Dixie Down in Georgia

The AP reports that Georgia has canned its short-lived but much-despised state flag, dubbed a "visual train wreck of words, seals and stars."

The retired flag, created in 2001, replaced the increasingly controversial state flag that prominently referenced the Confederate battle flag's stars and bars (that flag had been adopted in 1956 and was widely understood as a reaction to the burgeoning civil rights movement).

Georgia's brand-new flag went up poles today. It "displays the state's coat of arms and the words 'In God We Trust' on a blue corner in the top left, with three red-and-white stripes to the right."

However, progress on this issue is to be measured in inches, not feet. The new flag still references the Peach State's slave-owning past, drawing its inspiration from the Confederacy's national flag.

Read Georgia's own Charles Oliver on "southern nationalism," a controversial review he wrote for Reason a couple of years back.

Comments

[Sean]

How long until the Dixie Chicks are protested and boycotted for having a name that embodies the confederacy, slavery and racism?

[Jough]

I take it everyone in Georgia believes in God now. Oh well, at least no slave descendants (or yankees transplants) will be offended...

[Steve]

I'm offended. The flag design reminds me of....of....oh, nothing. I'm just offended.

[Ken]

What other country in the world allows the progeny of traitors to display the flag (i.e. Confederate battle flag) under which they pursued rebelion?

[geophile]

I'm pretty sure the Constitution allows for legal cesession in some clause or another, Ken, the stipulation being that it be done without taking hostages. But I do see your point.

[Brian]

As a native Georgian (no longer living there), I am continually perplexed by the flag issue. The battle flag was added in the fifties, as Nick pointed out, primarily to protest Brown v Board of Education.

Now, I'm all for states giving the Feds the finger, but this was perhaps a poorly chosen issue on which to take a stand. Especially 50 years later. Getting rid of the stars and bars was the right thing to do.

That said, all the hand-wringing on both sides has been pretty amazing to me, though. It's a goddamn piece of cloth, folks!

Now I live in Arizona, where we have the coolest state flag in the country; the only controversy I've ever heard about it is over whether the sun is rising or setting. Either way, it's beautiful.

Isn't that nice?

Everyone back home needs to take a deep breath, realize how silly this is, and get busy privatizing Hartsfield Airport.

[joe]

The history of "The South" begins in 1609, meaning there are nearly 400 years of "Southern" history. I always wondered why southerners felt that the flag that only flew for the 4 years of the Civil War was the embodiment of their culture and history. The book review link suggests a good answer: because the concept of The South never existed before slaveowners began to lose the national debate about slavery, and created the confederate movement to defend their interests.

[Kevin Carson]

Geophile:

The right to secession is implied in the nature of the process by which the Constitution was ratified. It was, as James Madison pointed out in Federalist No. 39, ratified by each state as an independent sovereignty, acting for itself alone. It was to acquire force of law when nine states had ratified--but only among those nine states. It would not be binding on any state until its people, assembled in convention, had ratified it. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, remained independent until well into Washington's first administration.

The secession of 1860-61 was carried out by the very same mechanism as the ratification of 1787-88: by popularly elected conventions, with each state acting for itself alone.

I used to display a Confederate flag, as a symbol of state sovereignty. But I finally realized that it had been almost dormant in southern consciousness until the 1950s, when it was resurrected as an anti-integrationist symbol. At that point I took it down. Maybe I'll get a Gadsden Flag or something else less associated with the Good Ol' Boy religion.

Ken:

If the secessionists were traitors, then what were the Federalists of the 1780s, who seceded from the perpetual union of the Articles of Confederation, which could be amended only by unanimous vote?

[James Merritt]

Whenever someone raises the slavery issue, I have to wonder how it is that so many other civilized countries managed to eliminate their own slavery in that general time-period, without resorting to Civil War. I also have read any number of analyses that indicate the slavery economy was collapsing under its own weight and wouldn't last much longer, war or no war, confederacy or no confederacy. What's up with that? Finally, since so few of the Southern combatants were slaveowners, why would they put their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line for fat cats?

I conclude believing that the Civil War was not, at its heart, about slavery, and really WAS more about states' rights, soverignty, and self-determination than explained by the history, written by union-influenced authors, which is taught in our government-run schools. It seems exceedingly unfortunate, that the slavery issue, while clearly important from moral and economic points of view, has, over the decades, come to be accepted as the perdominant driving force behind the War.

One wonders what future Americans will say about the reasons behind the Iraq War. Probably, they'll say it was in revenge for 9-11. The people who, 100 years from now, gently point out that Iraq appeared to have nothing directly (or -- even by a stretch -- indirectly) to do with the 9-11 attacks will probably be shouted down, much as they are today, and much as those who suggested more solid reasons for the Civil War were likely shouted down by abolitionists and those who knew of the war only what they read in the papers.

All that being said, it is pretty clear that the 1950's Georgia flag was a protest against the striking down of discriminatory laws and local government practices, and I have no sympathy for its partisans. I can, however, respect the honor and good intentions of many, e.g., Robert E. Lee, who originally rallied to the Confederate flag. From what I have read of Lee, I think he would have been mortified to see symbols of the Confederacy employed to protest a national push for civil rights.

[joe]

Mr Stinker,

The rebel flag is different from the others you mentioned. The national and state flags stand for places and peoples, and have flown above them in good times and bad, and over many different parties and government systems that were in power. The US flag flew over Patriot troops, and over Lewis and Clark, and over slave ships, and over troops liberating France from the Nazis. It flew over Martin Luther King, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and striking workers in Chicago. The Confederate flag, on the other hand, represents a political movment, a regime, and only flew during the years that the movement was actively working to defeat the US military, in order to prevent the dissolution of slavery.

That was the point of my 1609 comment: that there is no reason to believe that the Confederate flag actually represents southern culture and history and identity, unless you think that culture and that identity are defined by the struggle to destroy the USA, and maintain slavery.

[Mr. Stinker]

"The Confederate flag, on the other hand, represents a political movment, a regime,"

Depends which flag. The battle flag stands for the thousands of young men who perished in battle for causes (not the plural) they thought were just.

"and only flew during the years that the movement was actively working to defeat the US military, in order to prevent the dissolution of slavery."

Your "comic book" version of history is exactly what I question. There were many many factors involved with the War Between The States. Saying "the Civil War was about slavery" is just propaganda.

"It continues for the same reason it was created - to get working class white people in the south to ignore their pocketbook interests, and vote in the manner that the elites want them to."

Commie bullshit. Southern people are not unthinking dolts and racism is not the sole factor of Southern culture. Yes racism and southern nationalism were magnified by the powerful in the past. But regionalism is NOT based on hatred as you state and it shows a northern nationalistic bias on your part to say that.

Mr. Stinker, BS detector up and running

[Mr. Stinker]

edit: The battle flag stands for the thousands of young men who perished in battle for causes (**note** the plural) they thought were just

[bomb bomb]

One more thing for you all to think about. Most of those people I was talking about (racist scum), were not from the South. That is why I came to view that flag as being such a symbol of hatred. Maybe I am wrong, but when I see that flag, I get angry. Can't imagine too many non white people get the warm and fuzzies when they see it either.

[Geno]

James,

or -- even by a stretch -- indirectly

Do you get your news from IHOP? Al Qaeda launched the 9-11 attack. Bin Laden started Al Qaeda largely because of the US troops in Saudi Arabia (and because Saudi picked the US over his muhajadin to defend the Holy Land). The US was there because Saddam took over Kuwait and threatened Saudi to recoup his losses from the Iran/Iraq war.

There's your indirect. Are you mentally challenged or have you just been boycotting any media input for the past 25 years.

If you're a bouncer at a bar, and a drunk nutjob starts a barfight, you have to deal with physical aftermath but never come in contact with the nutjob, What's your call? Does he get back in?

[Mr. Stinker]

bomb: There is a hole in your reasoning. There are some who see the US flag as a "symbol of hate." I was at an event last month where several african-americans refused to stand for the anthem and even spat during it! But this doesn't mean the vast numbers of people who feel differently are automatically racists. Seems like you are letting your hatred of racists blind you.

Mr. Stinker, whose ancestors fought Johnny Reb

[Dee Liverance]

OK, now get ready for the real stars and bars on every pickup truck in Georgia, every bumpersticker, every porch. That'll show 'em whose really in control in Georgia -- the legislators or the millions of Georgians living here.

[Croesus]

Mr. Stinker,

Oddly enough, I am a Southerner (my family has been "Southern" since 1651 I might add). Do I now have the right to label? Or am I just (in the words of Said) an "essentialist" hack? In my mind, your argument is a kin to those who claim "only black people can properly study the history of black people," etc.

BTW, joe, you got the date wrong - its 1607 (if what you are referring to is the founding of Jamestown). BTW, the first slaves came to Jamestown in 1619; there were twenty of them as I recall, and they were brought by a Dutch merchant who was trying to get rid of them. Thus slavery came to the English colonies before Puritanism did (the Puritan's hit that "rock" in 1620).

[Mr. Stinker]

Croesus: Because my argument was regarding your beliefs, your actual geographic proximity and heritage is irrelvent and mentioning it is a dodge. It doesn't matter if you consider yourself a Southerner or not, you are still presenting a Northern Nationalist bias.

Mentioning your heritage and location does not address this, and is a "only black people can properly study the history of black people, etc" type of fallacy.

Mr. Stinker, who doesn't live in the South and is a Northerner by birth

[Croesus]

Mr. Stinker,

You'll have to explain to me how what I have written is part of a "northern nationalist bias." Are you telling me that I am some sort of unthinking sheep, and that somehow I cannot indendently assess the symbolism of the stars and bars? *chuckle*

"Mentioning your heritage and location does not address this, and is a "only black people can properly study the history of black people, etc" type of fallacy."

Actually, by mentioning my heritiage, I was making fun of your comment. You've basically argued that geography dictates what one thinks. If you don't believe me, then let me refresh your memory.

"Southern people are proud to be Southern."

I am a Southerner. I was born and raised in the South. But I do not buy into the "lost cause," quasi-nationalist BS that other Southerners do. Why is that? Because I've a mind of my own. Nor do I buy into the equally non-sensical notion that all Southerners are racist, backwoods idiots. The only person quite frankly who is trying to pigeonhole people, who is trying to force someone to take on a stereotype here is you. You damn arrogant Yankee.

[Mr. Stinker]

" Are you telling me that I am some sort of unthinking sheep, and that somehow I cannot indendently assess the symbolism of the stars and bars?"

Having a bias is not unthinking, but is shortsighted and often leads to incorrect conclusions.

" You've basically argued that geography dictates what one thinks"

Nope and you have totally taken that out of context. My point in post May 9, 2003 12:45 PM was that regional pride does not necessary mean racism.

"I am a Southerner. I was born and raised in the South."

Irrevelent regardless of how many times you bark it like a sea lion.

" But I do not buy into the "lost cause," quasi-nationalist BS that other Southerners do."

Probably because you have an incorrect northern-nationalist bias that assumes all Southern regionalism/nationalism is based on racism and the poor working class whites are too stupid to know this.

"Why is that? Because I've a mind of my own."

So then, Southern nationalists/regionalists do not?

" Nor do I buy into the equally non-sensical notion that all Southerners are racist, backwoods idiots."

But you do belive that poor white working class Southerners are just dupes who can't distriguish that regionalism is just racism and a scam by the mythical Elites. This is unfair to poor white working class Southerners and irrational.

"The only person quite frankly who is trying to pigeonhole people, who is trying to force someone to take on a stereotype here is you."

Nope.

"You damn arrogant Yankee."

Actually I am neutral on the whole southern regionalism idea, as I don't live there. But it is too much fun to expose the poltically correct irrationality of some the arguements against it.

Mr. Stinker, Yankee

[GP]

I think there is more to the modern pervasiveness of "southern nationalism" than saying the root is merely "we/you/the south Lost."

Personally, I think a more apt factor is Reconstruction (the failure of) and the subsequent eras of Southern neglect.

One only has to look at the great infrastructure disparity among the *majority* of southern vs. northern cities, as well as the fact that while great effort was made 'industrializing' the North the South was left to toil in agrarian misery still held hostage by textile tariffs and imports which eventually led to the collpase of the Southern textile industry upon which a majority of the Southern economy was based (Also noting same problems with farming, esp. tobacco).

I think post-Civil War the South was Left Behind by the North and the Western expansion like an ESL kid in AP English, and the majority of Southerners both black and white *feel* this slight deeply and gravitate toward the notion of "Southern Nationalism" because of these facts-the ramifications of which are still playing out.

Maybe that's why Southerners wear the "Southerness", if you will, like a badge of honor, and why Southerners still feel a srong loyalty to their State first and Country second.

At least thats why I fly not the Confederate flag, not the US flag, but the SC state flag.

I feel grounded in the common struggle of ALL South Carolinians (black and white) more than anything else.

GP

[Croesus]

"Having a bias is not unthinking, but is shortsighted and often leads to incorrect conclusions."

Well, you've yet to establish that such a bias exists. Nice tryt though to sneak around that requirement.

"Nope and you have totally taken that out of context. My point in post May 9, 2003 12:45 PM was that regional pride does not necessary mean racism."

Bullshit. Your claim clearly implies that people from regions think one way and only one way. Don't try to weasel out of the neccessary implications of your argument.

"So then, Southern nationalists/regionalists do not?"

No, they simply differ in their opinion. I believe their opinion is wrong-headed, however.

"But you do belive that poor white working class Southerners are just dupes who can't distriguish that regionalism is just racism and a scam by the mythical Elites. This is unfair to poor white working class Southerners and irrational."

Hmm, not quite sure where you are getting this from, but what the hell. Oddly enough, the Piedmont areas of the South were the least likely to be in favor of seccession, that is the same areas which were populated most by poor or at best middling prosperous whites (its unfortunate that you are not more historically literate). I do love how you try to put words into my mouth. Nothing I have written implied the contents of this comment of yours.

"Actually I am neutral on the whole southern regionalism idea, as I don't live there. But it is too much fun to expose the poltically correct irrationality of some the arguements against it."

Actually, your position is try to paint people into stereotypes. And that is your sole and entire purpose.

[Croesus]

GP,

Well, part of the myth of Southern "nationalism" is that Reconstruction was a horribly oppressive affair, with tens of thousands of Union troops enforcing the demands of the North. Nothing is farther from the truth.

Southerners for the most part created their own isolation.

[Mr. Stinker]

"Well, you've yet to establish that such a bias exists."

Nope, I did. The bias is assuming regionalism (which is Southern 'nationalism' in reality as only an irrelvent fringe of Southerners today adocate a seperate nation) is based on hatred.

you wrote >>Racism, regionalism, and other political stances based on hatred>It continues for the same reason it was created - to get working class white people in the south to ignore their pocketbook interests, and vote in the manner that the elites want them to.

[joe]

Mr. Stinker, I wrote those lines about Southern regionalism being based on hatred of Yankees, and about it being used by political elites to line up support among poorer white people who didn't share with them any other political concern. I stand by both of these sentiments, and consider your need to twist their meaning in order to refute them to be pretty good evidence of their accuracy.

[Croesus]

you wrote >>Racism, regionalism, and other political stances based on hatred

you wrote >>It continues for the same reason it was created - to get working class white people in the south to ignore their pocketbook interests, and vote in the manner that the elites want them to.

You are now a liar. I wrote no such thing, you stupid jackass. It would be nice if you didn't have to make shit up.

[Croesus]

Mr. Stinker,

Oh, you are not a liar, you are simply too stupid to differentiate between two different posters. *LOL* Stinker, I really don't know who is more of an idiot - you or joe.

[joe]

Croesus, why am I an idiot? The only thing you've disagreed with me about is the date of the Jamestown landing, as far as I can tell.

[JoseyWales]

While the new Georgia flag is a good compromise, the Gods of Political Correctness won't be satisfied, I'm afraid. Someone somewhere is always going to be offended.

What's next, the Texas flag? Do a google search on Bonnie Blue and lone star flag. Confederacy, southern, secession.

[geophile]

Thanks for the info Kevin. I've got to bone up on the Federalist. Not to mention my spelling. ("cecession"? ugh.) The Gadsden Flag is a good choice, though some may unfortunately view it as standoffish. Likewise with the Old Cannon Flag. (Most will write this one off as too Second Amendmentish, but it remains a lovely, curtly-phrased rejection of state-sanctioned power-grabs in general.)

I'm trying to figure out the connection of a short story titled "The Cask of Amontillado," by Poe, to the American rebellion. In it, a character mentions his family crest, described as picturing a snake being trod upon, while biting the foot on the heel, imagery similar to Gadsden. The motto, the character states, is "Nemo me Impune Lacesset," a motto that, according to a website recently linked to from H&R, appeared on an early $20 bill, and proffers a sentiment (roughly) similar to "Don't tread on me." I haven't read the story in years, but reading the history of the Gadsden Flag made me remember it, now I've got a mini-mystery on my hands.

[Croesus]

JoseyWales,

I believe the Germans should swtich their flag to that of the Nazi flag of WWII. After all, that was the period of greatest German strengthen in modern times, and a period full of high German national spirit. So what if a few Jews are offended. The flag after all has several meanings, they ought to just get used to it. If they don't, well they are just being politically correct ninnies.

[Mr. Stinker]

Ah the Johnny Rebs versus the Emanicpators. Does anyone want to debate minarchism versus anarchism too? Been a while since I beat a horse to death...

[joe]

James,

"I have to wonder how it is that so many other civilized countries managed to eliminate their own slavery in that general time-period, without resorting to Civil War." Because anti-slavery forces rose to the political fore, and stamped out the practice. Seeing that this was beginning to happen in America, the slaveowning class in the South decided to preempt this eventuality by waging a war of secession.

"Finally, since so few of the Southern combatants were slaveowners, why would they put their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line for fat cats?" He he he he he he he. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "rich man's war, poor man's fight?" Political elites, seeking their own advantage, have proven to be very adept at getting the masses to go along by appealing to notions of patriotism, solidarity, and divine sanction.

Geno, your bouncer metaphor is the strongest justification for this war I have seen. I'm still an anti-, but Bravo.

[Croesus]

"Whenever someone raises the slavery issue, I have to wonder how it is that so many other civilized countries managed to eliminate their own slavery in that general time-period, without resorting to Civil War."

You'll find that the end of slavery in both the British, French and Spanish colonies was precipitated by significant conflagrations. Take France, for example - slavery didn't end on the most profitable patch of earth in the 18th century (St. Domingue - now Haiti) until twenty plus years of warfare had ended (Napoleon lost 30,000 troops over that real estate for example, his worst wartime defeat). Or take Britain, there slavery didn't end until it spawned massive civil unrest on the British mainland (some of the largest civil demonstrations in British history were over the end of the slave trade and salvery itself) and open revolt by the slaves in places like Jamaica and Barbados. Spain's loss of her colonies in the early 19th century was related to several slave revolts and those people like ZBolivar who encouraged them. Cuba, her "loyal" and most profitable colony in the late 19th century, was racked with nearly twenty years of war that was little more than a slave revolt at times from 1878 to 1898. The idea that slavery ended the rest of the Western hemisphere by the stroke of a pen or with little violence is a canard - hundreds of thousands of people died in efforts to end or prop up slave holding regimes throught the 19th century, and the American Civil War was merely one chapter in that saga.

[Phil]

"I conclude believing that the Civil War was not, at its heart, about slavery, and really WAS more about states' rights, soverignty, and self-determination than explained by the history, written by union-influenced authors, which is taught in our government-run schools."

If you ever get around to reading the Confederate constitution, the declarations of secession by the various states, and their amended state constitutions, you'll see that they were all quite upfront about *exactly* which state right it was that they wished to preserve. And it wasn't the right to sip mint juleps.

That is not to say that I don't think states should not have the right to secede -- I think they should -- but that the Southern secessions were performed in the service of a warped, perverted principle, one entirely at odds with any notion of libertarianism: The principle that nonwhite races were not human beings and that they should be owned by whites.

[Ralf Goergens]

It looks like they incorporated the EU's flag into theirs. Weird.

[Croesus]

Phil is correct in assertions about the declarations of seccession. I know you can find Georgia's and South Carolina's on-line if anyone would care to read them.

[Kevin Carson]

Phil,

I would qualify your statement by saying that, not slavery as such, but the class interests of the slavocracy and their social system, were the reason for secession. South Carolina's threat to secede in the 1830s was over the single issue of the tariff, but that issue threatened the interests of the planter class in the same way that Lincoln's policies on slavery in the territories did.

And the issue is complicated still further by the fact that the conventions of four states in the upper South initially refused to vote secession over the election of Lincoln, but did vote to secede over Lincoln's call-up of the militia against the Confederacy in April 1865. I happen to live in one of those states, Arkansas.

And regardless of the reasons the ruling class adopted secession as their policy, thousands of ordinary soldiers fought under the Battle Flag for the simple reason that a foreign army was on their soil: As Shelby Foote quoted one of them, "We're fighting because you're down here."

[bomb bomb]

This is the first time in my life that I have ever posted a comment, please forgive me if it isn't the smoothest ever.

I readily admit that I know very little about the Civil War or its causes. But I would like to add one more point to this conversation.

People can say that all that flag is representing is "Southern Heritage" or some other garbage, but what it really means is "I am a racist". The Stars and Bars are an indefensible symbol of hatred, and it should not be a part of any State display.

I don't say this becase of some study I read. I say this because in my life, and I am now in my late 30's, I have known about a dozen people who like to fly the Stars and Bars. Every single one of them is a racist scum bag. Every single one of them. I seriously doubt that those folks who I came to know are the only ones who love that disgusting rag that are racist. Those who love the Symbols of the Old South are hate filled vermin.

[Mr. Stinker]

"The Stars and Bars are an indefensible symbol of hatred, and it should not be a part of any State display."

Thanks for your post. I am now in process of charging my local civil war reenactors with hate crimes. They MUST be stopped! History must be erased!!!

Mr. Stinker, not a racist

[bomb bomb]

I think you missed my point Mr. Stinker. I will attempt to clarify it.

I was talking about a State using part of a symbol of hatred in their display, not Civil War reenactors or anyone else.

I call it a symbol of hatred because I know, personally, several people who fly that flag, love that flag, and they happen to be racist scum. They are not civil war reenactors. They are not history buffs. Just morons who hate people for the color of their skin.

It is because of what these jerks believe that gives me the opinion that it should not be a part of any State flag.

I also know some civil war reenactors. Some of them in a confederate unit. They don't have that flag plastered all over their pickup, they don't fly it 24/7.

[Croesus]

Well, its hard to say that the Stars & Bars don't have a lot of rascist/slavery baggage associated with them. Of course, like most symbols, it does have multiple meanings (Southern nationalism is an alternate meaning of course), but the idea that one should view it as an object which is race neutral is absurd. It is the flag of a government (just like the American flag) which defended slavery. One really cannot divorce this from its nature; its fixed in a way that slavery is not fixed in the flag of the US partly because the US eventually helped throw off the chains of the slave holders.

A state can pick whatever flag it wants; and of course Americans can fly the stars and bars all they want to. But the idea that the flag itself cannot be associated with the slave-holding nation that it symbolized is absurd.

[GP]

I just read Oliver's essay "Southern Nationalism", and there is a question I had hoped he would eventually address in the piece but did not.

This excerpt:

"Sinha traces the growth of Southern "nationalism" -- that is, a sense of the South as a distinct region with a common culture and set of political priorities that were in conflict with the rest of the U.S...."

and surrounding context sets forth the *growth* of "southern nationalism" circa 1860 (and defines the concept quite well in my opinion), however what one is left wanting is a discussion about why/how "southern nationalism" is still so pervasive today, noting that there are varying degrees of "southern nationalism" ranging from the very genteel (think mint juleps and shrimp and grits) to the very extreme (think neo-confederate organizations).

Any thoughts?

[Croesus]

GP,

Because they lost. 🙂 Think of Irish nationalism. Look at how many times from the 12th century onward the Irish got their asses kicked by the English. Yet despite every humiliation, Irish nationalism and Irish national identity remained a constant. In fact, one could say that it was forged in the fires of that persecution and humiliation. There is nothing better than adversity (save perhaps overwhleming success) to create cohesive social groups based on a shared national myth. 🙂

It is not generally known that the notions of the "lost cause," of the "War of Northern Aggression," of the "happy slave," of the lost patriarchal world of bliss, were quickly invented or expanded within a year or so of the close of Civil War (in fact, as I recall, the term "lost cause" was coined in the early months of 1866).

[Mr. Stinker]

"But the idea that the flag itself cannot be associated with the slave-holding nation that it symbolized is absurd. "

Yeah but so can the US flags or even the original state flags. The US flag is also stained with blood of native americans and incinerated japanese. Slavery was definately part of the Southern mentality and pride, but not ALL of it. I think it is shameful that people try to brand regional pride as being "secretly racists" or other nonsense.

Southern people are proud to be Southern. New Yorkers are proud to be New Yorkers. Texans fly the lone star flag with pride, which probably could be interpreted for being pro-slavery and anti-Mexican. All I am saying is that Flag-banners have agendas, and belive me these agendas are a hell of a lot more anti-libertarian than some ignorent good-ole boy redneck.

Mr. Stinker, not Southern

[joe]

GP -

It continues for the same reason it was created - to get working class white people in the south to ignore their pocketbook interests, and vote in the manner that the elites want them to.

Racism, regionalism, and other political stances based on hatred of the Other tend to dissipate over time through people's natural interaction. When the would doesn't heal, it's because somebody has been picking at it.

[James Merritt]

"There's your indirect. Are you mentally challenged or have you just been boycotting any media input for the past 25 years." -Geno

Somebody must have given their drug test sample in Geno's Cheerios this morning. The line of "reasoning" he gives me: Saddam threatened Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, so we went in to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and because WE WERE THERE to fight Saddam, Osama (a Saudi) founded Al Qaeda to kick our butts out of the Saudi holy lands, culminating in the 9-11 attack. Therefore, by forcing us to protect Saudi Arabia because he was attacking Kuwait and threatened the Saudis, Saddam was "indirectly" responsible for 9-11, justifying our invasion of his country and his subsequent ouster at our hands.

That is the most tortured, specious "connection" I have seen in years. A five year old, trying to foist blame for a broken cookie jar onto the neighbor boy's sock puppet, could not do any better. Geno, you are no James Burke.

As a matter of fact, I, like most everyone it seems, am awash in media input. Much of it, however, brings light in inverse proportion to the sensationalistic heat it generates. Much as Geno's post did here.

[Patrick]

THE BEST THOUGHT IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD WAS THIS:

Stop picking at the wound. Move on.

Northerner, take a young Georgia peach in your arms and kiss her -- passionately. Southerner, find a good Philly steak and take a big, scrumptious bite out of 'er. South Carolinian, go to a good party in Illinois. New Yorker, go see what that Southern Charm is all about in Alabama.

BOTTOM LINE -- HERE'S THAT GREAT THOUGHT:

"Racism, regionalism, and other political stances based on hatred of the 'Other' tend to dissipate over time through people's natural interaction. When the wound doesn't heal, it's because somebody has been picking at it."

(Thank you for saying it, Joe.)

[James Merritt]

Croesus says, "Or take Britain, there slavery didn't end until it spawned massive civil unrest on the British mainland (some of the largest civil demonstrations in British history were over the end of the slave trade and salvery itself) and open revolt by the slaves in places like Jamaica and Barbados."

James says, "civil unrest," even of the serious sort, is not in the same league as our Civil War. I never said that slavery dissipated like morning dew. Only that most countries I ever read about (and yes, I did pay attention in history classes), managed to eliminate slavery without a terrible Civil War of the kind we fought. If you want to compare the death throes of slavery elsewhere in the world and say that those were as bad or worse as our Civil War, then I'd love to see your facts and reasoning.

But let's not dance around it. I do believe that slavery could have gone away more gently than made possible by our Civil War. Whether or not the average fighting southerner was gulled into fighting by the appeals to his confederate patriotism and desire for southern autonomy, which were made by slaveowning elites so they could keep owning slaves, I still think the average southerner at least THOUGHT that he was fighting for quite a bit more than the perpetuation of slavery, much as we today THINK (or at least say in public) that we are fighting to end dictatorship and promote democracy in Iraq. What will future generations say the Iraq war was REALLY about?

[James Merritt]

"If you ever get around to reading the Confederate constitution..." -Phil

Oh, but I have. And the Articles of (US) Confederation, for good measure! I'll cop to not having the free time necessary to have read all of the southern states' declarations of secession. But I'm not surprised if they all upheld slavery. As I said, that was an important consideration, certainly from the economic point of view at very least. As someone who HAS read the Constitution of the CSA, biographical works on Lee and Davis, and any number of other historical articles, then strained all that material through the filter of common sense and life experience, I just don't buy that THE reason, the BIG reason for the Civil War, was the question of slavery's perpetuation or elimination. That's the one that resonates emotionally with people, then as now, and I believed it when I was my sixth-grade son's age. But I grew older, read more, talked with people, and had to make a few life choices of my own. The farther I travelled down the road of life, the more the pat "slavery" justification rang false.

Let's suppose that the South had won the war, at least in the sense of not being defeated by the North, and continuing on as the CSA. Do you not think that the hundreds of thousands of average southerners who thought they were NOT fighting for slavery might have ended up a potent political force in the postwar CSA, adding to the economic forces already in play, to end slavery even in an independent South? From what I're read of history, there was already serious talk of an "end-of-life" to slavery, even among those who founded the Confederacy!

Some here have suggested that the average fighting southerner was duped by the slaveowning fat cats into fighting on the "side of slavery." But it seems just as reasonable to say that Northern interests whipped up antipathy to slavery to achieve their own economic ends, which a successfully seceded South would surely thwart. There were elites on both sides, you know. Why should Northern boys fight and die, just to keep states in the union that no longer wanted to be there? Why not just let 'em go? But if the motivation was to free the slaves, to fight the great holy war, with the bonus being that the union would be preserved and the secessionists would be humbled, then hey, that sounds like the makings of a real war!

In a strange way, then, I suppose I can agree that the war was "about" slavery -- not necessarily in the sense that the South was willing to fight and die to preserve it, but in the sense that the North was willing to use that as the excuse to press for the total defeat of the South, up to and including Sherman's original "shock and awe," "scorched earth" tactics.

[Anonymous]

Croesus, I suggest you do a google on "St Andrew and Confederate flag". Don't hand me any Nazi crap you pussy.

[Croesus]

Anonymous Poster @ 06:07 AM,

I am not a pussy, but I sure do like pussy. 🙂

James Merrit,

"Only that most countries I ever read about (and yes, I did pay attention in history classes), managed to eliminate slavery without a terrible Civil War of the kind we fought."

Ok, let me be more blunt. A few hundred thousand people died over the issue of slavery in St. Domingue (30,000 French soldiers, tens of thousands of British soldiers, with the balance in the blood of the slaves themselves) - creating the first truly successful slave revolt in the history of the Americas. In Jamaica, the slave revolts there cost the lives of thousands - slaves and masters - before the final revolt in 1832-1833 convinced the newly reformed Parliament that slavery had to end post haste before every Caribbean possession ended up like Haiti. In Cuba slavery was only ended after twenty years of viscious, red in the tooth warfare (famous for its use of concentration camps, where thousands starved to death). Throughout Latin America, the fight against slavery melded with the fight for independence (in fact, w/o the support of revolting slaves, Bolivar, etc. would likely not have been able to defeat the Peninsulares and the Spanish armies which supported them), and the cost of these wars was at least over 100,000 lives. These were the most propserous slave-holding areas of the Americas (St. Domingue, for example, made more money in a year for the French monarchy, than all of the possessions of Britian combined in the Americas did for the British crown for example - which is why Napoleon spent so much money and blood trying to re-claim it and re-inslave its population), by far more prosperous per acre than even the most prosperous lands of the black belt in Mississippi and Alabama. They weren't sideshows.

The American experience with the ending of slavery is NOT unique, despite the apparent American need to paint it so. Nearly every major slave holding nation in the Americas ended this institution at the barrel of a gun (this includes Cuba, St. Domingue, Venezuela, Columbia, Jamaica, etc.).

[Student]

Man! Croesus! You sure seem to know your history! Where do you get your sources? (I'm sure it wasn't Microsoft's Encarta.)

I had no idea the French and Spanish emancipators did all that without an Abraham Lincoln.

Could you give us some links?

[Adrian]

Correction to earlier posts: The Confederate battle flag IS NOT THE STARS AND BARS. The Stars and Bars was the national flag that our new flag here in Georgia is based on. The "X" flag is identified by the term "Confederate battle flag."

The Stars and Bars is not very recognizable as being Confederate here. I have never seen it flown, but I have seen thousands of battle flags in this state. Why do you think that our pre-1956 flag, based on the Stars and Bars, was changed to the battle flag in 1956 (on the occasion of desegregation or the Confederate centennial or whatever reason), when it was already based on a Confederate design?

Nick Gillespie is concerned, though: 'However, progress on this issue is to be measured in inches, not feet. The new flag still references the Peach State's slave-owning past, drawing its inspiration from the Confederacy's national flag.'

This should not be a problem considering that the Stars and Bars was based on the UNITED STATES FLAG. Red and white, blue field in the corner... hmmm...

[Adrian]

Another note: The new Georgia flag is a product of good old-fashioned American compromise. The new design is technically based on a Confederate flag, so the heritage fanatics should be happy, though it is not recognizable as a Confederate symbol, so those that don't want to honor the Confederacy should be happy with the innocuous design. (And joe above said it well. The confederacy was only four years. Get a grip already.)

[J.Lafitte]

From the way people seem to react so emotionally over a piece of cloth flapping in the wind, you'd think it depicted a skull and cross-bones that'll jump out and attack them.

Do get a grip, indeed!

(You, too, Bomb-Bomb.)