This issue comes up all the time, albeit in different forms. It's big problem when the symbol of your regional pride is a flag of a rebellious government based on the premise of owning black slaves.

How is that so different than Germans using a Nazi flag as a symbol of pride when their nation was the dominant power in Europe?

---

_______________________________________________

A "redneck" is defined in the dictionary as "a member of the white, rural southern working class." Having lived in and amongst said people for over half my life, I am always disturbed when someone imputes individual traits, such as racism, to this entire class of people when they would never deem it politically correct to impute any such trait to any other class of people.

Yes, I know some rednecks who are racist. I also know some other people who are highly educated and in professional positions who are racist also. But, the majority of real rednecks I know are hard-working, church-going, patriotic, open, friendly people. They are not racist because, being at the lower end of the economic spectrum themselves, they find they have more in common with some minorities than they may have with upper-class white folks.

One thing rednecks do dislike is people who have an attitude that they are superior to them because they have a college degree, work in an office, and drive a BMW.

I don't think the implication is that all rednecks must be racist.

I think it's the implication that the Confederate flag is racist.

---

_______________________________________________

Then who is the "they" in the "''Cause they just don't like blacks?"

As far as the "Confederate" flag is concerned, it is really the Confederate States of America Second Naval Jack that is the one the KKK/Skinheads have adopted as their banner: http://www.researchonline.net/gacw/conflag8.htm

There were actually three CSA "National" Flags. The first (Stars and Bars) was replaced because it too closely resembled the US flag. The Second was replaced because there was too much white in it (ironic, huh!) and it was sometimes mistaken for a flag of surrender. The third was the final "official" flag, but was only in place a short time before the surrender and dissolution of the CSA, so it is not widely known.

Because the Naval Jack became the best recognized, many Southern states incorporated it into their own flags or in historical displays in an effort to recognize their "rebel heritage" but it is historically incorrect as well as racially insensitive to do so. One of the three "official national" flags should be used instead. Of course, some revisionists won't be happy unless all references to the Confederacy are expunged from everything, including the history books.

''Cause they just don't like blacks?"

They the people who compsed the song and/or condone references to the Confederate flag... I guess (?)

Interesting history note about the flag - I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing. I thought this was an interesting line from that website

"The crimes committed by these groups under the stolen banner of the confederacy only exacerbate the lies which link the seccesion to slavery interests when, from a Southerner's view, the cause was state's rights"

I'm not sure I will ever buy the idea that the Confederate flag is a legitimate symbol of states rights apart from slavery.

---

_______________________________________________

Well, slavery is usually taught as the sole reason for the war, which it really wasn't. Southern agricultural states were dominated politically by the far more populous North. Income from agricultural tariffs was not getting shared proportionately--at least in the view of Southerners. Not that ending slavery wasn't the right thing to do, but I think it would have ended soon anyway because of the inventions of the cotton gin and mechanical harvesters. Owning slaves just wouldn't have been economically supportable anymore.

Just wondering who plants the cotton seeds in your slaveless South. Who runs the cotton Gin? FYI..The cotton Gin was invented in 1793..that leaves about 60 years for slavery to "fizzle out" before the Civil War. I can make a pretty good case that the cotton gin actually made slavery more prevalent in the South during this time. If you want figures, I can lay them out for you.

Then I can add in Western expansion, Britain's growing necessity, long staple vs. short staple...etc.

Well, if you need any proof about the impact of mechanization on the need for manual farm labor, just go drive around Kansas for a while. On almost every square mile of land, there are 2-3 abandoned farmsteads and almost every county has 8-10 one-time thriving settlements that are now ghost towns. All because one farmer can do now what it took 50-100 to do 150 years ago.

Mechanical planters were invented in the 1700's by Jethro Tull (who later became a band;^)), but a mecahnical cotton planter wasn't developed until 1875. Mechanical cotton pickers were invented in 1850, but not really practical until the 1930's. The cost of a slave in the 1860's was about $1,000, which would equate to about $38,000 today. Considering that a cotton picker could do about 50-100 times the amount of work of a hand picker, that means you would have to spend today about $1.9 to $3.8 million on buying slaves to do the work of a cotton picker costing maybe $100,000 new. So--the economics would have eventually ruled the day.

You made good points now that you switched your argument from slavery ending "soon" to 150 years later. Also, you left the cotton gin theory (cause you were wrong) and went solely to mechanical harvesters. In the end, you are right, mechanization essentially would've ended the institution of slavery. Though I am sure there would be plenty of arguments to go along with mechanization.