Quote:Slavery wasn't the only issue, but it was the main issue. Some groups would rather have you forget that little detail and focus on secondary issues, like the tariff, instead. Plenty of material has been posted in this thread to demonstrate that the Civil War was about whether or not states had the right to authorize ownership of slaves, and everything else was a secondary matter. It's not cherry-picking; it's reading the words of those who wrote the articles of secession instead of focusing solely on the words of apologists.

 

The only reason that I use the term "cherry picking" is because a group seizes on that particular issue, then attaches "hate" to it.  Slavery was not about "hate" during the time that it was happening.  Did the whites and the relative few that owned slaves believe that blacks were an inferior race?  Absolutely.  However, you can't equate that particular time in history to today.  I argue that slaves were often treated "well" by their owners.  I don't know how to describe this without coming across as being an "advocate" of the practice.  However, slave owners did not want to "damage their property" and took relatively "good" care of them.  During that time slaves were pretty much "livestock" to their owners.  Whippings were usually the result of not doing what they were supposed to do, or the result of trying to escape.  Think about how a horse is "broken in".

 

Now was the practice wrong?  Absolutely.  However, once again we are talking about the late 1700's and the 1800's.  The common belief at the time was that the practice was "acceptable".

 

Now also understand the growth and the changes that were happening during that period.  The North was becoming more industrialized and relied on the raw goods produced in the South.  Much of the production of raw goods was dependent upon slavery.  In the South, the average family did not own slaves.  Slave ownership was considered a "status symbol" and the only ones that owned them were the families of the more wealthy people and larger plantation owners.  There were far more people in the South that never owned slaves and there were plenty in the North that did own them.

 

The real "hate" associated with the Confederate Battle Flag should really focus on the late 1800's and the early-to-mid 1900's.  It was common up to the early 1960's for there to be a "whites only" and a "colored only" anything including drinking fountains, restrooms, stores, restaurants, etc.  Again, this practice was considered "normal" until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Interestingly, it was Democrats that had a strong opposition to the legislation.

 

The bottom line and my point is, the Confederate Battle Flag and The Civil War was not about "hate" as so many claim.  To me it symbolizes a struggle that we have eventually overcome as a nation (for the most part).  It's not just about The Civil War and it's not just about slavery, it's about how we as a country have turned around the wrongs of our past and is a reminder to never go down that road again.

---