You're the one who's trying to move them goalposts. The rest of us have been consistent all along in stating that the personal motivations of the common soldier are completely irrelevant in determining what the Confederate flag symbolises and so we've chosen to focus on what can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, which is that the secession of the Southern states was done for the cause of slavery. I'm sure you'd like to try and dispute that if you could, but since the 'states rights' thing has been exposed as an obvious red herring by the historical documents you've chosen to fixate upon this one side issue for reasons known best to yourself. It's noteworthy that you haven't even produced one single solitary bit of evidence in support of your own claims btw, so quite why anybody should take anything you say on the subject at face value is beyond me. You've consistently clung onto this 10% figure for slave owners and totally ignored the evidence presented to you that the true figure was actually much more than that. The somewhat laughable reasoning for ignoring it, and for ignoring the fact that those from slave-owning families were 40% more likely to have signed up to fight than the average Confederate citizen, seems to be the ridiculous assumption that nobody would be willing to fight for property that they stand to inherit one day. It's absurd quite frankly.

I don't especially care though, because this is a deadend and nothing that anybody produces in this thread short of resurrecting each and every soldier in the Confederate army and subjecting them to a lengthy interview is likely to convince you anyway.

Your attitude to this question is frankly bizarre and I fail to see what on earth you're trying to prove.

The Red/Blue state divide closely follows the limits of the old Confederacy or adjacent states that had a large influx of Southern immigrants. So clearly the residents of those states inherited a good part of the culture/values that existed in the Confederacy-anti-tax, suspicion of government, state's rights over the federal government, religious, pro-military, pro-gun. So the stand of the Confederacy against an over-bearing federal government is an important symbol (and in their minds has parallels to today) and a part of their cultural heritage for many residents of those Red states. And they don't like it when it is attacked.

In modern society you can't defend slavery. That is why we have this attempt at revisionism which on its face seems kind of silly. Given that the seceding states were so clear as to why they seceded then it's pretty hard to argue why they seceded. So what are we left with? An argument that while the elites with large slave holdings may have engineered the secession itself, the common man fought for other reasons and the noble Confederate soldier can be preserved as part of a proud cultural identity. Tough, out-numbered, no shoes, poorly supplied, not enough to eat--still held off the North and almost beat them. Many people are proud of that heritage and do what they can to separate from the link to slavery--which just poisons the memory/connection.

.Every Confederate soldier fought for his society which included slavery. The poorest white laborer had a higher social standing than any black slave. Given that slaves did the menial work in society,, poor whites did not have to do that (or certainly not as much). So everyone benefited from slave labor in one form or another. And the benefits of slave-holding extended to middle-class families, not just an elite. So a middle-class family might have a slave or two--enough to do household chores, cooking, stuff like that. Every white person in the South benefited from the slave society and everyone (it would be almost impossible even if you were anti-slavery to separate yourself from benefiting from it) had some culpability for it. Northerners might have been racist, but they were not living off of the labors of others. One of the reasons why Northern poor were racist against blacks was that they were concerned about competition from cheap labor.

And since we are not able to interview every Confederate soldier (or any) then we just have to use our common sense. And common sense dictates that in a civil war about slavery those who fought in it knew what the stakes were about. I think the burden is on Southern revisionists to prove that Southern soldiers did not fight for slavery. They cannot meet that burden so the best option is just to muddy the waters.

The Red/Blue state divide closely follows the limits of the old Confederacy or adjacent states that had a large influx of Southern immigrants. So clearly the residents of those states inherited a good part of the culture/values that existed in the Confederacy-anti-tax, suspicion of government, state's rights over the federal government, religious, pro-military, pro-gun.

And yet they used to be staunchly blue states, right up until Lyndon Johnson passed the civil rights legislation...

And since we are not able to interview every Confederate soldier (or any) then we just have to use our common sense. And common sense dictates that in a civil war about slavery those who fought in it knew what the stakes were about. I think the burden is on Southern revisionists to prove that Southern soldiers did not fight for slavery. They cannot meet that burden so the best option is just to muddy the waters.

Indeed. This seems obvious to me, but you've put it much better than I did.

I do understand why people are reluctant to ascribe the causes of the civil war wholly to slavery btw. It's only natural to assume that there must have been loads of factors behind it and to reject what would seem to be overly simplistic explanations. I used to be of that mindset myself, until I came across some people who pointed me in the direction of the facts.

Remember Sass that the reason Southerners did not join the Republican Party for the most part until after 1968 was because that was the party of Lincoln. It was only after 1968, when it was clear that the Republican Party was now more aligned with Southern views on civil rights that they switched parties. (You correctly pointed out Johnson's civil rights legislation as the proximate cause). So the parties might have been changed... but beliefs not so much. So Red/Blue definition might change but the culture didn't change much.

Doctor Fate wrote:That does little to explain the motivations of the average soldier. But, thank you for trying to move the goalposts again.

Because this is not a thread about the motivations of the ordinary soldier. It's about whether it is appropriate in 2015 for governments to fly a flag associated with the Confederacy, with the KKK and with the resistance to Civil Rights. As Sass has said, fixating only on the motivations of the soldiers is moving the goalposts.

Even so, your position on that seems bizarre to me. Just like your claims about black support for the flag. I've seen a video about one black "flagger". She's within her rights, but totally deluded (perhaps that's what a Nation of Islam upbringing does)

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:That does little to explain the motivations of the average soldier. But, thank you for trying to move the goalposts again.

Because this is not a thread about the motivations of the ordinary soldier. It's about whether it is appropriate in 2015 for governments to fly a flag associated with the Confederacy, with the KKK and with the resistance to Civil Rights. As Sass has said, fixating only on the motivations of the soldiers is moving the goalposts.

Even so, your position on that seems bizarre to me. Just like your claims about black support for the flag. I've seen a video about one black "flagger". She's within her rights, but totally deluded (perhaps that's what a Nation of Islam upbringing does)

Okay. Fine.

There is no debate about this: the CSA wanted slavery.

If that's what all these pages were about, then . . . what a bloody waste of time. Everyone KNOWS that.

Well, there are a lot of people who do argue that the war was about state's rights and not slavery...
I think there is an interesting argument about why Confederate soldiers fought and it's kind of an important one, because it ties into how culturally acceptable links or symbols to Confederate soldiers will continue to be. Is it appropriate to put a Confederate bumpier sticker on a car ? Maybe so if you're celebrating the sacrifices of soldiers who gave their life defending their state , not slavery.

freeman3 wrote:Well, there are a lot of people who do argue that the war was about state's rights and not slavery...
I think there is an interesting argument about why Confederate soldiers fought and it's kind of an important one, because it ties into how culturally acceptable links or symbols to Confederate soldiers will continue to be. Is it appropriate to put a Confederate bumpier sticker on a car ? Maybe so if you're celebrating the sacrifices of soldiers who gave their life defending their state , not slavery.

And, that's the discussion I presumed we were having. I have no interest in debating what the official reason for secession was. Clearly, slavery was an ongoing debate in the country, going back to its founding. The Civil War ended that debate.

fate

The Civil War ended that debate

.

Yes. And on one side soldiers fought, knowing that they were fighting to preserve slavery and secede from the union.

And on the other they fought to preserve the union. And to end slavery.

Maybe some soldiers had personal motivations that were different. But they knew what was at stake Fate. They knew what the results of a victory for their side would be...

rickyp wrote:fate

The Civil War ended that debate

.

Yes. And on one side soldiers fought, knowing that they were fighting to preserve slavery and secede from the union.

And on the other they fought to preserve the union. And to end slavery.

Maybe some soldiers had personal motivations that were different. But they knew what was at stake Fate. They knew what the results of a victory for their side would be...

Don't even try to start this debate again. Shut up.

Is that in compliance with Matthew 5:22?

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-5-22/

freeman3 wrote:Is that in compliance with Matthew 5:22?

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-5-22/

Yea, verily.