The Institute (協会)

Initially there is a part of me that feels like flying the Confederate flag is not equivalent to flying a Swastika. Perhaps this is because I grew up in the North where Confederate flags are rarely flown. I don’t think most Northerners fully understand the connotations of such a symbol. If I remember correctly, I think I even gave a Confederate flag to one of my cousins as a joke once for his birthday. The more I think about it, though, the more I agree with you. The Confederate flag, like the Swastika, has no place on flag polls in public view. I think we can honor the heritage of the Confederate flag just fine by placing on the walls of history museums where it belongs and should stay.

Flying the Confederate flag is insensitive due to all of the individuals who do not have enough education to know that the Civil War was fought over states' rights just as much as if not more than slavery.
This applies most of all to the Southern white folk who defended their privilege through the '60s and long for it still.
Isn't it a bit trite for Christians to take offense at a symbol though? If the Swastica symbolizes fascist statism, the hammer and sickle symbolize communist statism, the stars and bars symbolize confederate min-archist statism, and the union jack symbolizes federalist statism, which ought we to prefer? Or, rather, which ought NOT to be offensive? All represent an idol of the state which generates arbitrary laws according to its whim in the place where only the true law-giver who Himself embodies that law ought to stand.
"My true allegiance is not to a flag a country or a land, but to a King and a Kingdom." - Derek Webb

Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Anthony,

By way of clarification, are you saying it "shouldn't" be flown as a matter of etiquette and decency, or are you saying that it should be illegal?

I will say that as a southerner I am proud of the MILITARY accomplishments of my forefathers, and ashamed of our racist past and present. Having said this, I don't have a problem with that flag because it isn't a social commentary but a symbol of great military heroism and valor to me. For the reasons you have enumerated above, I would never fly one in my yard or hang one in my house.

BTW...Mr. Snow above is totally on the money with his assessment.

Responding to the Derek Webb quote above, Webb draws a false dichotomy between "true allegiance" to flag/country/land and to a King/Kingdom. Submitting to the governing authorities is in no sense a "false allegiance" - it is a "true allegiance." What he probably means is that allegiance to the United States (or any country) is not an ultimate allegiance that will survive the Resurrection. Until then, the political system that God has instituted in our country is God's good, imperfect gift to us (as other countries' systems are for their citizens).

And no, the Confederate flag should not be flown. It's not threatening like cross-burning or nooses, but it is morally and historically obtuse.

i'm sorry Nathanael, but i think your anti-statist disposition (with which i often sympathize) has caused you to misunderstand the kind of government represented by the Confederate flag. The Confederate flag does not represent "min-archist statism," rather it represents white supremacy. Alexander Stephens, the V.P. of the Confederacy admitted as much in his Cornerstone Speech in Savannah, Georgia in 1861 when he declared that "[o]ur new government is founded 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." [Applause.]

So "NO!" the Confederate flag is not about minarchism, or tarrifs, or heritage, or Christendom, or military accomplishment. While this may be what people would like the Confederate flag to mean to them, this requires a great deal of historical revisionism. Ancestor worship and (willful?) historical ignorance are two big reasons why many don't view the Confederate flag the same way they view the swastika. Jewish people really don't give a damn about "what the swastika means to me." Private interpretations are not tolerated. And the same should be true for the Confederate flag.

Growing up in Chattanooga, Tennessee, I remember when racial tensions were very high, somewhere in the late '60's, early '70's. The tensions culminated in a curfew with the National Guard enforcing it. One particular event I remember from the local news at that time: along Brainerd Road, there was a huge demonstration, with black people on one side, white people on the other. The white people were carrying the confederate flag. One particular high school at the time, Brainerd high school,they were called the Rebels and flew the confederate flag at their school. I think they've changed that. Anyway, I don't think people carrying the confederate flag, or the people across the street watching them, or those of us watching on t.v. at that time looked at those flags as a proclamation of "heritage". To me, as a young teenager at the time, it seemed an obvious offense directed at the black community.

I grew up in Chattanooga, TN, too.

I understand that the swastika was used as a Christian cross. There are mosaics, paintings, etc. that show it on cathedrals, stoles, etc. in the Middle Ages. I once saw it in the corner of a very old Christian painting (I forget the content of the painting). However, the symbol has come to mean something quite different. You cannot go back and claim it again.

The Confederate flag may have stood for something good at one time. I don't really want to argue about that much. I think these arguments miss the point. However, the Confederate flag is a powerful symbol of racism now, just like the swastika (which used to be a symbol of good).

Education and knowledge of the history of the symbol does not change its current meaning.

For the sake of freedom of speech, I think Confederate flags should be legal . . . just like heresy and blasphemy are legal.

I like that perspective, William. I also think that people should have some sensitivity on both sides: don't fly the battle flag for the sake of others, understand that flying the flag doesn't always imply racism.

One thing I've always found bizarre is that it is the battle flag that caught on, not the actual flag of the CSA. Kind of weird.

Anthony - tangent - but since you're talking about GOP candidates it kind of fits. What're your thoughts on Huckabee? I haven't seen anything about him on your blog but a lot of younger evangelicals are supporting him. He made some good numbers after the YouTube/CNN debate last night. Thoughts?

I was just about to ask the same exact thing Dave, thanks for doing it for me!

anthony - I think Dave and Mark are baiting you. Good chance they are some young college repubs looking to rouse some blog activity for their candidate of choice.

Hey William, the swastikas you see on European paintings are actually there as a result of Nazi revisionism. The Nazis went through centuries of German art in an attempt to root their use of the swastika in the authorities (church, Goth warriors, etc.) of German history. It's a little disturbing that they were so successful, actually.

randomguy,
I am not proud of military accomplishments of my forefathers, though I might have plenty of reason to be. I am proud of their valor and courage founded on justified motivations. They may have been lied to regarding their government’s motivations, but I believe that most men who go to war do so for the right reasons. Most governments that go to war do so for the wrong reasons.

tusc0n raider,
I happily submit to governing authorities, I just don’t expect them to do any good. I do not identify myself with the government that is over me, but with the people I live among and my role as ambassador of Christ to them.

Christopher,
If Alexander Stephens used white supremacy to motivate some of his constituents to support war it does not necessarily follow that it was the reason most confederates went to war (see comments to randomguy above). I do not intend to condone the exhibition of an offensive symbol. I merely seek to provoke thought about symbolism in general, and to forward the thesis that all centrally organized government is pagan in nature.

The Union soldiers were similarly misguided into believing that slavery was the issue, when it was more about Federalism and securing the supremacy of the executive branch. A whole lot of people died on both sides.

I’m opposed to rhetoric which inflates Federalism at the expense of liberty.
I want to re-iterate that each nationalist flag represents an idol. We can compare which idols have wrought the most evil: Nagasaki? Hiroshima? Gettysburg? Stalingrad? Iwo Jima? We ought to agree at least on the fact of their being idols.

I'm not sure what difference you see between those who rule and those who submit... The government is made up of people who hold earthly authority from God.

More importantly, "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good." (Romans 13:3-4) So it seems you should expect the government to do some good after all.

tusc0nraider,
Fair enough. But should Christians deliberately make use of political mechanisms to achieve uniquely Christian ethical mandates? No.

I expect God to do good in spite of me and you and all the governments of the world, because He said He would. I expect Him to achieve His decrees through government based on Romans 13. That does not mean that it is right for Christians to accept statism in any of its various forms.

We submit to authorities in spite of them, not in abeyance. We submit in order that we may heap burning coals on their heads.

I favor judicial min-archism because I believe in law and procedural development of law rather than arbitrary legislated law. I believe the Biblical and historical records show the moral supremacy of such a position.

As a Christian I believe the church is the only legitimate collective on earth, that self-interestedness is the best we can expect with consistency from unbelievers, and that Christians are fundamentally different in their human nature as a consequence of regeneration.

So, I expect self-interestedness from politicians. I expect altruism from the church. May the two remain separate.

It's worth noting that Georgia put the "Southern Cross" on its flag, and South Carolina started flying it from its capitol building, in part due to a federal government request that the states commemorate the Civil War on the centennial of that event. It's also worth noting that the battle flag presided over only four years of slavery; Old Glory presided over nearly a century of the same, and presided as well over Jim Crow for another century. Further, the Klan itself used mostly Old Glory, not the Southern Cross, until the 1950s. It still uses Old Glory.

Should we then tear down that racist banner from every flag-pole? Sorry, but real history is a wee bit more complicated than what the "race hustling poverty pimps" (thanks Walter Williams) would tell you.

Heritage speaks for its self. Those who have a problem with the Confederate flag need a history education. Those who have a problem with this have the REAL problem..stupidity.

I don't think it should be illegal to fly the confederate flag. i don't think it should be illegal to fly any flag no matter other peoples view on it. I personally am very proud of my forefathers who carried that flag and charged into battle with it. For all you people who think that the "civil war" was about slavery, do you really think that every southron man who joined the army, knowing that most of them will die, were financially interested in the war? I read an earlier comment about how the vice president of the Confederate States Of America said that whites were supperior to blacks, well abraham lincoln also felt this way. In an 1858 debate lincoln made the following statements, "...I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." so "lincoln the great emancipator" changed his opionion two years later and fought a war over it? the war for southron independence was not over slavery, the lincoln administration feared that either Great Britain, or France would help the Confederate States, so they passed the emancipation proclamation mainly as a political statement. ( If canada passed a law in current day saying that abortion is illegal in the united states, do you really think that people would stop having abortions?) that is basically what lincoln did, he knew it wouldnt stop slavery, but he knew it would remind france and great britain of the plantations in the south.

I personally think that our founding fathers created this nation as a voluntary union and states may come and go as they please, i believe that that was their vision of america. in the treaty of paris, great britain recognized all the colonies as seperate countries. In my opionion lincoln didnt want to be known as the president who let half the country secede legally, he felt it was illegal and after the confederate government asked the united states to take their soldiers out of fort sumter, thats why he didnt take the soldiers out but instead sent supplies out there. This is my opionion: i hate lincoln and what he did to the south, i hate sherman and his march throughout the south, i hate how the north destroyed the southron land, i hate how they denied us our rightful independence. i think they shouldn't take down my symbol of heritage. in my eyes the confederate flag stands for the hundreds of thousands of southron soldiers and sailors who lost their lives and charged into battle hoisting the flag up and waving it as they were shot to pieces. And i think people should respect that side of the flag, no matter their views.

[forget] that coton pickin munint obam, you [but] kissin nigs should stop supporting thes second rank filth and put them coons on leash

1 more thing u suns a [guns], how dare u demorelize the beuty of a flag prode people faught and dide for, [friggan]

I am constantly amazed at the hype over the Confederate Battle Flag when no castigation is heaped upon the Union Flag of the Period. It is the perfect example of blind historical hypocrisy and in many cases simple-minded willful ignorance. While the Confederate Flag, has been abused by modern racists and neo-Nazis, historically the Flag represented, as did the Union Flag, a type of racism that was prevalent throughout the country, but primarily in the North. Prior to the War, there were over 300,000 freeman in the South, many of whom were property owners who were not only very successful, but accepted in the communities in which they lived. In the North you rarely found freed slaves or people of color accepted into society. You will also find a very inconvenient fact that many former slaves became slave-owners themselves.

Perhaps one of the most damning facts about the period was when the War was over and the so-called Union “liberators” went home. They left the emancipated slaves free, free to starve and die in mind-boggling numbers. Nearly as many former slaves died in the first year of “emancipation” then soldiers and white civilians died during the entire War. It is estimated that nearly 400,000 freed slaves died during the first year of Union emancipation, which was nearly 10% of the black population. The death toll continued to rise each year for nearly 10 years when the issue was pressed upon the federal government. The only reason that more freed slaves didn’t die during that period was because former slave owners cared for their now freed slaves.

In the North, on the other hand, freed slaves were castigated, shunned and forbidden from owning property in most Northern States. It is also a fact that the “N” word was of Northern origin and was not used in the South until after the War. You will also find that the Northern States also originated very harsh “Black Codes” to keep freed slaves from coming into Northern States. The penalties for those few unfortunate freed slaves venturing into many of the Northern States were cruel and potentially life threatening. The Northern States passed exclusionary laws that made it hard or impossible for freed Slaves to enter or settle in their jurisdictions. Massachusetts passed laws that allowed the flogging of blacks that remained in the State over 2 months, Indiana's constitution stated, "no negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the state”. Most of the Northern States crafted similar laws and imposed harsh penalties on freed or runaway Slaves. John Sherman, William Tecumseh's brother declared in 1862 that: "We do not like the negroes. We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend from Indiana said yesterday: The whole people of the Northwestern States are opposed to having many negroes among them and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation for nearly all the Northwestern States." There were actually far more beatings and lynching in the North during that period prior to the War and after it, then was ever committed in the South until later during the "Jim Crow" period. The “Jim Crow” laws, by the way, found their origins, as I said, in the North, not the South.

[by the way, another interesting fact is that the Native American Indian Nations also joined the Confederacy to fight against the Union...wonder why?]

The hypocrisy continues when viewing those who were not only involved with, but also profited greatly from the slave trade, all those “slavers” were Northern-shipping companies. It is interesting that it was Southern States that first sought to ban the slave trade, but the powerful politicians from the New England States always thwarted it. In fact, even after the South passed such legislation, the Northern “slavers” continued their horrible trade in human flesh and when they could no longer ship into the South, they continued their trade into South America and the Caribbean until at least the late 1850s and there is some evidence that the trade lasted longer.

Another surprising fact is that there were more Southern Abolitionist than Northern, but the difference was that those abolitionists in the South were well aware of society’s responsibility to the population of slaves when they faced freedom. There were perhaps 6% of the Southern population that owned slaves and only 3% were large slaveholders, but in the former slave population about 10% were slaveholders. It becomes evident, especially when considering the facts, that the War, both on the part of the South and the North was not fought over slavery, it was an ancillary issue to the actual causes of the War. The proof of that fact can be found in Lincoln’s offer to the Southern States to protect slavery forever with a Constitutional Amendment if they would return to the Union. Had slavery been the cause of secession then all they would need to do to protect it in perpetuity would be to return to the Union, but that was not the cause. The cause goes back to the heavy tariff system that was imposed upon the South and its commercial progress.

Read the archives, in newspapers like the Chicago Daily Times, in the 1860, Dec 10 edition, before the War started the editorial of that paper stated the real reason for the War:

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, WITH ALL ITS IMMENSE PROFITS. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."

The Philadelphia Press in their 1861 edition proposed one of the most interesting ideas that made its way to Lincoln, January 15. This also seems to be the basis for Lincoln's Inaugural Address. The paper said that: If South Carolina were to take the forts by force, this would be levying war against the United States and high treason against the Constitution" In other words, if South Carolina could be "tricked" into firing on the Forts in Charleston Harbor, that would be enough to go to War to stop the State from Seceding and thus reeking havoc on Northern and government revenues. The paper went on to say:

"In the enforcement of the revenue laws, the forts are of primary importance. THEIR GUNS COVER JUST SO MUCH GROUND AS IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE THEIR LAWS. Those forts the United States must maintain. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF COERCING SOUTH CAROLINA, BUT OF ENFORCING THE REVENUE LAWS. The practical point, EITHER WAY, is whether the revenue laws of the United States shall or shall not be enforced at those three ports."

YES, LINCOLN TOOK NOTE.

Like Lincoln, on March 2, 1861, The New York Evening Post headed its editorial with these words: "WHAT SHALL BE DONE FOR A REVENUE?"

"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the "rebel states", or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things de done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply OUR TREASURY will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; THE PRESENT ORDER OF THINGS MUST COME TO A DEAD STOP."

It went on with an amazing disclosure of the real reasons why the North and why Lincoln did not want, nor could allow the South to secede from the Union:

"WHAT, THEN, IS LEFT FOR OUR GOVERNMENT? SHALL WE LET THE SECEDING STATES REPEAL THE REVENUE LAWS FOR THE WHOLE UNION IN THIS MANNER? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collections as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?"

In less than two weeks of a barrage of such editorials, Lincoln took that fateful action that would ensure the shelling of Fort Sumter; he sent reinforcements to the Fort. It was the action he needed to fulfill his deed of treachery and begin the long destructive path into un-Constitutionalism, and Treason against the duly elected government of the United States.

The War was totally about tariffs and the desire of certain Radical Republicans to create a "nation-state" and that is exactly what was created by this war, a centralized national government with the power to impose its national will over the State Republics which were Sovereign and too powerful in the eyes of certain people and special interests.

Of course, there were no illusions behind the reasons of the War in the South; they were fighting for what they saw as the original Constitutional Republic and the ideals upon which it was founded. The New Orleans Daily Crescent stated that the causes of secession were simply this:

"The know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it."

Most people in the South, including the leadership of the Confederacy, realized that the institution of slavery was rapidly dying and would be extinct within a decade or so due to the fact that it was becoming an unprofitable form of agricultural production. That eventuality was being planned for and if you read many of the writings of the period there was a Southern plan for emancipation that didn’t include the Northern idea for complete and total deportation of any freed slaves, but sought to educate and prepare the slave population for a productive freedom and integration into society. Jefferson Davis stated that no matter who won the War, that Slavery would eventually become a defunct institution. The concern of many in the South was the method of emancipation. In the writings of Jefferson Davis you will find he was of the opinion that the slaves should be well prepared for freedom; that they should be educated and made aware of the responsibility of freedom. Instead, the War of Northern Aggression released the slaves into a life filled with generational poverty, hatred and hardship. If you read the Slave Chronicles you will see that many former slaves felt that they were recklessly thrown into a freedom that was far from free.

Perhaps one of the most damning collections of documents can be found in what is called the Slave Narratives, but they are damning not to the South as much as of the North. Certainly slavery was a hideous institution, but the impression of that institution by our current “accepted and approved” history doesn’t quite stack up to the facts of reality. In many of the narratives of former slaves you will find a very, very different story not only about the institution of slavery, but about the South and how those former slaves viewed their Northern “liberators”. The truth is far more damning of the North than slavery itself was to the South. Another shocker is to read just how Unionist armies treated Slaves in conquered territories of the South it was, to be restrained, despicable, to say the least. Not to mention the general atrocities committed by Union armies on the general population of the South.

Read the Census data of 1860, the North repelled the possibility of free black immigration. In that year the black population in the North was 1.7%, strange that there was so little migration allowed into the North if the North was so concerned with the plight of Slaves. Do some research and find out just how the freed Slave were treated in the North, then read the Slave Chronicles and see how they were treated, for the most part, in the South.

To the surprise of many Northerners, especially the radical Northern Abolitionists and radical Republicans, there was no slave uprising when the War began. Not only that, but proportionally, there were a miniscule number of slaves, perhaps 10,000 at most, who ran away from the plantations. On the contrary, even when the majority of white plantation owners and managers left to join the Confederacy, the slaves remained without compulsion. What was even more surprising was the number of slaves who volunteered for service in the Confederate Army.

Read a booklet written by a Slave named Harrison Berry in 1861 called: Slavery and Abolitionism, as Viewed by a Georgia Slave, an amazing little book that completely contradicts and flies in the face of the accepted history of the South, the Union and Slavery. Read the 1864 report called: The Conduct of Federal Troops in Louisiana it will make you sick. A British observer, Captain Fremantle witnessed an unusual site in a captured Northern town, he states that he saw a Confederate soldier leading a captured Union soldier down the street all alone, but the strange part of it was that the Confederate soldier was black. He went on to say: "This little episode of a Southern slave leading a white Yankee soldier through a Northern village, alone and on his own accord, would not have been gratifying to an abolitionist, nor would the sympathizers both in England and in the North feel encouraged if they could hear the language of detestation and contempt with which the numerous Negroes with Southern armies speak of their [Northern] liberators."

Former Slave and Legislator Richard Harris elected to the Mississippi House of Representatives in 1890. On February 23, 1890 he delivered a speech on the floor:

"Mr. Speaker! I have arisen here in my place to offer a few words on the bill [raising funds for a Confederate Monument]. I have come from a sick bed, perhaps it was not prudent for me to come, but Sir, I could not rest quietly in my room without contributing a few remarks of my own. I was sorry to hear the speech of the young gentleman from Marshall County. I am sorry that any son of a soldier should go on record as opposed to the erection of a monument in honor of the brave dead. And, Sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines and in the Seven Days' of fighting around Richmond, the battlefield covered with the mangled forms of those who fought for their country and for their country's honor, he would not have made that speech.

When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made no requests for monuments. But they died, and their virtues should be remembered. Sir, I went with them. I too, wore the Gray, the same color my master wore. We stayed four long years, and if that war had gone on till now I would have been there yet. I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions. When my mother died I was a boy. Who, Sir, then acted the part of a mother to the orphaned slave boy, but my "old missus"? Were she living now, or could speak to me from those high realms where are gathered the sainted dead, she would tell me to vote for this bill. And, Sir, I shall vote for it. I want it known to all the world that my vote is given in favor of the bill to erect a monument in honor of the Confederate dead."

On the day of the vote, former Slave John Harris was joined in equaled zeal by 6 other Black Representatives in the Mississippi Legislature to pass the bill for the Confederate Memorial. It is amazing how much history has been deliberately buried and suppressed.

I make no excuses what so every for slavery, nor racism, but when history is twisted for political means, by anyone, it is nothing more than a social construction intent on a particular type of control, primarily lending more power into the hands of politicians who are only too happy to legislate, regulate and ban any type of freedom they possibility can. Falsehoods about the actual history of the period are widespread and generally accepted, but in face of the facts those falsehoods are revealed for what they really are and no more.

So, the modern American Flag has just as much history behind it, just as horrible if not worse. It is hypocrisy to see just one side of accepted history as opposed to the facts of real history.

By the way, and interesting fact to notice is that in every KKK march you will find the American Flag being carried by the members of that group more than the Confederate Flag. The fact of the matter is that in the bylaws of the KKK, it states that the American Flag and the Christian Flag be flown at every event, not the Confederate.

Now, considering that fact, should we now ban the American Flag from being flown over the Capitol in Washington and over every State Capitol?

I mean if you are going to associate one flag for being racist because racists use that flag then the same qualification should be applied to the American Flag as well!

Here is a little more history for you to chew on; I just hope you don't choke on the facts of history.

"Slavery was a legal institution in this country for over 200 years. Africans were brought here by northern slave traders to be used in northern industry, long before the antebellum South or the Confederacy ever existed. The first American colony to legalize slavery was Massachusetts in 1641, only 17 years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. "The slave trade became very profitable to the shipping colonies and Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Hampshire had many ships in the triangular trade," (72). "The moral argument against slavery arose early in the New England shipping colonies but it could not withstand the profits of the trade and soon died out." (73).

Thomas Jefferson condemned the slave trade in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, but the New England slave traders lobbied to have the clause stricken. In a short eleven year period form 1755 to 1766, no fewer than 23,000 slaves landed in Massachusetts. By 1787, Rhode Island had taken first place in the slave trade to be unseated later by New York. Before long, millions of slaves would be brought to America by way of 'northern' slave ships. After all, there were no Southern slave ships involved in the triangular slave, it was simply too cruel.

William P. Cheshire, the senior editorial columnist for the Arizona Republic recently noted, the New England Yankee who brought slaves to America, "were interested in getting money, not in helping their cargo make a fresh start in the New World." He adds that northern slave ownership "isn't widely known - American textbooks tend to be printed in Boston, not Atlanta - but early New Englanders not only sold blacks to Southern planters but also kept slaves for themselves as well as enslaving the local Indian population," (74).

Slavery did not appear in the deep South until northern settlers began to migrate South, bringing with them their slaves. It was soon discovered that while slaves were not suited to the harsh climate and working conditions of the north, they were ideal sources of cheap labor for the newly flourishing economy of the agricultural South. Of the 9.5 million slaves brought to the Western Hemisphere from 1500 - 1870, less than 6% were brought to the United States. This means that our Hispanic, British and French neighbors to the south owned over 94% of the slaves brought to the New World. In the South, less than 7% of the total population ever owned a slave. In other words, over 93% of Southerners did not own any slaves, (75).

Attempts to outlaw the slave trade in the north only increased the profits of smuggling. In 1858, only two years prior to the birth of the Confederacy, Stephen Douglas noted that over 15,000 slaves had been smuggled into New York alone, with over 85 vessels sailing from New York in 1859 to smuggle even more slaves. Perhaps it was their own guilt that drove the abolitionists of the day to point an accusing finger at the South, while closing their eyes to the slavery and the slave trade taking place in their own back yards.

For more than 200 years, northern slave traders mad enormous profits that furnished the capitol for future investments into mainstream industries. Who is more responsible for slavery in America, the Southern plantation owner who fed and clothed his slaves, or the New England "Yankee" slave trader who brought the slaves here in the first place?

From 1641, when Massachusetts first legalized slavery, until 1865, when the Confederate struggle for independence ended, slavery was a legal institution in America that lasted over 224 years. The Confederate battle flag flew for 4 of those 224 years, but the U.S. flag and its colonial predecessors flew over legalized slavery for ALL of those 224 years. It was the U.S. flag that the slave first saw, and it was the U.S. flag that flew on the mast of New England slaves ships as they brought their human cargo to this country. It is clear, that those who attack the Confederate flag as a reminder of slavery are overlooking the most guilty and hateful of all reminders of American slavery, the U.S. flag."

Bibliography:

72. The Concise Dictionary of American History, (Scribner & Sons), p.876
73. Ibid
74. The Arizona Republic, June 11, 1995
75. Rober William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, Time on the Cross - The Economics of American Negro Slavery (New York: Norton, 1974), p.14

I say we keep the Confederate Flag. I say we show it in every school, right next to the American flag. We show it in every mall, and public place that we can. The South should have won that war, and us rednecks appreciate that flag just about as much as the American Flag. The Civil War wasn't about Slavery, nor was it about races. All of these blacks, mexicans, and so on think it was about them (Like they always do). But unfortunately they are wrong. The Civil War was not about slavery at all, it was about money. Just like every war that we've been in. Do you think the North gave a fuck about blacks? No they did not. So what they paid them a 1/4 of a cent a day? They were pretty much slaves still, they were just free to roam around, but people still didn't like them.

If it were up to me, the Confederate Flag (The better flag) would be flown everywhere. The South Will Rise Again, I have a Dream.

Good grief.

Uh... what?

Of course the Civil War was about slavery! And you think the South is gonna rise again?

Yikes!

Well, bring it on I guess, cuz I'm PRETTY sure it would be fallin' again pretty quick!

Nick...How do you logically come to that conclusion when Lincoln tried to make a deal with the South to protect slavery forever if they would only remain in the Union? It is not only not logical, but flies in the fact of historical fact.

Granted, slavery was an issue, but not the issue that began either the Secession or the War. Had the South wanted to "save" slavery they could have easily done so by simply taking Lincoln up on his offer and remaining in the Union with a lot less hardship, death and destruction. If slavery had been the issue then why would Lincoln ever try to make such a deal with the South?

So too, if slavery had been the cause of the North, then why on earth did Lincoln's "emancipation" only effect those slaves in the Confederacy and not in those areas under the control of the Union. All slaves within the areas that the Union Army controlled were not included in the "emancipation". Lincoln had not only the power, but the authority to free those within Union Occupied areas of the South, but he did not extend freedom to them...WHY?

Also, why, in the Slave Narratives, did a majority of slaves HATE and CONDEMN their Northern Union "liberators", calling them "blue devils"? Why, when the war began, did the vast majority, perhaps as many as 99% of the slaves choose to remain on the plantations instead of running away to the North, they were certain at liberty to leave since the majority of white plantation owners and white males had volunteered to serve in the Confederate Army? The slaves could have easily overrun the plantations in the absence of the white male owners, they could have plundered those plantations and simply ran away, but they choose to stay en masse.

If the North really cared about slavery or slaves then why did the Federal Union government and the Northern states allow nearly 1/4 of freed slaves to die within the first decade after the War? Why did the Northern States prevent, with "black code" laws, the freed slaves from entering their borders or settle in their States?

Slavery was horrible, of that there is no doubt, but the facts of that period have been so distorted by revisionist/unionist history that few are willing to scratch the "accepted history" to dig beyond the lies into the truth. Ignorance seems far more easy to swallow than the truth of history.

I would prefer the truth, even if it makes me uncomfortable than to believe the highly varnished history that has been taught in this country for the last 150 years.

By the way, I have absolutely nothing for the racists who abuse the Confederate Battle Flag any more than I have for those who have abused the American Flag with decades of racism.

Republicae,
All though I agree that history has been tainted on a lot events in American history and wont argue with you on that, I do have to say that this statment is ridiculous!

You said...

"Also, why, in the Slave Narratives, did a majority of slaves HATE and CONDEMN their Northern Union "liberators", calling them "blue devils"? Why, when the war began, did the vast majority, perhaps as many as 99% of the slaves choose to remain on the plantations instead of running away to the North, they were certain at liberty to leave since the majority of white plantation owners and white males had volunteered to serve in the Confederate Army? The slaves could have easily overrun the plantations in the absence of the white male owners, they could have plundered those plantations and simply ran away, but they choose to stay en masse."

You write this as if the slaves wanted to stay in the south and stay slaves. I think what you fail to realize is that the slaves lives were threatened by law. Meaning if they were caught by any one they could be put to death. They even passed a law that said that if any slave was captured who was fighting for the North would automaticall be executed even to the point that a white officer leading black slaves in war would be put to death.

Hell yeah they stayed where they were! They would be killed if they left so this idea of "mutany" that you describe is not true at all. I think you forget that my people were uneducated (some were beaten badly for reading a book or teaching others to read) and kept from firearms and any type of weaponry.

You act as if the slaves had this open door to go and be succesful in a free country but didn't because they would "rather" stay with "massa."

Come on! Where were they going to go? What were they going to do? Where were they going to get food? They didn't have any land or transportation! Again tell me what they were going to do man! They stayed because they knew that out there them and their families would die.

So yes the northern "folks" weren't all they were cracked up to be and slaves seen right through their agenda's and idealogies but this doesn't mean that the south was some how better and that is why they stayed. They didn't leave because they had no options. Do not make it seem so easy...
"they could have plundered those plantations and simply ran away..."

RUN AWAY WHERE!!!!I think you forget what these folks did to these African slaves for 100's of years.

"... simply ran away." Man get the hell outta here bro! That is just a dumb statement. You need to know your history!

If your going to be so "matter of fact" with your statements about history please put some thought into it an know what you are talking about.

Republicae,
I said...
"You need to know your history!

If your going to be so "matter of fact" with your statements about history please put some thought into it an know what you are talking about."

That was a dumb statement in an of itself. I don't know what you know/don't know. I think that was an emotional response (that last part). Sorry about that.

All though I still believe that your "optimism" for success for the slaves lacks practical reflection, I still shouldn't have addressed you in this way.

I apologize for my lack of character in my response.

Grace and Peace,

First, I make no excuses for the institution of slavery, but I would much rather dig deeper into the issue than have a superficial understanding of the subject as is commonly taught and accepted in this country today. There are always exceptions to any rule, but my research has found that the exception to the rule is that the South has been painted with a very broad brush while the North has been apotheosized by a history full of holes. I am not sure just how much research you have made into the subject, but I have spent the last 60 years doing research into the subject. Most American hold an extremely simplistic view of the events of the period, it is ashamed that is the case, because the real history behind the accepted history is far richer, far more interesting and far more revealing!

Alexis de Tocqueville stated upon his visit to the United States during the early 1800s that: “the prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the States that have abolished slaves than in the States where slavery still exists. White carpenters, white bricklayers and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the North but do in almost every Southern State.”

A famous Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, concerning the treatment of freed blacks in the North: “the free colored people were looked upon as an inferior caste to whom their liberty was a curse, and their lot worse than that of the slaves.”

The Northern historian Frederick Law Olmsted was shocked to find the closeness of the relationships between slave and slave owner when he visited the South. He was surprised to see blacks and whites sitting together, not only in church, but also on trains and horse trolleys. Another Northern visitor to the South was equally surprised to find that the babes of white plantation owners were suckled at the breast of black nursemaids, he expressed his revulsion and contempt at the practice, but it was commonplace in the South to see such inter-racial practices.

In “The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Antebellum South, Stampp states: “ Visitors often registered surprise at the social intimacy that existed between masters and slaves in certain situations. A Northerner saw a group near Natchez after hauling their cotton to market. Here they assumed a “cheek by jowl” familiarity with perfect good will and a mutual contempt for the nicer distinctions of color. This type of relationship could not be enforced with a whip, but it existed and was based on respect and love. Not only Northern historians but also Yankee soldiers spoke with contempt about the closeness of the relationship between slave and master.”

Union Pvt. John Haley of Maine, in his diary stated: “Two-hundred years of slavery have not elevated the nigger or his master. The only advancement has been in the way of unnatural selection; the line of demarcation between white and black in not as positive as true virtue demands, but is dimmed by a kind of neutral tint that cannot but be regarded with suspicion”. Indeed, whites in the North viewed the close relationships between slaves and their masters as something to be reviled and held in contempt. In the North, the whites kept the line of separation very clear and hard, there was no such intermingling in Northern society as there was found in the South.

I suppose a good place to start is to ask yourself how freed slaves were treated in the South as opposed to how they were treated in the North? I think you will be very surprised to find that in the South, freed blacks were welcomed as a part, a productive part of the comities in which they lived, while in the North they were ostracized and their presence was criminalized with some of the harshest penalties imaginable.

Another interesting fact is the actual physical health conditions of slaves and freed blacks in the South opposed to the North. Among whites in the North and South, 1 in 1000 was deaf, dumb, blind, suffering from various diseases. For the few freed blacks in the North that number was 1 out of 500 while, in comparison, slaves in the South only suffered such conditions in the number of 1 out of every 1464 persons. Now, if the slaves in the South were treated so badly, so cruelly, and then why was their health even better than those of the white population? That is a very important question to ask yourself, if you are willing to engage in fact-finding, as I believe you just might be judging from your words.

Have you read the Slave Narratives Aaron? Now, I am sure that you would find it shocking to find that over 70% of those former slaves in the Narratives presented not only favorable statements, but even very loving statements concerning their treatment by their owners and about their owners themselves. That should be shocking, especially since we have build our understanding of slavery and the South around a book [Uncle Toms Cabin] written by a woman who have never been in the South or even had contact with a slave. Many of the slaves in those two massive volumes stated that they felt they were much better off in slavery than many, in fact the vast majority of poor white Southerners. In fact many of them expressed the regret that they were freed in the manner in which they were emancipated. The South, as I stated, had been preparing for emancipation for years, but the leadership in the South recognized that if such liberation was not done properly that the freed slave would only suffer horribly, which they did, in massive, unbelievable numbers. The fact is that the black population of America today still suffers from the effects of a poorly thought-out and poorly executed emancipation. Yes, there is no doubt that there was evidence of mistreatment, cruelty and yes murder, but the evidence state that such actions were the exception, not the rule.

The radical Northern Abolitionists were horrified when they learned that not only did the slave population not rise up in rebellion against their Southern white owners, but that they remained and even volunteered to assist the Confederacy against what they considered invaders of their own country. Another interesting fact is that among the hundreds of thousands of freed slaves living in the South prior to the War, that most of them remained in the South and supported the Confederate cause. Those free slaves were free, they could have easily left the South when the War began and went North, but they remained and followed their conscience by supporting the Confederacy. Remember, the white male population [age 16 and above] of the South left the plantations, small farms and the cities to serve in the War. The fact is that the Confederate government sought to limit the number of volunteers entering the Army during the first year, the countryside was bear of white men, and they all went to fight the War. There was so little oversight on the plantations that if the slave population wanted to revolt or leave it would have been relatively easy to leave without resistance at that point. The only white people left in vast tracts of the South were small children, women and the elderly. The only problem with leaving was not found in the South, but in the North. Have you ever wondered why the “underground railroad” didn’t stop in the North, but actually ended in Canada? The fact of the matter is that fewer than 10,000 slaves ever sought to escape by the “underground railroad” that was less than 1% of the entire slave population of the South. Even during the invasion of the deep South, with Union lines close at hand, few slaves choose to run-away to the Union Army even though it would have proved very easy and safe to do so.

If you read the 1850 U.S. Census, you will find that many of the former slaves were some of the wealthiest people in major Southern cities, including New Orleans, Mobile, Charleston, Atlanta, Richmond, and Baltimore. In fact, in my own city of Charleston, SC during the 1850s, former freed black women were not only some of the wealthiest, but one out of four freed slave women in the city were also slave owners themselves. I have met and interviewed the descendents of many of those freed slaves, read their letters and journals, and the plantation records of those owned by former slaves in this State, it is an eye-opener, to say the least. By 1840, there were over 500 former slaves that owned huge plantations in South Carolina and also engaged in slave ownership themselves. Not only were the freed slaves in the South much better educated, in fact you will find that most of the slaves in captivity were well trained in numerous trades. As a class, freed slaves in the South were not only much better off, but better treated and educated than those in the North.

The historical evidence, not only in the words of former slaves, but in the words of many outside observers paint a very different story then the one we have been taught, not only about the living conditions of the majority of the slave population, but also of their treatment. Did you know there were codes of conduct for the slave owner in his treatment of the slaves? Did everyone follow that code? No, but in reading the accounts of both slaves and slave owners you will find that the vast majority of them did follow a very strict code of what they considered stewardship over their slaves.

Yes, there were laws, passed not only by the South concerning slaves fighting for the North but vice-versa. If you read the Congressional Official Records: War of the Rebellion, you will find that there were numerous cases of Union Soldiers invading plantations, not liberating the slaves, but raping, plundering, sodomizing and pressing black males into service. Any slave that was caught “deserting” the Union was summarily hung or beaten to death. Another good read on the abuses and crimes committed by the Union is “Union Army and Navy Excesses in the Official Record.”

In Virginia, Union General Innis Palmer wrote to General Butler in 1864, in the letter he states: “The negroes will not go voluntarily, so I am obliged to force them. The matter of collecting the colored men for laborers [slaves] has been of some difficulty. They must be forced to go. This may be considered a harsh measure, but we must not stop at trifles”

The truth of the matter is that the slaves feared their Union “liberators”; they had heard the stories of those slaves who escaped the grips of the Union Army. There was so little respect shown to the slave population by the Union personnel and the treatment, on whole was so despicable that few slaves considered such a freedom as an option. The reports, in the Official Record, describe the Union Army and Navy’s treatment of those slaves they pressed into service as fare more harsh and cruel than anything the slaves face on the plantations.

There is a very good little book written by Harrison Berry in 1861 entitled “Slavery and Abolitionism as Viewed by a Georgia Slave”. The mere fact that a slave could actually read and write smacks in the face of the commonly held belief that slaves were prohibited from such education. Sure, there were laws against it, but you will find that not only were slaves educated, many times with the plantation owners children, but that they also attended Southern churches with whites, of course the Reconstruction period put an end to that with the Union League’s attempt to spawn extreme racial strife in the South. A Special Senate Committee later, in the 1890s, found that the KKK would have never been formed in the South had it not been for the horrendous acts of burning, murder and racial conflict that the Union League committed in the South after the War.

There were thousands of black Confederates, estimates are nearly 200,000 by the end of the War. They were armed, yet instead of turning on their Confederate compatriots, they fought bravely against the invading hoard of Union soldiers. Indeed, there is ample evidence that Union morale was severely lowered by the fact that blacks were fighting against them. It is common to find such stories in the letters of Union soldiers and the impact black Confederates had on the Union soldier.

Arthur L. Fremantle, a British observer of the War noted several instances of black loyalty to the Confederate cause. He stated in one account that: “This little episode of a Southern slave leading a white Yankee soldier through a Northern village, alone and of his own accord, would not have been gratifying to an abolitionist. Nor would the sympathizers both in England and in the North feel encouraged if they could hear the language of detestation and contempt with which the numerous Negroes with Southern armies speak of their Union liberators.”

There is, in fact, so much testimony that totally contradicts the accepted history that we should wonder why that accepted history continues to be propagated in this country? That is a question that every American, especially every black American should be asking.

You state that the idea of mutiny and revolt among the slaves was not a realistic idea; well it was not my idea, but that of the Northern Radical Republicans and Abolitionists. They thought the slaves would rise up in a similar manner as those did in Jamaica and Haiti. The fact is that the Northern Abolitionists fully expected such a “mutiny” among the Southern slaves and when it didn’t materialize, even when the Union Army “liberated” vast areas of the Confederacy, they were not only perplexed, but also extremely angry. While you are under the impression that the South was a massive “police” state, especially during the War, preventing slaves from leaving en masse, then you are gravely mistaken, the vast majority of white males, as I stated, were fighting the War, mainly in the Northern part of Virginia.

I think you have bought into a painted story, your people, as well as my wife’s people, were not as uneducated as you have been led to believe. Many were much more highly trained in trades than 92% of Southerners who were extremely poor, uneducated and scraping to eek out a living. Many slaves were highly skilled, not only at agriculture, but also in masonry, carpentry; they were metal smiths, potters, plasterers, artisans and even engineers in bridge construction, water-works and iron-works. Proportionally, the slave population was far more educated and skilled than the majority of whites in the South. Come to Charleston, I will show you some of the most wondrous works of skilled hands in the world, and those creations were made by slave hands, who, from every account that I found, not only enjoyed their crafts, but were highly sought after in this city. You really have been spoon-fed a crock concerning your own people’s history and their contributions, not only to the South, but also to civilization. I am sorry to bust your bubble, but without the black population, even in the horrible grasp of slavery, this country would be nothing today.

I could go on and on, there are volumes of real history to be found if we would only look.

I think you are arguing for something that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I could care less about the North's mistreatment of the slaves compared to the South. Having lived in Chicago for 10 years I am well aware of the "hidden" agendas of the North and their treatment of blacks during and after the "great migration."

Being black in America was bad whether you were in the North or the South. So you need not go into grave detail about the North vs. South.

You seem very caught up in trying to paint this picture of the South as not so bad to where I am not even arguing that. Who cares about the South or the North for that matter. Barking up the wrong tree with me on that one.

Let's get to the "facts" as you are trying to do...

Africans were stolen from their land (and yes I am well aware of the fact that there were a small % of Africans who were actually involved in the slave trade themselves...)were chained to one another, branded like cattle, brought to a foreign country and treated like property.

So you can paint it any way you want to and try to defend the southern roots but the reality is slavery was never a good thing and those so called slave owners who had a "conscience" were just as guilty as those who were "heartless." To compare the two and some how find a "silver lining" is to me very "fruitless." No disrespect, but like I said who cares about the North or the South. To argue about who treated SLAVES better is just really ironic.

Another thing... yes I am well aware of the slave narratives and for every "positive" reading you throw out I can share ones where slaves were made to drink piss to "teach them a lesson." Again it just seems crazy that you are actually trying to tell me that SLAVES (property!!!!) were happy with "massa." I think I can say with 100% assurance that NONE of them wanted to be slaves! Now if you want to point out that some of them actually appreciated getting "extra coals" for the fire then by all means keep celebrating that but they were SLAVES! Nothing is good about that.

Your last paragraph is just... I don't even know what to say.

You said...

"I think you have bought into a painted story, your people, as well as my wife’s people, were not as uneducated as you have been led to believe. Many were much more highly trained in trades than 92% of Southerners who were extremely poor, uneducated and scraping to eek out a living. Many slaves were highly skilled, not only at agriculture, but also in masonry, carpentry; they were metal smiths, potters, plasterers, artisans and even engineers in bridge construction, water-works and iron-works. Proportionally, the slave population was far more educated and skilled than the majority of whites in the South. Come to Charleston, I will show you some of the most wondrous works of skilled hands in the world, and those creations were made by slave hands, who, from every account that I found, not only enjoyed their crafts, but were highly sought after in this city. You really have been spoon-fed a crock concerning your own people’s history and their contributions, not only to the South, but also to civilization. I am sorry to bust your bubble, but without the black population, even in the horrible grasp of slavery, this country would be nothing today."

What? What painted story. I never said they weren't skilled. I said they were uneducated and then specifically eluded to them not being taught to read and the consequences of them trying to do so. I am well aware of their "skill." They came to this horrible land more skilled than most no thanks to the folks who enslaved them. They came here a sophisticated people made in the very image of God. Africans were one of the first people in history to have advanced irrigation systems, agricultural structures, and their use of iron was revolutionary. I could go on and on as well but that would be pointless.

You said...

"You really have been spoon-fed a crock concerning your own people’s history and their contributions, not only to the South, but also to civilization. I am sorry to bust your bubble, but without the black population, even in the horrible grasp of slavery, this country would be nothing today."

What are you talking about? I never alluded to any of this. I think you have me confused with someone else. I would be the first to shout from the rooftops that this country (and the modern western world for that matter) would be a century "behind" if not for Africans and African Americans. So to say that I have been "spoon fed a crock" concerning my own people is really out there. Maybe you have me confused with someone else. I don't need to be schooled on blacks contributions nor have I said anything that would suggest that I am unaware of them or...

"spoon fed a crock concerning your own people's history and their contributions" (your words there)

Anyway I just don't know where you are going and I think it is unfortunate that you are still making these arguments.

The only thing I can make of all your statements is that you have this romantic idea that slaves were happy and the south was the best at making them happy not those "damn yankees." If this is your mission to convince people that the south wasnt that bad and the north isnt what it was cracked up to be then you need to find a new "calling."

I don't say that out of disrespect but I am just being honest. It's not the real issue in my opinion.

Back to the point at hand... Those folks wanted to be free but had limited options because of 100's of years of oppression. So again your romantic ideas of the slaves just over running the plantation while massa was out at war, and the notion that just because the slaves spoke favorable of their OWNERS meant somethings is just mind boggling to me and seems to be an argument that is falling on deaf ears these days. I don't think it matters... sorry to say that.

Let's look at this again... Some SLAVES spoke favorably about their OWNERS/MASTERS... hmmm

SLAVES... OWNERS/MASTERS (Emphasis in capital letters)

I think you get what I saying. Slavery is slavery and the WHOLE country will forever have it as a history to be dealt with (all though I dont think it has dealt with it). I guess I don't understand your role as the "southern apologist." By all means though keep "fighting the good fight" (sarcasism of course).

I do appreciate you taking the time to write all these things but I think I am done with this conversation. To be honest I have been in to many of these conversations being from the south and all and I am just tired of the conversation because I think it is irrelevant but it always sucks me in (I hate that!:0)

PS I have been to charleston. Nice town with a lot of history. both good and bad. I used to live in columbia for a few years as well.

Grace and Peace,

Aaron, no worries. For some reason lots of Southern culture lovers offer the "North mistreated blacks too" argument as if that means anything. Black people have always been aware that no region of America has ever wanted us around. As Chris Rock jokingly says, there are two neighborhoods in America: the first is where the white people live and the second is where the white people used to live. We were the first blacks on our street back in the 70s in Atlanta and within 6 months nearly half the houses were up for sale. Our neighbors grabbed the kids and their Bibles and left. "Oh no, George, here they come!!"

Also, slave narratives are hugely unreliable sources in many cases because slave testimonies, in most cases, where scribed by whites with agendas. Of course some Southern white guy, probably a deacon or something in his church, owned slaves and edited what was said to him. If he's a slave owner could you really trust him with producing a truthful narrative. And can you imagine the pressure on a slave to be asked to give a white person true testimony when a slave could not trust any white person. So anyone appealing too strongly to slave narratives should not be taken too seriously many historians will argue. Think about the context in which the narratives were given.

Of course, there are many black theologians who would argue that, other than plantation Christians, there were very few Christians in the South during the era of American slavery. That is, is not simply that slavery was a "blind spot" (sort of like an "oops") but that many of church going whites weren't actually Christians at all because it's so hard to reconcile how one can claim Christ and own slaves or at least not openly fight against the institution in America from 1619-1864. Why weren't Southern white Christians in general trying to terminate slavery. This line of thinking by some theologians would then question if, for example, Jonathan Edwards was actually a Christian because he owned slaves. Joseph Washington's books bring this stuff out. It's a pretty serious charge.

So, Aaron, I learned this from growing up in the South and hanging with confederate-loving Christians around me a ton at Clemson and since: arguing with them about this is futile. They often have serious pre-commitments to loving all things "Southern" no matter what and explaining away slavery simply as an "oopsy blind spot." It's futile to try to reason with revisionists. And since the history of slavery does not affect them, nor is it apart of their family story unless they were owners or traffickers, do not expect most to care about the issue the way people of color do. This is why the Confederate flag remains unoffensive and still flies just a few hundred feet from the South Carolina state capital building. Guess who's not leading the charge it take down.

Finally, we are all generally historically ignorant and inconsiderate. I find this when I get two completely thoughtless questions regularly from adults (I welcome these questions from students grades K-12):

(1) "Anthony, what country is your family from?" I look at them and think, "ahh, have you ever read a history book?" How the in the world are we suppose to know that? My family is from the country called "The Bradley Plantation" in Escambia County, Alabama right near Atmore, AL on my Dad's side. On my mom's side, her maiden name was randomly given my grandfather because a group of whites were going to kill him (yes, kill him) because his mother went off on a white woman who tried to sell her some rotten produce. Relatives literally hid him behind a china cabinet when the lynch mob came. Getting mad at whites was pretty dangerous in South back then.

I guess people think my family voluntarily migrated and had a peachy time since arriving. It's weird.

(2) Ok, I graduated from Clemson and people will actually ask me if my parents graduated from Clemson. What?? Again, I want to say, "hey, are you aware of what country we're in? Have you ever, ever read a history book or even an article about the black experience in America?" But that would be rude. It was illegal for my parents to attend Clemson when they were college age. Blacks weren't allowed on campus except to serve food, mow the lawn, clean the toilets of the student body, etc. until the mid-1960s. I was part of only the SECOND generation of blacks to attend Clemson ever in it's history. I guess I'll counter with a question, "now, how would that have been legally possible?"

So Aaron, it's just not worth arguing because people have huge chunks of history missing from their understanding of reality and refuse to consider alternative experiences.

Anthony,

What is your opinion on Reformed Christians that justify American Slavery? How do you feel about the Dutch Reformed connection to Apartheid? How do black people deal with these issues, and still be Reformed?

One more thing I forgot to add...can you suggest any books on these topics? Do you think Christians that owned slaves were actually Christians? Thanks...

Aaron…the argument is not whether slavery was evil, we know that fact, but if we are to understand the intricacies of that institution and the social structure built upon it then would it not behoove us to investigate the facts regardless of the emotions we may have on the subject? Are we to blind ourselves to the reality of the period because we hold a deep repulsive emotional response to the subject? I prefer to delve into the facts regardless of my own personal feelings on the subject and let the fact speak for themselves, not regarding a moral judgment on the subject, but to actually find out what that life was like.

Oh, there is no other judgment of the institution of slavery but condemnation, of that we agree, but that is not what I am seeking to explore. I think you also have the wrong impression of what I am saying. I am not making excuses for the institution of slavery, I am however, saying that the picture we have been taught over the years has been distorted and it has painted to show the North as heroic while portraying the South as totally cruel. After all, the whole intent of the original article was about the Confederate Battle Flag and the generalization that it is a symbol of hate.

My points have been in response to the original article, which sought to condemn a piece of heritage, the Confederate Battle Flag while it seemed to ignore the rest of history that surrounds that period. Particularly the acts of the federal government under Radical Republican rule. The vast majority of history takes a view that the North was heroic in its actions when just the opposite was true, and that is what I find offensive.

Yes, Africans were kidnapped from their land, tortured, murdered by Northern slave traders. Africans were also involved with the slave trade in Africa, raiding neighboring tribes, kidnapping people not only to enslave them but also to sell them to slavers. There were no innocents involved in the slave trade, whether that trade was trans-Atlantic or internal in Africa itself. There were very few hands without the guilt of slave blood during that period and centuries before.

I am not seeking to make a moral judgment about slavery, there is absolutely no room for a moral judgment for it was completely and absolutely immoral, that is not the argument that I have sought to impart. I have sought to explore the facts behind the institution, behind the social structures of the period, the reality of that life without bringing the need to judge it on its morality because it is already condemned. The point is to understand the attitudes of that period, the way those attitudes expressed themselves in that society.

Slave owners were people, some good some very bad. On a whole however, I have found that even though they were engaged in that horrible act of slavery, which was an economic institution, there were those who followed a very specific code of stewardship over their slaves. I have read the codes of stewardship and it contradicts the impression that every slave owner was cruel and harsh in their treatment of their slaves. I mean I grew up thinking that every slave was whipped, starved, sold off when they came of age being separated from their families, but when I began to research the issues of slavery I found a very different story.

Around the world, poor free people starved, even in the South, nearly 92% of the white population bordered, at times, on starvation. As I stated, nearly 70% of the Slave Narratives portray a positive view of their time in slavery, this doesn’t imply that slavery was good, but that they viewed their captivity in ways that we simply can’t understand today. Today, we can’t understand how a slave could volunteer to fight along side his master, or to simply volunteer to fight with the Confederacy, but it happened and there was a reason behind such volunteerism that we simply fail to grasp in our modern minds. We view slavery from a very different point of view today than it was viewed then, by both slave and free.

The code of duties of slave owners was very specific, while there were, as I said, exceptions to the rule; those duties compelled the slave owner to provide for the slaves under his responsibility. I was very surprised to learn about the social duties and responsibilities that slave owners were expected to maintain regarding their slaves. The duties included hours of labor, holidays, leisure time, the “Sabbath”, housing, clothing, payment for any overtime worked, the care for the sick and elderly and even the responsibility for those who were hired as overseers. While there has been a widely held view, a stereotypical view, of the inhumanity of the slave owners, the truth is far from that. I mean I held that view for decades until I began to read more on the subject. As I stated, I do not excuse the fact that there were acts of cruelty, but as a whole the picture that I see is totally different. This in now way excuses the horrible institution of slavery, but it should not exclude delving into the issue for factual information.

Slavery was a reality, that fact cannot be avoided or changed despite our emotional feelings on the subject, but we should not avoid the reality of that period just to mollify our emotional outrage on the subject. Once again, I have never said that slavery was a good thing, but that the picture that has been painted of it is erroneous. The subject, once again, is not the defense of slavery as an institution, nor is it that those who engaged in the institution were better or worse, the subject is whether the issue has been explored beyond the stereotypical understanding in this country.

By the way, in South Carolina, in 1830, the proportional percentage of white ownership of slaves was only about 1.4% of the white population, while the population of freed slaves who owned slaves was around 25%. Such facts underscore that even former slaves of the period viewed slavery in a very different way then we do today. I mean it boggles my mind that someone who was enslaved could turn around and enslave others. Certainly, some of those former slaves purchased relatives, of that there is no doubt, but here in South Carolina it was a practice that went beyond protecting those who were relatives, it was an economic system that they not only accepted, but many highly profited from during that time.

Of course, it is easy to forget that slavery was not just a white institution; it was also a long practice in Africa itself, whether it be by the North African Arabs or Africans Tribes themselves. In fact, slavery was practiced in Africa long before a white man set foot on its shores. The African kingdom of Ashanti was actually very upset when the British outlawed the slave trade because much of the wealth of that kingdom came from the trade of slaves. There is evidence as far back as the middle ages that West African kingdoms sold their own people to Muslim traders in exchange for goods. Slavery was a particular institution that had roots far deeper than those found in this country. By the time slavery was abolished in this country there were many more slaves owned by blacks in Africa then in the United States. This is a hard fact, one that is horrifying and astounding, but it wasn’t that whites or even Arabs of the period between the 1600s and the 1800s thought that blacks were a race to be singled out to be slaves, it was the fact that Africans were the only ones around the world who were selling their own people. That is a horrible and disturbing fact of that period. It is estimated that over 12 million Africans were sold by Africans, whether from competing tribes or inter-tribal trade.

Concerning the “happiness” of slaves, you state that you can guarantee that none were happy or none wanted to be slaves, how can you do that? Most slaves knew nothing else but the life they were born in, that was “normal” to them therefore they really had no relative concept of what freedom meant or how it would affect them one way or another. Once again, in the Slave Narratives, many expressed the attitude that they were better off under the slave system then under harsh circumstances of the emancipation. The knew nothing else, that is not an excuse for slavery, but fact of their lives at that point. They didn’t know what it meant to be free so it would have been relatively impossible for them to crave that which they had never had

Hannah Irwin, a former slave stated: “I suppose the Yankees was all right in their place, but they never belonged in the South. As for them setting me free! We on the Bennett place were free as soon as we were born. I’ve always been free!”

Aunt Adeline, a former slave said: “After the war many soldiers came to my mistress, Mrs Blakely, trying to make her free me. I told them I was free but I didn’t want to go anywhere, that I wanted to stay in the only home I ever known. Sometimes I was threaten for not leaving but I stayed on.”

Betty Curlett said: “When Mars Daniel come home he went to my papa’s house and said ‘John, you free’ Papa said: ‘I been free as I want to be what I is’.”

Cora Gilliam, said: “I tell you lady, if the rough element from the North had stayed out of the South the trouble of reconstruction would not have happened. They tried to excite the colored against their white friends. The white folks was still kind to them what had been their slaves. The would have helped them get started. I know that. I always say that if the South could have been left to adjust itself both white and colored would have been better off.”

It is a stance of intellectual bankruptcy to conclude the feelings of those who were held in the captivity of the institution of slavery when there are thousands of examples of testimony to the contrary. This does not presuppose that there were not horrendous examples of cruelty, but from my readings of existing documentation, there were far more examples of a reciprocal relationship between slaves and slave owners, between their families and the social structure of the period.

I am not a Southern Apologist for the institution of slavery, I am however a very proud Son of Confederate Veterans who were not slave owners, who cared less about fighting for the survival of slavery in the South, but fought for their country, under their flag, for the same reasons the Revolutionary War was fought. By the way, there are also black Sons of Confederate Veterans who are just as proud of their heritage under the banner of the Confederacy. The South recognized as far back as the 1840s that slavery was a dying institution; it was an even heavy moral millstone around the necks of even slave owners of the period. It is hard to realize today that the South contained far more Abolitionists than were found in the North. As I stated, there was a plan in place for the eventual elimination of the institution in the South, one which would ensure not only that the lives of former slaves would be secure in their freedom, but that they would be given every opportunity to succeed in that freedom and adjust to it as they integrated into the various communities. That plan however was preempted by Lincoln’s War machine, which was purely political and economical at its inception and had nothing to do with the plight of the slaves in the South.

Jason...

Considering the fact that the Apostle Paul instructed both Masters and Slaves in their relationship to each other, I would say that the act of slavery in "Christian" terms was an accepted practice in both the"Christian" Greek and Roman worlds, as well as in Judea at that time. Ephesians chapter 6:5-8, and the entire book of Philemon was devoted to Onesimus, who happened to have been a run-a-way slave that Paul returned to his master.

I know that is a hard one for "Chrisitans" to stomach, but there you have it.

By the way Aaron, on my mother's side of the family, my
great, great, great, great grandfather his wife, my gggg grandmother came to this country as Indentured Servants. They were slaves in all but name.

Republica,

I was under the impression that the slavery in old and new testament times was quite different from American/South slavery. I was under the impression that slavery in that time period was based on debt/bond, and not on "man stealing/trading." To my understanding, Exodus 21 regulates laws regarding slavery, for that was Israel's position in Egypt. Individuals could sell themselves into slavery due to poverty or debt. Hebrew slaves were also to be released after 6 years (Deuteronomy 15). As for Onesimus, I have no reason to believe that the regulations regarding his enslavement were any different. However, I do think Hebrew slavery is contrary to the slavery demonstrated in the United States. I don't believe there is a Biblical justification for it. Thoughts?

Jason, most blacks I know in Reformed circles are so new to the tradition that they don't know about the white supremacy and racism that has been a silent tenant of the tradition, especially in Presbyterian and Reformed circles. None of the popular writers seem to have much courage to actually deal with it at all or simply reduce to an honorable mention that does not go beyond "oops, it was a blind spot." Ignorance is bliss I guess, that's how most blacks I know are still in those circles. When I present the information many seem shocked because the Reformed tradition is presented to its own ghetto-ized audience as if it's a flawless tradition. I dunno?

Republica,
You have really stepped on your lip on this one.

You said...
"I know that is a hard one for "Chrisitans" to stomach, but there you have it."

HELL NO! Jason is right in saying what he said about the difference in slavery during those times compared to the slavery here in America.

This statement that you just made is exactly what I thought you would say! I knew it was more than just a history lesson for you. You can say what you want to say about you thinking that "slavery" was immoral but when you bring the Bible into and use it out of context then that raises a lot of red flags for me. As a pastor who studies the Word for a "living" I really don't even want to go there with you to because of how uninformed and ridiculous your statement was.

I will just leave it at that. Please no more long responses directed at me. I am done with this conversation sir.

Peace,

Rome, in particular, was built by a slave system that held as many slaves in bondage as there were Romans themselves. Roman slaves that where ill-fated enough to be forced to work the copper and suffer mines, were oarsman on ships, those who were condemned to the mines, the fields, the ships were usually beaten, starved or worked to death, and while many personal slaves within the city itself were treated with general tolerance and extended many of the same “rights” as was those enslaved in America. Roman law denoted slave property as typical chattel. In Rome, slaves did not have the capacity of a lawful marriage, it was solely at the pleasure of the slave’s master who a slave could or could not marry if at all. There were massive slave plantations in Roman society, Some really worked what we might consider a regular shift and were free to come and as they pleased outside of that time. Others lived in the cruelest and harshest conditions, victim to the whims of society or the cruelty of their masters. Unlike the American system, a slave in Rome could be killed by anyone for any reason; the only penalty was to pay the owner for his property loss. Royalty could confiscate any slave that caught his or her fancy, sex slavery was not uncommon in Rome either, neither was it in ancient Greece. In fact, the slave population in the Roman Empire was at least equal to those who were free and citizens. The advent of “Christianity” had little impact on the slave system in Rome, the fact is that there were many “Christian” slave masters during the first 1000 years A.D., it was not until the 6th Century that the system began to be eliminated, not by a particular act, especially on the part of “Christians” but by the decline of the empire itself. In many ways, the Roman slave system was very similar to the American system; there were certain legal clarifications that prescribed the way slave property was handled. The difference was the fact that in Rome, even “Christian” Rome, there was a very definite stratum to slave society. Those who were considered personal slaves, and indentured were treated far differently than those who were “state-slaves”.

At the same time, the African slave system was equally stratified, with those who served rich families being treated far better than those who generally were employed to serve the tribal kingdom as a whole. Since the entire “pre-contact” system was based on group-rights instead of the concept of the rights of the individual. It was a hierarchical social system that placed the good of the many before the good of the individual; as such it was, in most cases ripe for a slave system. In the pre-contact African system, there were two basic rights of ownership based upon either ownership or guardianship. On the level of guardianship, the group had all the rights of every individual’s earnings within the system. The right of ownership in Africa was very similar to that both in Rome and in America, it was a chattel system of property rights and it existed in Africa long before even Arab contact in that continent. In Africa, since the majority of the tribal societies were based on group rights, slaves were inhumanely treated, subject to humiliation and insult, performed the least respected functions and rigorous work, and had a very low social status, this all may have been a later development under the influence of the trans Atlantic slave trade. Of course, the imposition of slavery in Africa could be the penalty for just about anything ranging from murder to witchcraft or even what was considered anti-social behavior, not to mention the enslavement of neighboring tribes. Slavery was existed in Africa on a large scale up to the 1960s, and still exists today in many areas.

I’m sure this should get some ganders up in the air….

It became evident that one of the most horrible doctrines that formed during the 16th Century was the justification of taking slaves by Christians who excused it because they were providing Africans the opportunity to become Christians. By the 17th Century the Christian church fully supported the removal of Africans forced into slavery. Ah yes how much as been done in the name of Christ? I am sickened by the hypocrisy of those who call themselves Christian while ignoring the blood lust, flesh trade and horrible inhuman acts all done in the name of Christ. If you think that slavery in this country was bad, then you should read the history of those who slaughtered millions in the name of a loving god. I have little for those who peddle the “word of god” for money and who prey upon the minds of men, using fear for the gain of filthy lucre. This history of Christianity is fraught with some of the most heinous acts known to man, all done in the name of god. White-washed sepulchers full of dead men’s bones, hypocrites that hide behind a system of enslavement that is no less cruel than acts of physical enslavement. Predators who have shown little real compassion for their fellow man, who look down on anyone who is different, who expresses an opposing opinion. The so-called Christian church today is noting more than a massive mess of splintered denominations all jockeying to get their share of humanity, to say we have this many members and “we” hold the truth, even the only true doctrine of Christ. It is truly sickening and shameful that men still grovel in the own idolatries while posing to be so up right and pious. Babylon, the great whore…what an appropriate picture of the modern church and those who pimp her out for the price of adherence to such blatant hypocrisy. In this country in particular, most Christians have proved themselves to be little more than warmongers, full of blood-lust supporting the same types of cruelty that the church has supported since the middle ages.

Obviously there are those who have not understood much of what I have been saying during this whole exchange.

There was such hypocrisy in the Union States, and in the mind of Lincoln, whose standing invitation “If you wish to keep your slaves, come back to the Union”. There was such a contradiction, not only in attitudes, but also in actual execution of policy in the federal government during that period. There was a very real religious basis for the institution of slavery, it was accepted as an approved “Christian” doctrine, and yes, in their eyes it was "justified" in the bible according to the teachings of the day. It seems that there is still a hypocrisy that prevails in this country, shying away from the role that the church, biblical interpretation and self-righteousness has played in the promoting and maintaining the institution of slavery through the centuries. As usual, hypocrisy hates to be exposed.

For generations, the “Christian” doctrine not only approved of the institution of slavery, but also helped it gain ascendancy in Europe and the Americas. It was common to hear references of Cain, and the mark of god upon him, many “Christians” considered that mark to be black skin and then there was Noah’s son Ham as representing the Negro race, cursed of god and inferior in the minds of those good, loving, bible-believing “Christians”. By the way, those "christians" were just as sincere in their faith as any that have commented on this forum. They were "good christians" in their own eyes, I suppose that is all that matters to "christians" is that they appear to be good in their own eyes, of so it appears. This was not just a Southern attitude, but permeated European and Colonial societies of the period.

I can name a hundred books and pamphlets from the early 1600s through the 1800s, all basing slavery on “Christian” doctrine, all on the bible for their justification. Many of these documents and books even delved into both the Greek and Hebrew meaning of the words “bondservant” and slave to prove that the meaning in the bible was exactly that which they espoused to justify the institution of slavery. It was also a very prevalent doctrine to show how often slavery was mentioned in the New Testament and that it was never condemned by any of the apostles, but encouraged. They even went as far as proclaiming that Christ applauded a slaveholder by his treatment of the Centurion of Capernaum and his slave, yet saying nothing that condemned the Centurion’s ownership of another person. It was also plain in these books that they viewed the teachings found in the New Testament as such to separate any condemnation between the actual treatment of slaves but allowing the institution of slavery. So, the “christian” doctrine, as it was widely accepted for centuries, allowed for and encouraged the institution of slavery. As hard as that is for many to reconcile in their minds, it is nevertheless, true.

Republicae, the justification of American Slavery by so called "Christian doctrine" for centuries is a clear example of biblical misinterpretation and bad doctrine. If you have a free minute, take a look at this... http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2007/0202.asp

Indeed Jason, and that is exactly what I am saying, "christian doctrine" has justified numerous things through the centuries, most of which were horrible!

There are those who use the bible to justify just about anything, from marrying off children to older men or cousins, nailing themselves to a cross in certain areas of the world, flogging themselves, wearing thorns under their clothes, excluding people from their loving world. I could name numerous wars that are completely fought over christian doctrine, even this present war, according to the President, was because "god told him to invade Iraq". Anyone can justify anything when it is in the name of god...what a pitiful god that must be if people allow themselves to be pressed into committing horror in his name. People become like the god they worship, that has always been the case...in other words, a person's view of their god determines the way they act and how they react to the world. Obviously, most of the christians in the world seem to worship a very harsh, overbearing, cruel and potentially dangerous god because they certainly haven't show much of the love of god or christ in this world.

Jason, I have read the bible, both in the original Greek and the Hebrew...sorry, but my opinion of the god that christians present, especially as they peddle their wears as money changers in the temple is very, very poor indeed. If you shall know them by their fruit then I see a rotten, sour, dried up tree with roots that are far more corrupt than they want to believe, they tend to rub a stinking salve over their consciences while they praise during worship, but show the reality of their souls during the week when dealing with their fellow man. Churches, as I have said, are money machines, pumping up their denominations, great official machines of religious administration, building great edifices while there are beggars in the street.

Jason, the problem was that whites, not only in the South during that period, but in the North believed the word of god, they believed the doctrine that was widespread by the 19th century that the negro was inferior because, according to their belief in the truth that they saw, it was biblical. You see, no matter what the doctrine you are taught, in whatever denomination, you must believe that it is true, there must be faith in your particular truth otherwise it holds no power or sway over you. Those people, along with most of the white population of the world, had faith in the truth of their doctrine...they were no different than the myriad of christians today who must hold the same type of faith in their particular doctrine, no matter whether that doctrine is "good" or "bad", depending on who is viewing it.

There are those who handle snakes in church today, but to them it is truth, good doctrine, and who is to say it is not...you or me?

Of course there are those who firmly believe that the accepted history of both the Confederacy and the institution of slavery is factual however, facts throw a very important light onto the reality of the period, a reality that, in many cases, contradicts the accepted history.

Now it is interesting to consider that in the North there were very militant, very radical abolitionists. The only problem is that those Northern Abolitionists had tunnel vision toward the South while ignoring the North. They were paid contributions by the very people, the Northern Industrialists, who bought, for their textile mills, Southern cotton picked by slaves and the Abolitionist also seemed to have a rather close relationship to the actual Shipping companies who traded in slave flesh up to the later part of the 1850s. The problem about that was the Northern Industrialist and Shippers knew that the Abolitionists would never be able to emancipate the slaves in the South, but they knew that the Abolitionists could agitate politics to the point of war, and that is what the Northern Industrialists wanted, it would be the perfect time to plunder the wealth of the South.

Another heinous hypocrisy of the Northern Abolitionists was their attitude toward the child labor in the Northern Mills, why ignore one form of slavery while condemning another? Well, the answer to that is: “follow the money”. The horrible conditions that children, of both black and white, in the Northern Mills had to endure was far worse than the majority of Southern slaves had to endure. Children were whipped, maimed, killed in those mills, but the Abolitionists turned a blind eye, the same blind eye that they turned from the slave traders in the North. By the way, it is estimated that there were close to 800 slave ships in Northern Ports. Why would the Abolitionist focus on the South while conditions in the North were probably worse in terms of conditions, and was the main culprit in the slave trade? For every slave the Northern slaver ships brought into America, they sold 10 in the Caribbean and South America, but that fact was ignored the Northern Abolitionist and politicians.

I realize that there are those on this forum who have voiced the opinion that 100% of those held in slavery wanted their freedom. The question is what did freedom mean to those who were enslaved? While I condemn the institution of slavery, that does not mean that I must neglect the reality of the facts that history presents to us concerning that time and the institution of slavery itself.

It was common for elderly and dying plantation owners to include his slaves in his will, in most cases his slaves were freed upon his death. Not only was that common, but it was not uncommon for the will of the dead master to will his slaves land and money to start a new life in freedom. There was also a common practice across the South to grant freedom to any slave that could prove he or she was skilled enough and could provide from himself or herself without becoming a burden to the State. Remember, by the time the North had emancipated all the Northern slaves, approximately 170,000; the South had already emancipated nearly 200,000. The problem with the emancipation in the North is that it was really not emancipation at all; the Northern slaveholders didn’t want to loose their investment and sold off the healthy men and women to the South before the Northern Laws took effect.

It would surprise those who, as we have seen, ardently supports the commonly held and accept view of history to find that Virginia and several other Southern States found it necessary to pass legislation to allow freed slaves to return to slavery. Virginia had so many freed slaves requesting to return to that institution that the legislature had to craft a law that would allow such a conversion. The passed a law that would not only allow a freed slave to return to the life of slavery but that the freed slave could actually choose the master he wished to own him. Now that is history that you rarely will hear or read in the accepted history books.

There are also numerous, perhaps hundreds of songs that give a very different view of slave life than the one we have been accustom to about the institution and the life of the slave.

For instance:
“I’ve hoed in fields of cotton,
I’ve worked upon the river
And I always thought if I got away
I would go back, no never!
But times have changed the old man
My head is bending low
My heart turns back to Dixie
And to Dixie I must go!”

What does all of this mean, well from my reading and research it shows that it is impossible for us in our modern mentality to impose out attitudes on factual history. We have absolutely no concept of the feelings, the attitudes and the reasoning of those who were held in slavery and those who held those people in slavery. We are quick to accept a history that has been carefully varnished over, but that polished history is not always in concert with the facts of the period.

Sigh, are you guys done yet?

NO...I thought the purpose for a commentary was to comment, is it not? It is, of course, your perrogative not to read such comments.

This is one of the worst arguments I've seen. The Confederate flag is heritage. We have to embrace our American heritage. The flag does not stand for rascist beliefs and it is far from a Swastika. Confederate General Jackson supported the abolitionist movement and it's not the fact that they hated African Americans it's that they relied on slavery. The KKK used the wrong flag for their symbol. People get the wrong idea from our Confederate flag and they should get an education and then they can criticize that flag.

Like most people are saying it has nothing to do with racism it has to do with heritage, that is disgusting to put a nazi sign on that flag that it disrespectful to the south!!

It is, or at least it should be, obvious that slavery was not the only moral wrong that was committed in this country. The fact that the South was engaged in the dying institution of slavery, a moral wrong introduced into this country during the 1600s does not automatically make all other actions taken by the South morally wrong.

Secession and the reasons behind it were, according to just about every source during the time, including many in the North, was due to a struggle that had been going on for decades and that struggle was the oppressive influences of the Northern Industrial powers in Congress to enforce tariffs that were draining the South and harming its economic well-being. Even Lincoln’s pen pal Karl Marx stated it was nothing more than a tariff war meant to impose the will of one people upon the will of another.

The truth of the History of the War for Southern Independence is that it was a war for independence, for self-government. The North’s aggression against the South, if it were indeed to eliminate the institution of slavery, to free those in bondage then why did the Northern Army’s abandoned all civilized codes of warfare in their invasion? In fact, Sherman himself stated that under the legal code of warfare that he had been taught in West Point he was guilty of war crimes that would normally be punishable by the death penalty.

Once again, if slavery was the reason the North invaded then why in the world would the Northern dominated Congress pass an amendment to the Constitution protecting slavery (with Lincoln’s complete approval) forever in the Southern States if they would only remain in the Union. So too, had slavery been the reason the South Seceded from the Union, they had only return to the Union and slavery would have been forever protected in Southern States, but it wasn’t the reason for either the South or the North.

We seem to forget that there was an almost universal agreement, in both the North and the South, that slavery was a moral wrong. While the Northern Abolitionists sought immediate freedom for those held in slavery, obviously without real concern for the slaves themselves or their futures; the Southern Abolitionists, who outnumbered those in the North, favored a emancipation that would help those freed from slavery to assimilate into society and be successful in that assimilation. While the North, including the Northern Abolitionists, didn’t want a freed slave anywhere in their territory and passed laws to prevent freed slaves from settling in the Northern States, the South had a very different plan for emancipation. The proof that the Northerners didn’t give a rat’s ass about those they “liberated” was the fact that during the first year after the war, after the majority of Union soldiers went home, nearly a half a million freed slaves died of starvation and sickness.

Just because the North claimed a moral reasoning behind its actions do not make those actions moral or legal. It was the systematic destruction of the Constitutional basis of this Republic, and the actions of the North effectively transform this country into a Nationalistic State in which we are all still paying a heavy price.

Despite the moral wrong of slavery, the South was Right!

The Confederate flag is not a racist flag. If you look at the history of this country the United States flag is one of the most racist flags in the world. It helped bring slaves over here. Under it we put innocent Japanese men, women, and children in internment camps. Invade countries on lies and then change our story once it is proven lies. In the 1950's put people in prison for communism. I am not for communism but people shouldnt be in prison for freedom of speech. Just like the United States was against the Soviets invading countries and forcing communism on them. But yet we invade Iraq and force democracy on them there is no double standard.

if u would study history it shows us that the Confederate battle flag is modeled after the Cross of St. Andrews, who was the first desciple of Jesus Christ (not very hateful people). also that lincoln and most of his cabinet where in favor of "colonizing the Negro race back to Africa" and lincoln said he "has no intention of contributing to the social or political equality of the Negro race". lincoln didn't want to free the slaves, who most Southerners considered a part of their family, he just did'nt want to lose the 75% of taxes that the South(the wealthiest part of the country at the time) gave to the fed govt. the kkk and other white supremacy hate groups use the American and Christian flags along with the battle flag. should we ban those flags as well?

i like how the ones in favor of the Confederate flag back their info up with books and historical evidence and the rest just say "nope war was over slavery and the flag is racist". now whose being ignorant???

Wow! This is so funny! I am with you Anthony... I didn't know you replied when i wrote a while back. Partly because I was done hearing these guys talking about how great the south is. I also noticed that no one had anything to say to your response... well said bro!

I just think it is funny that Republica and Tyler are still "fighting the good fight" of the south. By all means guys keep on fighting... I just don't think anyone is listening or anyone actually cares. Keep your flags guys, you deserve it.

"If the south would have one we would have had it made." Hank Williams Jr. (LMAO)

What a joke! I am done with the southern good ole boys... I think I will like you anthony not even have this discussion with these folks for as long as I live.

Holla Ant!

Your last statement really does denote a mind that is so limited, so restrained by self-imposed dogma that it is truly amazing. I can only imagine just what you would do when you are finally confronted with facts that you can no longer deny or avoid in your insulated bubble. I don’t suggest you have a discussion with “those kind of people”, simply read a book or two and perhaps that will lead you to understand just what took place in history instead of being spoon fed it as so many are who avoid the facts of history.

It’s not even a question of “fighting the good fight”, it is a question of history, the facts that support that history and the revisions that have been made to support a history that contradicts the facts, such as the history that is commonly accepted obviously, by many people.

As I stated, there is no question that slavery was a moral wrong however, it was a moral wrong that fell on the back of the entire country, not just the South. Once more, despite the moral wrong of slavery, the South was primarily fighting to maintain the principles upon which this country was originally founded, they sought to prevent the “nationalists” from destroying the very foundations of the country; yes they failed to prevent that and today we are all living with the consequences of that failure. The Founders did not create or intend on creating a supreme centralized government, that was the War Party of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans, if, of course, you choose to avoid such extremely important points in history then you do so at your own peril, in fact we all are because the federal government will continue to press forward with centralization and administration of every aspect of our lives.

Those of the Lincoln regime believed in what they called a “higher law”, no it was not a religious law but one that would allow them to trample every single Constitutional principle in order to accomplish their own political agenda. They claimed that the Constitution was not the supreme law of the land regarding political institutions and they also claimed that if the Constitution stood in the way of any program they wanted to push through Congress then they could simply used the theory of “higher law” and justify their moves. They were not above lies, subterfuges or murder to accomplish their goals; perhaps those that inherited the Lincolnite ideology are still not above those things. A fellow politician once asked William Seward: “Why do you say such harsh things against the South when you know they are not true?” To this Seward answered: “The South will not give us an increase in Tariffs and so we touch them where they feel it the most”. Truth was not in them, they used any method to accomplish their goals and they were not above taking this country into an unnecessary war to subvert the country and the government. That is obvious from the record of the day.

Obviously, today there are still those would prefer to listen to the official political line instead of researching the facts of history, that is a sad, sad admission on your part Aaron. You prefer lies to the truth, yet you claim to represent him who is the way, the truth and the light…quite a contradiction, don’t you think? Why don’t you start with the historian Bennett’s “Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream”, from there you can, hopefully, find your way to other extremely important histories that depend on fact instead of fictions as you are obviously accustom to.

HOW DARE YOU COMPARE THE CONFEDERATE FLAG TO THE NAZIS!!!! DO