This is a flag of traitors.
This flag is not some glorious symbol of a glorious age. Instead, it is a reminder that a group of racist elitists once tried to turn their de facto aristocracy into an aristocracy de jure, and were not just willing but eager to overthrow the United States government in order to so.
It is not a symbol of states’ rights, nor was the Civil War a war about states’ rights; “states’ rights” is a feeble attempt at historical revisionism by right-wingers to justify an unjustifiable war, a dishonest means of bringing some false nobility to the atrocities committed by the treasonous Southern states.
This is a flag of traitors. Never forget that, and never let it be forgotten.
Let’s go through this point by point:
1. Slavery, the “aristocracy” to which you refer, WAS ALREADY de jure. It probably would have stayed that way in the South for a good bit longer had the War Between the States not happened.
2. The South never attempted to “overthrow the United States government.” They attempted to remove themselves from its jurisdiction. The two are rather different.
3. “States’ rights” was the central argument for secession. End of story. States’ rights to do what? Have slaves. Now, slavery was not a freestanding issue. It was the foundation of the Southern economy, and of Southern society.
Slavery was (and is) a reprehensible institution and constitutes a crime against humanity. But slavery itself wasn’t the sole reason for the War Between the States. I would highly recommend that anyone interested in the topic read “Secession Debated,” found here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=1xKD6b-w1JMC&dq=secession+debated&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=3Se-S4_bEcH38AaS58WGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
The fact that slavery is represented as the singular reason for the War Between the States rather than as the foundation of larger reasons illustrates the oversimplification of history in this country. It’s a little bit pathetic.
What people also seem to misunderstand about the war of northern aggression is that the whole south-just-wants-to-keep-slavery debate is that it only became a part of the national conversation near the end of the war when northern citizens were themselves growing tired of the war. it was, in contemporary speak, a pr campaign meant to persuade folks in the north that they couldn’t just drop the war, that they were, in fact, fighting a holy war of sorts against an evil empire. people also seem to forget that at this point people of african decent were victims of violence because people were angry they were being drafted to fight a war to end slavery. so, you see, the north doesn’t look so pretty either. ohh, wow, so now they’re just a bunch of bigots who only used the slavery issue to keep people fighting. the truth. ain’t it a bitch. ohh, and Lincoln was more concerned with keeping the union together, not freeing slaves. the emancipation proclamation was also a calculated political move. just so ya know.
Follow @artempleton Subscribe via RSS.
