Im sorry, but I could only stomach 2 or 3 pages before I jumped to the end.
First of all, which flag do you consider? The typical "Stars and Bars?" That was one flag of dozens flown during the Civil War. Throughout this time, The 3 Striped Red and White with Blue background flew (to the chiming of Union soldiers exclaiming cheating because the similarity in the heat of battle, especially when it wasnt windy to the US Flag). There were two others designs I can recall off hand, one with the "Stars and Bars" backgrounded in a white... the flag in Glory (see problem above) and the same design with a red "triangle" stripe at the end to solve the problem of a windless flag looking all white.
If anyone want to claim the moral highground that the Confederate flag is racist, I should remind you that the American flag flew over that institution longer than any flag of the South. The American flag can be applied to many instances in our nations history of discrimination and racism. So please, if you want to continue with that line of thinking, please go take down the American flag you're waving on your car, house, etc... because its a flag that surely has represented/represents racism and discrimination.
Name one issue outside of slavery that was a major states-rights dispute that made secession necessary? (If you pick tariffs, you're trying hard, but I don't know of Correct answer, of course, is beyond tariffs, there aren't even any POTENTIAL arguments).
States rights wasnt an issue as per slavery or immigration or any numbers of other problem that arose in the early to mid 19th century. Although, it was an "argument" applied by both sides North and South when they didn't want to comply with the Federal government's will. Whether that would be Northerners ignoring a Fugitive Slave law or one of the Carolinas trying to restrict missionaries into the indian lands in their state.
If the south was REALLY upset because of the power of the executive and states' rights, then why was the confederate constitution almost identical to the union constitution, save and except for (a) two minor changes to congressional power to make the president more powerful, (b) longer terms for the president, and, uh, (c) a bill of rights guarantee that the right to own Negro slaves should not be infringed?
I believe this can be answered in the form that the South acted during the war. It is a simple fact that the Confederacy had a much more state based government. A state could help when the government asked, deny assistances for their own personal needs, or shrug and sit on the fence. I wont get into the problem of logistics or troop problems the South had because every state could just ignore when asked.
Added to that, the Confederacy didn't secede at once. Carolina as usual went crazy over Lincoln's landslide election and jumped the gun. The other Southern states after that waited, and decided themselves whether to come into this possible new Confederate government.
The argument can be made that the South was losing its power in the federal government and feared tyranny by the North. Lincoln would win the election and would have won regardless of whether the South had been solid.
(electoral college)
Lincoln 180 0- Slave
Douglas 12 New Jersey + Missouri (and Al Gore complained)
Breckenridge 72 0 - Free
Bell 39 0 - Free
California had entered the Union and the balance of power in the senate further shifted towards free rather then slave. Added to this, the Republican party solely campaigned on the restriction of slavery. By their standards, Southern interests would be further ignored in the higher echelons of Washington. As seen by the electoral college results, the influx of immigrants into the United States imbalanced the balance in the House of Representatives as well. Although the Dred Scott decision in the late 1840s, and the tirade by Justice Taney hinted that the Federal government had no right to intervene in a state issue such as slavery, future lawsuits would never pan out before the start of the Civil War. To further put weight on the nation in the 1850s is bloody Kansas and the man who emerged from that conflict, John Brown. Five months before the presidental election, he storms Harper's Ferry with the soul intention of bringing Guerilla War against the slave states.
Lets put this in another perspective rather then the "evil traitorous Southern mongrels" or as I like to say, the "William Lloyd Garrison" crowd of its a "contract with the devil" (Constitution).
Certainly, I think we can all agree, slavery played a large role in the events leading up upon the civil war. It wasn't just an institution in the South though. It was their livelyhood, it was their economy, it is what sustained them. You put a human being in a situation where they fear they may lose everything to outside interests, and it gets serious. The domino effect of problems in the 1850s didn't help with ardent abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and others screaming that Southerners are un-christian, un-american hellspawns that we should cut from the Union. Had the South not fired upon Fort Sumpter, we might have had some sort of situation of an Balkanized America. Northerners didn't care that the South had seceded from the Union. They welcomed it in most cases. It wasnt a traitorous act, nor was there the will to bring the South back into the Union. When blood was spilled at Sumpter, much like 9/11, patriotism saturated the North.
I think I can sum up to you why Southerners would not have released their slaves. Thomas Jefferson likened slavery to a farmer with a wolf by the ears (unfortunately I dont have the source, but it was basically a "Come see Virginia" sort of thing). Thomas Jefferson, a man who personifies this notion of a man who hates the insitution but due to societal woes can't release himself of the sin. If you let go, the wolf will kill you, but you can't hold on forever.
Lets bring it back to present day. For once, when the people got to decide whether the symbol was racist, 2/3rd of the voting blacks in Mississippi didn't have a problem with it.
