Confederate flag over Orange county

[Soilman]

Both sides of my family arrived in America before the Revolutionary War. I even have an ancestor who arrived on the Mayflower. My family fought for Independence and for the South in the civil war. We are of Scotch-Irish ancestry. I think the flags of the Confederacy are revered for multiple reasons. Right or wrong, I'm proud that my folks stood up for what they believed in. (Remember, the VAST majority of Southerners who fought DID NOT own slaves, so that says the war was about more than just slavery). Back in the "old country", the Scots and Irish were constantly being subjugated by the English. The south was predominately settled by Scotch-Irish. The North by English. Those peoples were defiant to English rule in the British Isles, and it didn't stop with a move to the "New Country". At the time of the Civil War, the North was attempting to subjugate the South. They made laws and rules that only allowed the South to do business with the North, especially dealing with cotton, set up taxes and tariffs that favored only the North. Today, to most southerners, the Confederate flag is a symbol of independence, defiance, and resistance to being pushed around or told what to do by "big government". To me, and I suspect many other southerners, slavery is one of the worst, if not THE worst things that this country ever did. Just look at where it has gotten us today! That is why you so often hear the phrase, "heritage, not hate".

 

[lasttombstone]

Good post Soil, but some folks still won't accept it. It goes against what they are told and gets them nothing so they are not going to ever accept those facts.

 

[Weekender]

Today, to most southerners, the Confederate flag is a symbol of independence, defiance, and resistance to being pushed around or told what to do.

Exactly. And even if "we" decided to take it down and fly a flag with a similar message but without the same baggage (don't tread on me, for instance), someone would still take issue.

 

[Einstein]

Both sides of my family arrived in America before the Revolutionary War. I even have an ancestor who arrived on the Mayflower. My family fought for Independence and for the South in the civil war. We are of Scotch-Irish ancestry. I think the flags of the Confederacy are revered for multiple reasons. Right or wrong, I'm proud that my folks stood up for what they believed in. (Remember, the VAST majority of Southerners who fought DID NOT own slaves, so that says the war was about more than just slavery). Back in the "old country", the Scots and Irish were constantly being subjugated by the English. The south was predominately settled by Scotch-Irish. The North by English. Those peoples were defiant to English rule in the British Isles, and it didn't stop with a move to the "New Country". At the time of the Civil War, the North was attempting to subjugate the South. They made laws and rules that only allowed the South to do business with the North, especially dealing with cotton, set up taxes and tariffs that favored only the North. Today, to most southerners, the Confederate flag is a symbol of independence, defiance, and resistance to being pushed around or told what to do by "big government". To me, and I suspect many other southerners, slavery is one of the worst, if not THE worst things that this country ever did. Just look at where it has gotten us today! That is why you so often hear the phrase, "heritage, not hate".

Please excuse the length of this, I just feel it is an important issue.

I appreciate your post and insight. I find it very neat that you can trace your family to the Mayflower! It seems from your knowledge you have done quite a bit of research into the causes of the Civil War. I’m curious, is this what you studied in college, or was it more of a hobby?

I would like to dive a bit deeper into the issue. This is where I suspect almost all on this forum will disagree with me, and probably call me bad names under their breath. First, although much of the southern “highland” areas were settled by Scotch/Irish, I would debate that most of the Southerners who actually made decisions were of English stock in the tidewater regions of the southeast. Of course, I have studied deeply into the issue of the tariffs immediately preceding the Civil War (realistically beginning with JQA) and I agree, that they were totally made to benefit Northern manufacturing, while punishing Southern farming. Which is why I’m particularly interested in the new proposed tariffs on China. Benefitting the North and punishing the South is EXACTLY what the new trade war and tariffs on China will do. But I digress.

Lastly, you are exactly right that MOST guys who fought for the South had never owned a slave; some had never even seen them. However, I would argue that even they fought for the institution of slavery, which, I would argue that it (American chattel slavery) is the worst institution in the history of mankind. They believed this institution was what kept them (the poor white southerner) at least above someone on the social order. This is exactly why segregation was so difficult to overcome in the south following Brown vs Board; because at least the poor white were better than SOMEBODY in their minds.

Simply put, the Civil War was about slavery. I do not know a single reputable historian who would say otherwise. Heck, I don’t know a single non-reputable historian who would say otherwise. When I was a young boy a kid in my class gave me a “rebel” flag t-shirt. I went home and showed it to my dad. My father (again, raised his whole life a southerner) taught me that the Confederate flag was a symbol of tyranny and terrorism. In his eyes, and I would suspect most people, it was no different than flying a swastika outside our house.

Maybe that’s just why I feel like I do about the confederate flag.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soilman]

I've just done some reading on the subject. I would submit that slavery was A factor in the Civil War, but it was not the ONLY factor. Yes, I've read a lot of what the southern politicians at the time wrote about slavery, but...what actually started the war? It was secession. I would also submit that the North violated the Constitution when they went to war to prevent secession. The Constitution states that each state is sovereign and each state voluntarily joined the union. If a state can voluntarily join, then they should have also been able to leave. But, if the South left the union, the North would lose their money making "middle man" status. As we say now day, if you want to get to the root, follow the money. The north never mentioned or gave a darn about slavery until half way through the war when it became politically expedient to do so. Lincoln, himself was not opposed to slavery and there are plenty of sources that confirm this. The cause to end slavery by the north was nothing more than a rallying point. So, yes, slavery was A reason for the South, but it was NOT why the North fought, until it became advantageous to use it as such. Remember, the victor gets to write the history, and they sure as shootin ain't gonna say it was because of greed.

Neither the North or South had clean hands in this conflict, but history likes to make out like the North was completely righteous, pure and noble. Digg a bit deeper and I think you will find that the North's reason for the war was just as despicable as that assigned to the South.

If you think about it, slavery is subjugation of human beings. The North ended up claiming this was wrong. Yet, they were ok with the subjugation of an entire region of the country.

 

[Einstein]

I've just done some reading on the subject. I would submit that slavery was A factor in the Civil War, but it was not the ONLY factor. Yes, I've read a lot of what the southern politicians at the time wrote about slavery, but...what actually started the war? It was secession. I would also submit that the North violated the Constitution when they went to war to prevent secession. The Constitution states that each state is sovereign and each state voluntarily joined the union. If a state can voluntarily join, then they should have also been able to leave. But, if the South left the union, the North would lose their money making "middle man" status. As we say now day, if you want to get to the root, follow the money. The north never mentioned or gave a darn about slavery until half way through the war when it became politically expedient to do so. Lincoln, himself was not opposed to slavery and there are plenty of sources that confirm this. The cause to end slavery by the north was nothing more than a rallying point. So, yes, slavery was A reason for the South, but it was NOT why the North fought, until it became advantageous to use it as such. Remember, the victor gets to write the history, and they sure as shootin ain't gonna say it was because of greed.

Neither the North or South had clean hands in this conflict, but history likes to make out like the North was completely righteous, pure and noble. Digg a bit deeper and I think you will find that the North's reason for the war was just as despicable as that assigned to the South.

If you think about it, slavery is subjugation of human beings. The North ended up claiming this was wrong. Yet, they were ok with the subjugation of an entire region of the country.

As far as Lincoln, yes, early in his life you can find evidence he didn’t necessarily reject the notion of slavery. By the time he was President, and a decade before that, you can find every evidence that Lincoln opposed slavery.

Also, I find relating the subjugation of slaves MUCH different than the actions the North took to keep the South from seceding.

Respectfully, I would ask you to readwhat is commonly referred to as the SC “Letter of Secession” and tell me where you find anything in there about states rights, or any evidence of anything BUT slavery as the immediate cause of secession. The link is below

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soilman]

As I stated above, I've read what the politicians wrote. You can find similar wording for several of the states reasons for secession. And as I stated, slavery WAS an important issue for the South, but it was NOT why the North took up the fight. Yes, the South feared the North would vote to end slavery and "slave states" to forever gain a political and economic domination over the South. The North feared if the South got more "slave states" than the North had non slave states, they would break the economic control the North had on the South. Heck, the North was actually supporting the need for slavery by having a monopoly on Southern goods and the profits southerners had to accept. The bigger farmers in the south HAD to have free labor to make a profit. You might want to study Lincoln a bit more. He is quoted as saying, during the war, something to the effect of "If I could win the war without freeing the slaves, I would do so."

 

[Tipmoose]

My purpose in posting this thread was not to support or legitimize slavery or *gasp* the R word....<whisper>racism</whisper>. I don't have any connection to the flag or its history. My purpose in posting this thread was to gloat over the fact that this flag is flying in Orange County NC. And its pissing liberals off every day and they can't do a thing about it right now. See...liberals spend their entire lives pissing me off every damn day and I can't do anything about it. So this is my chance to enjoy their angst right in their backyard.

 

[Greg]

As most everyone here knows, I'm right there with you, Tip.

I won't speak for anyone else, but to ME, The Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia is a great big F YOU MIDDLE FINGER in the face of big government and all their PC liberal jackass supporters.

 

[bwfarms]

North Carolina has a famous slogan, 'First in Flight'. North Carolina was not always First, it has the distinction of being Last, last to secede from the Union.

Short and sweet, North Carolina did not want to secede. Economically remaining in the Union was in the best interests of North Carolina. Slavery did exist but it wasn't in strong numbers like much of the Deep South, thereby abolishing slavery would have less affect on the state that mostly had yeoman farmers. Many residents in this state did not want to fight for either side. North Carolina only grudgingly left the Union to avoid "fighting against the South".

The Silent Sam monument is a testament to a group that was forced to pick sides but were going to lose even if the cause was won. It was meant to commemorate the students that had to leave their studies behind and take up a rifle. They fought for a cause that they didn't necessarily believe in but morally couldn't fight against their own homeland and consequently their neighbors.

These were young men that loved North Carolina. It is appalling seeing swine defacing a monument they are unwilling to understand. These groups are assaulting a memory of a population that would have likely been an ally of the time period because pro secession supporters in North Carolina were considered radical.

Like water, there is a boiling point and our boiling point has been met with the constant pushing by modern day liberals. 43% of North Carolina are not born here, many of these implants do not understand our history. Sadly some born in North Carolina don't understand because it didn't directly affect them or their family.

True North Carolinians are passive aggressive. It should be known that this definition means indirect resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct confrontation, as in procrastinating. The state put off secession for as long as they could.

So to piss off a group attacking our history the response is to quietly trigger them with images and symbols. In this case a stand of quiet defiance has been erected in the form of a Confederate Flag in the heart of an growing insolent community.

 

[Weekender]

Excellent posts at #'s 40, 39, and 38. I can't do any better and I'm in too good of a mood to post something definitely worse.

 

[JoeR]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Corwin Amendment. To me it seems like quite the bugaboo for anyone claiming the Civil War was over Slavery. I'm no expert, so correct me if I'm wrong.

The Corwin Amendment would have made Slavery legal in every Southern State that currently had it, as long as they didn't secede.
It was supported by both Buchannon and Lincoln. Buchannon even signed it, even though a President didn't have any say in the process.
It was ratified by enough Northern States to make it an Amendment if the Southern States signed it.
It was offered as a fig leaf until it was certain that the north would win the war.

Can anyone offer an explanation for this? How could the war be over Slavery of the North was willing to legalize it if the South didn't secede?

 

[Soilman]

Just an educated guess, but that Amendment only covered EXISTING slave states. Any new states would be non-slave states and forever give the North the dominate political power in the country. Think of slave states vs. non-slave states as Red and Blue states today. It really mattered not if the state actually supported slavery, but that they would vote in favor of southern or northern interest.

 

[JoeR]

Just an educated guess, but that Amendment only covered EXISTING slave states. Any new states would be non-slave states and forever give the North the dominate political power in the country. Think of slave states vs. non-slave states as Red and Blue states today. It really mattered not if the state actually supported slavery, but that they would vote in favor of southern or northern interest.

Am I just dopey or are you making my point? You're saying the North went to war because the South cared about slavery in States that weren't even States yet? What about explaining how the North was willing to let slavery slide in existing states if they didn't secede? The math doesn't work for me.

 

[Tipmoose]

I think the two of you are on the same side here.

 

[Soilman]

The North didn't give a rats behind about the actual enslavement of blacks. They only cared about the political side of it. Both the North and South knew more states would be admitted to the union as time went on. Slave and non-slave states were kept even. The North wouldn't allow a new slave state to join the union unless a non-slave state could also be added, and vice versa. Additional slave states meant political representation for Southern interest. Non-slave state additions meant more representation to Northern interest. If the South signed the Corwin Amendment, then there could be no more additional slave states added, and any other state admitted to the union would politically represent Northern interests. Therefore, the North would have ALWAYS been able to outvote the South on any and every issue.

 

[Pirate96]

The North didn't give a rats behind about the actual enslavement of blacks. They only cared about the political side of it. Both the North and South knew more states would be admitted to the union as time went on. Slave and non-slave states were kept even. The North wouldn't allow a new slave state to join the union unless a non-slave state could also be added, and vice versa. Additional slave states meant political representation for Southern interest. Non-slave state additions meant more representation to Northern interest. If the South signed the Corwin Amendment, then there could be no more additional slave states added, and any other state admitted to the union would politically represent Northern interests. Therefore, the North would have ALWAYS been able to outvote the South on any and every issue.

Why are you backing up the discussion with facts and reason?

That does not fit the narrative. The Civil War was about ending slavery. That is what they want you to believe.

That is the public education narrative.

The in home narrative is making sure the children know the truth about the war of northern aggression.

 

[JoeR]

The North didn't give a rats behind about the actual enslavement of blacks. They only cared about the political side of it. Both the North and South knew more states would be admitted to the union as time went on. Slave and non-slave states were kept even. The North wouldn't allow a new slave state to join the union unless a non-slave state could also be added, and vice versa. Additional slave states meant political representation for Southern interest. Non-slave state additions meant more representation to Northern interest. If the South signed the Corwin Amendment, then there could be no more additional slave states added, and any other state admitted to the union would politically represent Northern interests. Therefore, the North would have ALWAYS been able to outvote the South on any and every issue.

Layman's Terms! Perfect. Thank you. That makes sense, and is a perfectly plausible explanation.

 

[Eric Revo]

If anyone really wants to know what the "North" thought about the people who were slaves in the post-war America read up on the treatment of these "freed slaves" by these same folks after the war. But hurry before that information disappears from history along with much of the other real history from that era.

 

[turkeyfoot]

We have several big flags flying around here no opposition I've heard of but were out in the country. Fly few more near Raleigh give them liberals something to spend there time on hope the flag stays should be there right on private land

 

[RuebenSoady]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Corwin Amendment. To me it seems like quite the bugaboo for anyone claiming the Civil War was over Slavery. I'm no expert, so correct me if I'm wrong.

The Corwin Amendment would have made Slavery legal in every Southern State that currently had it, as long as they didn't secede.
It was supported by both Buchannon and Lincoln. Buchannon even signed it, even though a President didn't have any say in the process.
It was ratified by enough Northern States to make it an Amendment if the Southern States signed it.
It was offered as a fig leaf until it was certain that the north would win the war.

Can anyone offer an explanation for this? How could the war be over Slavery of the North was willing to legalize it if the South didn't secede?

This is and has been always the elephant in the room of those who claim the War was fought by one side to preserve the institution of slavery and by the other, to destroy it.

Slavery as it existed was never threatened. It's expansion to newly acquired territories, was. The South sought it's expansion for their own gain. The North sought to prevent it, to keep the Southern political axis from gaining power. The North, in nearly all things they did sought to suppress Southern influence.

So if the institution of slavery was never threatened as it existed, then how could it alone have driven a nation to war? It never did. That is an over-simplified moral provocation that lives in modern history. The issue was much broader than that.

The truth be known, the war could have started in the 1830's with slavery never having been an issue and it almost happened with South Carolina readying it's Army to fight what they perceived would be an invasion by the Union. The issue started 30 years before the tipping point into War, with the 'Tariff of 1828'. The tariff was meant to place a high protective tax on imports in an effort to strengthen domestic manufacturing in the North. The South, with nearly no manufacturing and relying heavily on trade, saw this as a threat and they were correct. The South provided the majority of European powers with it's cotton supply and thus was able to exchange manufactured and finished goods with said countries, at favorable prices. The Tariff of 1828 caused the prices on these imported goods to increase exponentially. To make up for lost profits, Southern farmers had to charge more for their exports thus lowering demand by causing England and France to look elsewhere for cheaper cotton.

By 1832, South Carolina sought to nullify the Tariff of 1828 saying they would not enforce them in their state. South Carolina threatened hints of secession saying the federal government only existed at the will of the individual states. At that time, Charleston was one of the largest ports in the United States. Congress sought to revise the tariffs but it was too late. South Carolina had already declared that they would enforce neither the tariff of 1828 or 1832, within it's boundaries. South Carolina enacted it's local regiments for what they anticipated was a Union invasion. Ultimately a compromise was met in 1833 in which South Carolina agreed to.

Fast forward to the mid-1850's and a recession was taking it's toll on American manufacturing in the North once more. The American cotton industry was booming, however. Over 80% of the cotton being consumed in Great Britain was grown in the South. 90% of France was using, was grown in the American South, along with 92% of what Russia was taking in. Great Britain once again found itself as Antebellum South's largest trading alliance. Northern 'Protectionism' became a political ploy once more. The Morrill Tariff was presented in 1860 which would raise the tax on imports by 22% instantly and 32% in three years. The South, again being dependent on foreign finished goods, had held the burden of American tariffs, accounting for 85% of tariff revenue for the United States government BEFORE the Morrill Tariff ever became law. The Morrill Tariff was the straw that broke the camels back.

On the 1860 Campaign trail, proponents of the new Republican Party claimed that a tariff increase to strengthen Northern manufacturing was it's single most important platform. In a December 1860 editorial in the Charleston Mercury, with tensions rising upon the upcoming congressional vote on the Morrill Tarriff, a columnist wrote:

'Why, that the Southern States should make another begging appeal to the Northern States, “to preserve the guaranties of the Constitution.” Suppose one man should deliberately violate a compact with another man, every year, for thirty years, and then should give him notice that he intended to kill him—what would be thought of the manhood or the wisdom of the poor oppressed devil, should he go to his oppressor, and beg him “once more” to observe “the guaranties of the Constitution” with him? Would not any unbiased observer, believe him to be an idiot?'

'The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism. To prevent these evils, the South has already delayed thirty-five years.'

Now in direct response to the growing apprehension in the South over the newly elected president known to be a tariff proponent, Abraham Lincoln himself sought to calm the uproar in his inaugural address of 1861:

'Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection.'

On the eve of secession in the Spring of 1861, President Lincoln sought to meet with a delegate of the Virginia Secession Convention. He met with Colonel John Baldwin. Colonel Baldwin in his own memoir advised Lincoln to allow the Gulf States to secede peacefully and rely on the border states (Virginia and NC) to mediate a resolution:

This, Colonel Baldwin showed, could easily be done by a policy of conciliation, without giving sanction to what Mr. Lincoln's administration chose to regard as the heresy of secession I The Government would still hold the Union and the Constitution as perpetual, and the separate attitude of the seceded States as temporary, while it relied upon moderation, justice, self-interest of the Southern people, and the potent mediation of the border States to terminate it. “Only give this assurance to the country, in a proclamation of five lines,” said Colonel Baldwin, and we pledge ourselves that Virginia (and with her the border States) will stand by you as though you were our own Washington. So sure am I, he added, “of this, and of the inevitable ruin which will be precipitated by the opposite policy, that I would this day freely consent, if you would let me write those decisive lines, you might cut off my head, were my life my own, the hour after you signed them.”

Lincoln seemed impressed by his solemnity, and asked a few questions: “But what am I to do meantime with those men at Montgomery? Am I to let them go on?” “Yes, sir,” replied Colonel Baldwin, decisively, “until they can be peaceably brought back.” “And open Charleston, as ports of entry, with their ten per cent. tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?” This last question he announced with such emphasis, as showed that in his view it decided the whole matter. He then indicated that the interview was at an end, and dismissed Colonel Baldwin, without promising anything more definite.

This right here emphasizes how important the tariffs were to Lincoln and his decision to prevent Southern rebellion.

Lastly, I leave you with this piece from President Lincoln in March of 1861:

'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.'

Economic prowess was the absolute driving force in the events that led to the Civil War. It was not slavery. Was slavery a hot social topic leading up to the Civil War? Absolutely. Was it the driving force of the Southern economy? Absolutely. Was it quite possibly the largest moral atrocity in American History? Undoubtedly, but as referenced above, the North had no interests in doing away with it. To say an institution that was not threatened by the top political leaders of the time, was the sole reason for the greatest war in American history, is simply a cop-out to abstain from intellectual discussion.

 

[Einstein]

Good discussion here! I’m glad to see so many who have taken interest in their nations history; most importantly, to make sure things like this would never happen again. I would agree that many factors played into the start of the civil war, and that it turned into a war over slavery, most notably with the emancipation proclamation, which I would also agree, was Lincoln’s intent when he issued it. Partly to also keep England from intervening on the side of the south.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RuebenSoady]

Good discussion here! I’m glad to see so many who have taken interest in their nations history; most importantly, to make sure things like this would never happen again. I would agree that many factors played into the start of the civil war, and that it turned into a war over slavery, most notably with the emancipation proclamation, which I would also agree, was Lincoln’s intent when he issued it. Partly to also keep England from intervening on the side of the south.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is little doubt that once full blown war and secession had taken it's course, that the federal government tried to stick it to the South. None whatsoever, and it only stoked the fire that was already burning. However, the war itself was not lit on the institution of slavery, by either side.

To be fair, I wouldn't say state's rights was the sole issue either.

It was more along the lines of unfair political posturing that pissed off the South.

 

[Weekender]

Excellent reading here, gents. Thanks.

 

[bwfarms]

Guess what flags have in common... politics. People use flags to signify where they stand and is a beacon to attract other supporters.

Someone will always perpetuate the flag to mean something other than the platform. Take for example, that if a person flies a Confederate Flag, they are deemed racist by another faction. I can deem the Rainbow Flag as intolerant even though they proclaim tolerance for all. If they truly were about tolerance, then they would tolerate the people they call racists and their First Amendment right to free expression.

I made my own Flag and boy did I get backlash from all political spectrums. It was my stance of I'm offended by everybody being offended over something that's not really that offensive. I made a Confederate Flag and Raindow Flag commingle.

 

[Soilman]

Hmm. Confederate flag + Rainbow flag. Careful, some folks might take that to be a gay redneck.

 

[bwfarms]

Hmm. Confederate flag + Rainbow flag. Careful, some folks might take that to be a gay redneck.

Ha! If you hadn't mentioned that the thought wouldn't have crossed my mind.

Back to the drawing board.

 

[Wv67]

That flag is racist , and it will come down , or they be some mad hot and tired marchers to be expected I guarantee it LOL ...

 

[Tipmoose]

That flag is racist , and it will come down , or they be some mad hot and tired marchers to be expected I guarantee it LOL ...

Let em march. Its on private property. And an object can't be racist. All Words Matter. So do their definitions.

 

[Mr.Gadget]

Sitting in camp for a shooting competition and there are flags everyplace....