Just like any other war, it was fought for the same old reason: Money. In this case, the use of slavery was part of the money. Yet, when Abraham Lincoln signed the Emacipation Proclamation, it did NOT free any slaves in non-Confederate states. And don't get me started on how the Maryland Legistlature wasn't permitted to hold a vote on joining the CSA. Lincoln himself was fond of the "n" word.

Well while everybody focuses on slavery, it was actually a relatively minor issue. The South wanted the right to govern themselves, especially with internal issues like slavery. Lincoln didn't really care about the slaves. He fought to preserve the Union.

On an unrelated note:

If you want to protest the Confederate flag because of it's somehow connection to "slavery" and "racism" (both false, but whatever), then perhaps you should be protesting the American flag...which was the flag flying on the ships which brought the slaves here.

Just a thought.


And no, the Confederates were acting defensively and we're occupied territory. Sort of like Iraq or Afghanistan now.

Maybe some people protest the Confederate flag because of its connection, not necessarily to slavery, but its connection to violence from terrorist organizations that are still allowed to demonstrate hatred towards other Americans (true, but whatever). Just a thought.

And my random thought is I wonder how it would have changed history if the French got involved in the Civil War like they almost did, joining the South. Hmm, we'd probably be divided like European countires. Maybe, maybe not.

This.

Yep, which is why I don't celebrate Lincoln. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

As for the rumors that he was mixed with Black, that may or may not be true, but a lot of people were (secretly) mixed with Black then and now. We have enough people of the African diaspora in the world. We don't need to go fishing for any more.

While I think you have a point, I wouldn't go so far as to say slavery was "relatively minor." There were a number of factors that led to the war -- economics (as honey has mentioned) and differing constitutional understandings and ideas of federalism being among the leading factors. But these factors were all inter-related, and slavery was deeply woven into the woof and warp of them all.

While it's probably not accurate to say the slavery was the reason for the war, I don't think it's accurate either to say it was a relatively minor issue. It was the common denominator in all the factors the lead to the war.

Yeah yeah yeah. As some one born and raised in the south...about as Southern as you can get really, the protestations that the Confederate flag doesn't represent a racist ideology. It may not mean that to every person, but its meaning has been purposefully tainted to become offensive to black people and other non-white, Protestant minorities. When I was in high school, a bunch of senior boys ran around with t-shirts air brushed with a confederate flag on the front emblazoned with "It's a white the you wouldn't understand" with KKK nicknames on the back like "Grand Wizard." They almost started a race war all because they didn't like the t-shirts the black kids wore that said "It's a black thing you wouldn't understand" and "A Black mind is a terrible thing to waste."
personally, I wish the south would stop wallowing in the "glory" of the civil war. It's over...we lost. Get over it already and move on!

This isn't the Confederate Flag, itself. This is people's dumbness being added on.

Not every Black person is offended by the Confederate Flag. I, for one, am not.

What has always bothered me is this. Why did South Carolina have the right to secede from Great Britain in 1776, but did not have the right to secede from the United States in 1860?

Either they had the right both times or they did not have the right both times. To say that they had the right one time but not the other is Special Pleading.

This is going to sound worse than I intended, but perhaps you should.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession.htm
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/missi...eclaration.asp
http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordi...n.htm#Virginia

There wasn't a state in the Confederacy that didn't include slavery or 'the right to own property' as one of it's reasons for secession from the Union.In fact, most of the Confederate states identified themselves as slave-holding states in thier letters of secession as to distinguish themselves from the North. If the Confederate flag represents the Confederacy, the the Confederate flag reperesents slavery.
Of course you have the right not to be offended. But understand you are in the shrinking minority especially after the recent comments by the governors of Miss. and Virginia.

Not at all. While the two actions have some similarities, they also have differences.

South Carolina didn't "secede" from the United Kingdon in 1776, it declared its independence from the UK. It was a colony of the UK, not a constituent part of the UK. And the only "right" it possessed to declare its independence was what some might describe as a moral or natural right. There certainly was no legal right. Independence was won only by revolution and by treaty at the end of a war.

By contrast, South Carolina in 1860 had ratified the Constitution and thereby esyablished itself as one of the United States. South Carolina's actions in 1860 brought what before had been a hypothetical constitutional question to a head: Could a state that had ratified the Constitution later withdraw that ratification.

Following the Civil War, the Supreme Court in Texas v White held that once a state has entered the Union by ratification of the Constitution, it cannot revoke that ratification. Note this portion (with emphasis added):

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Based on this, the Court held that the articles of secession were null and void as a matter of law.

France and Great Britain also had slaves but, their flags didn't/don't represent slavery. I just think the Rebel flag represents violence. At least it does, now.

Agreed.^^ Personally, I don't think the Confederates were terrorists as much as they were traitors to the United States of America who committted treason. Just because they were never charged, doesn't mean the acts were legal.

Ugh. I always hate having/reading confederate flag discussions close to prom season because all I can think about is this:


http://slrc.sitemirror.us/site/image...bflagdress.jpg