Well said. Even if you could somehow get past the slavery thing, it was still treason. When I see the Confederate flag, I think, "Hi! I approve of treason!"

I'm a proud Southerner, and I totally agree with everything in this post.

(Btw, the U of Alabama philosopher Torin Alter has a great paper on the flag, "Symbolic Meaning and the Confederate Battle Flag", but I can't seem to find an online copy of it to post a link to.)

History class never really explained the 1860 wave of secession. It seems to me that people don't resort to such desperate measures until they really are at the end of their rope. Lincoln opposed slavery, but the South controlled the Senate in the 36th Congress, and would have retained that power in the 37th without secession.

The second wave is easy to understand, even if one does not agree with the four states that made the big move. If a lot of people today think of the Waco siege as an overreach of military power, imagine how people must have felt back then when Lincoln was calling for a full military invasion of the South. A lot of people did want a peaceful solution, but apparently Lincoln never gave that option a chance.

The poor rednecks who fought for the South are even easier to understand: people don't like it when their land is being invaded and nobody is promising to liberate them from anything.

As I think about it, if anything contributed to the war more than anything else it's the Three-Fifths Compromise. That provision allowed the South to artificially inflate its numbers for the purpose of political representation. One can get away with such a game for only so long.

Ironically, abolition would have gained even more House seats for the South, since blacks would be full citizens. But politicians often don't trust the people in whistle-stop country to consistently vote the desired way, so they don't take any chances with democracy when they can avoid it.

The initial round of secession, started by South Carolina in December 1860, was entirely a freakout in response to Lincoln's electoral victory. Lincoln would have allowed slavery to continue where it existed, but opposed its expansion into the Western territories, which was probably necessary for the peculiar institution to remain economically viable. I guess they figured they'd git out while the gittin' was good.

Both Lincoln and predecessor James Buchanan regarded secession as illegal. A peaceful solution allowing states to leave would have legitimized secession -- an unacceptable option.

Treason in Defense of Slavery is a perfectly appropriate title.

(I'm a bit shocked we haven't already had a Lost Cause apologist on here arguing the South did it for "states rights" and "chivalry").

For me, it's not even so much the slavery angle as the treason angle. I mean, I can't even imagine what was going through the minds of the guys who fired on Ft. Sumpter. What the heck would we think today if a bunch of rednecks started lobbing mortar shells at Ft. Knox? Firing on a federal installation = treason.

Good post. Also, like DMD, I am surprised that a confederate hasn't yet made an appearance. We should start placing bets on when the first of the confederates will bring out their stock thought-stopping responses to this kind of post.

Awesome post. As I believe you turned me on to Akhil Reed Amar's "The Constitution: A Biography", let me remind your readers of that book and its excellent arguments against the constitutionality of unilateral secession. As DMD pointed out, the 1860 wave of secession was indeed an irrational response to Lincoln's election. The institution of slavery might have stayed around until the 1900s had the southern states remained in the Union. Ultimately, of course, the the demographic situation on the continent would have destroyed slavery eventually. Perhaps violence was as inevitable as slavery's end.

Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?

Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--

Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.

Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

Of course, while that is great for entertainment purposes, I think that worked so well on the Simpsons because they set it up to work. The question of what caused a war always invites a lot of answers, even when the immediate cause or causes were clear. The only Civil War question that is more open-ended, I think, is what the Civil War was "about."

"The pretension that the Confederacy was about something other than the right to hold human beings in chattel slavery is a Great Big Lie."

Then how do you explain the fact that Robert E. Lee opposed slavery but nonetheless sided with the South?

Also, was it any more treasonous for the South to want to secede from the Union than for the American colonies to want to secede from Britain?

Then how do you explain the fact that Robert E. Lee opposed slavery but nonetheless sided with the South?

His loyalty to Virginia, despite his dislike for the direction she and the Confederacy was taking.

Also, was it any more treasonous for the South to want to secede from the Union than for the American colonies to want to secede from Britain?

If you assume removal (continued or newly) of basic rights is a legitimate driving factor, then yes it was.

Another view, would be that the "Union" won both wars and as such gets to dictate historical interpritation.

John M. wrote:

I mean, I can't even imagine what was going through the minds of the guys who fired on Ft. Sumpter. What the heck would we think today if a bunch of rednecks started lobbing mortar shells at Ft. Knox? Firing on a federal installation = treason.

I agree that the firing on Ft. Sumpter was treasonous. However, do keep in mind that before the Civil War, people largely thought of themselves as citizens of their State first, and of the United States second. A similar situation today might be if we had some kind of North American Union, and a group of Texans fired on some installation in Mexico.

Then how do you explain the fact that Robert E. Lee opposed slavery but nonetheless sided with the South?

By pointing out that the personal motivations of any one individual -- who was not a political leader of the confederates, and who did not make the decision for any state to secede -- are irrelevant.

Also, was it any more treasonous for the South to want to secede from the Union than for the American colonies to want to secede from Britain?

Doesn't that depend on the definition of treason? I am not aware of an exception in the definition of treason for any separation of a territory from the existing, legitimate government. The application of the term would depend on whether the existing government should be in control of the territory, which is not a question of fact. What I can say for certain is that American independence in 1776 was both plainly more justified and just than the secession of the future confederate states in 1861.

However, do keep in mind that before the Civil War, people largely thought of themselves as citizens of their State first, and of the United States second.

Many people say this, but I question the extent to which it is true. I'm sure that some people thought this way, but I don't know what kind of evidence could exist of the general sense of the American people, other than anecdotal evidence.

And even by the 1790s, George Washington, among others, encouraged Americans to think of themselves as Americans (which I realize is anecdotal evidence).

Also, I don't think your North American Union example would really be a parallel. The parallel would be if the American people agreed, through a convention of popularly-elected delegates, to join such a union, the union bought land in the United States (and absolute sovereignty over that land) for the purpose of building a fort, and then the United States government fired on that fort.

Doesn't that depend on the definition of treason?

I think a differenct question should be asked: when is treason justifiable? Spies who finked out on the Soviet Union were traitors, but they were good traitors - they diminished the power of a vast tyranny.

One might propose that secession would be good treason if it results in a significant net decrease in tyranny. That model fits the American Revolution, but like Newton's law of physics it may require some added caveats to apply to all cases of secession.

That leads us to two more vital questions: to what degree was the North tyrannous (all governments are in some measure), and how much of its tyranny over the South would have been erased if the CSA had won its independence?

Well, I see you have the PC version of history down pat...but there is one thing you did get right-

"I would place our peculiar institution behind aboriginal genocide as our ultimate sin. -- ZW"

...........Right-O...and who was responsible for that?...........The CSA?...Nope.........The CSA didn't wipe out Indian villages killing men, women, and children.

The period when this policy of genocide was at its zenith was about 1860s-1880 when the North held supreme control of the US government......and with Sherman, Sheridan and Custer doing its bidding.

"By pointing out that the personal motivations of any one individual -- who was not a political leader of the confederates, and who did not make the decision for any state to secede -- are irrelevant."

Of course they're relevant. The allegation was that the only reason why Southerners revolted was the right to own slaves - and not, as in Lee's case, states' rights. Of course the opinion of individuals like Lee are relevant.

"Another view, would be that the "Union" won both wars and as such gets to dictate historical interpritation."

So the winner of a conflict gets to decide its history? Wow, what wonderful objective historians we have on this board!

"If you assume removal (continued or newly) of basic rights is a legitimate driving factor, then yes it was."

Are you talking about the rights of black slaves? But slavery was still established by national law when the states seceded. Secession didn't "remove" any rights.

I see virtually no evidence to support the view that Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. This seems to be a reconstructed myth by Confederate apologists.

I think John Scalzi spot on:
http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/002936.html

Grr. John Scalzi IS spot on.

I think a differenct question should be asked: when is treason justifiable?

That's probably the better question to ask. It gets a little complicated when the revolution successfully replaces the "legitimate" government, though, turning loyalty into treason and the former treason into loyalty.

That leads us to two more vital questions: to what degree was the North tyrannous (all governments are in some measure), and how much of its tyranny over the South would have been erased if the CSA had won its independence?

Though I don't want to begin a theme, it depends on the definition of tyranny. All governments, as you wrote, could be considered tyrannous by a strict enough standard. I do not think that the United States government was tyrannous in its treatment of the southern states that later seceded, but if it was, it was certainly far less tyrannous than Great Britain had been, leading up to 1776. America was invaded before it declared independence, and had been struggling to defend itself, for over a year, from a government that it had never had any power to elect. South Carolina and the other six of the original seven seceding southern states, on the other hand, responded to the outcome of an election (in which they participated) by seceding and seizing American forts.

Also, it wouldn't have been the northern states that were tyrannous over the southern states -- it would have been the southern states' own government (which they had in common with the northern states), the U.S. government, that would have to have been responsible for any tyranny.

I hope those weren't supposed to be rhetorical questions.

The first reply to Scalzi by 'Dave' is the real spot-on-

"...the flag so roundly excoriated by those ignorant of the history of the USA can be deemed to be an evil symbol of "racism", then so can the Stars and Stripes, which I remind you flew over the institution of slavery far longer than the CSA even existed...

...northern industry was all too happy to receive the agricultural products produced by the slavery system. There are many ugly truths about this war, not the least of which is that the northern States used raw military power to subjugate and conquer a region of America which no longer wished to bow to it's economic will...

...The continued debate over slavery is a red herring, and is a device used by Lincoln apologists to disguise the fact that the real traitors to the US Constitution lived above the Mason Dixon line."

Of course they're relevant. The allegation was that the only reason why Southerners revolted was the right to own slaves - and not, as in Lee's case, states' rights. Of course the opinion of individuals like Lee are relevant.

His opinion is irrelevant because Robert E. Lee did not make the decision for any state to revolt, and apparently opposed secession. His own motivations, therefore, have nothing to do with the respective meanings of the secessions (which he did not cause or support), the confederacy's formation (which he did not cause or support), and the confederate battle flag (which represents those secessions, the confederacy, and the motivations of those who engineered both the secessions and the confederacy). Also, he eventually went along with it because he did not want to fight Virginia, not because he believed in "states' rights." That term, in the context of the Civil War, is used to avoid confronting the fact that a state would only have seceded to protect a specific right or rights, not over some undefined bundle of state rights that were allegedly violated in some unstated way.

Ahh... there we go. :)

Like Josh, I find no evidence that Lee himself opposed slavery.

When discussing the causes of the civil war, I usually refer to the people to the primary documents: the declarations of secession themselves (make sure they're from a reputable source though). For example, these documents show that slavery was clearly in the foreground of their thoughts: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html.

then so can the Stars and Stripes, which I remind you flew over the institution of slavery far longer than the CSA even existed...

I find it strange that you agree with that comment that it is the number of years of slavery, rather than the significance of slavery in a country's history, that affects its impact on the meaning of a country's symbols. There was slavery in the United States for only about 2/5 of its existence, and for most of that time, slavery was legal in fewer than half of the states. The first law against slavery in American territories was passed even before the Constitution was enacted (in the Northwest Ordinance). Many delegates to the Constitutional Convention spoke in favor of restricting slavery -- or, at least, the importation of slaves -- through the Constitution, but they were thwarted by delegates from some of the same states that supposedly benefit from this "everybody did it" defense. Having been thwarted there, those anti-slavery delegates returned home to work to make slavery illegal, state by state. Finally, the formation of the United States, unlike that of the confederacy, was not motivated by a desire to protect slavery. Even including the future confederate states, America's is not a history of enthusiasm for slavery.

Of course, when a government has a shorter lifespan than most cats, as the confederacy did, it would tend to be defined by what little it did during that time, and particularly by what motivated its formation. Nations that exist for a longer time have time to be about something else. That is why the confederate flag is a symbol of slavery, while the American Flag is not.

DMD, the Yale law school also has a large collection of documents, which includes those declarations of secession. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm

Only those four states (which were all from the first wave) issued declarations of secession, but Alabama's ordinance of secession included a passage stating, "[I]t is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South who approve of such a purpose, in order to frame a revisional as a permanent Government," then inviting all of the slave states, by name -- including those that had not seceded, and the slave states that never did secede -- to join it. That's five of the first seven making it clear, officially, what they thought it was all about.

I will grant this much to our anonyreb: there is a certain mythical view of their own history that denizens of northern states often have, in which their motives were absolutely pure, entirely aimed at a selfless rooting out of slavery -- whose evil, as a result, is not at all booked on their own moral ledger. This myth is worth debunking when people want to play the north vs. south game. But all it shows is that the evil perpetrated by the slaveowning states infected the country more generally; it goes no distance at all towards showing that the slaveowning states were not thereby evil, or that the CSA was not itself a country founded in evil (as Scalzi argues), or that the Confederate Battle Flag can be legitimately construed as a symbol not tainted to its core by this legacy.

(I would also note that, so far as I can tell, no one on this thread has been participating here in any such myth of Yankee abolitionist purity, so anon's post is pretty much completely off target here.)

"But all it shows is that the evil perpetrated by the slaveowning states infected the country more generally;"

So now the evil southerners infected the helpless, innocent northerners. Wow.

"it goes no distance at all towards showing that the slaveowning states were not thereby evil,"

Slavery was evil. To call the states themselves evil is kind of a childish generalization, esp. considering that national law upheld slavery, and only a minority of northerners opposed it.

"or that the CSA was not itself a country founded in evil (as Scalzi argues),"

Ever read the American constitution? How is its support of slavery less evil than that of the Confederacy?

"or that the Confederate Battle Flag can be legitimately construed as a symbol not tainted to its core by this legacy."

As is the American flag. Let's be honest with ourselves.

"I see virtually no evidence to support the view that Robert E. Lee opposed slavery."

You see no evidence? Are you like a historian or something? Check out _Patriotic Gore_ by Edmund Wilson sometime, and read the section on Lee. And don't tell me Wilson was a southern sympathizer.

...or a "confederate apologist."

"His opinion is irrelevant because Robert E. Lee did not make the decision for any state to revolt, and apparently opposed secession. His own motivations, therefore, have nothing to do with the respective meanings of the secessions (which he did not cause or support), the confederacy's formation (which he did not cause or support), and the confederate battle flag (which represents those secessions, the confederacy, and the motivations of those who engineered both the secessions and the confederacy)."

Once again... the allegation was that the only reason southerners seceded was because of slavery. All I need to do to disprove that is show that southerners revolted who were not interested in upholding slavery. My example for that is none other than Lee himself. I'm sure I could find many more examples if I were to dig.

All I need to do to disprove that is show that southerners revolted who were not interested in upholding slavery.

You certainly need to show more than the existence of some confederates who went along with it for reasons other than those that motivated the secessions themselves. Robert E. Lee fought for Virginia, once it seceded, but he and his views did not cause Virginia, or any other state, to secede. It doesn't look as though he even agreed with secession.

Ever read the American constitution? How is its support of slavery less evil than that of the Confederacy?

The fact that the Constitution includes language on which the future confederate states insisted, though it is unpleasant, is not "support" for slavery other than in the sense that it provides very limited facilitation for it. That limited facilitation, also, is "less evil than that of the Confederacy" for the simple reason that the Confederacy did much more, and was willing to risk much more, in favor of slavery. More importantly, this country certainly wasn't founded for that language, and wasn't "founded in evil" because of it.

As is the American flag. Let's be honest with ourselves.

I explained a few comments above why this is not true, but I find it surprising that you would think that the American Flag is, like the confederate battle flag, "tainted to its core" by slavery. The idea that the American Flag, as a symbol of America, is tainted to its core by slavery takes the "America's original sin" idea pretty far, considering that 1) there are noteworthy things in American history, unlike confederate history, other than slavery and the Civil War for the American Flag to be "about"; 2) the United States, unlike the confederacy, was not founded in response to perceived (future) attacks on slavery; 3) there has been a national law against slavery in the United States for 3/5 of its history; 4) before there was a national law against slavery, the majority of the states made slavery illegal long before the Civil War; 5) Congress did attempt to restrict slavery as much as it was politically possible to do so as early as the 1780s, but was limited in some of these efforts by some of the future confederate states (meaning that if there is a stain of slavery on the American Flag, it is mostly the stain of the future confederacy rubbing off on it).

Those are some pretty vague arguments Karl. A law is a law... if the northerners had a fundamental disagreement with slavery at the Constitutional Convention, then they shouldn't have put their stamp on it. Take responsibility for what you accept as law, or do like Thoreau did and opt out of the system.

As far as Lee is concerned, he is enough evidence that there was more to Southern secession than pure desire to own slaves. The disagreement over slavery was merely emblematic of the fact that you had two divergent cultures in the country, agrarian/traditional and mercantile/progressive, and that as long as there was a strong national government in which one culture held the majority, the other culture was going to get continually voted down on issues. When the Southerners realized that, they opted out.

BUT don't tell me that the Northern side was so much more righteous when most of you were complacent about slavery and didn't own slaves yourselves simply because they offered no economic advantage.

While there was nothing about the Confederacy worth celebrating, I do find it odd that so many are insisting on describing its motives in absolutist terms. I agree with Mike that to call the slave-owning states "evil" is an exaggeration.

There's no doubt that maintaining slavery was the biggest single motivation for the Confederacy. However, it's not as though the slave-owning states wanted to maintain slavery out of pure racial animus. Slavery was (or at least was perceived as) necessary to the Southern economy, so Southerners saw abolitionism as a threat to their livelihoods.

Once the battle lines were drawn, of course, it's not hard to imagine how Southerners must have felt seeing Northern troops invading their land. Surely, the majority of Southern troops believed they were fighting to protect their homes first and foremost, not for the right to keep control over their slaves.

A law is a law... if the northerners had a fundamental disagreement with slavery at the Constitutional Convention, then they shouldn't have put their stamp on it. Take responsibility for what you accept as law, or do like Thoreau did and opt out of the system.

I'd first like to renew my objection that laws adopted years after evidence are not even capable of making the United States "founded in evil" as the confederacy was. Second, you are recommending a pretty imprudent and counterproductive strategy to the "northerners" at the convention. The delegates from South Carolina explicity (and credibly) threatened that their state, along with others, would not have voted to ratify the Constitution if it was any less friendly to slavery -- even in such a trivial way as by allowing a ban on the importation of slaves in 1800 instead of 1808. If they had not agreed to this, insisting on perfection, they would have put the sorely needed Constitution in jeopardy, and would have risked losing South Carolina (and quite possibly other states) all the way back in 1787. By insisting on what they wanted, they would have risked serious harm to the United States, with little chance that they could have accomplished anything good by doing this (an abolitionist Constitution couldn't have done much good unless the slave states agreed to it, because if they hadn't, it either would not have applied to them or else it would not have taken effect at all). If you believe that the delegates to the Constitutional convention were required to risk everything to accomplish nothing, just to avoid having the American Flag "tainted to its core" by that compromise, I have to disagree. If you believe that choosing the lesser of two (or more) evils makes the person who is choosing as evil as those who force that choice or make the same choice freely, then I disagree with that, too.

[H]e is enough evidence that there was more to Southern secession than pure desire to own slaves.

No. First, Lee did not even support secession. He fought for Virginia after it did secede, but he did not cause, influence, or even agree with secession, so he is not evidence of what "there was to Southern secession." Second, even the existence of some people with alternate motives (which I'm sure must have existed, even though I don't know of any, or what their motives actually were) for supporting secession would not displace the overwhelmingly dominant motivating factor behind secession. The possibility that some people went along with it doesn't mean that their cause was the confederacy's cause. Third, it looks as though you might be grooming a straw man. Though I may have overlooked it, I don't think that anyone here believes that only the "pure desire to own slaves" motivated people to support secession. The argument is that the movement for secession, and secession itself, was motivated by a desire to protect slavery and a belief that slavery was threatened by the election of Lincoln, and that this motivation was so dominant that any others were eclipsed by it, and that its impact should not be ignored or watered down in judging the confederacy or interpreting its symbols.

The disagreement over slavery was merely emblematic of the fact that you had two divergent cultures in the country, agrarian/traditional and mercantile/progressive, and that as long as there was a strong national government in which one culture held the majority, the other culture was going to get continually voted down on issues.

The declarations of secession released by some of the states that seceded, the "Cornerstone" speech by the confederacy's Vice President, and Jefferson Davis' farewell speech to the Senate do not support this interpretation. They made it clear that their biggest concern was slavery. I think it is time for us to start talking about those.

BUT don't tell me that the Northern side was so much more righteous when most of you were complacent about slavery and didn't own slaves yourselves simply because they offered no economic advantage.

Your assumptions and choices of language are revealing. 1) I don't believe anyone has said that "the Northern side" was "so much more righteous. 2) We were not complacent about slavery. None of us had been born, at the time. I don't hold states and people responsible for the actions of their ancestors or former area residents, but I do believe that symbols that emerged with repugnant movements remain repugnant themselves in the present. 3) I don't know of anyone in the "North" who identifies with the "North" as a region. I do identify with the United States, which includes the southeastern United States. 4) Obviously, there was a little more to the bans on slavery in the free states (and the Northwest Territory, and other U.S. territories) than the absence of an economic advantage. States don't make things illegal just because they are not economically advantageous. Congress did not ban slavery in the territories because it was worried about a lack of economic advantage. 5) You have attempted to respond to a comparison between "Northerners" and the confederate states, but I'll take a risk and assume that I speak for the rest of the anti-confederates here and say that no one would have made any such comparison. The question is not whether states in the "North" or the "South" are better, or which states contain the best people. The question is whether the confederate battle flag represents what the actions and ideas that it was most closely associated with, and whether those actions and ideas were a radical defense of slavery. The answer to both questions is "yes."

Slavery was (or at least was perceived as) necessary to the Southern economy, so Southerners saw abolitionism as a threat to their livelihoods.

I'm sure you wouldn't characterize this as an "excuse," but I think it is a good idea to emphasize that it is no exuse. Most people who do something evil are probably doing it for a reason. Doing something as extreme as splitting up the United States seizing and firing on its forts (or doing anything) in order to protect something as evil as slavery is inexcusable, even if they thought it would be good for the economy.

The second to the last sentence in my second to most recent post should have read: The question is whether the confederate battle flag represents the actions and ideas that it was most closely associated with, and whether those actions and ideas were a radical defense of slavery.

I agree completely with what Eric said. Karl, I'm sorry, but I didn't even bother reading all that.

"However, it's not as though the slave-owning states wanted to maintain slavery out of pure racial animus. Slavery was (or at least was perceived as) necessary to the Southern economy, so Southerners saw abolitionism as a threat to their livelihoods." I'm with Karl here, in that it is important to observe that this serves as no moral excuse whatsoever.

Also, I find the first sentence quoted here to be rather weird. First, it seems to suggest that the problem with slavery was first and foremost that it was a form of racism, and not that it was, well, a form of _slavery_. Second, it seems to think that if I were to enslave a black man because he was black, but not because I hated blacks or something like that but only because it was to my economic benefit & because I could get away with it, then I would somehow not be guilty of, indeed, a terrible, terribly form of racism. I don't see how Eric could mean either of those things, but I also just don't see what else that sentence, in the context it was offered, could mean.

It's also worth being careful about what "necessary to an economy" really means. It's not like there would have been mass starvation in the South, had slavery been abolished. _Maybe_ forced labor can be justified, or at least exculpated, in truly dire circumstances. But we're just talking about a significant economic setback, not a collapse, and there'd still be plenty of corn, etc. being grown, just a lot less cotton. Putting it differently: "I'll starve otherwise" is a potential justifier for some fairly extreme actions, but "I'll be a lot less rich" is not.

I do have one caveat for Karl, when he writes, "You have attempted to respond to a comparison between "Northerners" and the confederate states, but I'll take a risk and assume that I speak for the rest of the anti-confederates here and say that no one would have made any such comparison." I'm afraid that I have met plenty of yankees who are otherwise good people, who are willing to do just that. Like I said in my earlier comment, there are people out there who want to run a myth of Northern moral purity, and I should add that it's not just about slavery but about bad racial relations through to today. I don't think anyone _here_ has been committing any such error, at least not on this thread, but I think it's fine for Southerners to keep an eye out for it when it happens, because it's pretty darn annoying when it does. Nonetheless, that's no excuse for Mike's utter obtuseness and failure to engage with the arguments that people are actually making here.

"necessary to an economy"

Some economy! The vast majority of slaveholders were the big plantation owners, not poor farmers, many of whom couldn't afford to buy or keep slaves. Slavery made it that much harder for those just scraping by to compete. Nevertheless, like good citizens, those poor southerners went to war and died trying to keep the southern powers-that-be in business.

It's the same story heard 'round the world.

"Nonetheless, that's no excuse for Mike's utter obtuseness and failure to engage with the arguments that people are actually making here."

lol, I engaged with them pretty steadily until people started writing mini-dissertations. There's a saying about how arguing over the internet is like the Special Olympics...

Actually, you didn't -- which is part of what Karl was trying rather patiently & generously to explain to you, before you decided that internet exchanges that involve actually, like, thinking are too intense for you.

(Hint: if you can't follow 200-odd words of really straightforward & clear argumentation, then you would do better to confine your internet attentions to RedState or other mouth-breathing blogs.)

Sorry philosopher, a thread in which Southerners are referred to as "rednecks" and anyone who takes my position is referred to by the original poster as a "dupe" didn't seem to me to have a very high standard of intellectual argumentation.

The only person in this thread who could even be accused of calling them "rednecks" was Alan K. Henderson, who wrote, "The poor rednecks who fought for the South are even easier to understand: people don't like it when their land is being invaded and nobody is promising to liberate them from anything." He called some of the 19th century residents of those states "rednecks," but that's about it. Also, he was sympathizing with the position that they were in.

Also, my comment really wasn't that long. It takes a person longer to respond to something with facts and reason than it does to state what he already believes, but it still couldn't take more than two minutes to read that. I am sorry that you didn't read it, because I was hoping to hear what you think of the declarations of secession, the infamous "Cornerstone" speech, and Jefferson Davis' farewell speech to the Senate. It could have been an interesting discussion.

Hi there!

I would like to join the post-argumentative meta-discussion.

My favorite part of this thread was when Karl personally lead the 20th Maine in a downhill charge, and thus turned the tide for the Union.

Karl,

You obviously aren't reading the whole thread - the Southerners were also called rednecks by John M., and it wasn't sympathetic.

I skimmed over your post, and you had a lot of good points, but at that point the discussion was taking the classic form of an internet argument with ever-longer responses to each post (I would have needed even more space to respond to yours, and you would then have taken more to respond to mine, etc.).

I find it funny that you guys are taking some sort of high road of discussion ethics when this started off as nothing more than a triumphal northern, backslapping, "Isn't it great that we're so morally above those southern rednecks - and we beat them too!" party. Sorry if you feel I degraded the level of discussion, but I honestly don't think I did - it was ad hominem from the beginning, with those taking my side being characterized as "dupes."

Also notice that from the beginning, people are asking how long it will be until some confederate comes on with their usual "thought-stopping" responses and pleas to southern "chivalry." I'm sure the moment I said anything in partial defense of the south, all of the stereotypes were set (see DMD's post), even though I would not consider myself a confederate, and would never wave a confederate flag, because as some of you said, it is tainted, moreso than the American flag. But I can sympathize with people who take pride in certain aspects of the confederacy, and I am all too familiar with smug northern superiority, hence my anger.

Sorry philosopher, a thread in which Southerners are referred to as "rednecks"...didn't seem to me to have a very high standard of intellectual argumentation.

Uh, there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding if you think I was referring to Southerners in general.

I can't remember the name of the book (grrrrrr) that describes the four dominant English cultures that emigrated to America. Two of those groups dominated the South: the one that made up Southern aristocracy, and the rednecks - the group whose ancestry tractes back to the backwoods of Britain and Ireland. They tended to be low on the economic scale, thus "poor rednecks."

I simply sought to explain why this group that had no vested interest in slavery fought for the CSA: "people don't like it when their land is being invaded and nobody is promising to liberate them from anything." Is there a problem with this claim?

FYI, I happen to be a non-redneck Southerner.

There's no problem with that claim at all Alan, and I agree with you. I found your use of "redneck" less inflammatory than a later poster's... but understand that when one sees the term bandied about, he tends to take a negative view of the whole proceeding.

I have heard the group you describe referred to as the "poor whites," though I suppose they would qualify in many people's minds as "rednecks." Much of my family comes from this group (and my great-great-grandfather and his brother both fought for the C.S.A.), so I tend to choose the less offensive term.

"when this started off as nothing more than a triumphal northern, backslapping, "Isn't it great that we're so morally above those southern rednecks - and we beat them too!""

That's so completely, obviously, 180-degrees wrong, that I don't even know why you're bothering. It spectacularly fails to apply to the main post, or to most of the initial responses to it (certainly including mine). You've admitted that you are just plain unable and unwilling to read things longer than about three sentences -- beyond scanning, I guess, for instances of "redneck" -- so I don't know how on earth you can think that you're justified in expressing any sort of opinion you might happen to have about how this discussion started. You are, by your own admission, willfully ignorant of the actual substance of the discussion. I would advise you to stop posting until you find it somehow within yourself to rise to the (even for the intertubes) minimal standards of reasoned discourse.

Phil/Karl:

I agree that the economic necessity of slavery to the South is no excuse for the actions of the Confederacy. I simply brought it up to inject some perspective into the debate. Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. The Confederacy was very wrong, but I don't believe it was actually evil. Confederate soldiers weren't motivated by the right to treat blacks as subhuman. They believed they were fighting for their homes and livelihoods.

philosopher,

I admitted to Karl that he made good points in his post. The reason I didn't answer him point for point is that, as I explained before, his post had jumped so far beyond my previous posts in length that it would have taken even longer posts to respond to everything he said, and I have just been in too many internet arguments like that, where the posts keep getting ever-longer. If you want to interpret that as me admitting that I am "just plain unable and unwilling to read things longer than about three sentences," then I guess that's the price I will have to pay for bowing out and not having to have the last word with Karl. But I did admit that he made good points.

"You are, by your own admission, willfully ignorant of the actual substance of the discussion."

I don't recall admitting that.

You seem rather heated up about this whole thing. Do this for me: quote what you think is the worst, most callow post that I made above. I will, in turn, quote three things said by other people on this thread that I think are more callow and immature. I think that your own bias is coloring your view of this argument.

For the record, the only post I feel bad about making was this one:

"I see virtually no evidence to support the view that Robert E. Lee opposed slavery."

You see no evidence? Are you like a historian or something? Check out _Patriotic Gore_ by Edmund Wilson sometime, and read the section on Lee. And don't tell me Wilson was a southern sympathizer.

I apologize to Joshua for responding like that. But I was a bit annoyed (and I think rightfully) that he automatically assumed that what I said was just a "reconstructed myth of southern apologists," and not the product of actual study. It seems to fall under the "anyone who would defend the South in any way must be unintelligent" stereotype that I sensed in many of the early posts. Still though, I should have been more polite.

[T]he Southerners were also called rednecks by John M., and it wasn't sympathetic.

I did read John M.'s comment. He wrote, "What the heck would we think today if a bunch of rednecks started lobbing mortar shells at Ft. Knox? Firing on a federal installation = treason." If he was referring to anyone from the southeastern United States as a "redneck," it was only those who fired on Fort Sumter (and possibly others who fought for the confederacy), who died a long time ago. He did not call any living "Southerner," or all of them from the Civil War era, "rednecks." Additionally, I think it would be an equally fair interpretation of his comment to read it as only calling his theoretical modern "rednecks" (of unknown residence) firing on Fort Knox by that name.

I would have needed even more space to respond to yours, and you would then have taken more to respond to mine, etc.

That's a fair point, but your earlier responses suggested that my comment was ridiculously long, which I do not believe is true. If you don't want to spend endless hours arguing about the past, I certainly understand that.

...when this started off as nothing more than a triumphal northern, backslapping, "Isn't it great that we're so morally above those southern rednecks - and we beat them too!" party.

One of my points in the long comment was that this isn't a regional battle at all. I don't identify with the "North," and I don't know of anyone who does. I also don't get any pleasure out of claiming that I am better than the "South," or thinking about it as a defeated region. Actually, it is the mirror image of that kind of thinking that I think motivates a lot of advocates for the confederacy. After all, why does a region need a flag at all? (And why should that flag, if there is one, be a flag that excludes several states that are in that region?)

I think that the evidence demonstrates pretty clearly that secession was brought about by people who were interested in protecting slavery, more than anything else (and that the evidence is their own statements of their intentions, along with the historical context). I think that the government they created to perfect that secession (along with its symbols) can't help but to be stained by the unpleasant reason for its founding. However, many supporters of the confederacy seem to have a need to be proud of what those eleven states were doing from 1860 to 1865 -- in order to feel good about themselves. Neither the much longer history of those states as a part of the United States, nor anything personal in each of those modern confederates themselves, seems to be enough for them. Whether or not I agree on that reliance on the past as a foundation for their identities in the present -- and I don't -- it has caused many of them to misstate or ignore the facts of history, and to use a well-vetted web of irrelevant arguments to avoid facing what I believe to be the plain truth about the confederacy.

Also notice that from the beginning, people are asking how long it will be until some confederate comes on with their usual "thought-stopping" responses and pleas to southern "chivalry."

I made the comment about the confederate making the thought-stopping arguments, because in almost every discussion that I have had (or witnessed) with a supporter of the confederacy, the confederate made a factually inaccurate or irrelevant argument from an unwritten list of model confederate arguments. It is almost as though they had memorized just such a list in order to have something -- anything -- to use as a response to objections to the confederacy and the confederate battle flag. These arguments include any of the many pre-packaged attacks on Abraham Lincoln (which have nothing to do with the question of whether secession before he even became President was justified), pre-packaged arguments that secession was not motivated by a desire to protect slavery (but to make some kind of point about "states' rights," or as a reaction to tariffs; these arguments often include references to unspecified editorials in unspecified newspapers), statements about the shortcomings of the "North" of that same time period, and superficial comparisons of the secessions of 1860-1861 and the American Declaration of Independence. Responding to these is usually like arguing with a recording -- any thought that was put into them took place a long time ago, and effectively refuting them can't change the recording. Occasionally, I have the pleasure of talking to a confederate who, when making some of these arguments, understands them and has actually thought about them, but usually, they're just tossed by some guy who doesn't seem to have any intention of thinking about the responses to them. I have come to expect this to happen when I see an online discussion of the confederate flag.

Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. The Confederacy was very wrong, but I don't believe it was actually evil. Confederate soldiers weren't motivated by the right to treat blacks as subhuman. They believed they were fighting for their homes and livelihoods.

Eric, I think that this is a comparison of "apples and oranges." It is a comparison of two people who lead both an evil movement and an evil government to a conception of the confederacy that includes its federal government, its state governments, its politicians, the leaders of the movement for secession, and all of the rest of its people -- everything in those eleven states for those four and a half years. It would make more sense to compare the residents of each or the governments of each. The German people were, generally, certainly less evil than Hitler, but we are able to look at Hitler and his regime (and its flag) separately from the people who lived under it. We should do the same with the confederacy. The average confederate citizen, like the average Hitler-era German, probably wasn't much more evil (by whatever measurement of evil) under the evil government than it was immediately before or after the rise of that regime. However, there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to set the citizens and soldiers aside while we judge the regimes (and the flag of the regime with it).

Karl,

I'm sorry if it came across that I thought your earlier comments were ridiculously long. I think my vexation at certain other comments bled into my reaction to yours, which it shouldn't have.

I did read those comments, and I will briefly respond by saying that while it may not be your view that the Confederacy was purely about slavery, that did seem to be Zach's view ("The pretension that the Confederacy was about something other than the right to hold human beings in chattel slavery is a Great Big Lie."), as well as the view of certain other posters here. My view, put succinctly, is that while slavery was certainly the immediate motivating factor for secession, what was at stake in the war and what draws sentiment to the flag is simply an overall identification with a region, and a desire not to be dominated by a national govt. in which another region has taken majority control. I think Eric captured some of this idea in his posts.

As for the other things you wrote, I think that if someone uses the term "redneck" to describe Confederate soldiers it is up to them to make it clear that they do not consider all of the Confederates, or Southerners in general, to be rednecks. I have lived in the North, and MANY people think this way about the South. As to not identifying with the North, I think that's a little disingenuous on your part... are you telling me you don't identify with Lincoln and the Union any more than you do with Davis and the Confederacy? Even if you don't, I feel pretty confident that several other people on here do. (Note: This may surprise you, but I actually identify with both sides.)

Lastly, if you expect a certain thing to happen whenever you talk to "confederates," it probably will happen... at least in your mind. That's how stereotypes work. I do not consider myself a confederate, but I think when I started responding here, you immediately pigeonholed me into that group.

Karl,

Fair enough. Immediately after I made that post I realized it read like I was comparing Hitler to a rank-and-file Confederate soldier. So let me be clear. I don't believe the Confederate government was anywhere near as evil as the Nazi regime, or Stalin's regime.

The leaders of the Confederacy were wrong for what they did, but had Northern leaders been in their shoes, I think it's likely they'd have taken pretty much the same course of action, due to situation the South was in.

Though for us to be sure of his opinion on this, Zach would have to speak for himself (again), but I think that the apparent difference between us is in phrasing that opinion. To call the reasons that people give for supporting the confederacy a "big lie" does not mean that everyone who supports the confederacy for those reasons is a liar. Zach would probably agree that most of the people just believe the lie -- which is probably why he called them "dupes."

You agree that "slavery was certainly the immediate motivating factor for secession," but this is something that most supporters of the confederacy (in my experience -- I don't know of any polls on this) would not admit, and go to great lengths in denying. You also write, "what was at stake in the war and what draws sentiment to the flag is simply an overall identification with a region, and a desire not to be dominated by a national govt. in which another region has taken majority control." I'm sure that its association with slavery is not its main draw for most people, but the problem isn't what draws them to the flag. The problem is ignoring or denying the reality of what the confederacy was, when displaying that flag honors the confederacy, regardless of their personal reasons for displaying it.

I think that if someone uses the term "redneck" to describe Confederate soldiers it is up to them to make it clear that they do not consider all of the Confederates, or Southerners in general, to be rednecks.

I disagree. It wasn't clear that John M. was even calling any southern person a "redneck." Even if he did also intend to suggest that confederate soldiers were "rednecks," I don't think it can justifiably be assumed that he intended it to refer to all people from that region, at every point in time, just because he didn't specifically say that he didn't.

As to not identifying with the North, I think that's a little disingenuous on your part... are you telling me you don't identify with Lincoln and the Union any more than you do with Davis and the Confederacy?

I don't consider those to be identifications by region. Yes, I identify with the United States and Lincoln, and not with Davis and the confederacy. I identify with Lincoln because I have a pretty favorable view of him as a person, a political leader, and as a president -- certainly more than I do of Jefferson Davis. I identify with the United States (but not with the "North") for many reasons, but I think it is obvious why I don't identify with the confederacy. I don't think that it should ever have existed.

However, I don't see myself as having more in common with people from other states in the "North" than I do with people from the "South" or people from states that didn't exist at the time of the Civil War. I am aware that I live in the "Midwest," but it is not a part of my identity, and I wouldn't care about its flag, if it had one.

Lastly, if you expect a certain thing to happen whenever you talk to "confederates," it probably will happen... at least in your mind.

The only way to know for sure is to see how the conversation unfolds. It usually unfolds in the way that I described.

"You also write, "what was at stake in the war and what draws sentiment to the flag is simply an overall identification with a region, and a desire not to be dominated by a national govt. in which another region has taken majority control." I'm sure that its association with slavery is not its main draw for most people, but the problem isn't what draws them to the flag. The problem is ignoring or denying the reality of what the confederacy was, when displaying that flag honors the confederacy, regardless of their personal reasons for displaying it."

I'm not sure there's too much of a difference - the Confederacy represents the Southern desire not to be controlled by a Northern majority through the national government. Slavery was the primary motivating factor in seceding, yes, but what really inspired people to give their lives - and notice that the "Confederate flag" we're referring to is actually the Confederate battle flag, not the flag of the Confederate government - was Southern identity and independence (why would you give your life just for the right to own slaves?). That feeling continues today.

"It wasn't clear that John M. was even calling any southern person a "redneck." Even if he did also intend to suggest that confederate soldiers were "rednecks," I don't think it can justifiably be assumed that he intended it to refer to all people from that region, at every point in time, just because he didn't specifically say that he didn't."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The view that Southerners are rednecks is a common attitude in the North, and if someone only means a certain group when using that term, he should make it clear. Besides, why would he think that just the people who fired on Ft. Sumter were lazy, but not the rest of the Confederates? Does he have some special knowledge of the habits, attitudes, or customs of the people who fired on Ft. Sumter that would set them off from the rest of the South?

Sorry, lazy=rednecks in last paragraph above. Don't know where that came from.

I think we set a comments record.

One of the items on my "bucket list" is to spelunk through the archives of newspapers such as the New York Times that still have their Civil War-era editions on file. Can't think of a better way to catch the perspectives of that day.

Alan--not even close. I'm positive we've exceeded the 100 mark before. :-)

I'm not sure there's too much of a difference - the Confederacy represents the Southern desire not to be controlled by a Northern majority through the national government.

I don't think that I was stating that there is a difference between any two things -- I was arguing that whatever the person flying that flag intends, it will (and should) communicate the reality of the confederacy to others.

I think it is also time for me to start challenging what you have written in the past couple of comments about the "South" wanting to get out from under control of the "North." First, I do not accept the idea that when a self-aware region finds that the rest of the states in America, added together, are able to outvote it, that it is justified in seceding (even if it were legal for it to do so). That is a pretty low bar. If a country includes more than one region, only one of them, at most, can possibly elect a majority to any of the houses of its legislature. The rest are in the minority. Second, the idea that the "South" was dominated by the "North" requires a view that the states of the "North" were pretty reliably in agreement on the issues that affected the "South," and were not very diverse in their features and interests. However, while the industrial presence in the "North" is well-known, the "North" also included frontier states and heavily agricultural states. There was also variety within states. The "North," if that is the name of the states that are not in the "South," also included Oregon (while I do not deny that it is "north," I don't think its interests were very similar to those of New York, at the time) and California, at the time of the secession of South Carolina. Admittedly, these matter more in the Senate than in the House, but they still lead me to question the strength of any voting bloc of states of the "North" that may have existed.

Even if a region's weakness in the legislature did justify secession, the "South" doesn't look too weak. Excluding California and Oregon from the tally of states in the "North," but otherwise respecting the very inclusive rules for counting states as a part of the "North," the "North" would have had 36 senators to the 26 senators of the "South" -- and just 34-26 before Minnesota was admitted in 1858. At best, this northern voting bloc was firmly, but still not overwhelmingly, in control of the Senate.

Slavery was the primary motivating factor in seceding, yes, but what really inspired people to give their lives - and notice that the "Confederate flag" we're referring to is actually the Confederate battle flag, not the flag of the Confederate government - was Southern identity and independence...

First, the confederate battle flag is a flag of the confederate government. Militaries are a part of (and a product of) their government. Second, even if I could agree that a flag of that government is best seen as representing the independent reasons that confederate soldiers had for supporting a bad government and its bad cause, it still wouldn't separate that flag from the bad government and cause. Third, for that reason, among others, the confederate battle flag is not even a good choice of a symbol (if one is needed) to represent southern (excluding Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia) identity and independence. If a symbol is needed to represent the southeastern United States, a symbol could be created that does not invoke the confederacy (and that does not exclude part of that region). If a symbol is needed to represent independence, many already exist, but a new symbol could also be created to represent it.

...if someone only means a certain group when using that term, he should make it clear.

First, we will have to agree to disagree if you believe that people should have to compose their comments to prevent others from being able to misinterpret them (or from reading generality into them), or else be accused of lowering the level of discourse. I don't think it can fairly be assumed that someone who calls either some or all confederate soldiers "rednecks" -- if he had even done that -- believes that most or all people living in that region at the time were also rednecks, or that he believes that everyone from that region today is a redneck. That requires a leap -- probably more than one leap. Second, I think I should again make the important point (important only to this side-argument, which itself is pointless) it isn't clear that he was referring to anyone from the "South" as a "redneck." He called his theoretical modern rebels attacking Fort Knox "rednecks." It is more believable to me that he thinks all militia people are rednecks than it is that he thinks everyone from the southeastern United States is a redneck.

"First, the confederate battle flag is a flag of the confederate government. Militaries are a part of (and a product of) their government. Second, even if I could agree that a flag of that government is best seen as representing the independent reasons that confederate soldiers had for supporting a bad government and its bad cause, it still wouldn't separate that flag from the bad government and cause. Third, for that reason, among others, the confederate battle flag is not even a good choice of a symbol (if one is needed) to represent southern (excluding Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia) identity and independence. If a symbol is needed to represent the southeastern United States, a symbol could be created that does not invoke the confederacy (and that does not exclude part of that region). If a symbol is needed to represent independence, many already exist, but a new symbol could also be created to represent it."

You can't rationalize symbols like that. Even if one disagrees with the Confederate government, it's still the flag one's ancestors fought and died for. If 400,000 Southerners die under a certain flag, it's hard to come up with another symbol to represent the South. Who are you to decide what's a "good choice of a symbol"?

"First, we will have to agree to disagree if you believe that people should have to compose their comments to prevent others from being able to misinterpret them (or from reading generality into them), or else be accused of lowering the level of discourse."

When it involves hurling terms like "redneck" or any other slur involving a group of people, of course one needs to be responsible for one's words. That's pretty obvious.

"Second, I think I should again make the important point (important only to this side-argument, which itself is pointless) it isn't clear that he was referring to anyone from the "South" as a "redneck." He called his theoretical modern rebels attacking Fort Knox "rednecks." "

So John M. didn't actually think the people who attacked Fort Sumter in 1861 were rednecks, but only his "theoretical modern rebels"? Do you actually believe what you are saying, or have you gone so far off the deep end of argumentation mode that you are willing to spew out any sophistry that could make remote logical sense and add more length to your posts?

Who are you to decide what's a "good choice of a symbol"?

Other than a person with the ability to examine facts and use reasoning? I gave you several reasons why it is a poor choice of a symbol for the "South," including that more than a fifth of the states in it were never a part of the confederacy. Also, since symbols are used to communicate, using a symbol that is not only capable of a meaning other than what its user might intend, but that is best interpreted as meaning something other than what the user intends, is a bad idea. Even assuming that there is even any legitimate reason for a region to have a flag, which I disagree with, any original symbol would be better than a flag used by a government that once (briefly) governed a part of that region and that had profoundly unjust reasons for existing.

When it involves hurling terms like "redneck" or any other slur involving a group of people, of course one needs to be responsible for one's words. That's pretty obvious.

Do you believe that the term "redneck" is supposed to refer to all people from the southeastern United States, and only people from that region? It isn't. Farmers and poor people from any state, with the possible exception of New England, are at risk of being called "rednecks."

So John M. didn't actually think the people who attacked Fort Sumter in 1861 were rednecks, but only his "theoretical modern rebels"?

Right. He wrote, "What the heck would we think today if a bunch of rednecks started lobbing mortar shells at Ft. Knox? Firing on a federal installation = treason." He was clearly using the term to refer to the people who he imagined firing on Fort Knox. He did not say that people who fired on Fort Sumter were "rednecks," or that people from the "South" more generally are "rednecks." You read the supposed general application to people from the "South" into it.

Do you actually believe what you are saying, or have you gone so far off the deep end of argumentation mode that you are willing to spew out any sophistry that could make remote logical sense and add more length to your posts?

Your form is deteriorating. I believe you are becoming angry again. My argument was pretty straightforward, and I have now quoted the controversial language (which was already available above for either of us to review, at any time) twice.

Alan,
I know someone who is working on a massive history project that's putting the editorial columns from all the major newspapers in the Civil War era online. I'll have to post a link when he's done (it might be several months or more), because you might be interested.

Also, Mike, how can you justify a conception of "Southern identity" that not only excludes several entire southern states, but that also excludes any resident of the "South" whose ancestors did not fight for the confederacy -- immigrants (or their descendants) from other countries since 1865, people who have migrated from other states for the warmth or any other reason, and the descendants of people who lived in the confederacy but did not fight for it (which would include a lot of descendants of former slaves) -- and also any descendants of confederate soldiers who do not take pride in what their ancestors did, for either the slavery or treason reason?

You can't rationalize symbols like that.

Assuming that you mean (as I suspect) that we cannot ascertain the meaning of symbols by using rational thought, of course we can. Symbols are used to communicate, and what other than rational thought would allow us to consider whether those who see the confederate flag as an offensive symbol of the confederacy are right to see it that way?

Also, let's revisit that treason/unnecessary rupture idea that we haven't talked about in a little while. Even though many confederate soldiers had no personal interest in slavery (though they would have known that those who made the decision to secede had a bad reason for doing it), they would have been aware that they were fighting to cancel the American citizenship of everyone living within their states' borders, and to break up the United States, without even having a good reason for doing it. Confederate soldiers who enlisted voluntarily to help that to happen can be held responsible by history for their decision to aid an unjust and unnecessary insurrection.

"Your form is deteriorating. I believe you are becoming angry again."

Here's the problem, Karl. At this point you seem to be deliberately trying not to see my point, and coming up with anything you can to argue with what I say. Example:

"Also, Mike, how can you justify a conception of "Southern identity" that not only excludes several entire southern states, but that also excludes any resident of the "South" whose ancestors did not fight for the confederacy -- immigrants (or their descendants) from other countries since 1865, people who have migrated from other states for the warmth or any other reason, and the descendants of people who lived in the confederacy but did not fight for it (which would include a lot of descendants of former slaves) -- and also any descendants of confederate soldiers who do not take pride in what their ancestors did, for either the slavery or treason reason?"

To you first point, the difference is between South and south - New Mexico is south, but it's not South. I think you could have realized that if you were trying. But the larger point, that the Confederate battle flag cannot represent Southern identity because not all people in the South are descendants of those who fought for the Confederacy or lived there at the time, is simply absurd to me. Most people in Texas do not have ancestors who were there when it was the Republic of Texas. Does that mean that the Republic of Texas - with the Alamo, the Declaration of Independence, etc. - is not a part of Texas identity? Most Texans you meet will say (and rightly) that all six flags (Spain, France, Mexico, Republic, Union, Confederate) that have flown over Texas are part of Texas identity - hence "Six Flags Over Texas." Flags extend beyond the governments that originally adopted them.

I think I have a right to get a little annoyed when somebody dismisses from the outset those who take my position as being intellectually inferior (as you did), refuses to try to see what I'm saying (as I think it's pretty clear that you are), and then writes marathon posts with the caveat that I am not responding "with facts and reason" if I don't take the time to answer your endless cavils.

I think I have a right to get a little annoyed when somebody dismisses from the outset those who take my position as being intellectually inferior (as you did), refuses to try to see what I'm saying (as I think it's pretty clear that you are), and then writes marathon posts with the caveat that I am not responding "with facts and reason" if I don't take the time to answer your endless cavils.

You are not obligated to respond to facts or arguments that I post in response to yours, but I can't take you very seriously when you claim that I refuse "to try to see what I'm saying (as I think it's pretty clear that you are)" when you respond to my facts and reasoned arguments by ignoring them, responding with pre-packaged, all-purpose confederate non-arguments, or by misstating what I have written (probably due to errors that you would not have made if you had read with less passion).

To you first point, the difference is between South and south - New Mexico is south, but it's not South. I think you could have realized that if you were trying.

Who was talking about New Mexico? Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia are in the "South," but they were not confederate states.

But the larger point, that the Confederate battle flag cannot represent Southern identity because not all people in the South are descendants of those who fought for the Confederacy or lived there at the time, is simply absurd to me. Most people in Texas do not have ancestors who were there when it was the Republic of Texas. Does that mean that the Republic of Texas - with the Alamo, the Declaration of Independence, etc. - is not a part of Texas identity?

Your previous position was that the confederate battle flag was tied to the south because "it's still the flag one's ancestors fought and died for." For that reason, you thought that it could not be replaced as a symbol of the south. If having ancestors who fought for the confederacy is such an important part of the "Southern identity," there are a lot of people whose families have lived there for generations who are not "Southerners."

To answer your last question in the above quoted segment, no, I do not think that those governments are a part of Texan identity. They are a part of Texan history.

and then writes marathon posts

Again, they wouldn't take more than a minute or two, for someone as educated as you said that you are, to read. If you want me to "try to see what [you're] saying" and respond thoughtfully, then I can't respond to you with one-liners.

I looked back at the comments of yesterday, and I noticed that I specifically identified Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia as the states excluded by the use of the confederate flag to represent the entire south. You quoted that very section in your response to it. Then, today, you posted a response that was based on the assumption that New Mexico was the southern state that I believed was excluded by the use of the confederate battle flag -- and you called this evidence that I refuse to "try to see what [you're] saying"! You remind me of a story I heard about a driver who called the police to report a drunk driver in the car ahead of him. When the police arrived, they found that the driver of the car ahead of the caller was driving safely, and that it was the caller who was driving drunk. From the caller's perspective, the way he was driving, it looked as though it was the other car that was swerving all over the road.

I think I have a right to get a little annoyed when somebody dismisses from the outset those who take my position as being intellectually inferior (as you did)...

Show me where I did this. I do believe that the pro-confederate position is wrong, and I do expect internet discussions of the Civil War and the confederate flag to be joined by confederate sympathizers who use prepackaged irrelevant arguments to respond to their opponents without addressing their reasoning, but I do believe that some of those who take your position have approached and considered it intellectually. I am confident that I haven't said anything to the contrary in these comments.

It is true that there are in this world cogent interlocutors capable of discoursing in good faith on the other side of these issues, Karl. (I've had one of them as a history professor, in fact.) But in this case, it's looking like you've just got one more confirming instance of your observation reported on May 1.

Show me where I did this.

Right here: "We should start placing bets on when the first of the confederates will bring out their stock thought-stopping responses to this kind of post."

You only said that there were "some" intellectuals arguing the confederate position after I called you out on it.

Again, expecting that people who take a certain opinion will think a certain way turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it conditions you to hone in to only those aspects of their thinking that seem to fit into your expectation.

I see what you're saying about Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia. But that doesn't mean the Confederate flag isn't part of Southern identity. As to the six flags over Texas, they certainly are a part of Texas identity, not just Texas history, as are the battle of the Alamo and the Republic (even though they involved a different government). From your argument, it would seem that only things that directly involved 100% of a region's current citizens (or the government that those current citizens are under) can be said to be part of the region's identity. An absurd position.

"Again, they wouldn't take more than a minute or two, for someone as educated as you said that you are, to read."

Only a minute or two to read, yes. But to respond to? When every sentence that I write is answered by five sentences that you write? So that if I were to respond "with facts and reason" to every point that you make, I would have to write posts at least as long as yours (which would take much more than one or two minutes), and then you would more than likely respond with posts five times longer than those. It's an unending and ever-widening spiral, which is why internet discussions with people like you are so futile.

Right here: "We should start placing bets on when the first of the confederates will bring out their stock thought-stopping responses to this kind of post."

That comment does not make the claim that no one who takes your side could have approached it intellectually. It makes a prediction that confederates will "bring out their stock thought stopping" remarks, not that no confederate could ever do anything other than that.

Again, expecting that people who take a certain opinion will think a certain way turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it conditions you to hone in to only those aspects of their thinking that seem to fit into your expectation.

My comments are also lengthened when your responses contain points that I have already conclusively addressed. I have seen supporters of the confederacy post the same irrelevant arguments, almost verbatim, as though they had chosen their response by throwing all of their arguments into a hat and pulling one out at random. When challenged, they are unable to defend these arguments, so they just pull the next argument out of the hat (figuratively). Further, this is what almost always happens. You say that my expectations have affected my perception, but I developed those expectations by witnessing the way most confederates defend the confederacy. In the beginning, I did not have an expectation.

From your argument, it would seem that only things that directly involved 100% of a region's current citizens (or the government that those current citizens are under) can be said to be part of the region's identity. An absurd position.

Actually, I'm not sure that I have stated my position, which is that it is the idea of such a thing as a "regional identity" that is absurd. The region itself, of course, as distinguished from the people of the region, can have an identity -- the south can be said to have a warm climate, and that is part of the identity of the region, as distinguished from the collective identity of its residents. I do not accept, however, that the behavior or history of a region's past residents collectively defines its current residents. There is no logical way in which it could.

an unending and ever-widening spiral, which is why internet discussions with people like you are so futile.

"People like" me are those who do not accept what you would prefer not to have challenged, and respond by showing that your "facts" are false and your logic and interpretations are flawed. It's a fair point that these discussions would grow larger and larger if we both had to respond to all of the points of the other, but the futility comes from the fact that we have fundamental disagreements, not that "people like" me respond to your points with facts and reasoning. That is what people should do when they are discussing something.

People who wear the Confederate flag are much like people who wear Che shirts and purses. They can defend as cool/justified/no worse than XYZ, etc till they are blue in the face, but the fact remains, they are sporting the symbol of a loathsome and failed ideology. That their reasons for doing so are usually shallow, self-promoting and historically ignorant hardly improves the matter.

"That their reasons for doing so are usually shallow, self-promoting and historically ignorant hardly improves the matter."

How many reasons do you have for most of the clothing you put on? I don't ever wear clothing with the confederate flag, but I imagine that people who do have as much reason for it as the average person who wears any other flag. "Shallow" - I suppose love of one's homeland can often seem shallow to a dispassionate intellectual; "self-promoting" - don't see how this is self-promoting per se, although it is promoting something; "historically ignorant" - something tells me that if you were to talk to everyone sporting an American flag on the 4th of July, you would find many that by your standards are historically ignorant. But I guess anyone who loves the failed idea of an independent South should be able to hold forth on it with full historical erudition.

"historically ignorant" - something tells me that if you were to talk to everyone sporting an American flag on the 4th of July, you would find many that by your standards are historically ignorant.

There are far fewer facts (and years) to be known by people wearing the confederate flag, and those facts are right in front of them. The decision of whether to recognize them or to ignore them is up to the person who displays that flag, but everyone else will be right to expect him to know those facts and what the decision to display that flag will mean.

I think that this post will move off of the front page tomorrow. I guess we're never going to get to discuss the treason/unnecessary rupture issue.

I can't believe that a discussion of the confederate flag didn't result in conclusive agreement on the issue!

There are far fewer facts (and years) to be known by people wearing the confederate flag, and those facts are right in front of them.

So the longer a flag has been around, the less detailed a person's historical knowledge needs to be to display it? That's the silliest thing you've said yet.

The decision of whether to recognize them or to ignore them is up to the person who displays that flag, but everyone else will be right to expect him to know those facts and what the decision to display that flag will mean.

What it means to you or what it means to them?

This whole argument began when I disagreed with the allegation that the Confederacy was about nothing other than "the right to hold human beings in chattel slavery." Yes, slavery was the driving force behind the choice of those states to secede, but the Confederacy, and specifically the Confederate battle flag, was about something more than just slavery. People who display that flag need to be responsible for its ties to slavery (ditto, to a less extent, the American flag), but neither you nor anyone else is in a position to tell them that slavery is all that that flag is about.

I guess we're never going to get to discuss the treason/unnecessary rupture issue.

I really have no interest in that issue. I've made my point, and this discussion has taken up enough space. You really love arguing on the internet, don't you?

I can't believe that a discussion of the confederate flag didn't result in conclusive agreement on the issue!

I can't believe you've made yourself the arbitrator of what another person's decision to wear a flag does and does not represent. I can't believe you write multiple posts spread out over several hours without them even being responded to. I can't believe you keep coming back into this discussion when I've given you the last word and moved on to talk to a different poster.

So the longer a flag has been around, the less detailed a person's historical knowledge needs to be to display it? That's the silliest thing you've said yet.

This is an example of how what you have said about my supposed failure to try to understand your arguments is better applied to you. The longer a government has existed, the more there is to know about it, so yes, it is more reasonable to expect people to have detailed knowledge about a government that existed for four years (if they honor it by flying its flag) than it is to expect them to have knowledge in similar detail about a government that has existed for over 230 years. You wouldn't even have to have tried to understand this comment in order to understand it, because I stated it explicitly.

What it means to you or what it means to them?

Of course, I am talking about what it means to people on the receiving end of the communication, and what it did, historically, stand for. Your argument is no different than arguing that you can use an existing word that you know that other people will justifiably interpret in a certain way, and then claim that the word should be interpreted as you intended, instead of how you knew it would justifiably be interpreted.

I really have no interest in that issue. I've made my point, and this discussion has taken up enough space.

It does not surprise me that you would have no interest in that issue, as it undermines your arguments that the confederate battle flag can be good because of its connection to the alleged honor of those who fought for the confederacy but who had no personal interest in slavery. They fought to break up the United States either for a bad reason, or for no good reason. Doing it for a bad reason is worse, but doing it without a good reason is still pretty bad.

I can't believe you keep coming back into this discussion when I've given you the last word and moved on to talk to a different poster.

Your strategy all along was to ignore facts and reason that contradicted your own arguments. What important difference is there between that and between your failure to respond at all?

The longer a government has existed, the more there is to know about it, so yes, it is more reasonable to expect people to have detailed knowledge about a government that existed for four years (if they honor it by flying its flag) than it is to expect them to have knowledge in similar detail about a government that has existed for over 230 years.

So what is the "level" of knowledge needed for a government that has existed for 230 years? Are you going to say that every old-timer who wants to wave an American flag on July 4th should stop if he or she doesn't meet that level?

Your argument is no different than arguing that you can use an existing word that you know that other people will justifiably interpret in a certain way, and then claim that the word should be interpreted as you intended, instead of how you knew it would justifiably be interpreted.

Kind of like the word "redneck"? ;-)

They fought to break up the United States either for a bad reason, or for no good reason. Doing it for a bad reason is worse, but doing it without a good reason is still pretty bad."

Pretty subjective there, Karl.

Your strategy all along was to ignore facts and reason that contradicted your own arguments.

What exactly were you able to contradict? My only real argument, as I stated in my post above, was that the Confederacy was not just about the right to own slaves, and that display of the Confederate flag is not necessarily an endorsement of that right. I admitted that the Confederate flag carries implications of support for slavery, and that people who display it need to be aware of and responsible for that. What "facts and reason" did you give that contradicted any of this?

As soon as this topic comes off the main page, I'm done with it. I still can't get over you coming back into this after I gave you the last word in our discussion. Walk outside and get some sunshine, Karl. There's more to life than arguing on the internet.

Pretty subjective there, Karl.

If we were to get into the objective specifics, we would be discussing it, which you do not want to do.

What exactly were you able to contradict?

First, in response to your idea that Robert E. Lee disproves the idea that those states seceded over slavery, I pointed out that Robert E. Lee had nothing to do with secession. I repeatedly corrected your interpretation of comments by people using the term "redneck" (but not to describe all people from the "South") by quoting those comments and then explaining what should already have been obvious about their meaning. In response to your claim that the American flag, like the confederate flag, is tainted "to its core" by slavery, I contrasted the founding of each government, the (often successful) efforts to fight slavery from the beginning of the United States to the confederate government's insistence that slavery would and should exist within its borders, and the fact that only a minority of U.S. states (mostly the future confederate states) allowed slavery for most of the time it was legal in the U.S. to the fact that it was legal in every confederate state for the entire duration of the confederacy -- among other arguments of fact and reason. I pointed to historical evidence that you haven't yet addressed when I refuted your claim that "The disagreement over slavery was merely emblematic of the fact that you had two divergent cultures in the country, agrarian/traditional and mercantile/progressive, and that as long as there was a strong national government in which one culture held the majority, the other culture was going to get continually voted down on issues." Using reason, I countered your claim that "you were complacent about slavery and didn't own slaves yourselves simply because they offered no economic advantage." When you wrote, "As to not identifying with the North, I think that's a little disingenuous on your part...," I explained the difference between identifying with a region and identifying with the United States and agreeing with Lincoln. When you wrote, "the difference is between South and south - New Mexico is south, but it's not South. I think you could have realized that if you were trying," I told you that I was not thinking of New Mexico, and pointed to where I had previously identified the states that I had had in mind -- language that you had even quoted, at one point. This is just a sample, because you do not like long comments, and I refuted or otherwise effectively countered your arguments many, many times.

I still can't get over you coming back into this after I gave you the last word in our discussion.

I see no place where you wrote that you were backing out of the discussion, and you had posted your latest comment less than a day before your response to Mutant Pacifist. Besides, I have to assume that you realized that posting an argument in the comments at a blog invites anyone who disagrees with it to respond to it.

Walk outside and get some sunshine, Karl. There's more to life than arguing on the internet.

It's raining, but even if it weren't, it doesn't take a very long time to find your errors. Also, do I even need to point out that you are, as much as I am, arguing on the internet?

My only real argument, as I stated in my post above, was that the Confederacy was not just about the right to own slaves, and that display of the Confederate flag is not necessarily an endorsement of that right. I admitted that the Confederate flag carries implications of support for slavery, and that people who display it need to be aware of and responsible for that. What "facts and reason" did you give that contradicted any of this?

Sorry Karl, guess it wasn't clear from my wording. What about THIS ARGUMENT have you contradicted?

Also, do I even need to point out that you are, as much as I am, arguing on the internet?

You restarted the discussion when it was over. It seems like you have nothing better to do than to argue with me.

I am, right now, giving you the last word in this conversation. Try to make it less than five hundred words (your last post was more).