Confederate Flags in the South

[Mattks]

Wow, some of these replies are nuts. I live in Lawrence, Ks and if you had a confederate flag here I'd say you'd risk getting beaten up. The civil war was about states rights and they wanted the right to have slaves. Hence, the border war and bleeding Kansas. When both Kansas and Nebraska became free states, funny that was the name they used at the time, when slavery wasn't the main issue, the south went bonkers, Kansas was supposed to be a slave state. The south seceded because of states rights and slavery was the most important issue to them, but not the only reason for succession. I view the Confederate flag in the same light as the Nazi flag or the Japanese Imperial flag. I understand it's meaning has evolved over time, but the truth is it's going to offend some people, and for good reason. A lot of people died fighting or defending that flag. I won't say it should be banned, but don't be ignorant of what that flag stands for. No one is trying to say the North was a perfect place, it had a lot of issues and according to demographic information one could say the south in some areas has become more integrated racially then many Northern cities. The south has progressed a lot, but the past is the past and thats where the Confederate flag should be left.

[Mattks]

I'd say the Northern equivalent to the Confederate flag are these license plates I've seen with John Brown with a gun in one hand and a Bible in the other hand. He was an extreme man in extreme times, I don't think he should be a celebrated hero any more then the Confederate flag a cultural heritage.

[eddie gein]

Originally Posted by Mattks

Wow, some of these replies are nuts. I live in Lawrence, Ks and if you had a confederate flag here I'd say you'd risk getting beaten up. The civil war was about states rights and they wanted the right to have slaves. Hence, the border war and bleeding Kansas. When both Kansas and Nebraska became free states, funny that was the name they used at the time, when slavery wasn't the main issue, the south went bonkers, Kansas was supposed to be a slave state. The south seceded because of states rights and slavery was the most important issue to them, but not the only reason for succession.

Yes it's nuts to try and maintain that slavery wasn't the main issue in the Civil War when one considers what happened in Kansas and Missouri in the 1850s. "Bleeding Kansas" happened because of slavery and ONLY because of slavery.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

Yes it's nuts to try and maintain that slavery wasn't the main issue in the Civil War when one considers what happened in Kansas and Missouri in the 1850s. "Bleeding Kansas" happened because of slavery and ONLY because of slavery.

Goes back to something that has been brought up earlier, EG. That is, why didn't "they" (the northern powers) want slavery in the western territories?

Was it because there was some kind of truly altruistic love and concern for black people? Or was it because they didn't want black people there at all? Once again (and I admit it give me a bit of satisfaction to stick a pin in the balloon of hypocrisy that some northern apologists seem to float ), it was exactly as Lincoln said: A desire to keep black people the hell out of there. And he said so directly. And that was the way most northerners felt; blacks were actually banned from residency in some Midwestern states.

Thing is? I am not condemning them for it. They were products of their time just like all of us are of ours; God only knows how our great-great-grandchildren will look at us, ya know?

No, the only thing I am reacting to is this seemingly everlasting myth -- perpetuated by some -- that it all boils down to a morality play of history where a righteous northern people were so consumed with a desire to liberate and free and welcome blacks into their society, and the only obstacle was a horrid, netherworld South and Southern attitudes that prevented it.

Please. That is so ludicrous as to be historical insanity.

BTW -- I have nothing but the highest regard and sincere respect for the devotion and bravery of the Union soldier. I think they were duped and mislead into fighting a war that was totally unnecessary, but that doesn't take away from that they were true and loyal to the cause they fought for, as they saw it.

[eddie gein]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Goes back to something that has been brought up earlier, EG. That is, why didn't "they" (the northern powers) want slavery in the western territories?

Was it because there was some kind of truly altruistic love and concern for black people? Or was it because they didn't want black people there at all? Once again (and I admit it give me a bit of satisfaction to stick a pin in the balloon of hypocrisy that some northern apologists seem to float ), it was exactly as Lincoln said: A desire to keep black people the hell out of there. And he said so directly. And that was the way most northerners felt; blacks were actually banned from residency in some Midwestern states.

Thing is? I am not condemning them for it. They were products of their time just like all of us are of ours; God only knows how our great-great-grandchildren will look at us, ya know?

No, the only thing I am reacting to is this seemingly everlasting myth -- perpetuated by some -- that it all boils down to a morality play of history where a righteous northern people were so consumed with a desire to liberate and free and welcome blacks into their society, and the only obstacle was a horrid, netherworld South and Southern attitudes that prevented it.

Please. That is so ludicrous as to be historical insanity.

BTW -- I have nothing but the highest regard and sincere respect for the devotion and bravery of the Union soldier. I think they were duped and mislead into fighting a war that was totally unnecessary, but that doesn't take away from that they were true and loyal to the cause they fought for, as they saw it.

Ok, there is some truth in your comments. While "Free Staters" in Kansas were against slavery for a number of different reasons, the "Free Soilers" in Kansas didn't want blacks in the territory at all mostly due to economic reasons. Of course this is a generalization but I think it is basically accurate.

OTOH, how do you explain the abolitionist movement in the north? They were against slavery on moral grounds were they not? In the case of Kansas, organized movements created by abolitionists settled the territory to compete with the southerners who were moving to the territory (or in the case of Missourians- pretending to move to the territory). The Quakers of Lawrence being the most overt example.

[JMT]

This thread's original topic has been swallowed up in a discussion about the history of the Civil War. Time to close this thread. Posters are welcomed to continue the discussion about the reasons behind the Civil War at one of the many threads about that topic in the History forum.