The Cross and the Confederate Flag

[Weegle777 78]

Ttan....You can lecture me all you want on the CW and my southern heritage but I take strong issue with your comment about my caring for other people. The only clue you have is based on what I post here. That works both ways too. Sometimes you seem like an ordinary guy but other times you come across as a holier than thou I'm always right prick. That's the real problem this forum. We have become so polarized we can't be civil sometimes.AUUSN and I are classic examples. We sling insults at each other but I am 100% sure if we sat face to face over a beer and discussed our careers we see each other in a whole different light. The same can be said for almost everyone here and at least one other poster.

You won't like it but I agree with the earlier comment about mods. I think you and TT have lost control of the forum and add to things by posting yourselves. My idea of a mod is someone who is an impartial referee enforcing some basic rules. I think this forum alone creates more animosity with fellow Auburn family than a whole bunch of bammers could. JMHO. I'm thru arguing.

I wish RIR would reconsider some things

Amen to that.

[cole256 17,084]

So refer to a group of men as the sewing circle then get emotional when they insult you back? You have a problem with TT because he disagrees with you and who should be impartial but don't have a word to say about the other mod because he always agrees with you?

You guys are ALWAYS insulting others then it's something when you feel insulted....come on now

[cole256 17,084]

Ttan....You can lecture me all you want on the CW and my southern heritage but I take strong issue with your comment about my caring for other people. The only clue you have is based on what I post here. That works both ways too. Sometimes you seem like an ordinary guy but other times you come across as a holier than thou I'm always right prick. That's the real problem this forum. We have become so polarized we can't be civil sometimes.AUUSN and I are classic examples. We sling insults at each other but I am 100% sure if we sat face to face over a beer and discussed our careers we see each other in a whole different light. The same can be said for almost everyone here and at least one other poster.

You won't like it but I agree with the earlier comment about mods. I think you and TT have lost control of the forum and add to things by posting yourselves. My idea of a mod is someone who is an impartial referee enforcing some basic rules. I think this forum alone creates more animosity with fellow Auburn family than a whole bunch of bammers could. JMHO. I'm thru arguing.

I wish RIR would reconsider some things

Amen to that.

Lol. Doesn't that go against your pc hurt feelings agenda? I don't understand at all

[TitanTiger 20,538]

It's alright, cole. I'm used to it. But the moderation isn't going to change. We give far more leeway to all sides in here than the rest of the board AND the mods don't have to bite their tongues and not chime in.

[AUDub 11,204]

It's alright, cole. I'm used to it. But the moderation isn't going to change. We give far more leeway to all sides in here than the rest of the board AND the mods don't have to bite their tongues and not chime in.

Uh-uh. I demand you be an emotionless robot right now. You're not allowed to have an opinion.

[autigeremt 6,775]

Reading a recent Washington Post article I came across these comments and thought I'd share as a point of reference.

"As it is today, South Carolina's government was controlled by the wealthy. 75% of Southerners had no slaves.

President Lincoln trivia, he once wrote to Greeley:

"...If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that" http://memory.loc.go...mcc,nfor,aap...

President Lincoln's favorite 'plan' regarding 'what to do with the black slaves' was to send them to a new American colony in Central America, where he proposed they be put to work in the coal mines. After the first few months of the war, they started conscription (drafting) which could last 3 years.You either paid someone to go for you (substitute) or you enlisted and received the 'bounty' money, which was often 2 Years avg family income. Most Union troops fought for the same reason as Confederate troops, the 'up-front' bounty money to avoid being drafted, and to survive and return home to their families. Very, very few on either side cared 'for or against' slavery.

Today, slavery in America is illegal. The wealthy have responded by importing slave labor & exporting good paying jobs to slave wage nations. And, slavery pays, making the rich richer and greatly widening the income gap between the wealthy and the shrinking middle class.

The 75% of Southerners who were non-slave-owners were looted, burned out, raped, executed, and occupied by a brutal invading army. They fought. They had no choice. They fought for survival, not slavery. And they died by the hundreds of thousands. While the murder of nine people in a church in Charleston is tragic, it pales in comparison to the wanton rape and slaughter of innocents by the Union army, and is a poor excuse to besmirch the Confederate battle flag under which so many fought to protect their lives and families from a barbarically cruel invading force."

I'll say this....back during the slave trade my Irish ancestors would be passed over on the trading block for Africans because they could work the fields better. This is why so many Irish ended up in the Caribbean.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

I don't think anyone is claiming the North was comprised of angels. Or that their motives for war were pure and honorable. But the fact remains, the South seceded because of slavery. They did this knowing it would 100% lead to war with the US. They were that committed to keeping slavery and even expanding it (they had designs on taking territory in the Caribbean and Mexico and expanding slavery to those areas). It simply is not credible to claim otherwise.

[autigeremt 6,775]

I don't think anyone is claiming the North was comprised of angels. Or that their motives for war were pure and honorable. But the fact remains, the South seceded because of slavery. They did this knowing it would 100% lead to war with the US. They were that committed to keeping slavery and even expanding it (they had designs on taking territory in the Caribbean and Mexico and expanding slavery to those areas). It simply is not credible to claim otherwise.

I know...just sharing some other peoples "thoughts" on the matter. I have been out front of this for the removal of the flag from my native state since day 1.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

According to Wikipedia, even a panel of historians in 2011 couldn't come to complete agreement on the cause of the CW. It seems there were several intertwining factors involved so I guess different people pick a different cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

[AUDub 11,204]

According to Wikipedia, even a panel of historians in 2011 couldn't come to complete agreement on the cause of the CW. It seems there were several intertwining factors involved so I guess different people pick a different cause.

https://en.wikipedia...rican_Civil_War

Huh? Could you link the passage you're referring to? Here's one that's pretty clear:

As a panel of historians emphasized in 2011, "while slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war."

[TitanTiger 20,538]

Good Lord, did you even read your own link?

As a panel of historians emphasized in 2011, "

while slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war

."

^[3]

States' rights

was entirely a matter in regards to the protection of slavery

. The issue of tariffs was so unimportant that the groups looking for some sort of compromise did not even consider it.

^[4]

The primary catalyst for secession was

slavery

, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western

territories

. Southern politicians held that such restrictions on slavery would violate the principle of states' rights. Another explanation for secession, and the subsequent formation of the Confederacy, was Southern nationalism.

^[1]

The primary reason for the North to reject secession was to preserve the Union

, a cause based on American nationalism.

^[2]

Most of the debate is about the first question, as to why the South decided to declare secession.

Several months later, on March 21, 1861, Alexander Stephens, now the Confederate Vice President, delivered his "

Cornerstone Speech

" in Savannah, Georgia.

In the speech, he states that slavery was the cause of the secession crisis

, and outlines the principal differences between Confederate ideology and U.S. ideology:

"The new [Confederate] Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.

This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution

. . . .(

Jefferson

's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery– subordination to the superior race– is his natural and normal condition."

This is what I have been saying. The South seceded because of slavery first and foremost. It overwhelmed every other reason. They knew that doing so would result in war. They were under no illusions that the US would just let them take their ball and go home.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Yeah, I read it. Not trying to flame the fire again. I just read it as saying there were interlinking reasons, slavery just being one of them.

It seems unionism, economics and slavery all played a part depending on whose opinion you choose.

[AUUSN 823]

[alexava 6,973]

Good Lord, did you even read your own link?

i read it until my head hurt and couldn't find anything that suggested the overwhelming cause was anything but slavery, except when it was referred to as "free labor".

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Hey Ben...we are on page 52 but you aren't helping

[AUDub 11,204]

Hey Ben...we are on page 52 but you aren't helping

I am helping by silently raising morale.

[Mims44 1,896]

Yeah, I read it. Not trying to flame the fire again. I just read it as saying there were interlinking reasons, slavery just being one of them.

It seems unionism, economics and slavery all played a part depending on whose opinion you choose.

This kind of hits the point I've made... and the problem I had with homers post some... 40+ pages ago.

Some derp screaming that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War is not the same as an educated person looking at all the underlying issues that led to the Civil War. You would have to be willfully ignorant to say slavery was not the driving issue. But to say slavery was the only issue is also inaccurate.

There is a difference between some dumb redneck screaming about the Civil War and it's "real" causes, and a group of people discussing in depth reasons for secession IE: social/politicial/economic changes between the North and South.... And I think, that at least a little bit that has been the problem with this thread.

[alexava 6,973]

Yeah, I read it. Not trying to flame the fire again. I just read it as saying there were interlinking reasons, slavery just being one of them.

It seems unionism, economics and slavery all played a part depending on whose opinion you choose.

This kind of hits the point I've made... and the problem I had with homers post some... 40+ pages ago.

Some derp screaming that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War is not the same as an educated person looking at all the underlying issues that led to the Civil War. You would have to be willfully ignorant to say slavery was not the driving issue. But to say slavery was the only issue is also inaccurate.

There is a difference between some dumb redneck screaming about the Civil War and it's "real" causes, and a group of people discussing in depth reasons for secession IE: social/politicial/economic changes between the North and South.... And I think, that at least a little bit that has been the problem with this thread.

if you had to make a pie chart explaining the causes for the civil war, what proportion would you assign to slavery%?

[Mims44 1,896]

Yeah, I read it. Not trying to flame the fire again. I just read it as saying there were interlinking reasons, slavery just being one of them.

It seems unionism, economics and slavery all played a part depending on whose opinion you choose.

This kind of hits the point I've made... and the problem I had with homers post some... 40+ pages ago.

Some derp screaming that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War is not the same as an educated person looking at all the underlying issues that led to the Civil War. You would have to be willfully ignorant to say slavery was not the driving issue. But to say slavery was the only issue is also inaccurate.

There is a difference between some dumb redneck screaming about the Civil War and it's "real" causes, and a group of people discussing in depth reasons for secession IE: social/politicial/economic changes between the North and South.... And I think, that at least a little bit that has been the problem with this thread.

if you had to make a pie chart explaining the causes for the civil war, what proportion would you assign to slavery%?

Nice, 100 choices, and 100 people who will complain no matter what answer i give:) LOL

[Mims44 1,896]

Yeah, I read it. Not trying to flame the fire again. I just read it as saying there were interlinking reasons, slavery just being one of them.

It seems unionism, economics and slavery all played a part depending on whose opinion you choose.

This kind of hits the point I've made... and the problem I had with homers post some... 40+ pages ago.

Some derp screaming that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War is not the same as an educated person looking at all the underlying issues that led to the Civil War. You would have to be willfully ignorant to say slavery was not the driving issue. But to say slavery was the only issue is also inaccurate.

There is a difference between some dumb redneck screaming about the Civil War and it's "real" causes, and a group of people discussing in depth reasons for secession IE: social/politicial/economic changes between the North and South.... And I think, that at least a little bit that has been the problem with this thread.

if you had to make a pie chart explaining the causes for the civil war, what proportion would you assign to slavery%?

Nice, 100 choices, and 100 people who will complain no matter what answer i give:) LOL

After my joke I'm going to go ahead and be a smart ass here.

% of the pie chart representing slavery as a reason for the Civil War. I'd put at about 10%.

% of the pie chart representing slavery as a reason for secession. I'd put at near 100%

Doubt many will read this but...

Let's look at the main causes for secession, the democratic majority in the south ruled as an aristocracy below the mason dixon line, their power and wealth was built on the backs of slaves. When Lincoln won the presidency despite having next to no support from any of the southern states it was a sign to those in power in the South that changes were coming. Namely in the form of new anti-slavery rules regarding territories entering statehood as well as the fact that the slave holding aristocracy had lost it's footing as the power source in America... Cotton was no longer king (to put it simply).

A republican making president was the reason for the secession to start. Or you could say they saw their power waning within the USA and so seceded to make a country where they could keep their power. Or you could say they were men who had attained their power by the means of slavery, and when they saw legal slavery in trouble they seceded. Most people's problems are with how this is worded, in reality these statements are all interchangeable. A republican being president, loss of power, loss of slaves (means of power) are all tied together for why states started to secede.

Now, to my point of the Civil War having little to do with slavery I'll start by asking a question. Did only those who had an interest in keeping slavery legal fight for the Confederacy?

If a vast minority of Confederate soldiers owned slaves, then how did a war take place that spanned multiple years? Answering that question leads you to the reasons that a Civil War happened, since if only that ruling aristocracy took the field of battle the "Civil War" would have lasted all of a day.

The reasons men fought for the south are numerous. Some believed the propaganda that was spread by the Democrats of their area, that the Union wanted to lay claim to owned livestock (yes it was put this way, the rich comparing losing their slaves to the poor losing their ox). Others believed strongly in their state, state pride at that time was akin to American pride most people felt after the 9/11 attacks ( I use 9/11 as an example because it is recent, and not in any way to qualify it the same as the attacks on Ft. Sumter.). Yet others were eager to be like their forefathers and be part of an army fighting to create a new nation.... and of course there were many who only fought because they were conscripted. The reasons above are the main talking points in debate for why there was a Civil War, and likely for why we have such a polarized response for the reasons of the war. Rich powerful men caused the war by seceding, poor men who mostly cared nothing about slavery are the reason the war was actually carried out.

I vastly shortened this, but I hit most points without going into any detail. I have multiple papers in use from UT/MTSU/ETSU where I cover this much more in depth, but this gives a gist:)

And... kudos to anyone who reads all that.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

alex....I would say at the BEGINNING of the war slavery was definitely a big issue but states rights was the primary one. But soon after the war started no doubt slavery became almost 100% of the reason. JMHO and a of others. But as Hillary would say, at this point what difference does it make?

[AUDub 11,204]

alex....I would say at the BEGINNING of the war slavery was definitely a big issue but states rights was the primary one. But soon after the war started no doubt slavery became almost 100% of the reason. JMHO and a of others. But as Hillary would say, at this point what difference does it make?

States rights is simply a dog whistle for slavery in this scenario.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Psssst...here doggie , here doggie.

[homersapien 11,498]

After pages of posts and links to revisionist history books/articles, here is the truth. I know many will say BS but we all have the choice to believe what we choose to. I respect most of yours even I disagree. Nothing I say or post is likely to change one mind and the reverse is true.

http://www.rulen.com/myths/

You see?

That's the problem with the internet.

[homersapien 11,498]

After pages of posts and links to revisionist history books/articles, here is the truth. I know many will say BS but we all have the choice to believe what we choose to. I respect most of yours even I disagree. Nothing I say or post is likely to change one mind and the reverse is true.

http://www.rulen.com/myths/

Well how about the original writings from the secession commissioners?

How about the original documents of the various secession statements?

You are obviously in serious denial. A classic case.