No, they really didn't. If you read the secession declarations for each state, they state very clearly that they are seceding because of slavery. They cloak it in "states' rights," but the right the states' right that they are seeking to protect is the right to own slaves.

South Carolina seceded first, so I'll quote its secession statement:

"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."


My family is from the South. (I'm not.) I appreciate the feelings of pride in Southern heritage. There are things to be proud of, if you are from the South. The Battle Flag isn't one of them.

To me the Rebel flag represents hate, not the South like it once did. For those who use it on their car or have it waving in their backyard, I'll put money on it that they're racist.

Wow...really?! I've heard it called the stars and bars my entire life! You learn something everyday. I know that southern hospitality can get a bad rap, but at it's best, southern hospitality is used to put people at ease and make others feel welcome. It doesn't matter where you are from or who you are. We may talk about you behind your back ;) but to your face, we'll be sweet as pie. Anything left to human nature can be ugly, but the good people of the south would take anyone into their home, feed them a nutritious dinner and welcome them back anytime. Purposely making others feel "uncomfortable" or "unwelcome" has been an ugly part of our past, and I would really like that to stay in the past. It's not who we are or who we should be. Okay...off my soapbox.

The thing is, as Dr. Phil says, many of us have explained it so many times in so many threads (and elsewhere in life), that we literally grow weary of it. I'm sorry if it comes across as a cop-out, but there it is.

As for the "mentality" comment, what you said was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne (Post 2095598) Being a Northerner, I just don't get it. How can anyone possibly be proud of their Southern heritage to the point of flying a Confederate flag (the obvious one) without that being based on racism? How can you be proud of ancestors who participated in something despicable?

Sorry, but that doesn't sound at all to me like someone who really wants to understand. If it is an expression of wanting to understand, it's worded in a very loaded way -- less "help me understand" and more "defend your obviously wrong actions!" Might as well ask if we're still beating our wives as well.

I cannot agree with a flag that came into existence to represent a nation who's soul purpose was to keep me enslaved for their economic benefit. As far as I'm concerned that lady who's flying that flag in her yard, of course she has that right, but in my eyes she's a racist bitch.

While I agree that slavery was a major factor (if not the major factor) in the war, let's not ignore the reason the North wanted to abolish slavery. It wasn't because they were more moral than the South or felt like slavery was a bad thing - it's because they were afraid that white people wouldn't be able to land paying jobs if they were competing against slave labor. Just wanted to point that out before this turns into a moral-North vs. hateful-South debate.

There are (at least) two distinct groups of people who wave the Battle Flag: one group who flies it as a nod to their heritage (not unlike Americans who fly the American flag), and another group who flies it in a less appropriate manner.

I personally don't fly it at all, but I can recognize why some people do. I don't automatically associate it with hate and/or slavery, but I recognize that some people do. It's a flag that has different meanings to different groups of people - the flag itself doesn't have its own intrinsic meaning.

That all depends on where it's being flown, or who it's being flown next to.

But the culture that they are celebrating had me oppressed, without rights, and as property. That's some bullshit. I know it, you know it, and everybody else on here knows it.

DUH. ;) That also goes for the south.

And you are alive to tell about it? :eek:

As the redundancy of this thread proves, everyone without a head up their ass knows what happened. That is not the point of contention.

Your whole premise is wrong. Blacks in the north were already free. I'm not saying they were equal in rights, but they were free. Whites in the North were already being paid wages for the work that they were doing. The mere idea of bringing in free labor to replace workers that are paid would have been as destructive to the nation as the succession of the South was.

LOL you know what I meant.

The idea wasn't about replacing Northern wage labor with slave labor - it was to prevent the recently acquired territories from using slave labor instead of wage labor. The goal was keeping whites in paid jobs; a goal which would've been hard to attain had the territories been allowed to practice slavery.

ETA: I am far from an expert on this. I'm just recalling information that was presented to me (in southern schools, I should add). The moral issue was not cut and dried based on the Mason-Dixon line. There were plenty of northerners who wanted to abolish slavery for non-moral reasons, just as there were plenty of southerners who wanted to abolish slavery for moral reasons.

In part I agree with you, but my point is still valid. There are a number of factors in place here. Your answer is just too simplistic. The economic question had to be considered, but I think the moral issue was a more pertinent factor than the territories.

They weren't always free. There were a number of northern states in which folks owned slaves prior to their state abolishing slavery.

I never said that the moral issue was based on that line. I'm saying that the moral issue was a greater factor in wanting to abolish slavery than the economic issue.