Subject:
|
Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:51:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
353 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> Contrary to what most school teachers teach childern, the Civil War was not
> primarily about freeing slaves. Freeing slaves was the secondary purpose
> behind the Civil War. Consider the most famous Confederate General, Robert E.
> Lee. General Lee did not own slaves, he did not believe slavery was right.
Good for Lee. And his biggest claim to fame thereafter was having an
orange car with welded doors named after him.
As of March 21, 1861, Confederated Vice President Alexander Stephens
obviously thought that slavery was a key issue in the war, regardless of
what Lee thought:
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html
Here's one evocative bit:
> > The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions
> > relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst
> > us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
and here's another gem:
> > Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
> > foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the
> > negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the
> > superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.
and another:
> > [The founding fathers, in writing the US Constitution] rested upon the
> > assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy
> > foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and
> > the wind blew."
So claims that the Civil War was not about slavery are either false (as
demonstrated by Stephens) or irrelevant (as demonstrated by the fact that
the abolition of slavery was one of the major effects of the war). William
the Conqueror didn't invade England in 1066 with the intent of changing Old
English into Middle English, but that's one of the big effects. The initial
intent is at best subordinate to the final result.
You can claim all you want about the tariff and the preservation of
states' rights (which, historically, refers to a state's right to eliminate
individual civil rights), but the fact is that slavery was central, at least
in the mind of the Confederate Vice President.
And let's avoid any comments along the lines of "the article is not an
exact transcript," because I think we can all agree that, if the article had
been libelous, Stephens would certainly have contested it.
> Today most people see the [Confederate] flag as a
> symbol of racism and oppression despite its orgins, much as the swastika no
> longer represents the circle of life as it originally did.
So? "Fascinate" originally referred to a phallus-shaped amulet. Does
that mean that every time you find a subject "fascinating," you are in fact
saying that the subject has bewitched you with a phallus?
The origins of a symbol or word or tradition become irrelevant if they are
later supplanted by a much stronger association, whether positive or negative.
> Personally I find it
> rather amusing that so many make a big deal out of the Confederate Flag when
> Louis Farrakan (of all people) thinks it should be left alone as a historical
> reminder. (Go figure.)
Farrakan wants it retained so that we do not forget that the South chose
to disrupt the Union rather than abandon its beloved racist policy of
ownership of other human beings. To that end, his intent is as divisive as
those who want the flag retained out of some sense of Confederate Patriotism.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
