While slavery was a major part of it, State vs Federal control was a major part and outlawing of slavery was more of a final straw for the South.

No. That's revisionist history you've been told for years, but it's not true. Here's an article that excerpts several states' Declaration of Causes of Secession, as well as editorials and letters from notable publications and luminaries in the South. The cause was slavery, which was viewed as a moral imperative.

Well, you guys are probably right then. I didn't read the article you linked to, but assuming it contains similar content to the video LSpiro posted, you guys have me mostly convinced.

I remember reading some history of the civil war years ago, how certain soldiers and officers of the Confederate were opposed to slavery, but were loyal to their homeland, and so left the North to fight for the South once war broke out. Specifically, Robert E Lee. This stuck in my mind, though wikipedia says his views may have been a bit more racist than I've read previously.

Specifically, how Lee refused to join the Confederates, though switched sides to defend his home-state once it was clear Virginia would be dragged into a full war.

"I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty." and "Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?"

So though he may not have been in opposition to slavery as I recalled (apparently, as you point out, from revisionism), he wasn't fighting for slavery, but for his homeland.

For the record, I was born and raised in California pretty much my entire life until just a few years ago, I'm firmly against racism and am not trying to whitewash the civil war, and so my mindset doesn't come from specific Southern sympathies (i.e. "Lost cause") or Southern education. (though I was homeschooled from 5th grade onward - and it was in homeschooling that I read Uncle Tom's Cabin, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Roll of Thunder).

But another thing that sticks in my mind and shapes my thinking is that in almost any war, you can find good people and bad on both sides, and so though I'm on the "winning" side of the war, reading "winning" literature, I try to consider things often from both sides' view.

There's a verse in the Bible that says, "The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time." * - and that's kinda how I feel about most government leaders. Though the leaders of any conflict may both be corrupt, or may be genuinely good people, regardless of motives, nets are cast by war that drag whole nations into conflict, irrespective of the motives of the masses caught up in it (though I don't doubt many of the 'masses' that fought for the south were pro-slavery).

*Note: Though this verse is talking about a 'King of the North' and 'King of the South', I'm not at all trying to claim it's referring to the United State's north and south. It's not.

I'm not at all trying to claim the Confederates should've seceded, or that slavery wasn't a big part (or, as LSpiro and you've pointed out, the primary or only part), only that some of the individuals caught up in it, while their fighting may have directly supported slavery, may not have been fighting for slavery, so much as in defense of their own homes.

And yes, like I've said from the beginning, the flag should certainly not be flown on government grounds. I wish racists wouldn't fly it either, but I don't think banning symbols or speech we don't like is a good route to take.

So though he may not have been in opposition to slavery as I recalled

Found this with Google http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.html

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race.

Though clearly his views in general may seem quite foreign to a reader today, I don't think there's much doubt that to at least this one man the war was not for slavery.

It seems Robert Lee read the book, "Friends of Voltaire". As Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote, I may disapprove of slavery, but I'll defend to the death your right to have it.

After the church shootings, I was for the banning of the flag. After I calmed down, I realized how pointless it is.

If I hate you because of your race, do you really think banning a symbol will change that? If I have murderous intentions due to said hate, do you think banning a symbol is going to stop me?

We are losing focus and getting side tracked on a non-issue. The issue is the hatred in people's hearts, not the symbols representing that hate. Abolishing the symbols does nothing to stop the hate.

Abolishing the symbols does nothing to stop the hate.

It hasn’t been banned or abolished, just removed from official grounds. It means, “Openly celebrating slavery is no longer something we consider appropriate,” and that will leave an impression—or make it less likely to leave a negative impression—on the next generation.

What is truly pointless is focusing on the hatred in people’s hearts. People won’t change. The real focus should be on not screwing up the next generation the way the current ones have been, and as a start we should not openly celebrate said flag on public property.

This gesture and public debate has already left an unerasable impression upon what were already progressive and open-minded students. The youth of the south have largely been aware and open about the fact that there is a higher level of racism down there and many don’t buy into it. For those, the current debate will make their stance against it even firmer and let them be more open in public about the issue. For those on the fence, they have now been swayed.

The important point is to start the discussion and let people know that it is okay to stand against racism (and that they are not in fact the minority, just because it may seem so when surrounded by family who are), and that is exactly what we are doing right now.


L. Spiro

People think they control their own actions. That's only partially accurate. Their actions today are the result of thoughts and actions from yesterday, and only today's thoughts and actions can dictate tomorrow's behavior. When people react without thinking, or quickly make a decision, that's coming from previous tiny decisions made throughout our lives. When we're in full control of our thinking, full control of our actions, we can behave decently on the surface. But we're not always in full control of ourselves, and when we lose control, it's what's under the surface, under the facade, that really comes out - and that's who we really are. It's our worst moments we need to be aware of, not our best. It's when we're lynching an escaped slave, not when we're enjoying apple cider with our children. It's when we're pushing jews and gypsies into furnaces, and stomping on their faces, not when painting a picture or laughing with friends over a political joke.

I would Say now run and hide people because I am the beast in that case.

As an outsider (who knows very little about the states) i was content to just read various post with keen interest and learn some facts about an important era in the US history... until i realised California is not considered a southern state.

Note: I'm not from the south, I don't live in the south,

For the record, I was born and raised in California pretty much my entire life until just a few years ago

Geographically it does look like a southern state, but apparently Americans don't consider it a southern state

As an outsider (who knows very little about the states) i was content to just read various post with keen interest and learn some facts about an important era in the US history... until i realised California is not considered a southern state.
[...]

Geographically it does look like a southern state, but apparently Americans don't consider it a southern state

It's not a "northern state" either - it's part of the "western states". It was on the other side of the country, took weeks to travel to, and the railroad lines didn't reach across the nation until just after the civil war ended (though you could've probably taken them most of the way during the Civil War).

The USA was colonized on the east coast, and gradually started spreading westward, and then also began colonizing the west coast by ocean, then we found lots of gold on the west coast so huge numbers migrated there, meaning the central region lagged behind in development though it was still being slowly settled.

Because of this, we refer to the United States as two halves: The eastern half, which was colonized first, and then the western half, which was early on "the wild west"/"great western frontier".

So geographically, California is in the western half.

When the Civil War broke out, though we had people settling the frontier, which the United States had taken ownership of (from Mexico, the Natives Americans, Spain, Russia, France, and others), they weren't established as official states yet (just "territories"), except for on the far western coast. Most of the west didn't see any real battles (just small skirmishes and raids from local militias).



The Civil War divided many states in the eastern half, and it mostly fell along a south/north divide. Since the eastern half pretty much WAS the nation at that point in time, they called it the South and the North (rather than the more geographically accurate South-East and North-East).

Politically, the Californian leadership was allied with the Northern states, and though allied, California was separated by the wild frontier including large deserts and two large mountain ranges, so they didn't see any of the actual war (i.e. no real battles).

When thinking of the civil war, you can almost pretend it's a civil war between just the eastern half of the nation, with the western half as observers.

Ah, well...I'm just going to address the primary question of this topic: "Why the flag mania?"

It's about how it makes people feel. At the core of the ongoing issue, I believe it simplifies to people asking others to be more sensitive of those feelings. A symbol is an otherwise unrelated image or thing that has become associated with an abstract idea. Like how a dove is understood to be a symbol of peace, or a rose a symbol of love. This is what has happened with the Confederate flag over time (if it had been unrelated to the war prior its adoption, like the swastika as someone mentioned).

I think this is best illustrated with a story. A close family member of mine passed away last year. Before going to the hospital later that morning, I had been listening to a specific song. Afterward...hearing that song sometimes causes me to break down in tears. There was nothing sad about the song itself, but the memories and feelings attached to it made it so for me. The feelings and events attached to the Confederate flag and the swastika produce a similar effect for many people.

Having said that, I wouldn't wear a t-shirt with a swastika (with the hooks) because I know it is hurtful to many people (even though I have no direct connection to Jewish culture, the events of the Holocaust, etc.). I imagine this is the same expectation of those who are against the display of Confederate flags.

I hope that answers your question.

 

Also, yeah I can show the Swastika as it existed 5000 (some sites say 3000) years before the Nazis. The Nazi flag is a black swastika tilted 45 degrees in a white circle on red background. The Swastika in and of itself isn't evil or a symbol of hate and is in fact considered a sacred symbol in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Odinism. From what I've read from searching it, the Swastika adorns temples in India and Indonesian countries.

It's not just rotated 45 degrees, but also has its little hooks showing in the opposite direction. So it's really a completely different thing. Just like the kind-of-swastika that a lot of Basques have tattooed on their arms (it looks very similar, but it's some entirely different symbol).
 
Either way, the message that everybody will take home if you swing this flag (the 5,000 year old one, or the 80 year old one) will be the same. 90% of all people don't know the difference anyway.
 
In Germany, you will find yourself in court because thanks to the US americans' fear of The Nazis (communists are bad already, but the Nazis...), the symbol, its possession and its display in whatever form is outlawed.
There have been cases a decade or two ago of retired (some say retarded, be that as it may) people owning airplane models of Fokkers or Messerschmidts, which, of course, had the swastika on the rudder and on the wings. Well, of course, that's just how that kind of airplane looked like, and so does the model. Now it's debatable whether you really have to fly that particular model of a winged death-bringer, but making it a capital crime is just as ridiculous.
 
What's bad with the swastika is not the symbol or the fact that the Nazis used it. Or maybe that some old fart who dreams of the good old days when he was a fighter pilot (that is, when he was "important") has it on his model plane.
 
What's bad is that the people who used it back then and the ones who are using it again at this very moment are dangerously primitive and dangerously ready for violence. They're the kind of people who will do the kind of thing like put a burning cross in your front yard (except unlike the wannabe-KKKs that I've met in the US, they'd actually enter a house and kill your family, or they'll find your grandfather's grave, topple the tombstone and shit on the grave -- very courageous and respectful indeed). They're the kind of people neither you nor the law can protect against because they come at night when you don't expect it, and they wear masks. And they're gone when the police arrives, and nobody will admit seeing anything (knowing that if they do, they're next).
 
If you think about it, they're poor bastards, and their "rites" are pitiful. You find the Nazi-type (and KKK type, and ultra-left type) where there are no jobs or only lousy jobs, and where there is no perspective. What they need, what they want, is someone to blame for their falure and someone to blame for their being unhappy with their situation. And of course, some good old ultra-violence, aiming tolchocks unreasonly (to quote Malcolm McDowel).
Right. Let them name their children Sturmheil Siegbald (this one made it to the newspaper a few weeks ago, for real) if they want, let them wear brown poofy trousers and sing their grandfathers' songs. But it stops being ridiculous once innocent people are getting hurt -- and that usually doesn't take long.
 
The problem is that waving the flag gives all that idiocy and senseless hatred and violence a reason and a justification. Even if you are not a racist redneck (or a nazi) --- by waving the flag ("their flag") you signal to them, and to other people, that you support them. Which strengthens their cause, more than you might be aware of.
 
Do you really think the average German shoemaker or baker enjoyed the idea of being away from home for 3-4 years to invade Poland and march to Stalingrad during winter? Do you really think the average school teacher or train driver gave a fuck about whether "his people" was the superior race or whatever? But once you have 15-20% of the population breaking and entering the houses of those people who don't support them, and another 25% swinging the banner (even though "they don't mean it") you had better swing the banner, too. It's not like you have much of a choice after a certain point. And yeah, you're going to march to Russia as well, whether you like it or not (even if you don't know a single Russian who has wronged you).
 
Of course, the other extreme (like we have in Germany now) is just as bad. Oh no, we have to please everybody lest someone thinks bad of us or even calls us Nazis. The Greeks have been lying all the time when they said they'd pay back, but now they call us Nazis, so let's give them a few billions more. Let's offer asylum to another few thousand criminals from Tunisia and Syria, no wait, poor fugitives. They're not criminals, but engineers and doctors. That's why they threw their passports into the mediterranean sea, too. And that's why none of them can show any kind of diploma for being an engineer or such. Let's give them more money than the average worker gets (in addition to free shelter and food). Surely nobody who has to work all day in a lousy job will mind that they enjoy their day at the public swimming pool, to which they -- of course -- have unlimited free access. After all, they're all good people, and so poor. Hey, you know, it's not their fault if they molest girls. Just why do those girls have to wear skirts, it's their own fault if they are so provokative.
No, these poor people don't steal, how dare you say that. The number of thefts only went up by 10% since those 200 people arrived in this 20,000-inhabitants town. 200/20,000 and 10/100 is totally the same proportion. Oh wow, they don't like the food that we give them, no problem we'll just give them whatever they want. Right, they don't like our religion either, so...
 
That kind of cowardish, bigot, self-tainting behavior which is stereotypical for every government during the last [at least] 40 years (and being taught at school) constantly feeds hatred even among normal people who normally don't have much of a reason of hating anyone. What nobody seems to realize, it directly or indirectly feeds the ranks of those who swing the swastika flag, and it will one day inevitably lead to a violent ultra-right swingback.
 
There is no doubt that the Nazis did wrong, but so what. It's not like the British or the French didn't (Hugenots, anyone?). It's not like the ancestors of the current population of the USA didn't genocide the rightful owners of their country and built their nation with the blood of the black man. It's not like the Turks didn't genocide millions in the early 20th century. It's not like the <insert any other nation> didn't do alike.
 
At some point, you just have to say "Yes, this was bad and I'm sorry for the people who suffered, but that happened when even my grand parents were only teenagers. It is not my fault, and I am not guilty of it, and I don't feel guilty".

Well, the Cuckold State which takes your tax money and gives it to illegal immigrants who then act as an even cheaper replacement for slave labor extends all through western civilization. It is nothing to do with nazis and nothing to do with racism or european peoples. Its everything to do with globalized corporations pushing through ruinous labor and immigration policies all through the western world to lower wages and get virtually free low-end labor.

Only advice I have is take advantage yourself. Have 12 kids on welfare and cash in. Eventually the system will crash the only question is who will gobble up all those benefits in the meantime.

In UK they ban people from flying their own flag on their house or car because it's racist.
 
You just have dronelike propagandized vision, like most people today.

There is a wonderful irony in the second statement as the first statement simply isn't true.

While flying the flag isn't common (because in the UK we don't get all precious about such things any more), get to around a major sporting event and you can't move for seeing it hanging off cars, houses, flats and draped around people, be it the St. George Cross or the Union Flag.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/437673/Council-killjoys-ban-taxi-driver-from-having-St-George-s-Cross-on-cab-for-discrimination

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-English.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/british-village-bans-st-georges-flag-fearing-it-would-upset-muslims-1261621

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/world-cup-fury-offensive-england-3355423

You must mean alanis morisette irony I guess. Taxi drivers banned from using it in many places, banned from world cup, banned from some council flats. There's no nationwide ban but obviously that would not even be possible to ban your own flag completely.

If it were really black people as a group outraged by the flag I would say it has some merit. Not that it should be banned, but that it were a legitimate issue. But I have seen black guys wearing the confederate flag many times. They obviously see it as a symbol of the south and where they grew up, not as some ethnocentric symbol of any kind.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/30/activists-plan-to-burn-american-flags-in-new-york-city-ahead-of-fourth-of-july/

All this garbage coincides with this kind of thing. It's nothing to do with protecting anyone, it's an attack.