The Confederate Flag and NASCAR

[MrFun]

It would be interesting to hear from the reactions of flash's neighbors if he decides to proudly display the flag of say, North Korea or Iran.

[Drake Tungsten]

Odds are his neighbors wouldn't even know what those flags were.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by MrFun
It would be interesting to hear from the reactions of flash's neighbors if he decides to proudly display the flag of say, North Korea or Iran.

Hopefully, they would see I would be embracing my North Korean culture or Iranian culture, kinda like how Mexian-Americans fly Mexico's flag.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


Indeed! Hence, you really shouldn't be surprised when people start objecting after you fly any symbol that is commonly associated with some negative regieme

I'm not. People have a right to believe what they want. I'm just saying some symbols take on different meanings. Not everybody that has a confederate flag is a racist. Some African-Americans in NC fly the confederate flag to honor African-American that fought for the confederacy. Are they racist?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by flash9286
The KKK also uses the cross as a symbol, am I suppose to think anybody with a cross necklace is a racist?

.

The KKK uses a burning cross as a symbol, so yes, if I came across someone wearing a burning cross necklace I would consider them a racist............... and stupid.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


The KKK uses a burning cross as a symbol, so yes, if I came across someone wearing a burning cross necklace I would consider them a racist............... and stupid.

, Some KKK rally pictures I have seen they were just caring a plain cross along with the American flag, confederate flag, and some other flag. I know the official symbol is some weird cross, but a lot of the people were just caring regular crosses.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


There is an excellent website on the causes of the Civil War which includes the speeches made by secession proponents in the state legislatures of the South when thos legislatures debated the issue prior to voting to secede. You'll see that the most frequent arguement involved the protecttion of the "right" to own slaves. Enough said. Read it yourself.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

There are also some statistics on slavery, including the number of families owning slaves.

Prominent leaders on both sides also made statements to the effect that slavery was a secondary consideration, and that the primary issue was the right of the southern states to secede. Without question, the secession movement was motivated in part by those who desired the 'right' to keep slaves, but there were other important issues also (tariffs). Thanks for the link.

[Arrian]

Slavery was the big dog, though, Cali. That's fairly clear. The tarrif issue mattered, yes, but it wasn't the driver.

As for the rest of the thread... I line up with Che on this one. Heritage, sure. Take a good hard look at that heritage.

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

The north did not attack the south because they were motivated by altruism towards slaves. It was about money and power. Look no further than the emancipation proclaimation for proof of this. It only emancipated slaves in the states that seceded - northern slaves were not affected.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by flash9286


I'm not. People have a right to believe what they want. I'm just saying some symbols take on different meanings. Not everybody that has a confederate flag is a racist. Some African-Americans in NC fly the confederate flag to honor African-American that fought for the confederacy. Are they racist?

There were Jews who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. Does that mean that the Holocaust was not so bad after all?

Not to mention that maybe something like less than one percent of Southern blacks actually fought for the Confederacy out of their own free will.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Caligastia
The north did not attack the south because they were motivated by altruism towards slaves. It was about money and power. Look no further than the emancipation proclaimation for proof of this. It only emancipated slaves in the states that seceded - northern slaves were not affected.

You need to read books on the Emancipation Proclamation before you oversimplify its powerful effect.

[Ming]

Originally posted by MrFun
Not to mention that maybe something like less than one percent of Southern blacks actually fought for the Confederacy out of their own free will.

On a side note...

In January, 1864, General Patrick Cleburne and several other Confederate officers in the Army of the Tennessee proposed using slaves as soldiers since the Union was using black troops. Cleburne recommended offering slaves their freedom if they fought and survived. Confederate President Jefferson Davis refused to consider Cleburne's proposal and forbade further discussion of the idea. The concept, however, did not die. By the fall of 1864, the South was losing more and more ground, and some believed that only by arming the slaves could defeat be averted. On March 13, the Confederate Congress passed General Order 14, and President Davis signed the order into law. The order was issued March 23, 1865, but only a few African American companies were raised, and the war ended before they could be used in battle.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Caligastia
The north did not attack the south because they were motivated by altruism towards slaves. It was about money and power. Look no further than the emancipation proclaimation for proof of this. It only emancipated slaves in the states that seceded - northern slaves were not affected.

The South did not seceed from the Union because of a bad tarriff. The South seceeded from the Union because lotsa southerners believed the damned Yankees were gonna take their slaves away (or "tell them how to live" which is, basically, "take their slaves away").

Lincoln didn't accept the secession, and called up an army. Was it altruism re: slavery? Of course not. The war was primarily about slavery for the South, not the North.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Yep -- notice the part, "But only a few African-American companies were raised" out of a population of four million Southern blacks? Oh wait, reduce that four million to only adult black men but those few companies would still have made way too little of any significant force.

By the way, a good book to read about the hare-brained Confederate plans to emancipate their slaves as a desperate, last-ditch measure, would be Confederate Emancipation: Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves During the Civil War, by Bruce Levine. It's one of the books I have in my own personal library and it is good, informative reading.



EDIT: cross-post

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian


The South did not seceed from the Union because of a bad tarriff. The South seceeded from the Union because lotsa southerners believed the damned Yankees were gonna take their slaves away (or "tell them how to live" which is, basically, "take their slaves away").

Lincoln didn't accept the secession, and called up an army. Was it altruism re: slavery? Of course not. The war was primarily about slavery for the South, not the North.

-Arrian

Lincoln had no right to deny the southern states who wanted to secede. Read direct quotes and you'll see that he had no interest in ending the institution of slavery. The southern slaves were used by him in an attempt to bring the south into line. Like I said, it was about money and power. Each side used the slaves in their own way, but the fight was not about slavery.