Pitts: About the Confederate battle flag, remember this: Nazis have a heritage, too

The Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | 3 March 2008 | Leonard Pitts

[Rebeleye]

They will tell you the Civil War was not about slavery. Remind them that the president and vice president of the so-called "Confederate States of America" both said it was. They will tell you that great-great grandpa Zeke fought for the South, and he never owned any slaves. Remind them that it is political leaders - not grunts - who decide whether and why a war is waged. They will tell you the flag just celebrates heritage. Remind them that "heritage" is not a synonym for "good." After all, Nazis have a heritage, too.

[Emperor Palpatine]

I don’t live in NYC.

I like in “America’s Most Liveable City.”

;-)

[jeffDavis1861]

You all better not get me started!

[ontap]

You are exactly right but slave holding is still a slave state . The Civil war was not fought over slavery but over the right of a state to secede among other things. Slave owners were few and far between so it is not reasonable to think all those men would fight and die to allow a wealthy slave owner to keep his property it just does not pass the smell test.

[ontap]

As does Robert Byrd to this day.

[Non-Sequitur]

This is a map of the nation during the Civil War if you will note there were five northern states who had slaves during the civil war. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did nothing to free these slaves.

That took the 13th Amendment to end slavery in those states not participating in the rebellion. And Lincoln, more than any single individual, was responsible for that, too.

Lincoln himself stated that he would accept slavery to preserve the union. So much for the civil war being fought over slavery.

But you aren't looking at it from the South's point of view. Since defense of slavery was by far the single, most important reason for their secession, and since they chose war to further their aims, then one can say that the was was indeed fought over slavery. From the South's point, at least.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Well, no. The fact is that the small minority who went to the Hartford Convention advocating secession were voted down early on, and the declaration issued by the convention makes to threats of secession whatsoever.

Doesn't matter. What got everyone's emotions up was that there even were advocates of secession at the HC - during a time of war, no less.

Hyperbole? Or Southern hypocrisy?

Both, just like there was both hyperbole and hypocrisy on the part of New England and the Old Northwest when those sections opposed the later Southern secessionary movement.

[Non-Sequitur]

I didn’t know that the South had starved, gassed and shot over 12,000,000 like Germans and Japanese did.

And?

Your original quote was "And do you think that invading the entire South with the intent of slaughtering and burning their cities to the ground was a proportionate response?" The South started the war, as did Germany and Japan. The South could no more control where the war went than could Germany and Japan. If bombing the cities of those two countries was an proportionate response to their war, why wouldn't it be a proportionate response to the confederacy's war?

[ontap]

Since defense of slavery was by far the single, most important reason for their secession,

This simply is not a true statement. The war was fought over the states right to secede.

[Tallguy]

Grant wasn’t a great General. But he knew how to win a battle by throwing countless men and machinery into a meat grinder until it was clogged and overwhelmed.

You need to take a look at Grant's western campaigns which featured lots of movement, flank marches & close cooperation with the Navy. There were frontal assaults like at Vicksburg, but there were good reasons to think that he might be able to punch through.

Grant's Overland Campaign in the east was indeed less creative in the area of battles, but no less innovative in the logistical planning. If the South had a lesser commander than Lee, Grant might have won in 1864 (in the sense that Richmond would have fallen 6 months earlier).

[Locomotive Breath]

Famous southerner quote:

“Didn’t own any slaves... illiterate... couldn’t have much interest in the constitution... When asked what he was fighting for, he replied... Cause you’re down here...”

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Oh, prolly not.... OTOH, the South had actual laws about such things, and they tried like hell to hang onto 'em. It was a whole different level.

Not really. I mean, if you're constrained from something by law, or you're constrained from something by the fact that your neighbours will take matters into their own hands and kill you, run you out of the neighbourhood, etc. - the end result is the same.

IIRC, most Northern States had anti-miscegenation laws (mostly codified during the eugenics craze of the 1920s and 1930s). I don't recall how many, if any, might have had Jim Crow-style laws. Loving v. Virginia overturned them in every State that had them.

[silentreignofheroes]

Lock and load,,

Wonder what folks would say if Montana tore up it’s “contract” with DC, due to a bad interpretation by the SCOTUS on the 2nd Add. ?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

And IIRC before the war steam railroads and riverboats brought “King Cotton” north where they were exported from northeastern ports.

Actually, most of the cotton was shipped from Southern ports, while most of the imports into the country came through Northern ports. Southern shipping was geared almost exclusive towards agricultural export.

[r9etb]

"...segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever...." Gov. George Wallace

[silentreignofheroes]

Thanks

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Wonder what folks would say if Montana tore up it’s “contract” with DC, due to a bad interpretation by the SCOTUS on the 2nd Add. ?

IIRC, in response to a bad 2nd Amendment decision, wasn't Montana contemplating something more along the lines of a reversion to territorial status?

[highball]

This is a map of the nation during the Civil War if you will note there were five northern states who had slaves during the civil war. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did nothing to free these slaves. Lincoln himself stated that he would accept slavery to preserve the union. So much for the civil war being fought over slavery.

All that illustrates is that it wasn't about slavery for the North.

The South, on the other hand, made it very clear in its founding documents that their war was to preserve slavery.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

That’s great, but it doesn’t answer the question I was asking, nor does it deal with the point I’m making. Please try to stay on task, eh?

[Old Mountain man]

I can live with that.

[silentreignofheroes]

OK,,though posting a picture with out any info leaves alot out.

(This sure beats reading about those two Dems.)

Now back to why the South was Right