The Confederate Flag in front of a Louisiana Courthouse to come down

[Le Libérer]

(http://louisianajusticeinstitute.blogspot.com/2011/11/confederate-flag-in-caddo-parish-to.html)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ONYB1VSyJ6Y/TrMZPy-J69I/AAAAAAAACd8/5Czlvq7v_VA/s400/5219315811_5c3fec78f0.jpg

After more than sixty years since it was raised, the Confederate Flag outside the Caddo Parish Courthouse will come down.

The decision comes after two hearings at the Caddo Parish Commission (2002 and 2011), one hearing in the Louisiana Supreme Court, a visit from Professor Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School’s Charles Hamilton Houston Institute on Race and Justice, and national and international attention in the media. In a 11‐1 vote, the Caddo Parish Commission authorized the flag’s removal from the grounds of the Caddo Parish Courthouse, where it has been raised each day for 61 years.

“Taking down the Confederate Flag from our Courthouse removes a significant barrier to full participation," said NAACP President Lloyd Thompson during the Commission meeting, "It gives our communities confidence to work together for the benefit of Caddo Parish as whole."

“It is the first step in the right direction,” said Reverend Mary Richard of The Church of the Holy Cross at the meeting. “The cost of the flag has been mistrust in the fair and equal meting out of justice in the Courthouse; this decision means we can finally begin to move forward and work to restore that trust.”

The Confederate Flag was erected in 1951 during a time of deep civil unrest and resistance to the advancement of African‐American citizens in Caddo Parish. The Shreveport Journal reported: “Caddo Parish police jurors voted unanimously in their meeting Wednesday to erect a Confederate flag on the statute of the courthouse building. The approved motion… brought the remark: ‘Harry Truman isn’t going to like this.’”

In a submission to the Caddo Parish Commission in 2002, social and architectural historian Eric Brock explained: “During this time, many southern cities and towns hoisted Confederate banners in reaction to federal legislation dealing… with civil rights, integration, and African‐American voting rights.“ Brock noted that the Flag was the symbol of “Shreveport’s own role in resistance” to civil rights and equality under the law.

Since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976, fourteen African‐American men have been sentenced to death in proceedings that took place under the Confederate Flag. The Louisiana Supreme Court recently recognized in State versus Felton Dorsey that the Flag was a symbol of endemic racism but declined to address the issue based upon the defense lawyer’s failure to object. Carl Staples, an African‐American juror, was removed from service in the Dorsey case when he asserted that real justice could not be administered under the Confederate Flag.

The vote to remove the Flag signals an endorsement of Mr. Staples’ observation, and movement in favor of full and equal participation of African‐Americans in the democratic process.


Such a glorious day for so many people who have suffered under this flag and in that courtroom. My boss and I are to leave for an out of town meeting tomorrow but I have convinced him we should stay and watch it come down first. We should rejoice with so many others that this shameful display and symbol of hatred and bigotry has now come to an end.

This is the thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/confederate-flag-still-t154250/index.html)I created about the flag earlier this year.

[Le Libérer]

This is the story Rachel Maddow did earlier this year on this flag.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42966868#42966868

[Ocean Seal]

Why the fuck was it there in the first place?

[Le Libérer]

The flag outside the Courthouse had nothing to do with the Civil War. Like most of the Confederate flags across the south, it was raised in the fifties as a reaction to the civil rights movement. It was meant to intimidate blacks then, and it's still meant to intimidate them today. It took 61 years to finally get it removed.
From a post I made earlier this year

The crazy thing about all this is, in the 1860s the confederate flag was taken down. But in the 60s the Daughters who own a small plot of land in front of the courthouse, raised it back up in protest of the civil rights movement. There has been several court cases attempting to have it removed, but being on private property, its been over ruled each time.

Of course these "daughters" (of the confederacy) are the affluent families who have lived in that city for years and years and who owned all most of the land and companies.

I am hoping this court case will be different than the others, of course. And maybe the angle the ACLU attourny is taking in the higher courts will be the end of it.

I will say this, it was quite an accomplishment when the present African American Mayor won over a white candidate. It practically froze over in the middle of a scorcher summer.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

I don't necessarily see a problem with the confederate flag itself. I think it shows pride in heritage. I do see a problem with it being outside a courthouse, it's not a flag of a state or an official flag of the united states.

I will say that I do see a problem with people who use it for racial intimidation and prejudice. It disturbs me.

[Martin Blank]

I think it shows pride in heritage.

Yes, a heritage of slavery, lynchings, the Ku Klux Klan, segregation, Jim Crow, anti-Black race riots, terrorism and treason. That's quite a heritage to be proud of.

[Le Libérer]

I don't necessarily see a problem with the confederate flag itself. I think it shows pride in heritage. I do see a problem with it being outside a courthouse, it's not a flag of a state or an official flag of the united states.

I will say that I do see a problem with people who use it for racial intimidation and prejudice. It disturbs me.

Please explain to me this heritage pride and how it is attached to that flag.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I wish they'd just ban display of that damned racist flag already.

[Le Libérer]

Ledbelly was a blues man who was born in Shreveport Louisiana who wrote and sang about Jim Crowe and racism in the south. I wish he was here to see this day that flag is coming down in his home town 61 years later.

Today should be proclaimed a day of freedom. I am going to call my Mayor and ask for a proclamation.

Fq0lXTTS_1E

[Drowzy_Shooter]

Please explain to me this heritage pride and how it is attached to that flag.

THAT flag has no heritage attached to it. It's quite clearly being used for racial intimidation.

I think that the confederate flag shows pride in what their (and to be frank, my) ancestors fought for. Which was the ability to do what they want (which, yes, was an atrocity. One must remember that slavery was NOT the only thing being fought for. ) without a highly centralized government telling them what to do.

I mean, I'm proud of my heritage. The vikings killed, plundered, and raped monasteries all over England and Ireland. That's not something I condone doing. But it's what they did, and I'm going to have to live with that. I'm proud of the heritage because it's where I came from. And for a reason I'm not entirely sure of, it matters to me.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

Yes, a heritage of slavery, lynchings, the Ku Klux Klan, segregation, Jim Crow, anti-Black race riots, terrorism and treason. That's quite a heritage to be proud of.

Except for the slavery, all of those things came when Lincoln shoved us back into the union.

Also, I'm not proud of the things you mentioned afterword.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

Due to me not having a high enough post count, I can't post the video.

However, if you'd oblige me to go on youtube, and look for the video Confederate flag, pride or hate? . I think it shows what I'm talking about.

[Kamos]

THAT flag has no heritage attached to it. It's quite clearly being used for racial intimidation.

I think that the confederate flag shows pride in what their (and to be frank, my) ancestors fought for. Which was the ability to do what they want (which, yes, was an atrocity. One must remember that slavery was NOT the only thing being fought for. ) without a highly centralized government telling them what to do.

I mean, I'm proud of my heritage. The vikings killed, plundered, and raped monasteries all over England and Ireland. That's not something I condone doing. But it's what they did, and I'm going to have to live with that. I'm proud of the heritage because it's where I came from. And for a reason I'm not entirely sure of, it matters to me.

Blah blah. So what is it that you're proud of?

[Drowzy_Shooter]

Blah blah. So what is it that you're proud of?

I suppose, I would say I'm proud of the fact that they fought and tried their hardest to create what was best (which granted, wasn't the best, but at least they where honorable enough to try).

Also, they had some anarchistic tendencies, particularly, the loose law enforcement, and just general lack of courthouses and things of that nature.

[Martin Blank]

Except for the slavery, all of those things came when Lincoln shoved us back into the union.

Translation: The Union is the reason the South lynched African Americans and treated them as less than human.

Seriously: What. The. Fuck?!

This only reinforces my belief that the Union needed all of its generals to have the same ... passion as Uncle Billy had in Georgia, and needed at least another 20 years of Radical Reconstruction to put a permanent end to "the South".


Also, I'm not proud of the things you mentioned afterword.

You say you're "not proud" of them, but you don't denounce them. Rather, you rationalize them, saying they happened "when Lincoln shoved us back into the union".

[Rafiq]

So why is this obvious reactionary not received an infraction for racism yet?

[Seth]

This only reinforces my belief that the Union needed all of its generals to have the same ... passion as Uncle Billy had in Georgia, and needed at least another 20 years of Radical Reconstruction to put a permanent end to "the South".


Uh. Wtf? Since when do we wish that the capitalists had killed more people?

[Tablo]

I suppose, I would say I'm proud of the fact that they fought and tried their hardest to create what was best (which granted, wasn't the best, but at least they where honorable enough to try).

Also, they had some anarchistic tendencies, particularly, the loose law enforcement, and just general lack of courthouses and things of that nature.
That's not true at all.

[Tablo]

I don't necessarily see a problem with the confederate flag itself. I think it shows pride in heritage. I do see a problem with it being outside a courthouse, it's not a flag of a state or an official flag of the united states.

I will say that I do see a problem with people who use it for racial intimidation and prejudice. It disturbs me.
I understand how you see the flag as a symbol of pride and heritage, but you have to understand it is also a symbol of slavery. Most people aren't filled with pride when they see the flag. Most people see it as a symbol of hatred and many white southerners feel nothing but shame when they see it. It is not something any leftist should support the display of outside of war reenactments or things of that sort. It is a symbol of a hateful past and it should be left in the past.

[Rand-de-lis]

Yes, a heritage of slavery, lynchings, the Ku Klux Klan, segregation, Jim Crow, anti-Black race riots, terrorism and treason. That's quite a heritage to be proud of.

Same things happened (and still does to a degree) under the U.S.'s Flag (or it's less stars version).

[Drowzy_Shooter]

I understand how you see the flag as a symbol of pride and heritage, but you have to understand it is also a symbol of slavery. Most people aren't filled with pride when they see the flag. Most people see it as a symbol of hatred and many white southerners feel nothing but shame when they see it. It is not something any leftist should support the display of outside of war reenactments or things of that sort. It is a symbol of a hateful past and it should be left in the past.


I don't display it. I don't necessarily support it either. I simply am providing a reason for people displaying it. I am personally ashamed at slavery, I wish we hadn't done it. It's not something I'm proud of.

On a side note, I'm not a reactionary. Unless providing a reason for somebody doing something is reactionary, I don't feel as though I've displayed any of that behavior.

[Martin Blank]

Uh. Wtf? Since when do we wish that the capitalists had killed more people?

Well, considering what not being more thorough and radical during the Civil War and Reconstruction has meant, especially for African Americans, the complete liquidation of the slaveholders as a class, the expropriation of all their assets (money, houses, land, etc.), and ultimately their deportation and exile, sounds like a much better alternative.

[Seth]

Well, considering what not being more thorough and radical during the Civil War and Reconstruction has meant, especially for African Americans, the complete liquidation of the slaveholders as a class, the expropriation of all their assets (money, houses, land, etc.), and ultimately their deportation and exile, sounds like a much better alternative.

They were stripped of most of their property (that being slaves) and social standing. They were turned into landowners not too unlike those of Latin America, only less powerful.

What I don't get was, you would have liked to see more looting, burning, and pillaging by the union army? That didn't just affect the upper class.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The point is that the Union went three quarters of the way, and then turned back. The transformation of the south (i.e. its destruction as "the south") didn't go as far as it needed to, because the bourgeoisie didn't need or desire that, and in fact was afraid of what it might unleash.

Shit like the confederate rag flying on government buildings, "southern pride," and the reactionary trash we see in this thread is all the proof needed -- if the blood-soaked history of the south itself wasn't proof enough.

At this point, pulling down the flag is purely symbolic, and intended to calm everything down and keep everyone well within the realm of acceptable discourse. With that said, I don't feel the flag lowering would be complete without its transformation into toilet tissue and/or public burning.

[Fawkes]

Except for the slavery, all of those things came when Lincoln shoved us back into the union.


No, they came once black people could no longer be easily subjugated under institutional slavery -- alternatives had to be thought of to "keep them in their place".



Also, they had some anarchistic tendencies, particularly, the loose law enforcement, and just general lack of courthouses and things of that nature.
Who needs cops when you've got lynch mobs?


I'm proud of the heritage because it's where I came from.
I'm white. I'm not proud of that. Why? Because I have no reason to be, I had no control over it.


I suppose, I would say I'm proud of the fact that they fought and tried their hardest to create what was best
So do you respect the tenacity of the Nazis?



oqBULN0hZ1g

[Martin Blank]

They were stripped of most of their property (that being slaves) and social standing. They were turned into landowners not too unlike those of Latin America, only less powerful.

And that's OK with you?


What I don't get was, you would have liked to see more looting, burning, and pillaging by the union army? That didn't just affect the upper class.

No, it didn't. It affected everyone, regardless of class, who participated in supporting the slaveowners' rebellion. Perhaps it's better to let a contemporary of that time say it best:




HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DIVISION of the MISSISSIPPI in the FIELD
Atlanta, Georgia,
James M. Calhoun, Mayor,
E.E. Rawson and S.C. Wells, representing City Council of Atlanta.


Gentlemen:

I have your letter of the 11th, in the nature of a petition to revoke my orders removing all the inhabitants from Atlanta. I have read it carefully, and give full credit to your statements of distress that will be occasioned, and yet shall not revoke my orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the cause, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Atlanta have a deep interest.

We must have peace, not only at Atlanta, but in all America. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the rebel armies which are arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat those armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose. Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time.

The use of Atlanta for warlike purposes in inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be no manufacturers, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go. Why not go now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past month? Of course, I do not apprehend any such things at this moment, but you do not suppose this army will be here until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot impart to you what we propose to do, but I assert that our military plans make it necessary for the inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and comfortable as possible.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country.

If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union.

Once [more] admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.

You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.

We don't want your Negroes, or your horses, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and if it involved the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.

You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, but the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began the war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation.

I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and molded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success.

But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them, and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes in Atlanta.

Yours in haste,
W.T. Sherman
Major-General commanding

[Smyg]

Infrac, or preferably restrict, this reactionary now.

[Fawkes]

Infrac, or preferably restrict, this reactionary now.

No.

[Smyg]

D'awh. But I like infractions. :(

[The Douche]

http://www.civilwarhome.com/images/Sherman.jpg

Finish the civil war.

Your lost cause is a reactionary and racist system that deserved to be destroyed.

[blackandyellow]

So why is this obvious reactionary not received an infraction for racism yet?

His views are pretty fucked up, but why the constant appeals to referees?

[Fawkes]

His views are pretty fucked up, but why the constant appeals to referees?

Seriously. Debate them and show them why their view doesn't make sense. Their's is a misguided view that is very common among people in the South, but immediately casting them aside as racists will only further the common view of northerners as arrogant (a view that definitely holds a strong degree of legitimacy).

Half of my family is from Memphis and I've spent a good amount of time in the South and I can definitely understand the attachment to the Confederate flag. It's still symbolic of a brutal history and it's display is not remotely excusable, but people need to understand that it's display is often (ignorantly) intended as a show of resentment toward the North. Of course, like I said, this doesn't excuse its usage, but I think it's important for people to understand the historical motivations behind it so as to better enable us to eliminate the animosity that still exists between non-racist southerners and northerners.

In the South, the Civil War is commonly referred to as The War of Northern Aggression, and that's exactly what it was. The Federal government didn't give a fuck about addressing the plight of black people, they sought to maintain control over resources vital to U.S. industry. This isn't meant to condemn the soldiers who fought with the intention of actually ending slavery, but the Federal government was no more noble in its aims in the Civil War than the U.S. was in WWII. Likewise, the complete destruction of enormous areas of the South by the likes of Sherman was no better than the firebombings of countless European and Japanese cities and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that leftists are so quick to condemn.

It's no surprise that so many southerners view northerners as being arrogant assholes -- a lot of us are. We're so quick to condemn the South for its history of racism while being equally quick to forget our own history of brutal racial violence that exists to this day. We're so quick to condescendingly call every rural southerner a dumn redneck, nevermind the fact that those rednecks are the same people that fought and died in the Battle of Blair Mountain. (fun fact: UMWA members were known as rednecks because they wore red bandanas as a means to promote solidarity across racial lines. By 1900, there were an estimated 20,000 black miners in the UMWA).



The whole notion of the Civil War being fought to end slavery is a total fucking sham. History's always written by the victors, this is no different.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Why the fuck was it there in the first place?

^This, I would have ripped it down as soon as I saw it if I ever moved there, fuck that shit, shouldn't be tolerated.

[Fawkes]

http://www.civilwarhome.com/images/Sherman.jpg


Sherman was a racist bourgeois prick responsible for the 19th century equivalent of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I've got the utmost respect for those soldiers that truly fought with the intention of ending slavery, but Sherman wasn't one of them.

[The Douche]

Sherman was a racist bourgeois prick responsible for the 19th century equivalent of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I've got the utmost respect for those soldiers that truly fought with the intention of ending slavery, but Sherman wasn't one of them.

I'm just mocking the position. The phrase "finish the civil war" is (was?) commonly used by the sparts.


I am from the south, and I would say I like the culture here for the most part.

[Fawkes]

I'm just mocking the position. The phrase "finish the civil war" is (was?) commonly used by the sparts.


I am from the south, and I would say I like the culture here for the most part.

Wait, mocking which position? That of the sparts or of people that defend the flag?

[Martin Blank]

In the South, the Civil War is commonly referred to as The War of Northern Aggression, and that's exactly what it was.

I call bullshit. Every Civil War historian who is actually respected in the field of study knows that the first aggressive moves toward war were made by the South: the seizing of federal military installations, armories, factories, customs houses, mints, etc. -- all done well before Lincoln was inaugurated in March 1861; all done well before the Republican-led Congress came into session in February 1861; and, many of them done before their states actually voted to secede.

By the time Lincoln took the oath of office, nine states had already voted to secede and two more were on the way. As it was, though, most of those nine states only found themselves seceding following a campaign of terror unleashed by the slaveholders' party against pro-Union and neutral communities. Unionists were attacked and beaten (and sometimes killed) by pro-Confederate mobs, pro-Union newspapers were smashed into pieces and their offices burned to the ground, whole towns were razed to the ground by secessionist rabble.

(I should also note here that, in addition to the mob attacks on Unionists, these scum also initiated a pogrom against Africans held as slaves, driven by a phony fear that Lincoln's inauguration would spark slave rebellions across the South. Nobody knows to this day exactly how many Africans were murdered during this pogrom, but it is estimated in the thousands and, in the most liberal estimates, tens of thousands.)

Meanwhile, the Unionists were looking for any kind of compromise that would end the crisis. Three separate constitutional amendments were introduced by Northern members of Congress to appease the breakaway state governments. William Seward, soon to be Secretary of State, literally placed his reputation and standing on the line to get one of these compromises passed by Congress before Lincoln was sworn in (didn't happen, in the end).

And finally, let's not forget which side fired the first shots. A little hint: It wasn't the Union.


The whole notion of the Civil War being fought to end slavery is a total fucking sham. History's always written by the victors, this is no different.

It was not slavery per se that they sought to end, but the slave system that directly competed with Northern capitalism (which, in comparison, was socially-progressive), demanded unlimited expansion into the western territories, eyed up Cuba, Mexico and the rest of Latin America as new areas to expand the plantation slave system, and fought repeatedly for tariffs and duties (the 19th century equivalent of corporate welfare) that favored the South.

This is not "history written by the victors", but facts that every contemporary author knew and about which they wrote -- facts that can be confirmed by any cursory glance at a newspaper, book or series of correspondence from the time. Even Marx and Engels knew well about these facts, and wrote about them in their correspondence and in articles for newspapers.

Neo-Confederate "historians" like to muddy the waters, talking about tariffs, "states rights", the "Southern way of life", and so on. But ask yourself: What were those tariffs meant to protect? What specific "rights" were the southern states seeking to defend? What was this "way of life" the South sought to protect?

The Lincoln administration may not have acknowledged that ending slavery and the slave system were the central war aim until 1863, but the Confederacy sure as hell did:


Our new government['s] ... 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, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Every time you use neo-Confederate terms like "War of Northern Aggression", you aid in the perpetuation of one of the greatest lies of American history: that the so-called "cause" of the Confederacy was legitimate and noble. You wind up being an apologist for the slave system, whether you like it or not.

Oh, and one last thing, if the Civil War did not end up becoming a war to end slavery, then explain the XIII, XIV and XV Amendments to the Constitution.

[Fawkes]

I call bullshit.




And you're right. I went too far in claiming it was a war of northern aggression, my sole intention was to point out that this -- like WWII -- wasn't just a war between noble freedom fighters and cruel barbarians like your average high school textbook -- and subsequently prevailing social attitudes -- would suggest. Rather, it was a war driven primarily by the ruling classes of the respective sides and intense nationalism. It was never my intention to defend the confederacy or slavery.



Meanwhile, the Unionists were looking for any kind of compromise that would end the crisis.
Because it posed a threat to their access of commodities necessary for capitalist expansion.


William Seward, soon to be Secretary of State, literally placed his reputation and standing on the line to get one of these compromises passed by Congress before Lincoln was sworn in (didn't happen, in the end)
His reputation as what? A chief military officer in the imperialist Mexican-American War? He's the same guy that said "I will engage to give you the possession of the American continent and the control of the world".


It was not slavery per se that they sought to end, but the slave system that directly competed with Northern capitalism (which, in comparison, was socially-progressive), demanded unlimited expansion into the western territories, eyed up Cuba, Mexico and the rest of Latin America as new areas to expand the plantation slave system, and fought repeatedly for tariffs and duties (the 19th century equivalent of corporate welfare) that favored the South.
Which just underscores the fact that this was a war driven largely by the interests of each sides respective ruling class.


Neo-Confederate "historians" like to muddy the waters, talking about tariffs, "states rights", the "Southern way of life", and so on. But ask yourself: What were those tariffs meant to protect? What specific "rights" were the southern states seeking to defend? What was this "way of life" the South sought to protect?
Nothing I am in support of, nor did I mean to suggest I was.


The Lincoln administration may not have acknowledged that ending slavery and the slave system were the central war aim until 1863, but the Confederacy sure as hell did
Not only was it not acknowledged, Lincoln actually accepted the Corwin Amendment which would have made it unconstitutional for the federal government to pass any legislation regarding the "rights" of slaveholders.


Every time you use neo-Confederate terms like "War of Northern Aggression", you aid in the perpetuation of one of the greatest lies of American history: that the so-called "cause" of the Confederacy was legitimate and noble.
It was never my intention to cast the confederacy as noble or legitimate, I was only trying to cast doubt on the notion that the cause of the Union was wholly noble and legitimate. A notion which results in much of the arrogance we see today directed toward southerners.


Oh, and one last thing, if the Civil War did not end up becoming a war to end slavery, then explain the XIII, XIV and XV Amendments to the Constitution.
I think they were largely products of an increase in abolitionist sentiments. However, there's a big part of me that also suspects they were efforts to validate what was the bloodiest war in U.S. history, particularly the 13th Amendment. Also, it appears the 15th Amendment was at least partially a strategic move by Republicans to ensure a larger base of voters.

Also, the fact of the matter is that slavery didn't end in 1865. Sure, as an overt institution it no longer existed, but for decades following the war the 13th Amendment may as well have not existed, and this was aided in no small part by a gradual decrease of interest by white northerners in the plight of black people.

Meanwhile, racism was rampant throughout the North as it was in the South. Even during the Civil Rights Movement, some of the most violent race riots occurred in northern cities. It's the tendency for people to ignore this and pin the South as being the sole region where racism was/is a major issue that breeds the arrogance that many southerners fly the confederate flag in opposition to.

[Martin Blank]

And you're right. I went too far in claiming it was a war of northern aggression, my sole intention was to point out that this -- like WWII -- wasn't just a war between noble freedom fighters and cruel barbarians like your average high school textbook -- and subsequently prevailing social attitudes -- would suggest. Rather, it was a war driven primarily by the ruling classes of the respective sides and intense nationalism. It was never my intention to defend the confederacy or slavery.

Fair enough. And I have no disagreement about it boiling down to a war between conflicting ruling classes. Where we may differ is that I see the Union as having been socially progressive on an historic scale -- just as early capitalism was progressive in relation to feudalism.


Because it posed a threat to their access of commodities necessary for capitalist expansion.

That was certainly a large part of it, but not all of it. In fact, one of the main factors calling for compromise was a fear among Northern capitalists of Britain invading a weakened and divided United States. Tensions between Washington and the Court of St. James hadn't been as bad as they were in 1860 since the end of the War of 1812. Moreover, there continued to be disputes about where the border between U.S. territories and Upper Canada actually was. Many Northerners, especially in the states that directly bordered Canada (Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine) greatly feared land grabs by emboldened Canadians backed up by British troops. That desperate fear was very much on the minds of the compromisers.


His reputation as what? A chief military officer in the imperialist Mexican-American War? He's the same guy that said "I will engage to give you the possession of the American continent and the control of the world".

No, actually, his standing and reputation among the Free Soil wing of the Republican Party -- the Radicals and Reds, including a fair number of communists. Seward was hoping to replace Lincoln as the GOP presidential candidate in 1864, and had been maneuvering to assemble a coalition that would challenge for the top spot. That all pretty much fell apart when the Free Soilers learned of his backroom efforts toward compromise. His failure was actually a double-whammy: he not only lost the confidence of the Free Soilers, but, because his effort failed, he lost the confidence of the compromisers.


Which just underscores the fact that this was a war driven largely by the interests of each sides respective ruling class.

True. But see above for my caveat to such agreement.


Not only was it not acknowledged, Lincoln actually accepted the Corwin Amendment which would have made it unconstitutional for the federal government to pass any legislation regarding the "rights" of slaveholders.

Again, true. However, you are talking about the Lincoln of 1861 -- a moderate on the issue of slavery, whose objection was moral and whose political position was that of containment, not abolition. That Lincoln is not the same as the 1865 version, who not only advocated abolition of slavery, but even favored social equality, and full civil and democratic rights, for Africans once held as slaves.


It was never my intention to cast the confederacy as noble or legitimate, I was only trying to cast doubt on the notion that the cause of the Union was wholly noble and legitimate. A notion which results in much of the arrogance we see today directed toward southerners.

I can understand that. In civil wars, nobody's hands are clean and no one's conscience is clear. A lot of foul things happen in the thick of such conflicts. And understand, I don't hold arrogant views about all southerners, only those who peddle neo-Confederate falsehoods.


I think they were largely products of an increase in abolitionist sentiments. However, there's a big part of me that also suspects they were efforts to validate what was the bloodiest war in U.S. history, particularly the 13th Amendment. Also, it appears the 15th Amendment was at least partially a strategic move by Republicans to ensure a larger base of voters.

Maybe, but I question that argument. If it was merely about consecrating the dead and their fight, then what was the point of the XIV Amendment? That amendment is the single most important democratic advance this country has made since the Bill of Rights. While the XIII Amendment abolished slavery in the U.S., the XIV Amendment made those Africans held as slaves into citizens by birthright, enshrined equal protection (and equal access) under the law, gave the federal government the power to strip states of their Congressional delegations and Electoral Votes if they were shown to be systematically disenfranchising eligible voters, and expanded the ability of the federal government to secure its debts (which meant that "full faith and credit" could not be filibustered by hostile elements in Congress).

The XIV Amendment has been the basis for every piece of progressive civil and democratic rights legislation, and social reform, passed since 1868. That's more than just a cover-your-ass maneuver or opportunist justification.


Also, the fact of the matter is that slavery didn't end in 1865. Sure, as an overt institution it no longer existed, but for decades following the war the 13th Amendment may as well have not existed, and this was aided in no small part by a gradual decrease of interest by white northerners in the plight of black people.

It's much more complicated than that. After the Civil War ended, many of the occupied Confederate states adopted "Black Codes", which were tantamount to reinstituting slavery. But the election of Grant and a Radical Republican majority in Congress in 1868 changed that. The "Black Codes" were declared unconstitutional (a violation of the XIII Amendment), and Congress adopted the first of two Civil Rights acts. This had a sweeping effect on the position of African Americans. They not only began to vote in large numbers, but also began to be elected to office in large numbers. I often like to point out that there were more African Americans in Congress in 1871 than there are in 2011. When the Ku Klux Klan and similar terrorist groups emerged in the South, they were banned by federal law (ironically, it is the Ku Klux Klan Act that bans the wearing of face masks) and hunted down by federal soldiers.

With the Panic of 1873, you began to see that waning support, as the Northern capitalists scrambled to pull out of the crisis, which they could only do by making peace with what was left of the Southern ruling class. Thus, you have the Great Betrayal of 1877 ... and shortly thereafter, the Great Strike and Uprising. But it would take another 15 years to force African Americans back into complete subordination. Four years after that came Plessy v. Ferguson and the codification of segregation, which went on unchallenged until after WWII.


Meanwhile, racism was rampant throughout the North as it was in the South. Even during the Civil Rights Movement, some of the most violent race riots occurred in northern cities. It's the tendency for people to ignore this and pin the South as being the sole region where racism was/is a major issue that breeds the arrogance that many southerners fly the confederate flag in opposition to.

Oh, yeah. I agree very much. Where was the KKK largest in the early 20th century? Indiana. Which state was the largest bankroller of the KKK at that time? Michigan. The Detroit Race Riots, the Boston Busing Riots, the Blacksheets, the Nazis and neo-Nazis, etc., etc.

[Le Libérer]

Rachel Maddow did the followup story to her first story on the Caddo Parish Confederate flag.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#45172064

[pastradamus]

Good news to hear this came down as many people in Louisana clearly dont embrace or accept it as a symbol and find it insulting.

But, to get stuck into the main body of debate here -a flag is a symbol. The flag never lynched anyone and nor did it create the racist mess that was (and still) is so common in the south. It was the racist element that created such crimes and so it has become a symbol of hate and for that reason should be destroyed and its use disbanded - but thats not enough. You must tackle the root to destroy the stem. This originates from lack of understanding of other cultures, ethnic groups and also the propagated and premeditated use of racism by people and groups to create a divide in society - these are the elements that must be confronted and not simply the issue of a flag. In California, for example you dont see Nazi Skins waving confederate flags as often as you see the Iron Cross or the Nazi Swastika. This is the reason why we hate them and they hate us. We work to established a more equaled society by tackling the Bourgeoisie and they intend in creating a more seperated society by terrorising ethnic and religious minorities which result in sectarianism and racism and keep entire generations in a bitter state of conciousness.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/736/confedflagdeaths.gif

[Niall]

Is it wrong that when i was young I used to want one of these flags. Bloody dukes of hazard!

[Le Libérer]

One of the arguments that was raised to the La. Supreme Court was

Psychological research also shows that the flag creates an unacceptable risk that implicit racial bias could impact the trial process, particularly when the defendant is African-American. A recent study by a Florida State University social psychologist found that exposure to images of the Confederate flag increases the expression of negative attitudes toward African-Americans among whites.

“The Confederate flag represents for many people, and particularly for African-Americans, the public entrenchment of racism in Caddo Parish’s judicial system and is an endorsement of historical efforts to deny African-Americans equality under the law,” said Arceneaux. “Allowing it to fly outside the Caddo Parish courthouse sends a clear statement that capital punishment cannot be fairly administered within the courthouse walls.”

Source (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/05/09-13)