# Selling merch with the confederate flag



## The Munk (Jul 1, 2015)

Heads up to anyone wanting to buy or sell items, with the confederate flag on it, on ebay.....
A buddy of mine tried to sell his Dimebag Rebel on ebay and they won't allow it.


----------



## estabon37 (Jul 1, 2015)

Weirdly enough, when you type 'ebay confederate flag' into Google, one of the options is a page that allows you to browse 'rebel flag' belt buckles, shirts, and bracelets (prominently displaying said flag on the shirt), only to lead to pages that do not feature said flag at all.

In any case, I guess we should be thanking eBay for their stance on this particular symbol, as opposed to their stance on other symbols. 

For those that didn't click the second link, and happen to want to buy or sell a guitar with a swastika on it on eBay, you're probably fine to do so.

I decided to research other symbols of hate, and thanks to the Anti-Defamation League, it suddenly looks like one of my favourite video games ever may find its merchandise scrutinised if we stay on the symbol train.

Triangular Klan Symbol







The Triforce







Well ... fuck.

EDIT:

Nice one, eBay. You hatemongers!

In other news, I now want this:


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 1, 2015)

PC nonsense.
I'm betting they'll still allow sales of other flags that represent known human-rights violator nations/factions.


----------



## asher (Jul 1, 2015)

Yeah, I'm not sure this is, on its own, inherently bad (they, and amazon/etc, can set their own terms as they wish)... but it's definitely inconsistent.

Is there a good reason to be able to buy a swastika?


----------



## MFB (Jul 1, 2015)

asher said:


> Is there a good reason to be able to buy a swastika?



Depends on which swastika you mean. It's obvious in this context which one you're referring to, and the only valid one I can think is if you're a major history buff and would like to own something from that time period; regardless of what it is, or if you're trying to get something from every countries military that participated, etc... A museum purchasing stuff would also make sense, although I imagine they have more ...professional means than eBay to buy such items.

The Native American swastika (I believe it's N.A. in origin), is possibly/probably rarer to come by and why someone would want one of those I couldn't tell you


----------



## mr coffee (Jul 1, 2015)

Google is your friend. The swastika has positive connotations in MANY cultures spanning thousands of years.

-m


----------



## Dog Boy (Jul 2, 2015)

Right now, in this country, the Stars and Bars is a symbol of hate that contributes to an atmosphere of hate. If you are a history buff go see it in a museum.


----------



## MFB (Jul 2, 2015)

mr coffee said:


> Google is your friend. The swastika has positive connotations in MANY cultures spanning thousands of years.
> 
> -m



Which is exactly why I denoted the difference in my post. The not-so-favorable one, putting it lightly, is the off-tilt swastika whereas the standard perpendicular swastika has far more cultural usage around the world.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 2, 2015)

Everyone I know who likes the rebel flag is a smidge racist I'm sad to say. No I'm not correlating the flag itself to this conclusion as I've known them for a long time and they've always been a smidge racist. So the fact that people with racist tendencies are obsessing over a stupid piece of cloth is just dumb to me. What makes it sad/funny though is that while they probably liked the flag already I've never seen it in any of their pictures or homes prior to this whole debacle cropping up. Frankly, I wish it would just end because the entirety of it is dumb on both sides.

While I can arbitrarily correlate that a lot of racist people like the rebel flag I will say that everyone I know who likes it doesn't associate it with hating black people...or history for that matter. They just associate it with being southern for whatever reason. It is a symbol for hate and it honestly feels a bit traitorous to be waving around an enemy combatant flag as a token of pride when it was one of our darkest times historically speaking, but most of them aren't historians or rocket scientists and don't actually care about historical context beyond Dukes of Hazzard (but I don't find symbols of any kind to be of significance so I'm probably not the best person to ask ).


----------



## Hollowway (Jul 2, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> PC nonsense.
> I'm betting they'll still allow sales of other flags that represent known human-rights violator nations/factions.



Yep. The problem is 99.9% if Americans (and likely, the same in other countries) follow nothing beyond a sentence fragment headline, and then hop on the bandwagon, without really looking at the whole picture. A lot of these issues I find that I agree with initially, then swing back in the other direction because of this very thing. It reminds me of liking a song when it first comes out, and then when I hear it a million times and everybody and their sister is humming it and talking about how great it is, I get pissed off at it.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 2, 2015)

Also, this post here is one of many reasons this flag debate is so dumb.


----------



## Dcm81 (Jul 2, 2015)

I was under the impression that the swastika used by the Nazis was a mirrored image of the ancient symbol - hooks of the crosses facing in a counter clock-wise direction....


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> PC nonsense.
> I'm betting they'll still allow sales of other flags that represent known human-rights violator nations/factions.



Probably, until there's a major public call for such items to be removed. You want to start one?


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jul 2, 2015)

It's officially crossed the line into the absurd now that Dukes of Hazard got yanked off of TV Land just because of the General Lee paint job. 

I found this Reuters article to be the best middle of the road piece on the the topic. Plus as a huge civil war nerd its great a reporter took the time to interview some

Civil War buffs on Confederate flag debate: It's complicated | Reuters


----------



## asher (Jul 2, 2015)

Yes, I'm referring exclusively to the Nazi swastika. Yes, it's a completely appropriated symbol (I thought the original was Hindu?), but it's pretty much guaranteed to be the first thing anyone thinks of when you say swastika. Obviously any of the other ones should be a non-issue.

As far as the Confederate flag... no, the primary documents make it very clear what it stands for, and that's white supremacy.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jul 2, 2015)

asher said:


> As far as the Confederate flag... no, the primary documents make it very clear what it stands for, and that's white supremacy.



I would argue it's been appropriated enough times within the 20th century that original meaning doesn't apply (and by original i mean its original use as a flag for the navy), and certainly didn't apply pre-charleston in the pop culture sphere. 

it's like the N-word derivative spelling with the A-H ending.. it's been used so much there's no meaning attached to it unless someone wants there to be... which of course is free speech. 

but in saying that, non-governmental censorship is still censorship and i don't agree with it; especially on an issue this complicated. 

ultimately this doesn't seriously affect anyone, except now i don't think i can get a used Dimebag Darrel dixie guitar on ebay anymore?


----------



## Nyx Erebos (Jul 2, 2015)

I'm amazed how people are scared of symbols. To keep the triforce out of harms way : Why the Triforce Is On The Grave of the Game Boy&#39;s Creator

I know it's from kotaku but it kind of seems legit when you read it.


----------



## asher (Jul 2, 2015)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> I would argue it's been appropriated enough times within the 20th century that original meaning doesn't apply (and by original i mean its original use as a flag for the navy), and certainly didn't apply pre-charleston in the pop culture sphere.



No, one of Lee's flags. It's still one of the three main flags even at the time of Treason in Defense of Slavery. Not to mention it *immediately* became the ubiquitous symbol of the Confederacy in the hands of Nathan Bedford Forrest and the KKK in the late 1860s.



> but in saying that, non-governmental censorship is still censorship and i don't agree with it; especially on an issue this complicated.



No, it's not censorship, it's companies deciding this will negatively impact their bottom line. I don't even think there were particularly organized campaigns to get Wal-Mart, Amazon, etc. to stop selling this stuff.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2015)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> I would argue it's been appropriated enough times within the 20th century that original meaning doesn't apply (and by original i mean its original use as a flag for the navy), and certainly didn't apply pre-charleston in the pop culture sphere.



I would argue, in turn, that the *preponderance* of meanings have dealt with endorsement of slavery, repression of African-Americans, and/or resistance to civil rights legislation. I would also argue that pop culture usage is not the best measure of whether this is actually a problematic symbol, especially since the pop culture uses are nearly all by white Southerners who are unable to address the flag's meaning to African-Americans.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 2, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Probably, until there's a major public call for such items to be removed. You want to start one?



Nah, I'm not really the hyper-sensitive type.


edit; Walmart deciding to not carry Ronda Rousey stuff due to her "violence" is another (IMO much more) laughable example.
They even carry fight-sport magazines for f's sake , not to mention so many other things (like all those video "kill-games", and even real guns).


----------



## vilk (Jul 2, 2015)

I grew up in Indiana. Indiana was never a confederate state. Indiana isn't even very far south--in fact you don't even start getting hick accents until about halfway down the state. 

Yet I saw the confederate flag all over the place. I couldn't really tell you how it's flown in the actual south, but in Indiana the only reason this flag has _ever_ been flown is as a symbol of racism and white pride. There's practically no other excuses you could give!


----------



## asher (Jul 2, 2015)

See also: Pennsyltucky


----------



## Devyn Eclipse Nav (Jul 2, 2015)

Let's put it this way - quite obviously, nazi symbolism is illegal in Germany. You wanna know what flag Neo-Nazis use instead?

The Stars and Bars. Let's let that sink in for a second.

However, I do think that yanking Dukes of Hazzard from the air might be a little ridiculous


----------



## Necris (Jul 2, 2015)

Since there is no topic that I've seen here on the shooting itself I'll mention this here. Initiating a race war was the stated motive for the shooting. For better or worse almost everyone focused on the flag and what it represents.
7 black churches have burned down in 10 days. 2 of which have been determined to be arson and one found to have been possibly due to lightning, not sure on the others. I've seen very little on that anywhere.


----------



## asher (Jul 2, 2015)

Funny that I'd guess his intention was to prompt some retaliation from the other side...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 3, 2015)

Just to add on to some earlier posts: The swastika is also a common symbol in Buddhism. It's a pretty common site here in South Korea. Pretty much every Buddhist temple has one either on its sign or on a flag flying above it, sometimes both. I've had Buddhist coworkers who wore golden swastika rings every day. Seeing one on a road sign is also a handy way to know there's a temple in the area without having to bother trying to read the rest of the Korean on the sign .

Ebay'd have to do some extra due diligence if they wanted to ban the swastika. There'd have to be a review of every case, so they could ensure it's the Nazi swastika being used, rather than something more traditional and (generally) religious. That might be something they should consider, and hell, if the pay is okay and someone from eBay sees this, feel free to hire me as a Swastika Case Review Inspector. I'll do a good job, pinky swear.

A blanket ban on swastikas of all types would lead to some interesting things being banned. Like Japanese language versions of one of my favorite mangas, for example:







The Kanji there is for "Bankai," and I've seen it on the covers of some issues of the magazine in which Bleach appears. Presumably it's in the text every time they use the word in the Manga, too, which is often.


----------



## michblanch (Jul 3, 2015)

At one point I probably had 25 to 30 company trucks on the road. 
Guys would put stickers of their favorite sports team and I had no issues with it. 
It gave them a little bit of ownership in the vehicles so they took better care of them. 

But I will never forget this one. I know exactly the time of day and the employees name. 

I pull into the office and there is a company truck with a big confederate flag sticker on it.
The Operations Manager sent out a email, text and told every employee that all stickers come off of the trucks. No sports, no flags, nothing. You will not separate yourself from the herd while on the clock. 
That flag offends some of my customers. That flag leads to trucks being vandalized and portrays an image, that a company needs no part of. 

I know what that flag means. It's used by white people to separate themselves from society and is used as a big FU. It says I'm not a conformist. 

That flag may represent the past, but it is a symbol for racism. 
Every person I have known in my life who had that flag was a racist either proudly or subtle. 


Now if you want to fly that flag or a nazi flag on your time and equipment or home , I don't care. That is your right. And you should have that right. 

When I see a vehicle with the flag on it , the first thing I think is , there's an asshole. 

If your young and use the conf. flag maybe it's idealism passed to you and you are trying to be a rebel. 
If you are 40 and fly that flag your an asshole, racist, good ole boy.


----------



## michblanch (Jul 3, 2015)

It's a long read, but worth it. 
It's probably one of the best written pieces regarding the lead up to the civil war. 


True Causes of the Civil War

Irreconcilable Differences
Simmering animosities between North and South signaled an American apocalypse

Any man who takes it upon himself to explain the causes of the Civil War deserves whatever grief comes his way, regardless of his good intentions. Having acknowledged that, let me also say I have long believed there is no more concise or stirring accounting for the war than the sentiments propounded by Irish poet William Butler Yeats in &#8220;The Second Coming,&#8221; some lines of which are included in this essay. Yeats wrote his short poem immediately following the catastrophe of World War I, but his thesis of a great, cataclysmic event is universal and timeless.

It is probably safe to say that the original impetus of the Civil War was set in motion when a Dutch trader offloaded a cargo of African slaves at Jamestown, Va., in 1619. It took nearly 250 eventful years longer for it to boil into a war, but that Dutchman&#8217;s boatload was at the bottom of it&#8212;a fact that needs to be fixed in the reader&#8217;s mind from the start.

Of course there were other things, too. For instance, by the eve of the Civil War the sectional argument had become so far advanced that a significant number of Southerners were convinced that Yankees, like Negroes, constituted an entirely different race of people from themselves.

It is unclear who first put forth this curious interpretation of American history, but just as the great schism burst upon the scene it was subscribed to by no lesser Confederate luminaries than president Jefferson Davis himself and Admiral Raphael Semmes, of CSS Alabama fame, who asserted that the North was populated by descendants of the cold Puritan Roundheads of Oliver Cromwell&#8212;who had overthrown and executed the king of England in 1649&#8212;while others of the class were forced to flee to Holland, where they also caused trouble, before finally settling at Plymouth Rock, Mass.

Southerners on the other hand, or so the theory went, were the hereditary offspring of Cromwell&#8217;s enemies, the &#8220;gay cavaliers&#8221; of King Charles II and his glorious Restoration, who had imbued the South with their easygoing, chivalrous and honest ways. Whereas, according to Semmes, the people of the North had evolved accordingly into &#8220;gloomy, saturnine, and fanatical&#8221; people who &#8220;seemed to repel all the more kindly and generous impulses&#8221; (omitting&#8212;possibly in a momentary lapse of memory&#8212;that the original settlers of other Southern states, such as Georgia, had been prison convicts or, in the case of Louisiana, deportees, and that Semmes&#8217; own wife was a Yankee from Ohio).

How beliefs such as this came to pass in the years between 1619 and 1860 reveals the astonishing capacity of human nature to confound traditional a posteriori deduction in an effort to justify what had become by then largely unjustifiable. But there is blame enough for all to go around.

From that first miserable boatload of Africans in Jamestown, slavery spread to all the settlements, and, after the Revolutionary War, was established by laws in the states. But by the turn of the 19th century, slavery was confined to the South, where the economy was almost exclusively agricultural. For a time it appeared the practice was on its way to extinction. Virginia&#8217;s Thomas Jefferson probably summed up the attitude of the day when he defined the South&#8217;s &#8220;peculiar institution&#8221; as a necessary evil, which he and many others believed, or at least hoped, would wither away of its own accord since it was basically wasteful and unproductive.

Then along came Eli Whitney with his cotton gin, suddenly making it feasible to grow short-staple cotton that was fit for the great textile mills of England and France. This in turn, 40 years later, prompted South Carolina&#8217;s prominent senator John C. Calhoun to declare that slavery&#8212;far from being merely a &#8220;necessary evil&#8221;&#8212;was actually a &#8220;positive good,&#8221; because, among other things, in the years since the gin&#8217;s invention, the South had become fabulously rich, with cotton constituting some 80 percent of all U.S. exports.

But beneath this great wealth and prosperity, America seethed. Whenever you have two people&#8212;or peoples&#8212;joined in politics but doing diametrically opposing things, it is almost inevitable that at some point tensions and jealousies will break out. In the industrial North, there was a low, festering resentment that eight of the first 11 U.S. presidents were Southerners&#8212;and most of them Virginians at that. For their part, the agrarian Southerners harbored lingering umbrage over the internal improvements policy propagated by the national government, which sought to expand and develop roads, harbors, canals, etc., but which the Southerners felt was disproportionately weighted toward Northern interests. These were the first pangs of sectional dissension.

Then there was the matter of the Tariff of Abominations, which became abominable for all concerned.

This inflammatory piece of legislation, passed with the aid of Northern politicians, imposed a tax or duty on imported goods that caused practically everything purchased in the South to rise nearly half-again in price. This was because the South had become used to shipping its cotton to England and France and in return receiving boatloads of inexpensive European goods, including clothing made from its own cotton. However, as years went by, the North, particularly New England, had developed cotton mills of its own&#8212;as well as leather and harness manufactories, iron and steel mills, arms and munitions factories, potteries, furniture makers, silversmiths and so forth. And with the new tariff putting foreign goods out of financial reach, Southerners were forced to buy these products from the North at what they considered exorbitant costs.

Smart money might have concluded it would be wise for the South to build its own cotton mills and its own manufactories, but its people were too attached to growing cotton. A visitor in the 1830s described the relentless cycle of the planters&#8217; misallocation of spare capital: &#8220;To sell cotton to buy Negroes&#8212;to make more cotton to buy more Negroes&#8212;&#8216;ad infinitum.&#8217;&#8221;

Such was the Southern mindset, but the tariff nearly kicked off the war 30 years early because, as the furor rose, South Carolina&#8217;s Calhoun, who was then running for vice president of the United States, declared that states&#8212;his own state in particular&#8212;were under no obligation to obey the federal tariff law, or to collect it from ships entering its harbors. Later, South Carolina legislators acted on this assertion and defied the federal government to overrule them, lest the state secede. This set off the Nullification Crisis, which held in theory (or wishful thinking) that a state could nullify or ignore any federal law it held was not in its best interests. The crisis was defused only when President Andrew Jackson sent warships into Charleston Harbor&#8212;but it also marked the first time a Southern state had threatened to secede from the Union.

The incident also set the stage for the states&#8217; rights dispute, pitting state laws against the notion of federal sovereignty&#8212;an argument which became ongoing into the next century, and the next. &#8220;States&#8217; rights&#8221; also became a Southern watchword for Northern (or &#8220;Yankee&#8221 intrusion on the Southern lifestyle. States&#8217; rights political parties sprang up over the South; one particular example of just how volatile the issue had become was embodied in the decision in 1831 of Nathaniel and Elizabeth Gist (ironically from Union, S.C.) to name their firstborn son &#8220;States Rights Gist,&#8221; a name he bore proudly until November 30, 1864, when, as a Confederate brigadier general, he was shot and killed leading his men at the Battle of Franklin in Tennessee.

Though the tariff question remained an open sore from its inception in 1828 right up to the Civil War, many modern historians have dismissed the impact it had on the growing rift between the two sections of the country. But any careful reading of newspapers, magazines or correspondence of the era indicates that here is where the feud began to fester into hatred. Some Southern historians in the past have argued this was the root cause of the Civil War. It wasn&#8217;t, but it was a critical ingredient in the suspicion and mistrust Southerners were beginning to feel about their Northern brethren, and by extension about the Union itself. Not only did the tariff issue raise for the first time the frightening specter of Southern secession, but it also seemed to have marked a mazy kind of dividing line in which the South vaguely started thinking of itself as a separate entity&#8212;perhaps even a separate country. Thus the cat, or at least the cat&#8217;s paw, was out of the bag.

All the resenting and seething naturally continued to spill over into politics. The North, with immigrants pouring in, vastly outnumbered the South in population and thus controlled the House of Representatives. But the U.S. Senate, by a sort of gentleman&#8217;s agreement laced with the usual bribes and threats, had remained 50-50, meaning that whenever a territory was admitted as a free state, the South got to add a corresponding slave state&#8212;and vice versa. That is until 1820, when Missouri applied for statehood and anti-slavery forces insisted it must be free. Ultimately, this resulted in Congress passing the Missouri Compromise, which decreed that Missouri could come in as a slave state (and Maine as a free state) but any other state created north of Missouri&#8217;s southern border would have to be free. That held the thing together for longer than it deserved.

In plain acknowledgement that slavery was an offensive practice, Congress in 1808 banned the importation of African slaves. Nevertheless there were millions of slaves living in the South, and their population continued growing. Beginning in the late 18th century, a small group of people in New England concluded that slavery was a social evil, and began to agitate for its abolition&#8212;hence, of course, the term &#8220;abolitionist.&#8221;

Over the years this group became stronger and by the 1820s had turned into a full-fledged movement, preaching abolition from pulpits and podiums throughout the North, publishing pamphlets and newspapers, and generally stirring up sentiments both fair and foul in the halls of Congress and elsewhere. At first the abolitionists concluded that the best solution was to send the slaves back to Africa, and they actually acquired land in what is now Liberia, returning a small colony of ex-bondsmen across the ocean.

By the 1840s, the abolitionists had decided that slavery was not simply a social evil, but a &#8220;moral wrong,&#8221; and began to agitate on that basis.

This did not sit well with the churchgoing Southerners, who were now subjected to being called unpleasant and scandalous names by Northerners they did not even know. This provoked, among other things, religious schisms, which in the mid-1840s caused the American Methodist and Baptist churches to split into Northern and Southern denominations. Somehow the Presbyterians hung together, but it was a strain, while the Episcopal church remained a Southern stronghold and firebrand bastion among the wealthy and planter classes. Catholics also maintained their solidarity, prompting cynics to suggest it was only because they owed their allegiance to the pope of Rome rather than to any state, country or ideal.

Abolitionist literature began showing up in the Southern mails, causing Southerners to charge the abolitionists with attempting to foment a slave rebellion, the mere notion of which remained high on most Southerners&#8217; anxiety lists. Murderous slave revolts had occurred in Haiti, Jamaica and Louisiana and more recently resulted in the killing of nearly 60 whites during the Nat Turner slave uprising in Virginia in 1831.

During the Mexican War the United States acquired enormous territories in the West, and what by then abolitionists called the &#8220;slave power&#8221; was pressing to colonize these lands. That prompted an obscure congressman from Pennsylvania to submit an amendment to a Mexican War funding bill in 1846 that would have prevented slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico&#8212;which became known, after its author, as the Wilmot Proviso. Even though it failed to pass into law, the very act of presenting the measure became a cause célèbre among Southerners who viewed it as further evidence that Northerners were not only out to destroy their &#8220;peculiar institution,&#8221; but their political power as well.

In 1850, to the consternation of Southerners, California was admitted into the Union as a free state&#8212;mainly because the Gold Rush miners did not want to find themselves in competition with slave labor. But for the first time it threw the balance of power in the Senate to the Northern states.

By then national politics had become almost entirely sectional, a dangerous business, pitting North against South&#8212;and vice versa&#8212;in practically all matters, however remote. To assuage Southern fury at the admission of free California, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which made Northerners personally responsible for the return of runaway slaves. Contrary to its intentions, the act actually galvanized Northern sentiments against slavery because it seemed to demand direct assent to, and personal complicity with, the practice of human bondage.

During the decade of the 1850s, crisis seemed to pile upon crisis as levels of anger turned to rage, and rage turned to violence. One of the most polarizing episodes between North and South occurred upon the 1852 publication of Harriet Beecher Stowe&#8217;s novel Uncle Tom&#8217;s Cabin, which depicted the slave&#8217;s life as a relentless nightmare of sorrow and cruelty. Northern passions were inflamed while furious Southerners dismissed the story en masse as an outrageously skewed and unfair portrayal. (After the conflict began it was said that Lincoln, upon meeting Mrs. Stowe, remarked, &#8220;So you are the little lady who started this great war?&#8221

In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act, sponsored by frequent presidential candidate Stephen A. Douglas, overturned the Missouri Compromise and permitted settlers in the Kansas Territory to choose for themselves whether they wanted a free or slave state. Outraged Northern abolitionists, horrified at the notion of slavery spreading by popular sovereignty, began raising funds to send anti-slave settlers to Kansas.

Equally outraged Southerners sent their own settlers, and a brutish group known as Border Ruffians from slaveholding Missouri went into Kansas to make trouble for the abolitionists. Into this unfortunate mix came an abolitionist fanatic named John Brown riding with his sons and gang. And as the murders and massacres began to pile up, newspapers throughout the land carried headlines of &#8220;Bleeding Kansas.&#8221;

In the halls of Congress, the slavery issue had prompted feuds, insults, duels and finally a divisive gag rule that forbade even discussion or debate on petitions about the issue of slavery. But during the Kansas controversy a confrontation between a senator and a congressman stood out as particularly shocking. In 1856, Charles Sumner, a 45-year-old Massachusetts senator and abolitionist, conducted a three-hour rant in the Senate chamber against the Kansas-Nebraska Act, focusing in particular on 59-year-old South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, whom he mocked and compared to a pimp, &#8220;having taken as his mistress the harlot, Slavery.&#8221; Two days later Congressman Preston Brooks, a nephew of the demeaned South Carolinian, appeared beside Sumner&#8217;s desk in the Senate and caned him nearly to death with a gold-headed gutta-percha walking stick.

By then, every respectable-sized city, North and South, had a half-dozen newspapers and even small towns had at least one or more; and the revolutionary new telegraph brought the latest news overnight or sooner. Throughout the North, the caning incident triggered profound indignation that was transformed into support for a new anti-slavery political party. In the election of 1856, the new Republican Party ran explorer John C. Frémont, the famed &#8220;Pathfinder,&#8221; for president, and even though he lost, the party had become a force to be reckoned with.

In 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its infamous Dred Scott decision, which elated Southerners and enraged Northerners. The court ruled, in essence, that a slave was not a citizen, or even a person, and that slaves were &#8220;so far inferior that they [have] no rights which the white man [is] bound to respect.&#8221; Southerners were relieved that they could now move their slaves in and out of free territories and states without losing them, while in the North the ruling merely drove more people into the anti-slavery camp.

Then in 1859, John Brown, of Bleeding Kansas notoriety, staged a murderous raid on the U.S. arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Va., hoping to inspire a general slave uprising. The raid was thwarted by U.S. troops, and Brown was tried for treason 
and hanged; but when it came out that he was being financed by Northern abolitionists, Southern anger was profuse and furious&#8212;especially after the Northern press elevated Brown to the status of hero and martyr. It simply reinforced the Southern conviction that Northerners were out to destroy their way of life.

As the crucial election of 1860 approached, there arose talk of Southern secession by a group of &#8220;fire-eaters&#8221;&#8212; influential orators who insisted Northern &#8220;fanatics&#8221; intended to free slaves &#8220;by law if possible, by force if necessary.&#8221; Hectoring abolitionist newspapers and Northern orators (known as Black, or Radical Republicans) provided ample fodder for that conclusion.

The 1850s drew to a close in near social convulsion and the established political parties began to break apart&#8212;always a dangerous sign. The Whigs simply vanished into other parties; the Democrats split into Northern and Southern contingents, each with its own slate of candidates. A Constitutional Union party also appeared, looking for votes from moderates in the Border States. As a practical matter, all of this assured a victory for the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, who was widely, if wrongly, viewed in the South as a rabid abolitionist. With the addition of Minnesota (1858) and Oregon (1859) as free states, the Southerners&#8217; greatest fears were about to be realized&#8212;complete control of the federal government by free-state, anti-slavery politicians.

With the vote split four ways, Lincoln and the Republicans swept into power in November 1860, gaining a majority of the Electoral College, but only a 40 percent plurality of the popular vote. It didn&#8217;t matter to the South. In short order, always pugnacious South Carolina voted to secede from the Union, followed by six other Deep South states that were invested heavily in cotton.

Much of the Southern apprehension and ire that Lincoln would free the slaves was misplaced. No matter how distasteful he found the practice of slavery, the overarching philosophy that drove Lincoln was a hard pragmatism that did not include the forcible abolition of slavery by the federal government&#8212;for the simple reason that he could not envision any political way of accomplishing it. But Lincoln, like a considerable number of Northern people, was decidedly against allowing slavery to spread into new territories and states. By denying slaveholders the right to extend their boundaries, Lincoln would in effect also be weakening their power in Washington, and over time this would almost inevitably have resulted in the abolition of slavery, as sooner or later the land would have worn out.

But that wasn&#8217;t bad enough for the Southern press, which whipped up the populace to such a pitch of fury that Lincoln became as reviled as John Brown himself. These influential journals, from Richmond to Charleston and myriad points in between, painted a sensational picture of Lincoln in words and cartoons as an arch-abolitionist&#8212;a kind of antichrist who would turn the slaves loose to rape, murder and pillage. For the most part, Southerners ate it up. If there is a case to be made on what caused the Civil War, the Southern press and its editors would be among the first in the dock. It goes a long way in explaining why only one in three Confederate soldiers were slaveholders, or came from slaveholding families. It wasn&#8217;t their slaves they were defending, it was their homes against the specter of slaves-gone-wild.

Interestingly, many if not most of the wealthiest Southerners were opposed to secession for the simple reason that they had the most to lose if it came to war and the war went badly. But in the end they, like practically everyone else, were swept along on the tide of anti-Washington, anti-abolition, anti-Northern and anti-Lincoln rhetoric.

To a lesser extent, the Northern press must accept its share of blame for antagonizing Southerners by damning and lampooning them as brutal lash-wielding torturers and heartless family separators. With all this back and forth carrying on for at least the decade preceding war, by the time hostilities broke out, few either in the North or the South had much use for the other, and minds were set. One elderly Tennessean later expressed it this way: &#8220;I wish there was a river of fire a mile wide between the North and the South, that would burn with unquenchable fury forevermore, and that it could never be passable to the endless ages of eternity by any living creature.&#8221;

The immediate cause of Southern secession, therefore, was a fear that Lincoln and the Republican Congress would have abolished the institution of slavery&#8212;which would have ruined fortunes, wrecked the Southern economy and left the South to contend with millions of freed blacks. The long-term cause was a feeling by most Southerners that the interests of the two sections of the country had drifted apart, and were no longer mutual or worthwhile.

The proximate cause of the war, however, was Lincoln&#8217;s determination not to allow the South to go peacefully out of the Union, which would have severely weakened, if not destroyed, the United States.

There is the possibility that war might have been avoided, and a solution worked out, had there not been so much mistrust on the part of the South. Unfortunately, some of the mistrust was well earned in a bombastic fog of hatred, recrimination and outrageous statements and accusations on both sides. Put another way, it was well known that Lincoln was anti-slavery, but both during his campaign for office and after his election, he insisted it was never his intention to disturb slavery where it already existed. The South simply did not believe him.

The Lincoln administration was able to quell secession movements in several Border States&#8212;Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and what would become West Virginia&#8212;by a combination of politics and force, including suspension of the Bill of Rights. But when Lincoln ordered all states to contribute men for an army to suppress the rebellion South Carolina started by firing on Fort Sumter, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina also joined the Confederacy rather than make war on their fellow Southerners.

&#8220;Because of incompatibility of temper,&#8221; a Southern woman was prompted to lament, &#8220;we have hated each other so. If we could only separate, a &#8216;separation a l&#8217;agreable,&#8217; as the French say it, and not have a horrid fight for divorce.&#8221;

Things had come a long way during the nearly 250 years since the Dutchman delivered his cargo of African slaves to the wharf at Jamestown, but in 1860 almost everyone agreed that a war wouldn&#8217;t last long. Most thought it would be over by summertime.


----------



## asher (Jul 3, 2015)

Do you have a link to the original piece?


----------



## michblanch (Jul 3, 2015)

Causes Of The Civil War


----------



## UnderTheSign (Jul 3, 2015)

edit: oops mich was way faster.

My favourite bit is this:
_"By the 1840s, the abolitionists had decided that slavery was not simply a social evil, but a &#8220;moral wrong,&#8221; and began to agitate on that basis. This did not sit well with the churchgoing Southerners, who were now subjected to being called unpleasant and scandalous names by Northerners they did not even know."
_Even 150+ years ago those poor Southerners were subject to bullying by the PC squad : (


----------



## asher (Jul 3, 2015)

That account is, um....

generous.

And really, really needs to be sourced.





> Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth...



Alexander H Stephens, VP of the CSA, 1861. http://web.archive.org/web/20130822...tory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/


----------



## Glass Cloud (Jul 10, 2015)

Is the original 13 colony flag going to be banned too?


I mean it was flown by a group of people who tried to rid the country of people of different color


----------



## asher (Jul 10, 2015)

Were the original colonies founded exclusively on the notion of white supremacy and perpetuating the vile institution of slavery? No, try again.


----------



## TheFranMan (Jul 10, 2015)

asher said:


> Were the original colonies founded exclusively on the notion of white supremacy and perpetuating the vile institution of slavery? No, try again.



Exactly. I think that the difference between the two purposes of creation are inherently different. The secession happened because of slavery when you break the issue down to its root cause. At the very least, I don't see why one would want to fly a flag representing treason against the U.S., not to mention the racially-charged history of the flag.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 10, 2015)

TheFranMan said:


> At the very least, I don't see why one would want to fly a flag representing treason against the U.S., not to mention the racially-charged history of the flag.



Because a lot of folks see it as a sign of being a rebel. Nothing is more rebellious than outright treason and sedition. You'll see the word "rebel" coming up a lot when you search for the flag and that's the reason. 

Does that mean anyone flying the flag is a rebel? Probably not. That's like saying anyone who wears a Tap-Out shirt is an MMA fighter. People latch onto symbols with big meanings just to feel special and cool and like they themselves have big meanings. 

Not defending it at all, just explaining that many of those who own Confederate Flags and such don't really buy into all that it implies, if they even know what all the flag itself represents to many people.


----------



## vilk (Jul 10, 2015)

I think Calumet city highschool used to be "the Rebels" and their figgin logo is that flag and their mascot is like robert e lee or something. Freakin entire city is black. I'm sure it must not be like that anymore. The high school is probably not even open lol


----------



## TheFranMan (Jul 10, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because a lot of folks see it as a sign of being a rebel. Nothing is more rebellious than outright treason and sedition. You'll see the word "rebel" coming up a lot when you search for the flag and that's the reason.
> 
> Does that mean anyone flying the flag is a rebel? Probably not. That's like saying anyone who wears a Tap-Out shirt is an MMA fighter. People latch onto symbols with big meanings just to feel special and cool and like they themselves have big meanings.
> 
> Not defending it at all, just explaining that many of those who own Confederate Flags and such don't really buy into all that it implies, if they even know what all the flag itself represents to many people.



Oh yeah I fully understand that, and no worries I know you're not expressing it as your view. That being said, their view's just such a short-sighted and simplistic view though.

If only there existed a different flag that represented rebellion, one that they could fly to assert that they would not stand for oppression from the government. Oh wait, that's exactly what the American flag stands for.


----------



## TheFranMan (Jul 10, 2015)

vilk said:


> I think Calumet city highschool used to be "the Rebels" and their figgin logo is that flag and their mascot is like robert e lee or something. Freakin entire city is black. I'm sure it must not be like that anymore. The high school is probably not even open lol



I'm pretty sure there's a fairly large push in Fairfax County in VA to rename a lot of the "Confederate"-themed schools. I think it's only a matter of time, personally.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 10, 2015)

asher said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure this is, on its own, inherently bad (they, and amazon/etc, can set their own terms as they wish)... but it's definitely inconsistent.
> 
> Is there a good reason to be able to buy a swastika?



Reenactments maybe but that's it. I'm sure that wouldn't be the extent of its use though.


----------



## mr coffee (Jul 10, 2015)

TheFranMan said:


> Oh yeah I fully understand that, and no worries I know you're not expressing it as your view. That being said, their view's just such a short-sighted and simplistic view though.
> 
> If only there existed a different flag that represented rebellion, one that they could fly to assert that they would not stand for oppression from the government. Oh wait, that's exactly what the American flag stands for.



Because the American government has never oppressed anybody.....oh...wait...yeah, nevermind.

-m


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 10, 2015)

TheFranMan said:


> I'm pretty sure there's a fairly large push in Fairfax County in VA to rename a lot of the "Confederate"-themed schools. I think it's only a matter of time, personally.



I almost went to Stonewall Jackson High... My parents wouldn't let me go bc it was named after a Confederate. I feel like that's silly. They were going to put me in some accelerated math and science program. But the name was enough to make my parents say "eff that"...

I honestly couldn't care less what they call the school...


----------



## flint757 (Jul 10, 2015)

mr coffee said:


> Because the American government has never oppressed anybody.....oh...wait...yeah, nevermind.
> 
> -m



Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese and African Americans. After 9/11 both our government and most of our citizens treated people of Muslim descent, or people who just looked like they were from the region, pretty horribly as well. 

---

Either way it's a stupid ....ing cloth. I just can't grasp why people latch on to symbolism so quickly and easily in the first place. This whole debacle has made the south fall in love with that flag all over again as well which is super annoying as now I hear about it constantly and I'd rather not. Everyone is being way over-sensitive about all of this. At least the liberal camp can own up to that fact though. What drives me nuts is that all of the conservatives around me pretend like they aren't also over-sensitive, perpetual complainers. I think this flag thing brings one major fact to light and that's that if anything conservatives seem to be even more sensitive than your average bloke otherwise they wouldn't be so up in arms about abortion, statues, religious laws being overruled, gay marriage, the ....ing 'rebel' flag, people of other religions, people of other ethnicity, losing their guns, etc.. They may not be sensitive to the same problems and they may fall on the other side of issues, but it is without a doubt still an over-sensitive reaction along with endless complaining.

/rant


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Jul 10, 2015)

I have the confederate flag hanging on the wall of my bedroom.

I own several shirts with the confederate flag on them. 

I can DEFINITELY see why many people would construe the flag to be racist. 

But for myself, and many other people, its a symbol of our southern heritage. It's pride in the land we come from. 

Being in Florida, but 2 and a half hours drive from Miami roughly. I see Cuban flags for the Cuban's to remind themselves where they come from. Argentinian flags, Venezuelan flags, Brazilian flags... They're all within their right to fly their flags as a reminder of their culture. When I drive to Miami to go to a show or any other reason, I see all kinds of people and all kinds of flags. It's a complete melting pot.

I fly the confederate flag as a symbol of the land I come from. It's something I take pride in, it reminds me of the culture I've grown up with.

eBay, Amazon, etc... Can all stop selling anything with the flag on it, that's fine. They're well within their rights to do so. 
South Carolina can remove the flag from their capitol building because of protest... I get it, people consider it a racist symbol. 

But I don't. 
It's the pride I have in the land I come from. So, therefore, on the wall in my bedroom it will remain. Right next to the Florida flag hanging beside it.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 10, 2015)

flint757 said:


> I just can't grasp why people latch on to symbolism so quickly and easily in the first place.



This...

I had a neighbor come over to our house once I suppose because we're "of color". He comes over with his son who has on a shirt that has the confederate flag on it. His son is an adopted Korean boy. He asks us, "Can you please explain to Tommy why it's not okay to wear this shirt?"

Umm...

A. This is YOUR son. You explain it to him
B. We don't really give a damn about that flag and it wasn't awkward until you came over here with that bullsh!t...


----------



## asher (Jul 10, 2015)

Cleek's Law.

ZT: What does the Confederate flag symbolize about "heritage" that isn't covered by like, the actual flag of the state you're from...?

(and this is without challenging that notion of heritage)


----------



## flint757 (Jul 10, 2015)

Konfyouzd said:


> This...
> 
> I had a neighbor come over to our house once I suppose because we're "of color". He comes over with his son who has on a shirt that has the confederate flag on it. His son is an adopted Korean boy. He asks us, "Can you please explain to Tommy why it's not okay to wear this shirt?"
> 
> ...



That's both awkward and hilarious. Oh my god, I'm dying over here.


----------



## asher (Jul 10, 2015)

Konfyouzd said:


> This...
> 
> I had a neighbor come over to our house once I suppose because we're "of color". He comes over with his son who has on a shirt that has the confederate flag on it. His son is an adopted Korean boy. He asks us, "Can you please explain to Tommy why it's not okay to wear this shirt?"
> 
> ...



What the actual kitten


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Jul 10, 2015)

asher said:


> Cleek's Law.
> 
> ZT: What does the Confederate flag symbolize about "heritage" that isn't covered by like, the actual flag of the state you're from...?
> 
> (and this is without challenging that notion of heritage)



It's honestly the difference between growing up in a rural environment versus an urban one.

The confederate flag gives us something to cling on to that is a visual representation of being different than the mass population. It's living or having grown up in a small town and being proud of it. 

If you see somebody wearing a confederate flag shirt, depending where you're at... They're not wearing it to be a racist or show they're racist. They're wearing it to show "Hey, I'm a country boy, and damned proud of it!" 
...Because city folk don't wear it. Or use it. Because to them, it's racist. And I understand why. But it isn't to us. 

As I said before... I do fly my state's flag right next to it in my bedroom.

Edit:
I just made a connection in my head as a way of explaining it.

People dress in a fashion that they want to portray themselves as. 
Metal heads will wear band shirts, businessmen will wear suits.. And "rednecks" will wear confederate flags. It's a self identification tool.

Hey, I aint a psychologist though... So, the fvck do I know?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 10, 2015)

Understandable. It's just unfortunate that like many other things idiots screw it up for everyone.

One more story since this just happened the other day...

I had JUST given my last $3 to a homeless man--a white one at that (you'll understand why this is important in a second).

No sooner than I finish giving that money away, another homeless man comes up and asks me if I have any money to spare. I told him very politely that I was out of money. Everyone else in the line did the same and it's believable considering we were standing in the slug (carpool) line meaning none of us intended to pay money to get home that day. Therefore, it's highly probable that none of us had money in our pockets.

At any rate, after everyone said that he went OFF.

It just so happens that everyone in the line at that point was "brown".



Homeless Man (paraphrased) said:


> I just want a damn soda pop! What kinda world is this where a white man can't even get a dollar soda pop?! Y'all got homes and stuff that a white man can't even get and you can't spare a dollar so I can get a damn soda?! This is bullsh!t. They need to bring back the damn Confederacy. Y'all ain't sh!t



I laughed my ass off...



Homeless Man said:


> Somethin' funny to you, boy?



What is this, 1930?


----------



## Eliguy666 (Jul 11, 2015)

I'm pretty sure that's f*ckin' 1866, if reconstruction media has anything to say.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 11, 2015)

Oh I was just referring to being called "boy". I didn't know people still said that as an insult.


----------



## SaturdayMorningSnuff (Jul 11, 2015)

Who celebrates a loss anyway?


----------



## estabon37 (Jul 11, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because a lot of folks see it as a sign of being a rebel. Nothing is more rebellious than outright treason and sedition. You'll see the word "rebel" coming up a lot when you search for the flag and that's the reason.



That's only weird to me because I can't think of a greater act of conformity than trying to defend a flag. To each their own. 



SaturdayMorningSnuff said:


> Who celebrates a loss anyway?



Apparently, Australians and New Zealanders do:

Anzac Day

Australia also has its own 'rebel flag': 







Again, the guys that flew that flag lost. Some people see the Eureka Rebellion as the 'birth of democracy in Australia', though that's probably a stretch. Interestingly, our homegrown racists have apparently adopted this flag, even though race was completely irrelevant to the event itself. Having said that, there are also people that think our national flag is racist. Apparently England's flag is also racist (St George's Cross, not the Union Jack). Maybe all flags are racist now. Maybe flags cause racism.

Everybody! Abandon your flags! We can solve racism! Together! All you need to do is burn all of your flags.


----------



## Vrollin (Jul 11, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> Apparently, Australians and New Zealanders do:
> 
> Anzac Day



Its a day of rememberance, appreciation, and reflection, not a celebration....


----------



## asher (Jul 12, 2015)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> It's honestly the difference between growing up in a rural environment versus an urban one.
> 
> The confederate flag gives us something to cling on to that is a visual representation of being different than the mass population. It's living or having grown up in a small town and being proud of it.
> 
> ...



It's like:

I'm totally fine for you to be proud of growing up in the country, but isn't there something that can be a symbol for it that *isn't* the flag of Treason in Defense of Slavery?


----------



## Demiurge (Jul 12, 2015)

It seems that the "Don't Tread on Me" flag, the snake on a yellow background, is becoming a popular flag for people to hang up here in the north. It's kind of a "rebel flag" and it communicates a similar faux-rebellious sentiment of the angry, perceiving-oneself-as-oppressed WASP- all without the ugly racial/slavery undertones. Maybe that will catch on instead.


----------



## asher (Jul 12, 2015)

*overtones


----------



## ferret (Jul 15, 2015)

Dropping this here, semi-relevant:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ecause-our-textbooks-and-monuments-are-wrong/


----------



## vilk (Jul 15, 2015)

^I liked that article. I mean obviously I know that on a personal/individual level all these people who talk about 'states rights' are just using it to cover their own asses, but I hadn't realized it was like a systematized effort with alternate educations and unwarranted monuments. That Texas declaration of succession really makes it obvious why they succeeded. It almost sounds conspiracy theory or something if it weren't documented, verifiable true information.


----------



## asher (Jul 15, 2015)

EVERY declaration of secession explicitly talks about slavery in language of white supremacy as the chief reason of their secession, as well as speeches by Confederate leaders at the birth of their treason.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 15, 2015)

ferret said:


> Dropping this here, semi-relevant:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ecause-our-textbooks-and-monuments-are-wrong/



My friend that went to Baylor tried convincing me of these historical myths that they apparently taught at Baylor, and apparently a lot of other schools as well. 

Anyone who truly believes slavery wasn't at the very least a top 5 reason for the secession or civil war is either deluded or ignorant.


----------



## estabon37 (Jul 15, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Anyone who truly believes slavery wasn't at the very least a top 5 reason for the secession or civil war is either deluded or ignorant.



Or, they're lying to achieve a goal. Probably not the majority of cases, but surely many of those who are leading these movements are aware of the 'bigger picture', and choose to obfuscate the elements that they know will be unpopular.


----------



## Shewter (Jul 16, 2015)

Meh. If it's important to you, don't support the businesses who refuse to sell the merchandise.

I really couldn't care less what a business does or doesn't sell, if they don't have what I want, I'll give my money to someone else.


----------



## michblanch (Jul 20, 2015)

If you wanna sell the flag sell it. 
If you wanna buy the flag buy it. 
If you wanna fly the flag fly it. 

A person's choice is no more my business than gay marriage and abortions. 
The freedom of speech is my business and I want it protected. 

However, don't put it on a public building and say that it represents us . 
It doesn't represent us. 

As far as EBay, they are the epitome of double speak. 
No confederate stuff. 
They have zero issues selling Nazi coins and gold. Gold with Hitlers face and signature. 


There is also something wrong when the police protect protestors of a flag (which they should) but then beat the .... out of people who protest the justice system the police or Wall Street.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 20, 2015)

Black people wave confederate flags proudly in Pastor Troy music videos. Im not sure how popular a rapper he is anymore but it goes to show it REALLY doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. 

I believe in one of his songs, he--or an accompanying artist--refers to himself as a "down south Georgia rebel"...

Eff that Flag either way. Not important.


----------



## ArticulateMadness (Sep 29, 2015)

Here's what it boils down to:

Below the Mason/Dixon line, the Confederate Flag is a symbol the South tried to be free, and will ultimately, let them tell it, rise again.

Above the Mason/Dixon line, the Confederate Flag is a symbol of hate and KKK.

Bout sums it up.


----------



## ferret (Sep 29, 2015)

ArticulateMadness said:


> Here's what it boils down to:
> 
> Below the Mason/Dixon line *for conservative whites*, the Confederate Flag is a symbol the South tried to be free, and will ultimately, let them tell it, rise again.
> 
> ...



I fixed this for you.


----------

