How was the civil war not about slavery?

[jonesy]

To be fair, the swastika was in use long before the nazis perverted its meaning.

And people keep talking like it's thousand years ago or something. If you go to a Hindu temple in Germany today you'll find them adorned with swastikas. Because it's their symbol and they are exempt from the ban by religious reasons. It's a peace symbol.

The Navajo have the Whirling Log. A symbol of healing.

I own a medal of honor from my great-grandfather from the time of our civil war. It has a Freedom Cross on it. Same damn symbol.

The Finnish air force used a Von Rosen cross. And where did Von Rosen get it from? The Viking Fylfot. As a symbol of good luck.

Hitler was a fckin ahole. That's all.

 

[Elf Witch]

I am, and I don't have much issue with that statement.

(To clarify- I'm 100% cool with re-enactors, historical displays & lessons. I judge private displays- guitars, belt-buckles, etc.- on a case by case basis. I am not cool with ANY government issued/approved displays- flying it or flags incorporating it over gov't buildings, recreation areas, and the like; state issued license plates, and so forth, unless they fall into the first category.)

I am not cool with the guy's statement. But I agree with your clarification 100%.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Yay! History! My favorite subject... But why did it have to be the Civil War?

Okay, first off, I love the period of history simply because it is so varied and diverse in opinion, even then. Some background.
Did anyone here know that Illinois, a northern state and Lincoln's home before he entered the presidency had a Slave Clause and that we in Southern Illinois could own slaves IF the job was deemed to be essential to the survival of the region, state, nation and workers could not be found to fill those positions?
There was/is a very famous house known as "The Slave House" where slaves were legally kept to work in the local salt mines. The controversy surrounding it, they were a stop on the underground railroad heading south. (IOW - the one where freed/runaway slaves and freeborn blacks were captured and sent back.)

There is some conjecture as to whether Lincoln was actually against slavery as his official platform was never about abolitionist policies. He hated slavery, but was more concerned with preserving the Union, and if it meant slavery, he was for it. Read the transcripts of the Lincoln/Douglas debates in Southern Illinois and you find the whole approach to debating in this area did NOT match his debating in Central and Northern Illinois which were staunchly abolitionist. We have copies in several of the historical societies and in the county records hall here in Union County.

There are at least 250 known SI residents that fought on the side of the South during the war. (Some reports have Jesse James living in Illinois vice Kentucky when he joined the Southern Army.) BTW I'm related to him (unfortunately). (Illinois is the only "non-slave owning" state in the Union to have an entire regiment in the Southern army. Kentucky and Maryland the other states to have regiments on both sides of the conflict were both slave states (and stars 12 & 13 on the confederate flag).

While Slavery was definitely a factor for most Southern states, it wasn't for all of them. While Louisiana did allow slave owners, their primary reason was taxation and tariffs on trade up and down the Mississippi river. (They didn't feel that the U.S. tariffs garnered enough revenue for the State and wanted to impose local tariffs that were shot down by government officials.)

The issue of "State's Rights" is an interesting one. A majority of the Army of Virginia was made up of non-slave owning poor rural farmers, and homesteaders. However, even they claimed that "their rights" were being violated. The reason, Southern politicians, almost exclusively wealthy slave owners were whipping them into a frenzy (sorry about the poor choice of analogies here but I couldn't think of another.). Most importantly, they were speaking of the ability of a small farmer to gain more land and therefore become a rich land owner (who of course would in turn have the money to then purchase slaves.) But if you look at from their point of view, it's like telling a soon to be college graduate student that their Master's/Doctorate degree is now only good enough for employment at McDonald's. There is now no way for them to ever get out of the hole. Not saying it's right or wrong, but if you were faced with the option of staying poor because the "government" said you can't ever be rich because it's against the law, you'd probably fight too.

So the statement about was the war about slavery..."yes, sort of, maybe" is probably a lot closer than a straight Yes or No - like a lot of things in history it isn't "completely" Black or White (like what I did there?) but a subtle shade of gray. There is an old axiom, "History is written by the winners" (because the losers are rarely still around).

As for the "Stars & Bars", they figure very prominently in this area of the country, lots of rednecks, but it has little to do with the Civil War and more about the spirit of rebellion and freedom. As to it's use, as a part of a State Flag, nix it, as part of history, you better believe it needs to be around.

The problem with flags, any flag can be used to inspire hate. The S&B is used by racial hate groups, but so is the Christian flag (White field, Blue union with a red cross affixed.) and no one bats an eye because (at least in my neck of the woods) that one flies in every church, and there are a lot of churches in this area. (The KKK and the World Church of the Creator are both self-proclaimed "Christian Religious Organizations")

Honestly, I could probably inspire a racial hate group with a Kentucky Fried Chicken flag if I tried hard enough, so I tend to tread lightly around talks of flags as symbols of hate.

 

[gamerprinter]

There is some conjecture as to whether Lincoln was actually against slavery as his official platform was never about abolitionist policies. He hated slavery, but was more concerned with preserving the Union, and if it meant slavery, he was for it. Read the transcripts of the Lincoln/Douglas debates in Southern Illinois and you find the whole approach to debating in this area did NOT match his debating in Central and Northern Illinois which were staunchly abolitionist. We have copies in several of the historical societies and in the county records hall here in Union County.

I'm in Ottawa, Illinois the site of the first Lincoln/Douglas Debate, and the only debate site, that Lincoln lost the debate. Though what he learned of Douglas's platform at that first debate, led him to a change in his own platform, that eventually led him to Presidency.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I'm in Ottawa, Illinois the site of the first Lincoln/Douglas Debate, and the only debate site, that Lincoln lost the debate. Though what he learned of Douglas's platform at that first debate, led him to a change in his own platform, that eventually led him to Presidency.

Yep, Douglas was looking good after that... but not for long.

 

[Chairman7w]

I have a question if you had family who served with Custer would you be ashamed? Even knowing some of the horrible abuses of innocent life that the US Army did in breaking the will of the plains Indians?

Are you ashamed that your own country just 50 years ago put your fellow country men in interment camps just because they were of Japanese ancestry?

The answer to both of those questions for me is Yes.

Custer Question: I think it's a point of shame for all Americans, the way our country treated Indians. No real debate there.

Japanese Internment: I AM ashamed over the actions of my country to put Japanese American citizens in Internment Camps. This country SHOULD be ashamed of that.

I am only ashamed for my actions.

Really? I don't get that. I would be ashamed if my son were a dirtbag thief. Or if my daughter was a racist slut. (I don't have a daughter, just sayin). If you only feel shame for your OWN self, well... okay.

That said, good post and I understand a lot of what you're saying, you make very good points.

 

[Elf Witch]

The answer to both of those questions for me is Yes.

Custer Question: I think it's a point of shame for all Americans, the way our country treated Indians. No real debate there.

Japanese Internment: I AM ashamed over the actions of my country to put Japanese American citizens in Internment Camps. This country SHOULD be ashamed of that.




Really? I don't get that. I would be ashamed if my son were a dirtbag thief. Or if my daughter was a racist slut. (I don't have a daughter, just sayin). If you only feel shame for your OWN self, well... okay.

That said, good post and I understand a lot of what you're saying, you make very good points.

It is kind of complicated how I feel about things in the past. I can see that they were wrong and feel disgust that they happened. But I don't feel shame because I was not alive and there was no way for me to have any ability to effect what happened or even speak out while it was happening.

Now things that happen now is different I can be disgusted at my fellow Americans for things they have done and if I just sit back and do nothing about something I find wrong then I feel personal shame.

I am mother and when my son was a teen he went through a period of acting out even breaking the law. I was angry at him because he had been raised better. But I didn't feel personal shame. Shame is a negative emotion and it means to feel guilty , to feel dishonest. At least that is how I take the meaning of the word. His acting out was not a reflection on how I raised him. He was acting out because he was filled with hurt, anger and suffering from PTSD from being kidnapped when he was eight. All I could do was get him help , stand by him while he dealt with the consequences of his actions. In the end things turned out okay and he grew up to deal with his demons and become a wonderful human being.

Unless you raised your kids badly and didn't teach them right from wrong once they become teens and adults some of their behavior is on them not you. You can be disgusted and disappointed with their behavior but feeling guilty and shameful is counter productive. It is like blaming yourself and asking where did I go wrong. Sometimes you didn't do anything wrong.


I spent a lot of time getting therapy on this learning to deal with the guilt and the lesson I learned was that we can't control everything that happens in life and that guilt and shame are useless emotions that prey on you preventing you from moving forward. There is a big difference between acknowledging you did something wrong and be truly sorry and wallowing in guilt and shame, Which usually moves into self pity.


I take personal responsibility for my actions but I refuse to feel guilty or like I lack honor because of someone else actions.

I don't know if this makes any sense to you.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Sounds to me like you came out the right side of the wrong tunnel. Glad to hear you made it through.

Part of history is that it is easy to apply modern concepts to historical events and judge them on their obvious faults. But, those obvious faults are rarely (if ever) obvious at the time history is being made.

Custer for example was:
(Then) Slaughtered by savages in an ambush while on patrol.
(Now) Avenged by Native Americans for the atrocities of Wounded Knee.
The events never changed but the perception did. It doesn't make the event right or wrong per se, just an event.

That's why history in the US is taught incorrectly in my opinion. History is about people and their stories, not dates and events. The events are merely vehicles and the dates are strictly time keeping devices. The people involved and the stories they convey, shaped by their thoughts are where the tapestries of history are truly woven.

Ask most people when the US was created and they will say July 4th 1776 - which is patently incorrect. The Declaration of Independence was signed on that day, but the battles for revolution were already underway, the continental Army was already established (June 14, 1775) and the post war government was created under The Articles of Confederation. (the first "constitution" of the US that wasn't worth the paper it was written on.)

The US as we know it wasn't founded until 1787 (the final draft of the Constitution), 1788 (the ratification of the Constitution (2/3 of the states signed)) or 1790 (Rhode Island - the 13th and final state to ratify the Constitution.) depending upon how you wish to spin it.

So I'll reiterate my earlier statement "any historical arguments are not black or white but subtle and numerous shades of gray."

 

[billd91]

As for the confederate flag, around my part of NC flying such a flag is little different than flying a NASCAR flag.

It may be used that often, but I certainly see the uses differently. Flying a sports fan flag is different from flying the flag of a defeated and disgraced political entity. Whether or not the motivation for flying the Confederate flag is overtly racist (and I think government buildings doing so clearly is), I can't separate any motivation from wanting to be, fundamentally, a punk on the issue. And given the level of destruction inflicted by the war the secession and Confederacy caused, I find that to be in terrible taste and an insult to the hundreds of thousands of casualties inflicted.

 

[Aeolius]

... I can't separate any motivation from wanting to be, fundamentally, a punk on the issue.

Like the default answer to "The South's gonna do it again!" is "Do what? Lose?"