Subject:
|
Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Feb 2003 04:00:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
716 times
|
| |
|
|
> I would have to argue that Mike isn't quite understanding what he wrote.
> Slavery was central but a secondary issue? No, it is either not central, or
> it wasn't a secondary issue. The chain of events over the previous decade
> makes it fairly clear that slavery was a very central issue. The right to
> secede (politically correct speak for the right to revolt against an
> authority you no longer agree with) was simply the mode of expression. The
> reason is the core (the "why"), not the mode of expression (the "how").
I guess I was thinking something along the lines of Slavery was the reason for
the reason. (as silly as that sounds.)
>
> Now, why an individual may have fought is something else entirely. As Mike
> noted, Robert E. Lee felt a greater loyalty to his state than a central
> government. The state as nation was a much stronger notion, then. The
> common man did not perceive he was fighting for slavery so much as fighting
> for his state (regardless that his state was asking him to effectively fight
> for slavery). And therein lies the anomoly of the Confederate flag: many
> (white) southerners feel it was about states rights, because their ancestors
> fought for their state, not slavery directly, without really facing that the
> state itself had seceded over slavery (directly or indirectly).
Well that was a much better explanation than mine. :-)
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
