned" or "Jackson" conservative Democrats, or former Whigs, who viewed the federal government as worthy of defending because it had provided economic and political security. They saw secession as dangerous, illegitimate, and contrary to the intentions of the Founding Fathers, and believed that the Confederacy could not improve on the United States government. The desire for security was a motivation for Unionist slaveholders, who feared that secession would cause a conflict that would result in the loss of their slaves; however, some stated that they would rather give up slavery than dissolve the union. The Southern ideals of honor, family, and duty were as important to Unionists as to their pro-secession neighbors. They believed, however, that rebelling against the United States, which many of their ancestors had fought for in 1776 and 1812, was the unmanly and dishonorable act.[1]

Many southern soldiers remained loyal when their states seceded; 40% of Virginian officers in the United States military, for example, stayed with the Union.[4] During the war, many Southern Unionists went North and joined the Union armies. Others joined when Union armies entered their hometowns in Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana and elsewhere. Over 100,000 Southern Unionists served in the Union Army during the Civil War, and every Southern state, except South Carolina, raised at least a battalion.[5]


State White soldiers serving in the Union Army (other branches unlisted)
Alabama 3,000
Arkansas 10,000
Florida 3,500
Georgia 400
Louisiana 7,000
Mississippi 545
North Carolina 25,000
Tennessee 42,000
Texas 2,200
Virginia and West Virginia 22,000[6]

The Southern Unionists were referred to in Henry Clay Work's song Marching Through Georgia:

Yes and there were Union men who wept with joyful tears,
When they saw the honored flag they had not seen for years;
Hardly could they be restrained from breaking forth in cheers,
While we were marching through Georgia.

Southern Unionists were extensively used as anti-guerrilla forces and as occupation troops in areas of the Confederacy occupied by the Union. Ulysses S. Grant noted "We had many regiments of brave and loyal men who volunteered under great difficulty from the twelve million belonging to the South." (Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, 1885, vol 2. chapt. 68, p. 636).[1]

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think many areas of the south now are predominantly American. The holdout areas with their loser flag flying and uncertainty about having lost their war are getting further and further dispersed. So you might find it less unwelcoming than you expect.

That would be nice. I've always wanted to visit. Southern rock. Southern barbeque. Women with Southern accents. From up here, I have no idea how prevalent the Confederate flag really is, but it sure seems like it's plastered all over everything. None of the Southerners I've known have been flag-wavin' or Yankee-hatin', but they've all been Southerners who moved up North or out West for one reason or another, so I figured by definition they weren't typical Southerners.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, it is an oddity now in many of the states. I haven't seen a Confederate flag or a Confederate belt buckle in years. But then again, I don't hang out in places where it is likely to be seen either.

 

[Hygro]

Doesn't this argument go both ways though? Ie that if one argues that the flag there has to be tied to the battles/war (while currently it has lost that connotation for most people, and is tied to the state getting independent in the South), wouldn't the actual war surely make slavery a secondary issue while the actual war rages on?
By which i mean: i am sure that far more 'white' people died during the actual war, than black people, so if one goes by the 'this is just the battle flag, battle-centered' etc, then slavery is in that context not the prominent event, surely?

(noting again that i definitely do not wish to be part of fighting here. It is not my issue at all. I am merely noting some - to my view - logical inconsistencies in the debate, which i suppose are even worse in the media...)

Please explain this, because I see zero connection between the balance of black vs white deaths and whether that war was over slavery.

Who was supposed to be killing the black people: the slavers? The people ending slavery?

 

[Senethro]

Its like how C_H posts unsupported but provocative statements about black on white crime in threads about police shootings. The strangest things can seem relevant to some.

 

[Kyriakos]

Please explain this, because I see zero connection between the balance of black vs white deaths and whether that war was over slavery.

Who was supposed to be killing the black people: the slavers? The people ending slavery?

I was answering Forma's point that the flag is the 'battle' flag and not the 'actual confederate states' flag, and i just meant that if the flag shamed is the "BATTLE" flag then it is an emblem tied primarily to the actual WAR, during which one has to suppose that mostly 'white' people were being killed (due to the war), and thus slavery was not the worst going on anyway, in the South or elsewhere.

But the point itself was that it doesn't seem very logical to focus on the flag being the 'battle' flag when it has by now become a symbol of Dixieland and not just the civil war.

 

[Hygro]

I just meant that if the flag shamed is the "BATTLE" flag, then it is an emblem tied primarily to the actual WAR, during which one has to suppose that mostly 'white' people were being killed (due to the war), and thus slavery was not the worst going on anyway, in the South or elsewhere.

But the point itself was that it doesn't seem very logical to focus on the flag being the 'battle' flag when it has by now become a symbol of Dixieland and not just the civil war.

I agree the "battle" part is not terribly relevant, but it is still interesting symbolically that the battle flag was chosen when folks were fighting against racial integration.

Remember "the actual WAR" was fought for a reason, to perpupuate slavery, so the battle flag originally re[resented killing in the name of perpetuating slavery.

And it does beg the question: what's worse, people being enslaved, or the deaths of those seeking to keep them enslaved?

 

[Kyriakos]

^Maybe though the battle flag survived due to just looking a lot cooler than the other ones?

A bit similar to how the Greek flag used is actually the Greek NAVAL flag.

 

[Hygro]

^Maybe though the battle flag survived due to just looking a lot cooler than the other ones?

Without a doubt.

 

[Sommerswerd]

(due to the war), and thus slavery was not the worst going on anyway, in the South or elsewhere.

Well that depends on your perspective right? I mean what you say is kind of like claiming "The Greek genocide was not the worst thing going on during World War I"... I'm sure the people suffering and dying under the genocide would disagree right?

 

[Sommerswerd]

In any case the Battle-Flag v. National-Flag distinction is trivial history-nerd stuff. It really isn't relevant in the way you suggest (ie ..."Since its the "battle" flag, its current use is focused on/related to battle").

Everyone in the US understands that when people say "Confederate Flag", they are talking about the one with the big blue "X"(st andrew's cross). Some more trivial history-nerd stuff (if you are interested) ...The "National-Flag", nicknamed "The Stars-and-Bars" was reviled by southerners and they quickly abandoned it in favor of the "Battle-Flag" set in the corner of a white retangular field... so again, the distinction that you are trying to make just isn't there, because for much of the war the "battle flag", at least a version of it, was the Official National Flag of the Confederacy.

 

[classical_hero]

Its like how C_H posts unsupported but provocative statements about black on white crime in threads about police shootings. The strangest things can seem relevant to some.

You mean using FBI statistics on crime? They show that Blacks are more likely to die by the hand of blacks and when there is interracial violent crime the victim is more like to be white and the offender is black. If you have an issue with the statistics, take it up with the FBI.
http://www.infowars.com/black-crime-facts-that-the-white-liberal-media-darent-talk-about/
You can see that blacks are both disproportionally both the victims and the offenders. One good thing is that the overall homicide rate is falling, but still disproportionally black are the highest offenders and victims of homicide.

 

[Senethro]

But CH, that isn't a link to any statistics. It's an article on noted nutcase Alex Jones website trying to blame black people as a whole for some getting shot. Also much sleight of hand confusing frequencies and proportions.