View Full Version : South Carolina Governor wants to remove Confederate flag
mojaveman
06-22-2015, 20:58
Governor Nikki Haley is putting together a plan to remove the Confederate flag from the State House grounds.
Will that eventually include the Capitol and all other public offices?
I can understand why some groups would be offended with the reminder of the Confederacy but history happens. Maybe those who forget it really are doomed to repeat it.
I'm not a Southerner by birth nor did any of my ancestors come from that region. It does bother me a little though that there has been chatter among some others in power that ALL reminders of the Confederacy should be removed to include monuments to fallen soldiers as well as statues of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, etc.
As I said before, history happens. Some of these ideas seem a little radical to me.
http://www.wistv.com/story/29376648/source-haley-formulating-plan-to-remove-confederate-flag-from-state-house
This comment may be unpopular but here it is.
The proper honors were rendered by Joshua Chamberlain to the soldiers and colors of the southern armies at Appomattox..
Why a Confederate battle flag flies in any official capacity, State or Fed property, is beyond me. As to memorials the State Flag of the soldiers should be displayed as they fought for Virginia, S Carolina etc...not some notion of a national entity that exists today and did not exist at that time.
Individual can do as they choose, as can any corporate entity.
This is solely about flying the Confederate battle Flag on Fed/State property...what ind. do is up to them.
Regardless of where the flag flies it is not the problem, it is as if you erase it and all the nations race woes will be over. The Confederate flag does not offend me, what offends me is how that symbol has been corrupted by certain groups and individuals.
blacksmoke
06-23-2015, 06:26
The flag belongs in a museums and history books. Why don't we fly the British flag? Oh because we kicked their asses out too.
Streck-Fu
06-23-2015, 06:40
:munchin
The Confederate flag does not offend me, what offends me is how that symbol has been corrupted by certain groups and individuals.
The flag in question is the CSA's "battle" flag, a symbol of their secession and waging war against US forces at places like Antietam, Gettysburg, etc, for maintaining a society based upon white supremacy and the perpetuation of slavery as a "right".
I'd be interested to hear an explanation of just how such a "symbol" could have been "corrupted" in its post-Civil War use by the likes of the White Liners, Red Shirts, Klansmen, the anti-Civil Rights movement, and others who profess the same ideas of racial superiority? :confused:
Richard
Streck-Fu
06-23-2015, 06:50
The flag in question is the CSA's "battle" flag, a symbol of their secession and waging war against US forces at places like Antietam, Gettysburg, etc, for maintaining a society based upon white supremacy and the perpetuation of slavery as a "right".
I'd be interested to hear an explanation of just how such a "symbol" could have been "corrupted" in its post-Civil War use by the likes of the White Liners, Red Shirts, Klansmen, the anti-Civil Rights movement, and others who profess the same ideas of racial superiority? :confused:
Richard
At the same time, the American flag flew over the states of Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland......
If it was a state flag I'd probably think a little different.
It isn't.
The Confederate States of America sought to secede from the Union. A great civil war was fought. The Confederate Army lost that war.
I think its odd that there is a state government flying the flag of an Army that served as a force belligerent to the United States of America.
Americans would shit a gold brick if someone claimed that they were simply "celebrating their heritage" by flying a Rising Sun Flag at Pearl Harbor.
The "history and heritage" argument doesn't get my vote. If the USA was hopelessly tied to history in the form of a flag, the US Flag would still have 13 stars.
Lets remove race for a second...
What about the people that had family members that fought and died for the Union...
...REGARDLESS of what color their skin was?
What about THEIR family heritage?
...can't white people be offended by the confederate battle flag as well?
"The South will rise again" is a cute slogan; when they do, they can put up a new flag.
Until then, come to grips with the fact that YOU LOST, now take that shit down.
BrokenSwitch
06-23-2015, 07:00
Mississippi still keeps the CSA flag in its state flag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mississippi
Georgia is still proud of its part in the CSA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Georgia_(U.S._state)
Symbolism is often seen as THE cause,,
when it is only a symptom.
Taking cortisone shots treat the pain,,
but the arthritis is still there..
BTB,, Starts and Bars was the 1st "national" flag adapted by the CSA
While the Southern cross was a battle flag.
The CSA had several flags, both National & Battle.
craigepo
06-23-2015, 08:47
I could understand an argument to have the Confederate flag flying at a Confederate cemetery, or some of the civil war battlefields. It could, arguably, fit within the context at those locales.
However, anywhere else, the Confederate flag is a powerful reminder of a time when an entire race of people were treated as less than human simply because of the pigmentation of their skin.
This nation should be an exemplar for liberty both to ourselves and the rest of the world. That is hard to do with a Confederate flag flying.
Streck-Fu
06-23-2015, 08:59
I could understand an argument to have the Confederate flag flying at a Confederate cemetery, or some of the civil war battlefields. It could, arguably, fit within the context at those locales.
However, anywhere else, the Confederate flag is a powerful reminder of a time when an entire race of people were treated as less than human simply because of the pigmentation of their skin.
This nation should be an exemplar for liberty both to ourselves and the rest of the world. That is hard to do with a Confederate flag flying.
I agree with the idea that no government entity should fly any flag of the confederacy but the discussion should be honest.
This has next to nothing to due with white supremacy.
Lincoln, himself, was a white supremacist as were most people at the time, northern and southern.
While we should be an example of liberty for all, we must be open about our history and honest about how we got to where we are now. Altering and fabricating elements of history to make certain people seem more altruistic than they really were prevents honest discussion.
You can not hold up the federal government and union army as agents for positive social justice and reform for freeing the slaves when the same entities are guilty of genocide against the native American indians.
PedOncoDoc
06-23-2015, 09:07
The flag in question is the CSA's "battle" flag, a symbol of their secession and waging war against US forces at places like Antietam, Gettysburg, etc, for maintaining a society based upon white supremacy and the perpetuation of slavery as a "right".
I'd be interested to hear an explanation of just how such a "symbol" could have been "corrupted" in its post-Civil War use by the likes of the White Liners, Red Shirts, Klansmen, the anti-Civil Rights movement, and others who profess the same ideas of racial superiority? :confused:
Richard
Do we also then demand removal of all confederate war/soldier memorials for the same logic? :confused:
Roguish Lawyer
06-23-2015, 09:28
This is all about censorship through BS liberal shame.
Entire post.You are ignoring a complicated, ongoing discussion over Lincoln's views on race, slavery, and politics, and how they changed over time.*
__________________________________________________ ____
* John Sexton, "On Lincoln's Pragmatism," American Political Thought: A Journal of Ideas, Institutions, and Culture, vol. 2:1 (Spring 2013): 89-117, available here (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/669689?origin=JSTOR-pdf).
Team Sergeant
06-23-2015, 10:28
Personally I say we ban everything that's offensive to anyone and give our government special powers to do as it pleases when it pleases whenever it pleases. Because I don't think we have evolved to a level where we can govern ourselves.
I also believe that having a 103 year old supreme court justice is a great idea along with giving free housing, food, medical services, education to millions of illegal aliens.
I think that gay parades and walking around with a dildo stuck up your ass in front of the children is a freedom we should all strive for.....
The individual that came up with the idea for the movie "The Purge" is a friggin genius and should be president of the USA.
Now if you'll excuse me I have some protesting to do for the EPA so we can bring the growth of the United States to a complete fucking stop.
Streck-Fu
06-23-2015, 10:39
You are ignoring a complicated, ongoing discussion over Lincoln's views on race, slavery, and politics, and how they changed over time.*
Of course his views evolved when the union army needed more men..... :D
How much did Lincoln's views 'evolve' in his 50s? We are not discussing the evolution of a person from the ages of 15 to 50....
You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You here are freemen I suppose.
And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Your source references the above quote and writes this about it:
The language, as so often in his public pronouncements on race, is painstakingly impartial and circumspect but not, I would argue, because he is flattering his audience’s prejudices (although this would imply he did not share those prejudices himself). While the statement is a cautious one, and admits of more than one interpretation, read literally, it is not racist. Lincoln does not say, as most whites in this period would have had no trouble saying, that blacks are inferior to whites. Nor does he say that he would not be in favor of political and social equality between the races, even if it were possible. Indeed, he does not even say that he is not in favor of such equality, only that he has “no purpose to introduce” it (about the—equally infamous—statement in which he says that his “feelings” will not admit of equality, more in a moment). Rather, Lincoln says that there is a “physical difference” between blacks and whites that makes it unlikely they will ever be able to live together on terms of full equality and that, so far as it is a “necessity” that there be inequality, he is in favor of his own race (or, as he curiously puts it, the one “to which I belong”) having “the superior position.”
That is a lot of babble without much substance in an effort to explain what Lincoln meant. All in an effort to claim that Lincoln didn't really think blacks were inferior....
Texas flies the CSA flag as a part of its historical heritage in its "Six Flags Over Texas" theme which recognizes the six governing bodies that have governed over its territories - Spain, France, Mexico, Republic of Texas, CSA, and USA.
I don't think anybody could misconstrue the CSA's flag being displayed in such a thematic way as it is at the Bullock Texas State History Museum in Austin (atchd pic) as being in any way representative of any of its governing bodies today.
Personally, I wouldn't see any problem with flying the CSA flag co-equally in historical context with the American flag at places such as the Texas Civil War Museum near Fort Worth, either, but they don't do so and their flags are all encased in displays inside the musuem.
Inre to some of the arguments being presented in this thread, I think one has to consider that at that point in our nation's history (the 19th Century) "white supremacy" was an idea prevalent to the period.
This pervasive belief in white supremacy provided the rationale for slavery. As the French political theorist Montesquieu observed wryly in 1748: “It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians.”
Given this belief, most white Southerners - and many Northerners - could not envision life in black-majority states such as South Carolina and Mississippi unless blacks were in chains.
Georgia Supreme Court Justice Henry Benning, trying to persuade the Virginia Legislature to leave the Union, predicted race war if slavery was not protected. “The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.” Thus, secession would maintain not only slavery but the prevailing ideology of white supremacy as well.
The CSA's constitution and the numerous state's declarations of secession confirm these ideas.
Americans have always been optimists, looking to the future and American society's more prosperous upper classes, and expecting to join them one day - the proverbial "American dream."
“The two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black,” declared South Carolina’s senior senator John C. Calhoun on the Senate floor in 1848. “And all the former {white}, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals.”
In other words, like homeownership today, slave ownership was aspirational, attracting not just those who owned slaves but those who perhaps wished to one day, an idea based upon the notion of "white supremacy" thought to be so foundational to the country at that time that those who sought to end it were branded heretics worthy of death.
My GG-Grandfather lived in Texas when the Civil War began, having settled in the Republic in 1836. He was a farmer near Comanche Peak and owned no slaves, yet - as did any of the state governments, businesses, and citizens who lived in any of the slaveholding territories as well as those living in much of the rest of the nation - he surely benefited from the profits gained by those who did own slaves. He voluntarily joined the CSA’s “cause” to retain this society, and was a corporal in Company I, 13th Texas Cavalry. Why? We have no idea because we have no family records of his reason(s).
Personally, I would like to think that I would have made a different choice had I been in a similar situation. But had I, like my GG-Grandfather, been a member of the South’s perceived “upper class” (whites, whether wealthy or poor) at that time in history… who knows.
It's complicated, for sure, but the question we struggle with today is should a symbol of that past and its aftermath (e.g., a CSA battle flag) be flying at any government building (other than a museum or historical memorial site) alongside a current state and national flag which are meant to represent equality of treatment for all its citizens?
Richard
Streck-Fu
06-23-2015, 11:28
Given this belief, most white Southerners - and many Northerners - could not envision life in black-majority states such as South Carolina and Mississippi unless blacks were in chains.
Some northern states may have outlawed slavery, not because they thought the blacks equal to the whites but because they wanted no blacks in the state at all. Though slavery was outlawed in Indiana in 1820 and there were very few slaves to free, they were not exactly open to accommodating free blacks.....
The Indiana state constitution of 1851:
Article 13
Section 1. No negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the State, after the adoption of this Constitution.
Section 2. All contracts made with any Negro or Mulatto coming into the State, contrary to the provisions of the foregoing section, shall be void; and any person who shall employ such Negro or Mulatto, or otherwise encourage him to remain in the State, shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars.
Section 3. All fines which may be collected for a violation of the provisions of this article, or of any law which ay hereafter be passed for the purpose of carrying the same into execution, shall be set apart and appropriated for the colonization of such Negroes and Mulattoes, and their descendants, as may be in the State at the adoption of this Constitution, and may be willing to emigrate.
Section 4. The General Assembly shall pass laws to carry out the provisions of this article
Any time you cave to the Left, you establish precedence. The American flag will be next.
Pat
That is a lot of babble without much substance in an effort to explain what Lincoln meant. All in an effort to claim that Lincoln didn't really think blacks were inferior....It is noted that you dismiss as "babble" an ongoing conversation among professional academics who have spent their careers researching antebellum America. IRT, your argument that Lincoln's anti-slavery views did not mean he thought blacks were inferior is historiographically sustainable.
The part that you continue to miss is the difference between having views of racial superiority on the one hand and being pro slavery on the other. In the 1856 and 1860 presidential elections, the Republican party opposed the extension of slavery to the territories <<LINK1 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29619)>><<LINK2 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29620)>>. The southern-led Democratic party favored the continuation of slavery both within the slave states and the territories <<LINK3 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29576)>><<LINK4 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29577)>>.
Do you really think that the two positions are equivalent? If so, you are overlooking available contemporaneous evidence. The state of South Carolina put it this way.<<LINK5 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp)>>.
[....]
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Streck-Fu
06-23-2015, 12:00
....your argument that Lincoln's anti-slavery views did not mean he thought blacks were inferior is historiographically sustainable.
That is not my view nor what I wrote.
The part that you continue to miss is the difference between having views of racial superiority on the one hand and being pro slavery on the other.
:confused:
Are you asserting that it is possible to support the slavery of blacks without being a racist?
So if the confederate flag is NOT a symbol of racism, why did they not fly it at half mast after the shooting like the other flags?
Let me be clear.
One symbol/symptom of racism is the CSA battle flag..
But getting rid of the flag does not get rid of racism.
The Indiana state constitution of 1851:
Article 13
One would have to understand the migration patterns which settled Indiana - a South to North as opposed to the more commonly experienced East to West population movement.
As far as Article XIII goes, the Civil War amendments to the U.S. Constitution (13, 14, 15) essentially nullified this article.
Here's a good read on the 1850 constitutional convention and the issues.
"Indiana Constitution". The Indiana Historian, June 2002.
http://www.in.gov/history/files/const1851.pdf
Streck-Fu
06-23-2015, 12:23
[COLOR="Lime"]One would have to understand the migration patterns which settled Indiana - a South to North as opposed to the more commonly experienced East to West population movement.
Oh, I know and posted that because of the continued references to Northerners as liberators of the slaves. As a state, through, Indiana was not friendly to blacks whether free or slave. It was not easily defined by the Ohio River, in spite of what many historians claim today. The population of Indiana was very pro-union and provided 10s of thousands of troops for the Union army. They even openly accepted recruits from Kentucky when that state's governor refused to mobilize troops for either army. However, Indiana was still split regarding race and the Emancipation Proclamation making the freeing of the slaves a war priority caused a large number of desertions.
Your source above, only mentions Article 13 with:
Negroes and Mulattoes
A full range of Hoosier attitudes
towards Negroes and Mulattoes also
prompted lengthy, heated debates about
their immigration to Indiana.
No delegates favored full equality for
Negroes and Mulattoes, and Article XIII
of the new Constitution (prohibiting
their immigration to Indiana) was
approved by the convention by a vote of
93 to 40. The convention also agreed
that Article XIII should be voted on
separate from the rest of the Constitu-
tion
Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and to a lesser extent, Ohio saw a large number immigrants from the southern states. There is a joke here on that subject: What is the definition of a Hoosier? Someone from Kentucky that couldn't get to Michigan.
Any time you cave to the Left, you establish precedence. The American flag will be next.
Pat
This is not a left/right issue...I am a conservative. Confederate battle flags should not be flown on State/Fed property.
They belong to history and museums/re enactments etc.
This is not a left/right issue...I am a conservative. Confederate battle flags should not be flown on State/Fed property.
They belong to history and museums/re enactments etc.
I understand and totally agree with you. It's just that it should have been settled earlier but now it looks like they are caving to the Left and that will encourage them to dig deeper. The Indian nations will claim that the Stars and Stripes represent repression to their people and should be replaced.
Pat
Your source above, only mentions Article 13 with:
You need to reread the article and its cited docs.
Richard
RCummings
06-23-2015, 13:01
Possibly another perspective. My Great Grandfather also fought for the south. His family lived far back in the hills of Virginia far from any notion of what the war was about. When the North came thru they stole all of his families food, so he went after them because they stole not because of some BS that the governments said. He returned to the farm after the war and put all the junk, rifle, CSA cash and the knife that he made under the floorboards of the cabin because he had no use for the items. How many folks fought for the same reasons, they had no newspapers no slaves and no communication with anyone but the folks that lived in the area.
As far as the Bars and Stars, Great Grandfather probably could have cared less, people that want to take it down should probably take it down, on the other hand if folks want to force the issue by forcibly removing the Bars and Stars I suppose that Great Grandfather would have decided whether or not to take it personally and act according to what he believed was right or wrong.
Bob
Streck-Fu
06-23-2015, 13:13
You need to reread the article and its cited docs.
Richard
Of course there was discussion and debate but, the point still stands that heading into the 1860 election, the majority of the people in many states north of the Ohio River, were not as accepting of blacks and freed slaves as is often taught in elementary history.
I guess everyone pissing and moaning the Battle Flag wasn't lowered like the rest of the flags didn't take the time to look at how the critter is fixed to the pole.
The halyard holding the flag to the pole looks to be just a bit longer than the flag and appears to be locked.
Don't know for sure but it appears the only way to lower it would be to take it down.
Maybe there is some do-hicky inside the pole.
Old Dog New Trick
06-23-2015, 14:24
Next up on PC Docket while the momentum is flowing:
Let's get rid of this catchy little tune-
Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land
I wish I was in Dixie, Hooray! Hooray!
In Dixie's Land I'll take my stand,
to live and die in Dixie.
Away, away, away down south in Dixie!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I could care less about the symbols once used in our country which depict a certain way of life that has caused so many grief and repression for so long after change was demanded and won or lost through the blood of either side but, freedom in this country is taking another step forward towards - mediocrity.
If we "ban" everything we find "objectionable" it's not long before we become without "identity." And a nation without identity has no future, no past and a questionable present.
If you can't take pride in wearing your "colors" on your sleeve (breast, back or cap) and "identify" with something "heraldic" then, how in the hell is someone opposed or supportive of your views supposed to see you coming? (I kinda like being able to see a racist, bigoted, supremacist, hater on both sides of the color spectrum approaching me from a distance. It keeps my situational awareness meter in the optimal position before first contact.)
JMHO
I miss not being able to display a Svastika, without being labeled a Nazi or a hate monger.
The word swastika comes from the Sanskrit svastika, which means “good fortune” or “well-being." The motif (a hooked cross) appears to have first been used in Neolithic Eurasia, perhaps representing the movement of the sun through the sky. To this day it is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Odinism.
:(
Old Dog New Trick
06-23-2015, 14:55
Stone Mountain?
Have no fear Pete, the American Taliban (repressive government) will be along shortly to blow it up! Just like the Afghan Taliban blew up thousand year old images of Bhudda. It was "offensive" to someone's sensibilities. :rolleyes:
bandycpa
06-23-2015, 15:03
I guess everyone pissing and moaning the Battle Flag wasn't lowered like the rest of the flags didn't take the time to look at how the critter is fixed to the pole.
The halyard holding the flag to the pole looks to be just a bit longer than the flag and appears to be locked.
Don't know for sure but it appears the only way to lower it would be to take it down.
Maybe there is some do-hicky inside the pole.
From what I've read and heard, only the state's General Assembly has the right to order the Confederate flag to be lowered to half-mast. The Governor may have the state flag lowered, but not the Confederate flag.
I am offended by the Mexican Flag, the New Black Panther Party Flag, the ISIS flag and the Gay Pride flag.....are you going to ban them from public display as well???
blacksmoke
06-23-2015, 16:36
I don't think the point of taking down the flag is to get rid of racism. "If the South would have won, we would all have it made." WTF is that supposed to mean? I think the fact that universally blacks view the flag as a symbol of racist oppression that should be enough for a reasonable person to agree it should be taken down. Its not the Buddhist stats and bars, or the Chinese stars and bars, it's the white supremacist, enslavement mentality stars and bars.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ8_49BRSiw
blacksmoke
06-23-2015, 16:39
I also find it shocking that "Christian" southerners would defend that flag or the appalling behavior of that region during that time. Exodus 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”
Mustang Man
06-23-2015, 17:41
If the shooter was never linked to posing with the flag we probably wouldn't even be having this issue.
If the shooter was never linked to posing with the flag we probably wouldn't even be having this issue.
I doubt we can say that; seems as if it was a long-running issue and but a matter of time is all.
http://www.thetattooedprof.com/archives/407
Richard
If the shooter was never linked to posing with the flag we probably wouldn't even be having this issue.
True, but it has come up before and would again...it needs dealt with.
craigepo
06-23-2015, 18:11
True, but it has come up before and would again...it needs dealt with.
I agree. I was reading an article today on National Review discussing how forgiving the Charleston church has been in its reaction to this entire episode. Too bad the church's forgiveness has been wholly obscured by this issue.
I seem to recall that there are a few Forts named for Confederate officers, too.
Pat
The Confederate Battle Flag has been an in your face item since the end of that conflict.
The Southern Governors/Senators that placed it upon State flags did so as a protest to the Union they were forced to join...it was a FU act and has been since the end of that event.
The reason we (military) did not get disability benefits until Bush is that southern Congressman would not vote for it out of protest that southern veterans didn't get anything (WW1 era).
This Southern in your face crap has been around for 100++ years now, get the Fk over it.
The KKK/rednecks that display (ed) it say 'southern pride' but actually mean 'know your place'...that is northern and southern rednecks.
Who the hell puts a stars/bars on a personalized license tag.....historians?
No, that battle flag exemplifies 'know your place' from the time of secession to today.
It has no place in any official capacity.
If you choose to fly that Flag on your porch I would defend your right to do so.
However, we fought and defeated that rebellion for valid reasons so that flag does not deserve a place of honor on Fed/State property....
I seem to recall that there are a few Forts named for Confederate officers, too.
Pat
Don't worry, they're are coming for that too.
Time: U.S. Flag Waves Over 10 Army Bases Proudly Named for Confederate Officers
http://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
They'll be coming for the American flag soon..
Don't worry, they're are coming for that too.
Time: U.S. Flag Waves Over 10 Army Bases Proudly Named for Confederate Officers
http://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
They'll be coming for the American flag soon..
Again, a separate issue and a special conspiracy issue for those to rally around that do not want to deal with what the Battle Flag represents.
Surf n Turf
06-23-2015, 19:57
Warner Bros. Removing Confederate Flag From 'Dukes of Hazzard' Car
Is nothing sacred. What next, "Northern" Fried Chicken, no grits, biscuits, or sun tea :rolleyes:
SnT
Warner Bros. Removing Confederate Flag From 'Dukes of Hazzard' Car
The General Lee - Bo and Luke Duke's vehicle of choice from 'The Dukes of Hazzard' - is a classic and instantly recognizable Hollywood car. But it's about to get a little less recognizable as Warner Bros., the studio that owns the theatrical, DVD and licensing rights to 'The Dukes of Hazzard,' has decided to remove the confederate flag from all future versions of the car.
http://screencrush.com/dukes-of-hazzard-flag/?trackback=fbshare_mobile
I am all for removing displayed items that represent oppression, hate, and murder.
Lets get rid of the confederate flag right after we ban the fucking Koran.
I am so sick of the bandwagon fucking issues that plague our country from week to week, further dividing races and classes into "us versus them" grudge matches. Sometimes people just need to be told to shut up, and not take the bait of buying into the pyrimid scheme that special interest groups are pushing.
Last week, human science experiments deciding that they were assigned the wrong chromosones, this week............the confederate flag, next week..........the required tolerance of faggotery within the family dynamic.
Guymullins
06-24-2015, 06:06
Although I have no pup in this particular fight, I am familiar with flag nonsense as we have a much more contemporary problem in my country.
I think a useful process one can use to establish truth from BS is to ask a few questions , of those on either side of the debate.
What would your reaction have been , had the authorities lowered the Confederate Flag because of the church shooting and not the national flag?
What would your reaction have been if all the flags had been lowered?
What would you have felt if the Confederate flag had been lowered first, then the State and National flags in that order?
What would the reaction have been if no flags at all had been lowered?
I am sure that after a cool examination of affairs, most people will come to the conclusion that the flag itself was not at fault, but the small-hearted decision not to lower the Confederate Flag was the catalyst that promoted the furore.
As usual, it is people and not symbols that screw the pooch.
Streck-Fu
06-24-2015, 06:34
They'll be coming for the American flag soon..
Probably.
...you guys are all a bunch of racists.
I can't wait until Hillary gets coronated and purges all of Americas evils.
The General Lee was a racist car NOT a race car; Let me break it down for you:
It belonged to Bo Duke and Luke Duke....
bo duKe, luKe duKe
They hid the "KKK" within the names of the cars primary drivers.
...and Uncle Jesse?
...look at his hat: its RED. Red like communism. He was a bootlegger-a criminal that thumbed his nose at the law. An old white guy with a beard, the symbol of ALL that which is racist.
Yes... its all becoming clearer now.
The car is orange... like the flames of hatred.
It was emblazoned with the number '01'... number 1 for supremacy. The numbers are black... SURROUNDED by a white border.
The doors never opened - and the interior of the car was all black. The "doors" of the car were closed, permanently interring the oppressed black interior. The interior was imprisoned in the car to provide comfort to a blonde haired blue eyed driver.
When John Schneider left "The Dukes of Hazzard" they replaced him with ANOTHER blonde haired-blue eyed driver named "Coy"
Coy is ALSO a word that means "reluctant to give details, especially about something regarded as sensitive"
...the show didn't want anyone to know the TRUTH behind the racist oppression being used to hypnotize the viewers
coincidence?
I.THINK.NOT.
They even managed to get "Cooter" into congress by pretending to be a democrat named Ben Jones.
Those tricky, tricky bastards.
...and this "Ben Jones" was just on CNN defending the General Lee
My eyes have been opened.
The Dukes of Hazard was a crypto-facist metaphor for racial oppression.
I don't know how nobody noticed it sooner.
edited to add...
I still think the flag is a standard of a defeated rebellion that has no place on US government property.
Golf1echo
06-24-2015, 08:24
I am from the West but having lived in the South for several decades I developed an affinity for the South, it's people and culture. One of my favorite places, the" The Most Historic City", Charleston, S.C. is one of the most civil Cities I know of . I have no doubt that left to their own devices they can deal with the issues that face them and they certainly have my condolences for the senseless tragedy that occurred.
So I read they want to take the Stars and Bars down from a memorial at the State Capital in Columbia, it's not really that flag...
South Carolina has a State Flag and it is one of the best state flags in our nation.
Design: White palmetto tree...which the cannon balls could not penetrate, on an indigo field....a major export, the canton contains a white crest....of liberty. I happen to agree, there is not much question the State flag should be the one flown over it's capital and it should be done so with all the protocols. The flag they want to take down ( looks like the Confederate Navy Jack to me) * was flying over a Confederate Memorial located on the state grounds and should not have been under the same protocol as the State flag as it was flying only over the memorial, it seems appropriate that there might be memorials on the capital but maybe not?
The hysteria over a flag because of this tragedy seems akin to Cesar calling for games at the coliseum to quell the people with a big Red Herring. The actual issues are well beyond the capabilities of the Chief Fomentor's abilities of leadership so this is what we get and have for years now. It is sad seeing all the PC folks jumping on his band wagon as it's a guise. I happen to think the right approach is tolerance not forced decreed and regulated PC.
The so called battle flag would not be the first symbol to be banned and it might yet endure if put in the correct context as have other symbols : http://www.tartansauthority.com/resources/archives/the-archives/scobie/tartan-and-the-dress-act-of-1746/
They say the flag represents slavery and it's legacy, somewhat ironic as it relates to SC : http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/?referrer=https://www.google.com/
* http://www.usflag.org/history/confederatestarsandbars.html
Interesting perspective. A Black man defending the Confederate Flag. He talks about how his ancestors fought for the south.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/09/black-confederates/
Richard
The hysteria over a flag because of this tragedy...
According to History Professor Kevin Gannon, that is not quite true.
I Will Not Argue About the Confederate Flag, 19 June 2015
http://www.thetattooedprof.com/archives/407
Some might find it worth the time to read his "...open letter to defenders of the Confederate Flag."
Richard
Streck-Fu
06-24-2015, 09:16
Dammit! Brush posted while I was reading the articles.....Beat me to it.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/09/black-confederates/
Richard
I am disappointed that the acknowledgement of slaves and free blacks is tempered with:
Freedmen in the Confederacy faced re-enslavement in Virginia and elsewhere, said Stauffer, so they made displays of loyalty that were really gestures of self-protection — a “hope for better treatment, a hope not to be enslaved.”
While most likely probable, there is no suggestion that there may have been free blacks that owned owned slaves supporting the Confederacy for the same reason as most Southerners...the Union invaded.
There were many (clearly not as many) wealthy free blacks that owned slaves that may have supported the Confederate cause. People like Justus Angel and William Ellison....
Streck-Fu
06-24-2015, 09:19
According to History Professor Kevin Gannon, that is not quite true.
I Will Not Argue About the Confederate Flag, 19 June 2015
http://www.thetattooedprof.com/archives/407
Some might find it worth the time to read his "...open letter to defenders of the Confederate Flag."
Richard
Did Sigaba write that?
Peregrino
06-24-2015, 11:25
Did Sigaba write that?
LMAO! History is complicated, especially when the winners decide the nuances recorded/interpreted for posterity. Personally I find much to admire in the deeds of men defending their homes from the illegal aggressions of invading armies; deeds associated in perpetuity with the selfsame Confederate Battle Flag. MOO, YMMV - and that's your right. By the same token - don't expect me to acquiesce to PC pressure and surrender my right to my opinions.
Another Prof. with an obvious-to-anyone-who-is-not-an-academic axe to grind.
Old Dog New Trick
06-24-2015, 12:31
I wonder if or how long it will take for the country to abolish the Stars and Stripes as being seen for all of the oppression, superiority, racism, colonialism, empirialistic conquering by force, and exceptionalism that is associated with its history and lineage?
It would seem to me that it's no longer "popular" to associate with our rich and colorful history and wayward ways of the past. Names, events, and actions, that brought us to where we are (right or wrong), are now found to be offensive, repressive or degrading. From the naming of institutions (Army bases), streets, and cities that bear the names of people highly regarded at one time. To rewriting history books in school in an attempt to change history to fit a new and modern definition of acceptance or irrelevance.
Again, my personal views of the CSA flag are very minimal at best, as it's not a part of me or my family's heritage. I'm not from the south (or that north) and really don't have an opinion. I'm certain that my opinions and those of my family have changed over the course of a hundred years. (I'm not put off nor feel disenfranchised by the display of the Nazi flag, even though my family has good reason to hate it.) But, the slippery slope of "political correctness" run amok has the effect of diminishing the honor and bravery of the men (white, black and female) that fought for what they believed at the time - their freedom and independence. Even if we now conclude that their beliefs were wrong and misguided. When and at what point in the future do we as a nation "collectively" shun and ban from display any symbol that one minority group or another finds cause to challenge its "authenticity" to represent a place in history if not honor for the place in history that it represents?
When and if this "precedence" becomes law or accepted on the bases of "State Grounds" or "National" interest, the banning of any symbol, name, or event, becomes open for debate to abolish for the greater good. Think the National Mall in Washington DC, and all the memorials scattered throughout the country that represents a different time and a different belief relevant to that time and place in history.
"Gone but not forgotten" isn't just a catchy phrase used to remember POWs/MIAs/KIAs during and after war. It's something much deeper than that and reaches across the barriers of race, religion, nationality, and all other divisions of social classes. It's not just a bumper sticker! Yet only a handful of government offices display it to honor and remember those. They don't know or care to know that some of them are racists, bigots, misogynists, pedophiles or something worse. They only honor the person, a soldier that gave all or never returned.
Isn't that what the "lone CSA" flag represents flying over a Confederate Memorial in the city that began our Civil War for the right to be different. The right to be free! (They lost and rightfully so, because to be free all men are born free and their loss represents what's good in America.) We should remember that.
Rant/off
History is complicated, especially when the winners decide the nuances recorded/interpreted for posterity. MOO, what is striking about the historiography of Reconstruction is the extent to which the defeated were able to establish narratives that were socially/culturally acceptable and politically correct well into the mid twentieth century <<LINK (http://www.kentuckypress.com/live/title_detail.php?titleid=2499#.VYrvkflViko)>>. This trajectory of scholarship went hand in hand with the defeated seeking to re-write the history of their rebellion <<LINK2 (http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=473250)>>.
IRT the comparison of racism in Indiana (and the north more generally) and racism in South Carolina, if the year were 1858 (or 1878) and you and your wife and your children were black, where would you rather live?
Streck-Fu
06-24-2015, 12:44
IRT the comparison of racism in Indiana (and the north more generally) and racism in South Carolina, if the year were 1858 (or 1878) and you and your wife and your children were black, where would you rather live?
Nice attempt at deflecting the point made. In Indiana in 1858 and 1878, blacks were constitutionally prohibited from moving here. ;)
LINK (http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/imh/article/view/6622/6965)
There were even restrictions upon the right of Negroes to enter the state. An act of 1831 required colored immigrants to give a bond for good behavior and self-support. Overseers of the poor were authorized to hire out for six months any Negroes without such bonds, or on order of a justice, to remove such Negroes from the state to the place of last legal residence. It was illegal for anyone to employ any Negro who did not have such a bond. These restrictions remained in force until 1852, and they were upheld by the courts.31 The Constitution of 1851, effective the next year, went far beyond earlier limitations on colored migration to the state; its provisions completely denied Negroes the right to enter the state, declared that any contracts made by Negroes entering in violation of this provision should be void, and provided a penalty of ten to five hundred dollars fine for employing or otherwise encouraging such Negroes to remain in the state, all such fines collected to be appropriated for the foreign colonization of Negroes already in the state.32 In fact, Indiana appeared so anxious to dispense with its colored population that the legislature appropriated five thousand dollars to colonize Negroes, then residents of Indiana, in Africa; hundred acre tracts of land were to be purchased and given to Negro emigrants; if necessary, each Negro was to be given fifty dollars to induce him to leave the State. County treasurers were authorized to accept donations and bequests for colonization purposes, and a state Board of Colonization, composed of the governor and other high state officials, was created.33 Negroes in the state prior to the adoption of the Constitution were to register with the county clerk and receive a certificate of their right to remain in the state. This certificate was required to give a Negro the right of contract or to legally gain employment anywhere in the state.
Any Negro entering the state was to be fined from ten to five hundred dollars.
Why would any State/Fed entity display a symbol that was fought against and defeated at great cost....when that defeated entity actively supported slavery of an ethnicity that are now citizens?
RCummings
06-24-2015, 14:51
From my family's history, how many others like my Great Grandfather, fought against thieves/invaders and had no idea of the larger political issues of the day?
How many of you would fight to defend your family from an invader? To pretend that the cause of the war was exclusively slavery one would also need to prove that the government of the south would be able to propagate and disseminate that story without todays communication and with illiterate citizens.
With respect,
Bob
From my family's history, how many others like my Great Grandfather, fought against thieves/invaders and had no idea of the larger political issues of the day?
How many of you would fight to defend your family from an invader? To pretend that the cause of the war was exclusively slavery one would also need to prove that the government of the south would be able to propagate and disseminate that story without todays communication and with illiterate citizens.
With respect,
Bob
So what.....not all Germans were Nazi's yet they supported a regime that killed/enslaved. Not an exact analogy but you get the point.
I expect you to be better informed than your Great Granddad as you have more information as to the formation of the secession.
That battle Flag has no business on any State/Fed property.
BTW, I had 3 immediate family members killed during the conflict...2 at Shiloh, then called Pittsburg Landing and one at Gettysburg.
The two from Shiloh were reinterred at Burr Oak Cemetery in Michigan and the other is buried with the Michigan Rgmt. at Gettysburg.
Do I think they would be excited about rebel flags on Federal property? Doubt it.
Exactly my point. How would people here feel if a govt agency displayed a Mexican battle flag in the south west? It is not about black vs white or slavery it is about flying the flag of a n enemy of this country. I have great respect for many of the confederate leaders however I do not agree with flying the flag in an pffical capacity. Indivdules are free to display it however.
Agree...and my point too except I do include the slavery issue as it was a part of the Confederate Constitution with specifics.
I know our original Const. had clauses about indentured/slaves too. However, the rest of the Country was moving away from that to abolishment.....the South reaffirmed slavery specifically. The 1860 Census tells the tale.
RCummings
06-24-2015, 17:00
Yes Sir, (PRB), I have learned what was taught in school and I have listened to the stories handed down thru time from those families who had relatives that participated. I have also lived in the north where the "history" of the War Between the States is taught. Two completely different worlds. The question for me is not whether or not to take the Bars and Stars down; take it down. But to vilify all of the people that fought, brother against brother, both North and South, from the narrative of slavery seems to me to be skewed.
As far as what inspired the genesis of Nazi Germany, (some say The Treaty of Versailles), and the CSA, I see a world of difference in the people, the technology of the time, the goals of the two combatants, all the way thru the execution of those goals. The nazis were the aggressors - they killed, took land and material, all for the goal of creating a master race. BS, they took to enrich themselves until the allies stopped them. From a "CSA" standpoint, from what I have learned, some states didn't like what the Feds were doing so they seceded from that union. As far as a correlation, I do not believe that the South marched thru entire states burning a path to the sea, but that type of destruction does seem familiar, Nazi Germany, everywhere they went.
One point that is interesting for me, is that you had relatives in that war. Families of most who I have met had not even arrived in The United States of America yet, but they are just as adamant about the south being racist/slaveowners. I find that people fail to consider the context of the time and circumstances surrounding that historic period of the United States.
With all of my respect sir,
Bob
Isn't that what the "lone CSA" flag represents flying over a Confederate Memorial in the city that began our Civil War for the right to be different. The right to be free!
Such an argument 'might' carry some weight...were it not for three things:
(1) the issue over which SC sought to secede as stated in their Declararation of Secession ( http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp ),
(2) Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' so-called "Cornerstone Speech" on the fundamental differences between the CSA and USA Constitutions (the core principal that "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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."
(3) the how, why, and where that flag wound up on the grounds of SC's capitol.
There was no CSA flag - 'battle' or otherwise - flying there until the one involved in the recurrent controversy was placed atop the capitol dome to join the US and SC state flags in 1961 in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the start of the Civil War - to celebrate when CSA forces attacked US forces in Charleston harbor.
In 1962, in defiant response to the advancing Civil Rights movement, it was voted upon by the state legislature to remain atop the capitol's dome indeffinately.
Under pressure from mass protests in 2000, it was removed from the capitol dome...but placed in front of it on the building's grounds next to statues dedicated to (1) CSA veterans and (2) to former SC Governor (1890-1894) and US Senator (1895-1918) Ben Tillman, an avowed white supremacist who often spoke out against blacks and led a paramilitary group of Red Shirts (paramilitary white supremacist groups which assaulted and intimidated black would-be voters, killed black political figures, and skirmished with the African-American-dominated state militia to regain political control of the state government) during South Carolina's violent 1876 elections.
On the floor of the U.S. Senate, Tillman openly boasted of having helped to kill blacks during SC's 1876 campaign and frequently ridiculed them. For example, on President Teddy Roosevelt's meeting with Booker T. Washington, Tillman said, "The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that n****r will necessitate our killing a thousand n*****s in the South before they learn their place again." (Ben Tillman and the Reconstruction of White Supremacy (2000), by Stephen Kantrowitz. University of North Carolina Press, p. 259.)
I think there is a whole lot more to this "battle" flag issue on the SC statehouse grounds than we or its defenders are either willing to admit or are aware, but from what I've learned of the matter, I feel the same way PRB does about it.
Richard
Old Dog New Trick
06-24-2015, 18:13
Richard, thanks for the information. I admit I know little of certain personalities responsible for certain regrettable acts in our history. A history that is often dark and disturbing.
To me it would seem more appropriate to remove and relocate all such symbols to a proper place where people can visit whether to support or rail against. Museums and battlegrounds of the war sounds appropriate. However, maybe the location it currently is is also the appropriate place for such a divisive issue. Not separate and divide but to debate and find common ground.
This is bigger than a piece of cloth and its location. As I said in my first post - it's an "identity" right or wrong isn't for me to decide.
ETA: I distinctly an vividly remember my first visit to the Dachau concentration camp. That was over 30-years ago and the memories are still strong. I'd hate for someplace so despicable and void of purpose be paved over and turned into an amusement park because it's the PC thing to do. We must always be reminded of our past transgressions so as to not travel that path again.
Trapper John
06-24-2015, 18:47
Why would any State/Fed entity display a symbol that was fought against and defeated at great cost....when that defeated entity actively supported slavery of an ethnicity that are now citizens?
BINGO!! :lifter
Clay Travis of all people said it best today - "we've lost the ability to put things into context"...something our community prides itself on when we call it cross-cultural competency.
The flag is on State grounds because those States considered themselves to be out from underneath Old Glory for those four years and when their State demanded that they fight (the first draft in US history), many veterans did and many died. It is a military recognition, hence the Battle Flag (the "Southern Cross," not the "Stars and Bars" as I have seen referenced on many sites and in this thread). This is an important distinction. If you saw the Bonnie Blue Flag, that might be a political statement.
I continue to see CSA VP Stephens' cornerstone speech referenced in this political firestorm. Jefferson Davis, the President, made no mention of slavery in his inaugural speech. Stephens is indefensible, but keep in mind his comments in 1861 sound a lot like Lincoln's in the 1858 Senatorial debates in Illinois. Stephens also vehemently opposed secession and was chosen as a counterbalance to Davis. They were different in almost every way. Davis said in 1861 that no matter the outcome of the war, slavery would eventually cease in the South. His stated goal was a generation worth of education and Christianity to prepare the South and the slaves for an emancipated, functional society. Basically the opposite of Reconstruction.
Some Southern States had already taken drastic steps (and come within one vote in the case of Virginia) to outlaw slavery before the watershed moment when Lincoln didn't appear on 10 of 11 Southern ballots and still won the election (what they perceived to be akin to government without representation). The CS Constitution outlawed the slave trade. Did the South writ large think slavery was acceptable? Of course. The issue is that we are now pretending that the North didn't. SC's initial verbiage in defense of slavery may have been genuine, or it may have been grasping at legal straws to make their case and get other States to rally behind their cause. We're selectively forgetting that the Fugitive Slave Act was a legal mandate that both North and South saw as binding. Lincoln's own words on slavery and equality are well known and make it hard to argue that Emancipation was anything more than an expertly executed political maneuver. My point in bringing this all up is that the "North was against slavery and the South was for it" is an ahistorical sentiment when context is considered.
But this isn't about Lincoln, or Davis, of Stephens, or the very very small percentage of Southerners who owned slaves and held way too tightly to an aristocratic Cavalier tradition. It's about a Battle Flag that is a military memorial and, in the South, believed to be a testament to the Southern traditions of skill in war-fighting (600k versus 2 million) and resistance to any oppressive government (foreign or domestic).
To those who descend from Yankee soldiers, congratulations on a bloodline that includes brave men who traveled far into enemy territory and emerged victorious. If you think they would be offended by Confederate monuments in the South, please remember that in Indianapolis there is literally a monument of Lady Liberty trampling the Confederate Flag. Southerners should not see fit to complain about this because (1) the North won, and (2) it is celebrating their States' contributions in war to a victorious cause. They should be proud, even if my distant relative died carrying the flag at Lady Liberty's feet after being drafted into service and getting on line in his own backyard against a group of armed men from thousands of miles away. Each veteran can be celebrated according to the will of those they fought for.
Sadly, I haven't seen many people quoting the Generals and Soldiers who led and fought in the war. They and their descendants are for whom the Battle Flag is most relevant. Thankfully Grant, Sherman, Taylor, and many others left their accounts for us to read. Through Grant and Sherman we know they gave zero thought during the war to ending slavery and it is widely known that Grant held onto his slaves until the 13th Amendment was formally passed (Lee did not). We also know that Johnston, Hill, Stuart, Lee and many other leading Confederates were not slave-owners. In Company Aytch, Confederate Private Sam Watkins scoffs at the notion that he or any of the actual fighting men cared about preserving slavery. Many notable Confederate authors did the same in years following the war.
Yes, the South writ large was wrong to condone the society it did leading up to and through the war. Yes, Davis was outmaneuvered by Lincoln and allowed slavery to become the issue from 1863-on. Yes, the North made loads of money on the slave trade (also in the Caribbean and South America) and is on shaky moral high ground, albeit higher ground. And yes, you can still love the American Flag and appreciate the Southern Cross for what it is. I love the American Flag in spite of what many would call genocide, imperialism, oppression, racism, tyranny, and murder occurring under its shadow because I put things in context and develop a holistic appreciation for our American values and accomplishments.
Many of our heroes have dark pasts and, when taken out of context, committed deplorable acts. From 1861-65 many young boys, fathers, brothers, and sons fought and died at the call of their government. 150 years later, we are saying their deaths should not be honored by a flag they fought under because in our modern, enlightened opinion they fought for the wrong reason. And one day someone might be telling my great-great-great grandkids that I fought in two wars in the Middle East because I hate Muslims or something. How can you be against women on ODAs now, when in the year 2170 society will know that total gender equality was always the right thing and we were just bigoted dinosaurs who had yet to see the light?
Allowing the PC machine to win fights like this is, in my opinion, mission creep for continuing to ban anything "offensive" or "hateful" as determined by somebody, somewhere.
RCummings
06-24-2015, 21:56
JGC2,
Thank you, well written. I learn something new every day from the best of the best on this forum. It will be up to people like you and many others to tell your story to your children so that they can pass along your thoughts in the many years and generations to follow...your history and legacy.
Bob
Well, IMO, it's post-CW Southern apologist PCism and a failure of the South (in general) to understand and honestly come to grips with its historical past that placed that flag where it is today and created this controversy, and any memorial that stands shoulder-to-shoulder with a memorial to the likes of a Ben Tillman honors not only those who may have willfully supported his "cause" (as so succinctly stated in the CSA's constitution and its member state's declarations of secession), but patently dishonors those who did so unwittingly and in good faith to their government who are also being represented in that nearby statue to the Confederate soldier.
YMMV - but so it goes...as should that flag from the statehouse's grounds.
Richard
Warner Bros. Removing Confederate Flag From 'Dukes of Hazzard' Car
Is nothing sacred. What next, "Northern" Fried Chicken, no grits, biscuits, or sun tea :rolleyes:
SnT
Warner Bros. Removing Confederate Flag From 'Dukes of Hazzard' Car
The General Lee - Bo and Luke Duke's vehicle of choice from 'The Dukes of Hazzard' - is a classic and instantly recognizable Hollywood car. But it's about to get a little less recognizable as Warner Bros., the studio that owns the theatrical, DVD and licensing rights to 'The Dukes of Hazzard,' has decided to remove the confederate flag from all future versions of the car.
http://screencrush.com/dukes-of-hazzard-flag/?trackback=fbshare_mobile
They can replace Stars and Bars with the image of Che, Pol Pot or the Isis battle flag and everyone will be happy.
They can replace Stars and Bars with the image of Che, Pol Pot or the Isis battle flag and everyone will be happy.
So when did the "General Lee" Charger sport the "stars and bars"...? :confused:
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-csa1.html
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-anv.html
Richard
Old Dog New Trick
06-24-2015, 22:29
JGC2 - Thank you for putting that in "context."
IIRC - Lincoln, used the 13A to end the war before everyone ran out of support (both will and fortitude) for continuing the war and before the United States was no longer "United."
Slavery may have been a cornerstone of the war but it wasn't the only reason. I'm beginning to see similar fractures in society today but they don't have a mountain or river to decide which side to stand on.
When I see a rainbow flag, anarchists flag, black panther flag or a "Don't Tread on Me" flag used in an improper context, I think of intolerance and hatred if you don't show your undying support. Hell, even ISIS and al-Qeada have their own flags and certain hateful groups support them.
I suppose the flag of the Boy Scouts of America could soon be used to provide fodder to one side or the other to support or suggest that homosexuals and pedophiles are welcome or not.
I have a feeling that we've fallen for the "Squirrel!" gambit again.
Pat
mojaveman
06-24-2015, 23:46
If African Americans or any other groups are offended by the display of any type of Confederate flag and want it removed from any government or public location I can respect that and it should be done.
If Leroy and Jethro want to fly a Confederate battle flag in their backyard during a 4th of July barbeque or have a decal of one pasted on the rear window of their pick up I can live with that too.
Removing the monuments and statues dedicated to the thousands of common men who were merely fighting for their side? Let them remain. It's something that happened and needs to be remembered.
Again, I don't really have any strong feelings on this issue. My ancestors who fought in the Civil War were on the winning side. :p
Trapper John
06-25-2015, 04:51
JGC2, Very well said and points well taken. I particularly like....
They were different in almost every way. Davis said in 1861 that no matter the outcome of the war, slavery would eventually cease in the South. His stated goal was a generation worth of education and Christianity to prepare the South and the slaves for an emancipated, functional society. Basically the opposite of Reconstruction.
I have long argued that Reconstruction did more damage to the emancipated slaves and their future generations than did slavery itself. IMO, we are still dealing with the repercussions of Reconstruction.
Still, your well argued points aside, in the context of today, the Confederate States' flag has no place on government grounds IMO.
.....I have long argued that Reconstruction did more damage to the emancipated slaves and their future generations than did slavery itself. IMO, we are still dealing with the repercussions of Reconstruction...
Don't know if I'd agree with you view of reconstruction and it's impact on former slaves.
Reconstruction got the former slaves off to a pretty good start. The former SGM of one of the USCT (Black) Regiments, 5 in total, raised in NC went to Raleigh as an elected representative and helped write the new constitution for NC.
The other southern states had similar elected black representatives.
It was as reconstruction was ending that whites started ratcheting down on blacks with Jim Crow laws.
Side note for readers - If you're black and your family comes from NE North Carolina chances are you have a Union Soldier in your family tree.
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ncusct/usct.htm
Streck-Fu
06-25-2015, 05:56
It was as reconstruction was ending that whites started ratcheting down on blacks with Jim Crow laws.
As long it is fairly acknowledged that new laws placing limits on the freed slaves were not uniquely Southern. Segregation was very active in northern cities and most states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Even Boston went to riots when their schools were desegregated...
Confederate flag-bad
Just making sure that six pages of flag posts don't derail the fact that a 21 year old punk murdered 9 people in a church.
...the flag wasn't the murder weapon
What are we going to do about that?
...banning flags will obviously help
...so will banning guns
...so will limiting free speech
I'm sure the Clintons will get everything under control once they get back into the White House.
Golf1echo
06-25-2015, 07:29
MOO, The Confederate flags have no business flying in official capacity representing current government and as I read the first reports I knew that could not be true, even in South Carolina...it wasn't.
Of all the images I saw of the perpetrator, the one flag I saw that had been set on fire was the flag I love, my flag, the stars and stripes.... never saw a mention of that in any article.
When it comes to Memorials and History I would prefer the truth, I don't want that truth obscured by censorship. When I go to Ft Bowie, part of the National Park Service, I will not be offended to see identifying symbols of the Apache Indians from Chiricahua band.
Old Dog New Trick
06-25-2015, 08:02
I suppose it's possible that someday (maybe a hundred years from now) this flag will be banned from flying over or around Fed/State property. How far down the rabbit hole do we go? (Just saying)
Peregrino
06-25-2015, 08:26
Entire Post.
Well stated. Thank you.
Old Dog New Trick
06-25-2015, 10:34
So, the National Park Service has decided to pull everything and anything from their gift and sales shops that is representative of Confederate States memorabilia (e.g., keychains, belt buckles, flags, coffee mugs, etc...)
Since it is the responsibility of the NPS to own and manage the Parks where these battles took place and the history associated with the Civil War. Did they just in a de facto manner usurp one side of history for political correctness?
Check out this article from USA TODAY:
National Park Service pulls all Confederate flag items from gift shops
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/25/national-park-service-confederate-flag-sales-items/29264025/
Team Sergeant
06-25-2015, 10:38
So, the National Park Service has decided to pull everything and anything from their gift and sales shops that is representative of Confederate States memorabilia (e.g., keychains, belt buckles, flags, coffee mugs, etc...)
Since it is the responsibility of the NPS to own and manage the Parks where these battles took place and the history associated with the Civil War. Did they just in a de facto manner usurp one side of history for political correctness?
Check out this article from USA TODAY:
National Park Service pulls all Confederate flag items from gift shops
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/25/national-park-service-confederate-flag-sales-items/29264025/
The left-wing liberal knee jerk in full swing. It's sure taking the heat off of the bottom-feeding scumbag know as lois lerner. (I really hope someone gives her a dirt nap)
Streck-Fu
06-25-2015, 10:46
The left-wing liberal knee jerk in full swing. It's sure taking the heat off of the bottom-feeding scumbag know as lois lerner. (I really hope someone gives her a dirt nap)
Be careful. That may be perceived as a threat resulting in a Grand Jury subpoena: LINK (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/25/how-the-feds-asked-me-to-rat-out-commenters.html)
Is there anything more likely to make you shit your pants out of a mix of fear and anger than getting a federal subpoena out of the blue?
Well, yes, there is: getting a gag order that prohibits you from speaking publicly about that subpoena and even the gag order itself. Talk about feeling isolated and cast adrift in the home of the free. You can’t even respond honestly when someone asks, “Are you under a court order not to speak?”
Far more important: talk about realizing that open expression and press freedom are far more tenuous than even the most cynical of us can imagine! Even when you have done nothing wrong and aren’t the target of an investigation, you can be commanded, at serious financial cost and disruption of your business, to dance to a tune called by the long arm of the law.
This all just happened to my colleagues and me at Reason.com, the libertarian website I edit. On May 31, I blogged about the life sentence given to Ross Ulbricht, the creator of the “dark web” site Silk Road, by Judge Katherine Forrest. In the comments section, a half-dozen commenters unloaded on Forrest, suggesting that, among other things, she should burn in hell, “be taken out back and shot,” and, in a well-worn Internet homage to the Coen Brothers movie Fargo, be fed “feet first” into a woodchipper.
The comments betrayed a naive belief in an afterlife and karma, were grammatically and spelling-challenged, hyperbolic, and… completely within the realm of acceptable Internet discourse, especially for an unmoderated comments section. (Like other websites, Reason is not legally responsible for what goes on in our comments section; we read the comments sometimes but don’t actively curate them.)
But the U.S. attorney for U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York thought differently and on June 2 issued a grand jury subpoena to Reason for all identifying information we had on the offending commenters—things such as IP addresses, names, emails, and other information. At first, the feds requested that we “voluntarily” refrain from disclosing the subpoena to anybody. Out of sense of fairness and principle, we notified the targeted commenters, who could have moved to quash the subpoena. Then came the gag order on June 4, barring us from talking about the whole business with anyone outside our organization besides our lawyers.
Team Sergeant
06-25-2015, 10:58
Be careful. That may be perceived as a threat resulting in a Grand Jury subpoena: LINK (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/25/how-the-feds-asked-me-to-rat-out-commenters.html)
Calm down Francis. The glance of a green beret could also be construed as a "threat". (And why Billy has to wear sunglasses 24/7)
You want to see real threats google "Louis Farrakhan makes death threat"
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2012/04/17/nation-of-islam-leader-louis-farrakhan-makes-death-threat/
Those are real threats. Hoping someone receives a dirt nap is just that, a hope.
Streck-Fu
06-25-2015, 11:03
Calm down Francis. The glance of a green beret could also be construed as a "threat". (And why Billy has to wear sunglasses 24/7)
I should have put it in pink.....
I am waiting for EBAY's social conscience to kick in. Dukes of Hazzards' toy cars are very hot items right now.
I wonder when YouTube will pull this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCKALmjLmSU
It's got THAT flag in it. :eek:
...and it is widely known that Grant held onto his slaves until the 13th Amendment was formally passed (Lee did not).
Good post, Chief! The only slave that I recall Grant possessing actually belonged to his father-in-law and was sent to him to be trained as a farrier. And, in Lee's case, the slaves were actually the property of his wife. So, in reality, neither were slave owners.
Pat
Streck-Fu
06-25-2015, 11:39
Good post, Chief! The only slave that I recall Grant possessing actually belonged to his father-in-law and was sent to him to be trained as a farrier. And, in Lee's case, the slaves were actually the property of his wife. So, in reality, neither were slave owners.
Pat
Grant owned one slave directly and either sold or released him in ~1858. He did manage his father in law's property in St. Louis along with their many slaves. His wife was given a female slave as an assistant that accompanied his wife when she visited near the Battlefield or camps.
LINK (http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/learn/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm)
Grant owned one slave directly and either sold or released him in ~1858. He did manage his father in law's property in St. Louis along with their many slaves. His wife was given a female slave as an assistant that accompanied his wife when she visited near the Battlefield or camps.
LINK (http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/learn/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm)
Thanks, but, unfortunately, this is where most people get their history lessons. I have Grant's memoirs and at least one biography in my library and have read others that I do not own. Does anyone have a better source?
In his memoirs, he mentions tensions between him and his FIL over slavery, though I can see his FIL loaning one to help Julia with the children while he was away. On the other hand, when she would visit him he mentioned who was traveling with her and no slave was mentioned.
Granted (;)), it's been decades since I've read these and my memory may be selective or faulty.
Pat
Streck-Fu
06-25-2015, 12:43
Grant owned a slave named Williams Jones. Attached is a image of the manumission that Grant put into record in St. Louis.
Regardless, whether he actually purchased them or not, he certainly made use of them.
Grant owned a slave named Williams Jones. Attached is a image of the manumission that Grant put into record in St. Louis.
Fredrick Dent was his father-in-law. William is the slave that he trained as a farrier in order to be set free with a trade.
Pat
Trapper John
06-25-2015, 13:00
Don't know if I'd agree with you view of reconstruction and it's impact on former slaves.
Reconstruction got the former slaves off to a pretty good start. The former SGM of one of the USCT (Black) Regiments, 5 in total, raised in NC went to Raleigh as an elected representative and helped write the new constitution for NC.
The other southern states had similar elected black representatives.
It was as reconstruction was ending that whites started ratcheting down on blacks with Jim Crow laws.
Side note for readers - If you're black and your family comes from NE North Carolina chances are you have a Union Soldier in your family tree.
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ncusct/usct.htm
Good point Pete! I should have been more specific. Whereas emancipation and the reconstruction period politically enfranchised the former slaves, my point was directed at the continued economic disenfranchisement and the subsequent Jim Crow laws as you pointed out that effectively barred educational opportunity and ensured the continuation of economic disenfranchisement for generations to come.
Streck-Fu
06-25-2015, 13:44
Fredrick Dent was his father-in-law. William is the slave that he trained as a farrier in order to be set free with a trade.
Pat
He did use the word purchase..... ;)
He did use the word purchase..... ;)
When I gave my Camaro to my son, he "purchased" it from me for $1. :D It may just be a legal technicality. How could Grant "free" him if he didn't actually own him. A vindictive FIL could have just re-claimed his illegally freed property.
Pat
.... A vindictive FIL could have just re-claimed his illegally freed property.
Pat
I wouldn't piss off somebody who could whistle up Sherman and 60,000 rompin' stompin' bummers with an attitude.
I wouldn't piss off somebody who could whistle up Sherman and 60,000 rompin' stompin' bummers with an attitude.
Not in 1859, he couldn't. I'd like to know what COL Dent thought of his worthless son-in-law a decade later? :D
ETA: It turns out that Grant's FIL died in the White House and his BIL was a LTC and became his aide-de-camp in 1864.
Pat
Old Dog New Trick
06-25-2015, 14:28
I've always found the "slavery" issue in America to be a very complex issue and seen through the different filters of time, place, circumstance, and the continuing issue of race.
The "who's, what's, where's and why's" have been pretty well documented. The "how's" as in how various slaves were treated have been the subject of great controversy and little more than passing footnotes in history. It's evident that some were brutalized, killed, murdered, and maimed for even simple transgressions by "white" assholes. But, it's also known that large populations of slaves lived and worked side-by-side with the people and families who bought them. Much like a farmer would buy a plow horse: sold at the stockyards for a fair price. At the time people (Americans whether recently immigrated or second-third generation) were ignorant - literally - to common decency. You see at the time most European settlers weren't too far removed from being slaves themselves- slaves or indentured to various kingdoms and subject to brutality, killings, and murder at the hands of "white assholes with power!" The aristocrats and wealthy likely held onto "white privilege" and saw themselves as "superior" to everyone not just the blacks. And the common folks who could scrape together the means to choose between a mule and human probably found the human much more valuable. And likely cared for that new piece of property like a redneck cares for his pickup truck - wash, dress-up with chrome, get dirty, wash - repeat - put on mud flaps with trucker girl and apply various stickers supporting "Rebel" lifestyle and symbolic Confederate flags of forefathers past. All while tooling around with Hank Williams Jr. playing on the radio.
Looking back on our dark history of slavery it was quite short by today's standards of time. The "moral compass" that has made us a great country saw that it was wrong, even though it wasn't "illegal" to buy-sell-trade humans for labor or servitude.
It's debatable to this day if the way we corrected that COA way back then or since then has been a success. I think not. We've not ever moved beyond it and the race war is still alive and well.
You see, without a long drawn out response we (I'll) get to the point. White assholes with power have always shown that to maintain that power they have to "brutalize, kill, murder, and maim the "servants" whether paid or paid for. Not much has changed in 150-years except lower class people regardless of race are the new slaves. You see not much has changed. People (even myself) are ignorant of our true past and the revisionist and intellectuals have seen fit to keep us that way.
KKK - white assholes wielding what power they have if only in large numbers flying flags (CSA and USA) to support their roots but afraid to show their faces (because they are actually important figures in the local, state and federal governments.)
Arian Nation - white assholes wielding power as above with choice of Nazi flag, USA flag and SS pins and buttons.
Black Panthers and New Black Panthers - black assholes wielding power as above over both blacks and whites with their own brand of hatred printed on a flag.
NAACP - black wannabes and a white woman masquerading as a black woman teaching the next generation of black people that all their problems stem from white people and not just the assholes mentioned above did to their ancestors over 150-years ago in a different time, different place and under different rules of law.
...and it is widely known that Grant held onto his slaves until the 13th Amendment was formally passed (Lee did not).
After dusting off my books (in this case Grant, by Jean Edward Smith), Grant's FIL moved from his property after his wife died and rented it to Grant. As he wrote to his sister, Grant stated, "I have now three Negro men, two hired by the year and one of Mr. Dent's..." The latter was the slave, William, that he later emancipated even though, almost destitute at the time, would have brought several thousands of dollars to the Grants. He did not own the man at the time of the rental agreement and it is uncertain how he came to possess him.
Certain phrases always send me running to the library: "As everyone knows..." "As is universally understood...," "As is widely known..." "Of course you are aware that..." None of the above is ever true and are always suspect. Avoid them like E. coli. :D ;)
Pat
Why would any State/Fed entity display a symbol that was fought against and defeated at great cost....when that defeated entity actively supported slavery of an ethnicity that are now citizens?
Brother, one could argue that the federal govt has gone as far as officially dedicating a month to celebrate the culture and history of a people that once engaged in slavery and open combat against our government and its people:
http://www.bia.gov/DocumentLibrary/HeritageMonth/
Brother, one could argue that the federal govt has gone as far as officially dedicating a month to celebrate the culture and history of a people that once engaged in slavery and open combat against our government and its people:
http://www.bia.gov/DocumentLibrary/HeritageMonth/
I've not seen that tribal flag flying from any of our Capitol buildings and we've generally been magnanimous with those we've defeated.
Here is the 1860 census that notes slaves...many southern states had as many slaves as freemen...
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/slave-census.htm
To say slavery was a minor issue is to ignore the facts....it was not. Yes, maybe 6% of the pop owned slaves but how many were involved in the slave 'business' say in Georgia that had 462 thousand plus slaves....in overseer's, control, supervision, feeding, housing, sales, transportation, etc. This was a huge industry in and of itself. Thousands were involved in this in that state...they had to be.
We, all of the US was complicit in this 'business' then many States started moving away from this towards abolition,,,,,and some embraced it, then collectively embraced and affirmed it under a new Constitution.
That battle flag represents that embrace.
It has no place on Fed/State property.
Individuals can do as they choose but our Govt. should not 'embrace' the Rebel flag.
bailaviborita
06-26-2015, 07:40
Transgenders are offended when women use the word "vagina"- since it is a symbol of exclusion, preferring instead "front hole".
SF is looking to change or end the playing of the Ballad of the Green Beret because it is offensive towards women (it implies a woman's place is in the home). This will be even more so the case if SF is ordered to integrate females.
Atheist Boy Scouts are offended that there is a religious medal and a scout prayer.
Muslim students at universities in the U.S. are offended by the on campus showing of American Sniper.
We have become a nation of whiners- incapable of understanding other viewpoints other than the current PC line, bent on judging the past through rose colored and skewed lenses, and caving to whoever whines the loudest. This knee-jerk herd mentality rush to beat everyone to the inoffensive door shows a lot of cowardice in my opinion. If banning the flag from on line stores is a good thing- then it shouldn't have taken this incident to all of a sudden make it a pressing issue.
I don't fly the flag even though I had many relatives who fought for the South. I don't have a problem with the flag over war memorials. Symbols in my opinion shouldn't be allowed to be expropriated by one group or idea. That we cannot disassociate symbols from events, people, and ideas says a lot more about us as easily-led-to-the-ideological-slaughter sheeple than it does our "enlightenment" in my opinion.
The hubris of our self-righteous comments is appalling to me- it shouldn't be that hard to imagine the future wherein everything we hold dear today is mocked and outlawed as evil and symbols of these things are deemed too offensive by the cultural language gestapo. You don't have to wear brown shirts or swastikas or use physical violence to get everyone to fall in line with the bully social agendas of the day...
Roguish Lawyer
06-26-2015, 08:39
Right on, BVB
How can we disassociate a symbol from the event?
If a history teacher was covering the pre to conflict Civil War period could that teacher discuss the secession and political events leading up to the war without mentioning slavery? Should the event of the Confederacy ratifying slavery as a positive be ignored/forgotten?
Should we dismiss history in this case...re write it?
I get some of your arguments and understand that.
I'm not offended by the Confederate Battle Flag but I do accept what it stood for and think it inappropriate to fly on State Capitols.
I'd not lump every symbol event into one cauldron and stir....there is no 'one argument fits all' solution. Some things stand alone.
I'm not offended by the Confederate Battle Flag but I do accept what it stood for and think it inappropriate to fly on State Capitols.
I agree and see the "problem" in this particular instance as being two-fold:
(1) that the "flag" in question - the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia - is a recognized "symbol" of an army which waged war against the USA for a government (the CSA) whose raison d'etre was, as CSA Vice-President Alexander Stephens said in a March 1861 speech contrasting the USA and CSA constitutions, "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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."
(2) that that same flag has been universally associated with post-Civil War movements by individuals, groups, and governmental agencies (local, state, and federal) for the nearly 150 years since the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments in conspiring to deny large segments of this nation's citizens their constitutional "right" to equality of access, participation, and treatment.
Flying such a "symbol" today on a statehouse (or any functioning governmental agency) grounds of any state, let alone one who sought to secede for their "right" to retain a society based upon such a principle, is a huge "problem" for any governmment claiming equality in its treatment of ALL its citizens.
Richard
Certain phrases always send me running to the library: "As everyone knows..." "As is universally understood...," "As is widely known..." "Of course you are aware that..." None of the above is ever true and are always suspect. Avoid them like E. coli. :D ;)
Pat,
Thanks for squaring me away. I should have said "Grant's wife," to whom most authors attribute four slaves. I am basing this off of The Gray Book (1920) as quoted in the attached photo. Grant's memoir is underneath 200 lbs of fishing gear in my garage at the moment, but I do remember him beginning with something to the effect of "at the time I gave no serious consideration to the thought that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, but in hindsight [20 years later] this must be the case." Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Grant was also quoted as saying “[t]he sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced it has any other object, or that the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the abolitionists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and a soldier, I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side” in Elizabeth Meriwether's, Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South, 1861-1865 (1904).
Either way, the spirit of my point still stands - context reveals that this was not an abolitionist cause or pro-slavery cause for a vast majority of soldiers involved and this debate is about a military emblem. Some notable Confederate thoughts on the matter are below:
“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any Country…we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is onward, and we must give it all the aid of our prayers and all justifiable means in our power…emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influence of Christianity than from the storms and contests of fiery controversy.”
- Robert E. Lee, in a letter to his wife Mary Lee, December 27th, 1856
“The Confederacy struggled in all honorable ways, and for what? For their slaves? Regret for their loss has neither been felt nor expressed. But they have striven for that which brought our forefathers to Runnymede, the privilege of exercising some influence in their own government…Yet we fought for nothing but slavery, says the world, and the late-vice president of the Confederacy, Mr. Alexander Stephens, reechoes the cry, declaring it was the cornerstone of his Government.”
- Confederate General Richard Taylor, Destruction and Reconstruction: Personal Experiences of the War (J.S. Sanders & Co., 1998), pg. 245
“Stonewall Jackson never owned but two slaves…General Joseph E. Johnston never owned a slave, nor did General A.P. Hill, nor General Fitzhugh Lee. General J.E.B. Stuart, the famous cavalry leader, never owned but two and he rid himself of these long before the war…they were not marching and fighting and suffering and dying for slavery but for the right of self-government…And what was true of the soldiers of the South was true also…of the soldiers of the North. Slavery was not the issue in their minds. As a general rule, at least, they were not fighting to free the slaves but to preserve the Union.”
- Confederate General Randolph McKim (Randolph McKim, The Soul of Lee, New York, Longmans, Green and Co., pp. 31-33)
“Why did [the Confederate soldiers] volunteer? For what did they give their lives?...Surely it was not for slavery they fought. The great majority of them had never owned a slave and had little or no interest in the institution…The great conflict will never be properly comprehended by the man who looks upon it as a war for the preservation of slavery.”
- Confederate Major Robert Stiles (Robert Stiles, Four Years Under Marse Robert, New York, Neal Publishing Co., 1910, pp. 49-50)
Roguish Lawyer
06-26-2015, 11:00
I associate the flag with the South, not with slavery. Considering that the United States expressly recognized and accepted slavery for many years, you could also argue that the American flag is a symbol of slavery.
This is just a bunch of BS political correctness -- censorship through shame. Makes me want to shoot people in the face.
So, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Target, etc., decide to pull the Confederate Battle Flag and any and all other merchandise with said symbol on it. But they continue to sell items with Nazi, Hamma, ISIS, and communist symbols/flags.
The National Park Service has been ordered to remove ALL Confederate items from their gift shops, nationwide.
Now this ....
DOJ orders police to remove Confederate flag from logos, could cost US police over $100 Million
The US Department of Justice is stepping into the Confederate flag controversy. The DOJ has issued a memo to all police departments and sheriff’s offices with instructions to remove confederate flags from official logos. Official logos for law enforcement can include symbols found on shoulder patches, badges, ID cards, squad cars, and department letter head.
Police Chief Richard Ewell says he was stunned by the proclamation. “I don’t think the people in Washington know what this will cost me. I have to pay an artist to create the design. Then that design has to rendered for screen printing on shirts, embroidery on patches, etching on badges, and for stickers used to stripe squads. Then all these items need to be manufactured and shipped.”
Every chief and sheriff we talked to said this order would cost them between $10k and $500K depending on the size of the department.
According to Sheriff John Mosby this logo change will be doubly costly for him. “We just re did all the uniforms and squad cars in January of 2015. My logo is only a few months old, now we need to make up a new one. In addition this will be a rush job to meet the DOJ deadline so everyone will charge more to get it done faster.”
Many of the police administrators we talked to questioned when Fire departments and EMS agencies would be forced to also remove the Confederate flag from their logos. “Right now they are just picking on us cops because anti police feelings are in vogue” said Chief Ewell.
CallTheCops does not have a accurate count on the number of police agencies with a Confederate flag in their logo. This change could effect thousands of departments from Virginia to Texas.
http://www.callthecops.net/doj-orders-police-to-remove-confederate-flag-from-logos-could-cost-us-police-over-100-million/
What's next ... banning the selling of and destroying all copies, print and movie, of Gone With the Wind?
We are most definitely falling down a rabbit hole with no end in sight. :munchin
Team Sergeant
06-26-2015, 11:03
and think it inappropriate to fly on State Capitols.
That's ok, they're replacing that flag with the "I like a dick up my Ass Flag" on all 50 state capitals as we speak. :munchin
Only in America.
This is just a bunch of BS political correctness
I agree and it is happening here in Tennessee at the moment with talks of renaming MTSU's "Forrest Hall." Those who read NBF's personal history would have a hard time not adoring the man, especially those in our community. First and foremost he was one of the fiercest warriors this country has ever produced. Also, he made a pact to free his slaves by the end of the war no matter the outcome and he did. He was a staunch proponent of chivalry and vowed to personally kill Union Colonel Fielding Hurst out of principle, as Hurst developed a reputation of killing mentally handicapped Southern children and raping and pillaging Southern women whose husbands were away fighting. In response to accusations of his Ku Klux Klan involvement, Forrest said “I have no powder to burn killing negroes. I intend to kill the radicals…These were some foolish young men who put masks on their faces and rode over the countryside frightening negroes; but orders have been issued to stop that.”
So, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Target, etc., decide to pull the Confederate Battle Flag and any and all other merchandise with said symbol on it. But they continue to sell items with Nazi, Hamma, ISIS, and communist symbols/flags.
The National Park Service has been ordered to remove ALL Confederate items from their gift shops, nationwide.
Now this ....
What's next ... banning the selling of and destroying all copies, print and movie, of Gone With the Wind?
We are most definitely falling down a rabbit hole with no end in sight. :munchin
Well, well, well, look what popped up on the radar, right as I was posting above ...
Film Critic Calls For "Gone With The Wind" To Be Banned Because... Confederacy. And Racism. Of Course.
It was only a matter of time before this happened.
The left, not content with merely taking down ONE Confederate flag at ONE state's statehouse is hellbent on erasing the Confederacy from historical memory and simply dismissing the South as a racist, backwards, uncivilized region of the country (which, I have lived in the South. Those people are just about the nicest, most polite, most inclusive, most faithful people you will ever meet. Black, white, whatever - doesn't matter! I love Southerners and I love Southern culture! Which automatically makes me a hatey-hate-racist jerk in the eyes of those super-tolerant liberals.)
The latest in this march toward completely crushing the South (geez, guys - don't you know the Civil War is over? The North won and y'all are still gloating?), Lou Lumenick, film critic for the New York Post, is calling for the banning of the esteemed classic fillm "Gone With The Wind." Because it features that eeeeeeeevil Confederate flag and it glorified the antebellum South and they owned slaves and they were racists and hateful and don't you let them forget it!
If the Confederate flag is finally going to be consigned to museums as an ugly symbol of racism, what about the beloved film offering the most iconic glimpse of that flag in American culture?
I’m talking, of course, about “Gone with the Wind[.]’’ …
But what does it say about us as a nation if we continue to embrace a movie that, in the final analysis, stands for many of the same things as the Confederate flag that flutters so dramatically over the dead and wounded soldiers at the Atlanta train station just before the “GWTW’’ intermission?
Warner Bros. just stopped licensing another of pop culture’s most visible uses of the Confederate flag — toy replicas of the General Lee, an orange Dodge Charger from “The Dukes of Hazzard’’ — as retailers like Amazon and Walmart have finally backed away from selling merchandise with that racist symbol.
That studio sent “Gone with the Wind’’ back into theaters for its 75th anniversary in partnership with its sister company Turner Classic Movies in 2014, but I have a feeling the movie’s days as a cash cow are numbered. It’s showing on July 4 at the Museum of Modern Art as part of the museum’s salute to the 100th anniversary of Technicolor — and maybe that’s where this much-loved but undeniably racist artifact really belongs.
So... lemme get this straight - one of the most iconic films of the 20th century, a film that pioneered much of the movie technology we enjoy today, a timeless story about a family witnessing to a key moment in American history (even if one of the main character is a spoiled, selfish brat) - you want to relegate it to the dusty corners of a museum because it has themes that offend your modern sensibilities? It's not like anyone is making you watch the movie. If Warner Bros. wants to sell tickets for special showings, here's a thought - YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY ONE! You don't have to go see it!
I'll be honest - Gone With The Wind is far from my favorite movie of all time, mostly because I can't stand Scarlett O'Hara and her constant whiney-piney nonsense for that Ashley dork. Most of the time, I want to slap Scarlett for the abysmal way she treats everybody - but that has nothing to do with being a Southerner and everything to do with being a beeyotch (and that characteristic knows no regional or race boudaries). But I recognize that it's a classic film and a lot of people love it (it was my late-grandmother's absolute favorite movie!) and it's worth honoring as a classic.
Dude - this is just like censoring Mark Twain! Remember that? When they changed all the uses of the N-word to "slave" in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, even though that was perfectly acceptable language during the time period Twain was writing in? What's next? You gonna ban The Metamorphoses for using the term "rape" to mean "kidnap"? (Oh wait...)
You know, I just love the left's hypocrisy on all this. You can read a book about homosexual kings to kindergartners and anyone who has a problem with that is a dirty rotten bigot. But banning a film or a book for taking place in the South and being about the Confederacy - TOTES COOL, dude!
If liberals are going to be all about intellectual freedom and against censorship, maybe they ought to start with the stuff THEY disagree with. You don't get to pick and choose what stays and what goes based on what you like. While you're banning stuff you hate, the next thing that gets challenges might be something you actuallly want.
That's how this First Amendment thing works, Buttercup. Get used to it.
http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/29565-film-critic-calls-for-gone-with-the-wind-to-be-banned-because-confederacy-and-racism-of-course
This is MUCH MORE than a Confederate Battle Flag being flown over a state capitol, or on PD patches throughout the south, issue.
This is uncontrolled and unrestricted erosion of the U.S. Constitution by the Left. Something that is reminiscent of 1930's Germany.
... and the Socialist/Progressive/Libs calls Conservatives/Tea Party people Nazis. :rolleyes:
Team Sergeant
06-26-2015, 11:46
Well, well, well, look what popped up on the radar, right as I was posting above ...
This is MUCH MORE than a Confederate Battle Flag being flown over a state capitol, or on PD patches throughout the south, issue.
This is uncontrolled and unrestricted erosion of the U.S. Constitution by the Left. Something that is reminiscent of 1930's Germany.
... and the Socialist/Progressive/Libs calls Conservatives/Tea Party people Nazis. :rolleyes:
I now need to ban your posts because they have the words: "Confederate Battle Flag" in them.
We will destroy your 1st Amendment Rights over your dead body.
(I see a sudden resurgence of gun and ammo purchases....)
Old Dog New Trick
06-26-2015, 11:56
How can we disassociate a symbol from the event?
If a history teacher was covering the pre to conflict Civil War period could that teacher discuss the secession and political events leading up to the war without mentioning slavery? Should the event of the Confederacy ratifying slavery as a positive be ignored/forgotten?
Should we dismiss history in this case...re write it?
I get some of your arguments and understand that.
I'm not offended by the Confederate Battle Flag but I do accept what it stood for and think it inappropriate to fly on State Capitols.
I'd not lump every symbol event into one cauldron and stir....there is no 'one argument fits all' solution. Some things stand alone.
PRB -
I think without the controversy of history we tend to forget what happened.
You would think if that time in history was so important to black people they would despise Democrats to this day and vote overwhelmingly for Republicans - which they don't. I wonder why that is? Short term memory or revisionist teachings?
History is replete with examples who the primary "actors" were and on which side of the political spectrum they stood - firmly.
I don't know of anyone here who disagrees that the State or Federal Governments should not 'embrace' a flag once belonging to an enemy of the State and fly it over, above, next to, or in place of the National flag or current State flag except as authorized by law.
That law can change based on a time proven process. Not knee jerk, emotional, and political posturing to appease the minority. Or in this case to suppress the actions of a few (or one) to make a person's crime a National issue.
Should we as you say, remove the CSA and battle flags from the National Parks that over see and protect history of the battlefields and cemeteries for Confederate Soldiers? Where do we stop - the Buffalo Soldiers, southern soldiers who died and are buried over seas with the CSA engraved on their headstone? It's a slippery slope argument I know, but for some that slope is currently covered in grease.
I fear all that will come of this is more rage and more division along the same grounds as the original issue that has existed since; oh about 1865 or before then.
I was reading about the Selma to Montgomery, civil rights marches in 1965 (100 years after the end of the civil war) and about Jim Crow laws (established by Democrats after the civil war) and about the Jefferson Davis Hwy and all the changes that have followed. Some great achievements have been accomplished because of courage to show injustice for what it is. But we didn't tear up Hwy 80 and burn the bridges to bury the past. We marvel at them now for what they have shown us.
The flag in question or the CSA flags that (used) to fly over Confederate memorials and cemeteries in and out of South Carolina are just that - remember our past: good and bad. Reflect on what was then and how have we - do we - move forward.
Is it a step forward or several steps back for places like North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee and Georgia to remake their States flags because they 'resemble' what is now considered a racist and hate filled symbol used by a minority of racist and hateful people? When it was at the time simply a design taken from both U.S.A. and British-Scotish heritage to show unity but separation.
As we know "slavery" is not and was not a Southern problem only. The North was just as complicent as was Europe and Africa and the Middle East.
Old Dog New Trick
06-26-2015, 12:33
So, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Target, etc., decide to pull the Confederate Battle Flag and any and all other merchandise with said symbol on it. But they continue to sell items with Nazi, Hamma, ISIS, and communist symbols/flags.
The National Park Service has been ordered to remove ALL Confederate items from their gift shops, nationwide.
Now this ....
What's next ... banning the selling of and destroying all copies, print and movie, of Gone With the Wind?
We are most definitely falling down a rabbit hole with no end in sight. :munchin
I can think of probably hundreds if not more DUIs in the military that will fall into that category. :rolleyes:
Golf1echo
06-26-2015, 14:32
Why do we try and re-adjudicate the South's surrender and reconstruction again and again? While that process repeats it'self Southerners go about their everyday lives and in the hundred plus years since reconstruction have created vibrant and meaningful lives for themselves and their children. They live in one of the most diverse areas of our country and have protected natural and cultural heritages which include some of the countries best parks, recreation and wildlife reservations we have. One of the cultural gems and is a direct descendant of slavery, the Gullah culture : http://www.gullahgeecheeculture.org/ exsits to this day,other contrabutions would be the economic and educational transformation on to the World stage.
The South has certainly seen it's challenges through the years and remain engaged moving into a better future. The South of today is an important part of our Union, our history, who we are as a nation and yet we continue to try and define the whole by the singular issue of slavery that occurred over a century ago. Many of the post here point out the intricacies of history that challenge our notion that the conflict was so tidily divided into good and evil, morality and immorality, black and white. The ramifications of that conflict didn't just end for the men, women, and families of the South at wars end. By 1874 Reconstruction was on the wain because of politics, loss of priority by the North, and the South tugging back. You'll find the origins of our VA health care coming from that era, but not for confederate veterans who would not be recognized until 1958. http://www.va.gov/health/NewsFeatures/20110413a.asp This left the South to care for their own and National Societies such as the Daughters of the Confederacy took the charge for their Fathers, Brothers, and Sons. http://www.hqudc.org/ It might be the memorial at the State Capital was under such a charter and established long ago? On a side note I've been to the Capital of SC, it like the GA Capital is located on a very small foot print unlike many other Capitals located on expansive grounds.
An example of the downside of being PC was the mascot for the 1996 Olympics in ATL. They decided there was nothing in their rich and diverse history they could draw on that wouldn't offend someone so they used a computer generated design.
It is only a matter of time before the Mandela's of Washington DC encourage their flock of zombies to begin necklacing those that fly the Stars and Bars.
Old Dog,
Slavery was a USA issue that came to a head during the mid 1800's....we were a slave country at one time whether indentured or owned.
If you refer to the 1860 census you'll note that very few slaves existed in the North at that time....it became a southern states institution and one of the primary reasons for the States Rights secession.
That's my issue for not flying it on Fed/State prop...a defeated rebellion that had at its core slavery.
I've no issue with that flag at parks that are bot park/memorials i.e. Gettysburg.
I've no issue with it as a private expression of whatever and as much hoohaw is being made about the battle flag being 'banned' it is not being banned.
Private companies may choose not to sell the item but many will choose to do so.
You can fly it at your home, on your car, a forehead tattoo if you choose (I've seen worse). It is not 'banned' ...that's a bit tinfoil.
I just do not think it appropriate for flying on Government buildings or grounds.
Old Dog New Trick
06-26-2015, 19:43
You're right, it's not being banned, it's being cast down/aside for political pandering, feel good purposes and to distract from the issue of racial hatred by (some) white folks that have used it as a divisive symbol. They are well known and out of the closet even if they feel the need to hide in the open.
I have no dog in this fight, I'm a west coaster my whole life, 21-years Army all over including Georgia and North Carolina. Have many friends that sported that flag in some fashion or another and didn't know one who was an outright racist.
I see the issue as being bigger than that flag, the events of 150-239-years ago and the Civil War. It's just another chapter in the "play book" of "Us vs. Them" whomever us and them are?
You're right, it's not being banned, it's being cast down/aside for political pandering, feel good purposes and to distract from the issue of racial hatred by (some) white folks that have used it as a divisive symbol. They are well known and out of the closet even if they feel the need to hide in the open.
I have no dog in this fight, I'm a west coaster my whole life, 21-years Army all over including Georgia and North Carolina. Have many friends that sported that flag in some fashion or another and didn't know one who was an outright racist.
I see the issue as being bigger than that flag, the events of 150-239-years ago and the Civil War. It's just another chapter in the "play book" of "Us vs. Them" whomever us and them are?
It's another sell out of personal freedom and another embrace of victim mentality. Today Nikki Haley and many other politicians and corporations are selling out to censorship to avoid taking a stand and have further endorsed victim mentality. Today it is the Stars and Bars and tomorrow it will Don't Tread on Flags, Halloween or something else that is too offensive to the senses of a few......
There is a local guy who has flown the Stars and Bars for several years.....no complaints until yesterday when a wormy guy moved into his neighborhood.
http://fox4kc.com/2015/06/25/confederate-flag-display-irks-liberty-neighbors-while-homeowner-remains-unflappable/
Old Dog New Trick
06-26-2015, 20:45
I think what Nikki Haley did took courage and we'll see how the process works out. I hope the state legislature comes together and makes the best decision going forward. It's called a democracy for a reason and both the South and the North knew it - even back then.
As for the other states, businesses and the NPS to jump before looking at the whole issue, I can only hope they fall flat on their faces. Those local, state and federal agencies that have used the Stars and Bars and popular phrases of the south in their logos and all the government and military installations named after Confederate Generals and Southern politicians can spend millions on renaming gymnastics and it won't change a damn thing. The South moved on from racism and slavery 150-years ago, maybe it's time the rest of the country did too!
Instead of "shunning" a symbol whether viewed as pride or hatred they have taken an inanimate object and raised it from near death and obscurity to the forefront of popular culture. (Maybe this was purely a business decision and those players were already in line to make bank on the immediate and temporary increase in sales of these items.)
Sometimes I think this country is already past it's past behavior and then this happens.
On a side note: today in Tunisa a lone 23 years old educated man (working on his Master's in science and technology) opened fire on sunbathing tourists killing 26 or more before meeting Allah by security forces that apparently weren't doing their job of protecting the customers. Maybe they should "ban" umbrellas because they haven't figured out how to ban Kalashnikovs and hatred.
Something crossed my mind on hearing from some this flag stunt revolved firmly around slavery.
What was told growing up was the 'Po White Folk' despised the slaves and the their owners because it ruined their livelihood and that slaves had better care than the Po White Folk........
With that in mind why would Po White Folk have shed their blood, sweat and tears in support of people and a system they despised?
CSA Vice-President Alexander Stephens said in a March 1861 speech contrasting the USA and CSA constitutions, "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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."
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
- Abraham Lincoln, 4th of 7 Illinois Senatorial debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
- Abraham Lincoln, 4th of 7 Illinois Senatorial debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858
The in-grained thinking of the time - and why did his opinion change?
Something I've been pondering.
Symbols play an important role in who we perceive ourselves to be, in what we profess to believe, in who we choose to hold in esteem and who we choose to hold in disdain, in how others may perceive us.
The cross and Christianity.
The crescent and Islam.
The Star of David and Judaism.
The swastika and anti-Semitism.
The green beret; arrowhead, knife, and lightning bolts shoulder sleeve insignia; and crossed arrows, V-42 knife, and motto (“De Oppresso Liber” – from oppression we will free them) of the distinguished unit insignia of Special Forces.
The Battle Flag of Northern Virginia and the “cause” of the Confederate States of America and its nefarious aftermath.
The Republican party elephant and Democrat party donkey.
For those of us who stood resolute in our belief in what the symbols we wore in Special Forces stood for – can we justifiably defend the perpetuation of the ideals inherent in the symbolism portrayed by the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia?
Richard
The in-grained thinking of the time - and why did his opinion change?
In my opinion, and alluded to by several statements from Lincoln himself, because it became a useful political tool to win the war. If so, he deserves great credit for his political vision and determination as a leader.
Your other questions on symbology are thought provoking. I still assert that as experts in cross-cultural competency, we have to be able to tackle these issues. If we can't understand what makes a Virginian different from a New Yorker, how can we trust ourselves to go to faraway lands and develop a plan to have drastically different cultures co-opt US foreign policy?
Where I grew up we were taught to treat the Southern Cross like a POW/MIA flag specifically for Confederate soldiers (to whom many of us are related) with an admitted level of Southern pride thrown in. It's hard to downplay the psychological effects of Reconstruction on the South - here I see a lot of Civil War era historical monuments that highlight the fact the Kentucky was a Union State during the war but became a Confederate one afterwards. People from Maryland and Missouri who spend a lot of time studying their State's history also do not hesitate to air grievances with the Union's actions during and after. Missouri 1861-1865 should be a case study for SF soldiers attempting to understand UW/COIN.
I'm sure it differs from here to there, but I have no personal experience with "white supremacy" playing a role in the Battle Flag's symbology. For every lunatic racist who takes an iPhone photo with the flag, my argument is weakened and yours is strengthened. Still, people keep equating the political goals of the Confederacy with a symbol meant for military honors, which is a mental leap IMO albeit admittedly not a large one. I see where you are coming from.
At the end of the day, the argument against the Battle Flag on State grounds is solid and probably a foregone conclusion. My goal is only to highlight the fact that the media-driven argument is for the wrong reasons due to cognitive dissonance, ahistorical interpretations of the era, a lack of contextual thinking, and above all else a default to political correctness in our society. This will continue down the road in areas where it's not so easy to paint a geographic area or group of people as the "evil enemy" and we will all suffer from it.
Pat,
Thanks for squaring me away. I should have said "Grant's wife," to whom most authors attribute four slaves. I am basing this off of The Gray Book (1920) as quoted in the attached photo. Grant's memoir is underneath 200 lbs of fishing gear in my garage at the moment, but I do remember him beginning with something to the effect of "at the time I gave no serious consideration to the thought that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, but in hindsight [20 years later] this must be the case." Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't know for sure, but as Streck-Fu's post showing the bill of emancipation for William shows, the folks back then were meticulous in their record keeping, yet her ownership of slaves does not seem to be documented. Then again, neither does the transfer of ownership of William to Grant. But, we do know that Grant freed him by the documentation. There is no information on either side of Julia's ownership of any slaves that I have found beyond that "quote". And yes, it seems that Grant was ambivalent as to slavery yet he did free one when it could have brought his family a sizable windfall.
(BTW, Chief, thanks to you for getting me off of my duff and into the stacks to refresh my memory. I found some other very interesting stuff that I had either breezed over or forgot. And you are right, they were mostly honorable men doing their duty as they saw it.)
Pat
I just find it interesting that some in the south still bitch about Reconstruction but yet tell Blacks to get over slavery and the Jim Crow era.
If you can ban a flag, then it seems to me that you should ban the political party that stood under it:
Whitewashing the Democratic Party’s History
The less racist the South gets, the more Republican it becomes.
By Mona Charen — June 26, 2015
Here’s what the former president of the United States had to say when he eulogized his mentor, an Arkansas senator:
"We come to celebrate and give thanks for the remarkable life of J. William Fulbright, a life that changed our country and our world forever and for the better. . . . In the work he did, the words he spoke and the life he lived, Bill Fulbright stood against the 20th century’s most destructive forces and fought to advance its brightest hopes."
So spoke President William J. Clinton in 1995 of a man was among the 99 Democrats in Congress to sign the “Southern Manifesto” in 1956. (Two Republicans also signed it.) The Southern Manifesto declared the signatories’ opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and their commitment to segregation forever. Fulbright was also among those who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That filibuster continued for 83 days.
Speaking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, let’s review (since they don’t teach this in schools): The percentage of House Democrats who supported the legislation? 61 percent. House Republicans? 80 percent. In the Senate, 69 percent of Democrats voted yes, compared with 82 percent of Republicans. (Barry Goldwater, a supporter of the NAACP, voted no because he thought it was unconstitutional.)
When he was running for president in 2000, Vice President Al Gore told the NAACP that his father, Senator Al Gore Sr., had lost his Senate seat because he voted for the Civil Rights Act. Uplifting story — except it’s false. Gore Sr. voted against the Civil Rights Act. He lost in 1970 in a race that focused on prayer in public schools, the Vietnam War, and the Supreme Court.
More: http://www.nationalreview.com/node/420321/print
List of segregationists:
List of segregationists during the American Civil
Rights Movement (1955–1968)
This is a list of segregationists during the American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968). Many public figures, particularly in the South, defended compulsory racial segregation as an institution during the Civil Rights Movement, and many others did not condemn it. This list comprises those people who publicly supported segregation at the time, although many later modified or recanted their position as public sentiment shifted (and the number of African American voters in their areas increased).
• Dale Alford, United States Represenatative from Arkansas (Democrat)
• Clarence C. Aycock, Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana (Democrat).
• Ross Barnett, Governor of Mississippi (Democrat).
• Bill Beeny
• Albert Boutwell, Lieutenant Governor of Alabama (Democrat).
• Bryant Bowles, white supremacist organizer in Florida
• Parey Branton, Louisiana state legislator (Democrat).
• Overton Brooks, U.S. representative from northwestern Louisiana (Democrat).
• C. Farris Bryant, Governor of Florida (Democrat).
• Garland T. Byrd, Lieutenant Governor of Georgia (Democrat).
• Harry F. Byrd, Governor of Virginia (Democrat).
• Robert Byrd, United States Senator, West Virginia (Democrat).
• Howard "Bo" Callaway, United States Representative, Georgia (Republican).
• Francis Cherry, Governor of Arkansas (Democrat).
• Kent Courtney
• Jimmie Davis, Governor of Louisiana (Democrat).
• Vail M. Delony, Louisiana state legislator from Lake Providence
• Wickliffe Draper
• James Eastland, United States Senator, Mississippi (Democrat).
• Allen J. Ellender, United States Senator, Louisiana (Democrat).
• Clyde Fant, Mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana (Democrat).
• Orval Faubus, Governor of Arkansas (Democrat).
• William Fulbright, United States Senator, Arkansas (Democrat).
• John Sidney Garrett, State Representative, Louisiana (Democrat).
• Peter Zack Geer, Lieutenant Governor of Georgia (Democrat).
• James H. Gray, Sr., Georgia Democratic state chairman
• Marvin Griffin, Governor of Georgia (Democrat).
• Jack P.F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana (Democrat).
• F. Edward Hebert, U.S. representative from Louisiana (Democrat).
• Jesse Helms, United States Senator, North Carolina (Democrat 1942-1970, Republican 1970-2008).
• Lister Hill, United States Senator, Alabama (Democrat).
• Fritz Hollings, United States Governor and Senator, South Carolina (Democrat)
• Orville L. Hubbard, Mayor, Dearborn, Michigan.
• Shelby M. Jackson, Superintendent of Public Education, Louisiana (Democrat).
• James D. Johnson, Arkansas Supreme Court justice (Democrat).
• Paul B. Johnson, Jr., Governor of Mississippi (Democrat).
• J. Bennett Johnston, Jr., United States Senator, Louisiana (Democrat).
• Bob Jones, Sr., Evangelist.
• B. Everett Jordan, United States Senator, North Carolina (Democrat).
• Robert F. Kennon, Governor of Louisiana (Democrat).
• James J. Kilpatrick, Columnist.
• Russell B. Long, United States Senator, Louisiana (Democrat).
• Speedy O. Long, United States Representative, Louisiana (Democrat).
• Charlton Lyons, State Chairman, Louisiana Republican Party.
• Lester Maddox, Governor of Georgia (Democrat, American Independent).
• James D. Martin, United States Representative, Alabama (Republican).
• John McClellan, United States Senator, Arkansas (Democrat).
• John McKeithen, Governor of Louisiana (Democrat).
• Harold Montgomery, Louisiana state senator (Democrat)
• Danny Roy Moore, Louisiana state senator (Democrat)
• deLesseps Story Morrison (Democrat)
• W. Lee O'Daniel, Governor of Texas (Democrat)
• John H. Overton, U.S. senator from Louisiana (Democrat)
• Otto Passman, U.S. representative from northeastern Louisiana (Democrat)
• John Malcolm Patterson, Governor of Alabama (Democrat)
• Dave L. Pearce, Louisiana Agricultural Commissioner (Democrat)
• Leander Perez, Louisiana judge (Democrat)
• Rubel Phillips, Mississippi lawyer (Republican)
• William M. Rainach, Louisiana state senator (Democrat)
• John Rarick, U.S. representative from Louisiana (Democrat, Independent, American Independent)
• A. Willis Robertson, U.S. senator from Virginia (Democrat)
• Richard B. Russell, U.S. senator from Georgia (Democrat)
• Victor Schiro, mayor of New Orleans (Democrat)
• George W. Shannon, Louisiana journalist
• Gerald L.K. Smith, evangelist from Louisiana and Arkansas (Demorat)
• Howard W. Smith, United States Representative from Virginia (Democrat).
• John Sparkman, U.S. senator from Alabama (Democrat)
• John C. Stennis, United States Senator from Mississippi (Democrat).
• Ford E. Stinson, Louisiana state representative (Democrat).
• J. B. Stoner, Georgia political candidate (Democrat)
• Herman Talmadge, U.S. senator from Georgia (Democrat)
• A. Roswell Thompson, Louisiana political candidate (Democrat)
• Strom Thurmond, Governor and U.S. senator from South Carolina (Democrat, States' Rights Democrat,
Republican)
• Ned Touchstone, Louisiana journalist and printer (Democrat)
• Joe D. Waggonner, U.S. representative from Louisiana (Democrat)
• George C. Wallace (Democrat, American Independent)
• Albert W. Watson (Democrat, Republican)
• John Bell Williams, Governor of Mississippi (Democrat)
• Edwin E. Willis, U.S. representative from Louisiana (Democrat)
• Fielding L. Wright, Governor of Mississippi (Democrat)
Ban the Democrat Party!
Pat
GreenSalsa
06-27-2015, 15:22
I just find it interesting that some in the south still bitch about Reconstruction but yet tell Blacks to get over slavery and the Jim Crow era.
OUCH X10!
Emancipation.....there were hardly any slaves to be freed in the North....
Taken from the Mt Holyoke web site regarding slavery in the North.
1777
Vermont amends its constitution to ban slavery. Over the next 25 years, other Northern states emancipate their slaves and ban the institution: Pennsylvania, 1780; Massachusetts and New Hampshire, 1783; Connecticut and Rhode Island, 1784; New York, 1799; and New Jersey, 1804. Some of the state laws stipulate gradual emancipation.
1787
The Northwest Ordinance bans slavery in the Northwest Territory (what becomes the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin). The ordinance together with state emancipation laws create a free North.
1808
In 1807 Congress bans the importation of slaves, effective January 1, 1808, the earliest date allowed by the Constitution. The internal slave trade continues in states where the institution is legal.
Note the numbers in the 1860 census...at the time there were 4 million slaves in the South.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/slave-census.htm
Old Dog New Trick
06-27-2015, 17:00
The in-grained thinking of the time - and why did his opinion change?
Something I've been pondering.
Symbols play an important role in who we perceive ourselves to be, in what we profess to believe, in who we choose to hold in esteem and who we choose to hold in disdain, in how others may perceive us.
The cross and Christianity.
The crescent and Islam.
The Star of David and Judaism.
The swastika and anti-Semitism.
The green beret; arrowhead, knife, and lightning bolts shoulder sleeve insignia; and crossed arrows, V-42 knife, and motto (“De Oppresso Liber” – from oppression we will free them) of the distinguished unit insignia of Special Forces.
The Battle Flag of Northern Virginia and the “cause” of the Confederate States of America and its nefarious aftermath.
The Republican party elephant and Democrat party donkey.
For those of us who stood resolute in our belief in what the symbols we wore in Special Forces stood for – can we justifiably defend the perpetuation of the ideals inherent in the symbolism portrayed by the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia?
Richard
Richard, this is great question that I believe should be very relevant to any undertaking, whether 239 years ago to tomorrow. If we (the Green Berets) had to pick sides and based on Presidential orders or the orders of our regional commanders', on which side would most of us support?
Sure, it could be a difficult decision because not everything in the Declaration of Recession was palatable to all of the people who make up a Special Forces unit. There would be division within the rank and file or there would be overwhelming support for or against it.
Take Afghanistan for example. We have chosen to support one child raping, drug producing, goat fuc_ing nomadic tribe and their corrupt leadership over another group of child raping, drug profiting, goat fuc_ing nomadic tribesmen because someone said so. Pakistan is our "ally" yet we wage war with its people and territories. Afghanistan was chosen to support yet we don't have their support to wage a winning long term strategy. We have forced 'democracy' on tribal clans that still believe in Sharia Law and stoning women to death for not giving it up to their man, a man they did not choose for marriage.
I don't know which side of the civil war I would have stood on, but I'm sure I would have been pretty disgusted by the "scorched earth, rape, pillage and burn" policies of the Union Army. I doubt that I would have fought just to retain slavery even if my family relied on that as a work force. I find that to be against my moral compass and probably a reason I became a Green Beret to live by our motto of "De Oppresso Liber." I think the south fought against the tyranny of the north, whether real or perceived. I think today many of us see or perceive the tyranny of Washington D.C., and the power of the political establishment, yet haven't taken up arms or declared a rebellion against it. I know which side I'll stand on if that day comes. :D
Old Dog,
Scorched earth is always unpalatable for the receivers....ask the Germans and Japanese.
It is done because it works and saves the lives of the invading army...and that's what we pay our senior leaders for.
If we had applied scorched earth recently:
South Vietnam would exist.
Much of the crap in Iraq/Astan would not even have risen to the surface.
All in all, for winning it is not a bad technique.
Roguish Lawyer
06-27-2015, 18:04
Old Dog,
Scorched earth is always unpalatable for the receivers....ask the Germans and Japanese.
It is done because it works and saves the lives of the invading army...and that's what we pay our senior leaders for.
If we had applied scorched earth recently:
South Vietnam would exist.
Mush of the crap in Iraq/Astan would not even have risen to the surface.
All in all, for winning it is not a bad technique.
Better than hearts and minds, eh? :munchin
Better than hearts and minds, eh? :munchin
Lol, yeah, that crap works doesn't it......we can't even win the hearts/minds of the folks on the south side of Chicago.
Caveat....in Astan they do have heart......but no mind that can relate to the west.
When doing MDMP that should be one of the steps and on the block chart when the negative appears in either category the arrow should lead to ...scorched earth.
Old Dog New Trick
06-27-2015, 18:08
Old Dog,
Scorched earth is always unpalatable for the receivers....ask the Germans and Japanese.
It is done because it works and saves the lives of the invading army...and that's what we pay our senior leaders for.
If we had applied scorched earth recently:
South Vietnam would exist.
Mush of the crap in Iraq/Astan would not even have risen to the surface.
All in all, for winning it is not a bad technique.
Agreed, that total war is an advantageous strategy, can often shorten war, and leads to capitulation of the loser.
The winner gets to make the rules! And hopefully the loser has lost the taste for war again.
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/wal-mart-wont-make-a-confederate-flag-cake-but-an-isis-flag-cake-is-no-problem
I would expect nothing less.
I would expect they had no idea what the ISIS flag is...you take them a pic and they make it.
So, you believe companies/businesses should be forced to do what they choose not to?
I would expect they had no idea what the ISIS flag is...you take them a pic and they make it.
So, you believe companies/businesses should be forced to do what they choose not to?
I have no skin in the game in regards to the confederate flag. However, the overall purpose in regards to me expecting nothing less was directed at the uninformed American population. Pure evil exists and gains strength and support daily in ISIS controlled territory, but some people still are clueless.
However everyone seems to know exactly what is going on with Human Science experiments such as Bruce Jenner and other minute issues that currently blind everyone on this episode of "real world America".
bailaviborita
06-28-2015, 07:34
If you are a believer that current American values are worth fighting to maintain, if you believe the American flag represents at least 50% good, if you think the trajectory of history is trending good--- then I think if you'd been born in the South you would have fought with your relatives - not for something as ambiguous as an institution (slavery), but for more practical reasons (peer pressure, fear of the consequences of a loss of states rights, fear of destitution if the economic structure was turned on its head, etc. To say it was only about slavery is like saying the Middle East mess is only about Islam. The reasons for the war were very complex- even more so than the reasons Pineland is constantly experiencing insurgency. Woe to the 18 student who thinks he can fix Pineland with a one agenda narrative...
The flag represents different things to different people. This wasn't a huge deal in the past because of the politics and media environments. That today interest groups can galvanize the pop culture and media attention on certain events and use them as symbols of some wider systemic problem is an interesting phenomenon that seems to be increasing the use of simplistic logic and linear rhetoric to the detriment of our entire way of life.
How much longer can we maintain a Republic and one of the best economic systems and a strong military if we continue down the path of bumper sticker logic driving our politicians? If we raise the minimum wage to 15$, if we continue to destroy 7,000 (total last week) "things" in ISIS territory, if we say anyone not supporting the LGBTQ (etc) agenda is a bigot and evil, if we say our Civil War was only about one issue and if one looks back with any pride in the Confederacy you are evil, iif we say women in combat arms will improve capability and result only in good, f we say a trade deal will lose middle class jobs, --- I could go on--- I don't think our country can long survive.
We are supporting self-destructible ways of life, celebrating nothing that builds support for us elsewhere (if any psyopper thinks anything they do can overcome the vast damage to our preferred narrative that Keeping up with the Kardashians and other reality shows do- they need to share some of what they are smoking...), and fundamentally changing our norms while relying on the assumptions that these changes will result in no unforeseen negative second and third order effects--- how long can the strength of this nation last under those trends? To assume only kumbaya songs and flowers in our hair is insane IMO.
Twenty something years ago you could waive the rebel flag at a ball game in the South and people knew you were expressing pride in your team- not support for slavery. Then universities started teaching minorities that the needed to be offended at micro offensive behavior and that they needed to self identify with one way of looking at the world- the victim way. And they taught Whites that they were micro aggressing- largely unconsciously- minorities and should feel guilty of their evil, exploitative past and support certain social justice political agendas- redistribution of wealth, ending traditional male social roles, and ending free market economic systems to name a few.
Today it is the rebel flag. Tomorrow it will be the American flag- as the agenda isn't justice- the agenda is fundamentally transforming our society and breaking all the norms of today. Those who thought gays in the military was it might be surprised we are talking about trangenders next. Gay marriage advocates are already talking about "passing the baton" to the Q crowd- to work on overturning the labels "male", "female", and "gay", and "straight". Is it a coincidence these same social reengineers are anti-war, anti-free markets, and anti-capitalism?
What you think is good today is just as likely to be condemned in the future. Capitalism and free markets "rape the planet", "enslave the people", "enable the military industrial complex", and "oppress the poor". That is what the next generation is learning. If you fly the flag that symbolizes all that- you will be deemed evil too- and must be reeducated or punished... The American flag won't represent what you say it represents- it will represent what "they" say it does. Then what are you going to do?
If you are a believer that current American values are worth fighting to maintain, if you believe the American flag represents at least 50% good, if you think the trajectory of history is trending good--- then I think if you'd been born in the South you would have fought with your relatives - not for something as ambiguous as an institution (slavery), but for more practical reasons (peer pressure, fear of the consequences of a loss of states rights, fear of destitution if the economic structure was turned on its head, etc. To say it was only about slavery is like saying the Middle East mess is only about Islam. The reasons for the war were very complex- even more so than the reasons Pineland is constantly experiencing insurgency. Woe to the 18 student who thinks he can fix Pineland with a one agenda narrative...
The flag represents different things to different people. This wasn't a huge deal in the past because of the politics and media environments. That today interest groups can galvanize the pop culture and media attention on certain events and use them as symbols of some wider systemic problem is an interesting phenomenon that seems to be increasing the use of simplistic logic and linear rhetoric to the detriment of our entire way of life.
How much longer can we maintain a Republic and one of the best economic systems and a strong military if we continue down the path of bumper sticker logic driving our politicians? If we raise the minimum wage to 15$, if we continue to destroy 7,000 (total last week) "things" in ISIS territory, if we say anyone not supporting the LGBTQ (etc) agenda is a bigot and evil, if we say our Civil War was only about one issue and if one looks back with any pride in the Confederacy you are evil, iif we say women in combat arms will improve capability and result only in good, f we say a trade deal will lose middle class jobs, --- I could go on--- I don't think our country can long survive.
We are supporting self-destructible ways of life, celebrating nothing that builds support for us elsewhere (if any psyopper thinks anything they do can overcome the vast damage to our preferred narrative that Keeping up with the Kardashians and other reality shows do- they need to share some of what they are smoking...), and fundamentally changing our norms while relying on the assumptions that these changes will result in no unforeseen negative second and third order effects--- how long can the strength of this nation last under those trends? To assume only kumbaya songs and flowers in our hair is insane IMO.
Twenty something years ago you could waive the rebel flag at a ball game in the South and people knew you were expressing pride in your team- not support for slavery. Then universities started teaching minorities that the needed to be offended at micro offensive behavior and that they needed to self identify with one way of looking at the world- the victim way. And they taught Whites that they were micro aggressing- largely unconsciously- minorities and should feel guilty of their evil, exploitative past and support certain social justice political agendas- redistribution of wealth, ending traditional male social roles, and ending free market economic systems to name a few.
Today it is the rebel flag. Tomorrow it will be the American flag- as the agenda isn't justice- the agenda is fundamentally transforming our society and breaking all the norms of today. Those who thought gays in the military was it might be surprised we are talking about trangenders next. Gay marriage advocates are already talking about "passing the baton" to the Q crowd- to work on overturning the labels "male", "female", and "gay", and "straight". Is it a coincidence these same social reengineers are anti-war, anti-free markets, and anti-capitalism?
What you think is good today is just as likely to be condemned in the future. Capitalism and free markets "rape the planet", "enslave the people", "enable the military industrial complex", and "oppress the poor". That is what the next generation is learning. If you fly the flag that symbolizes all that- you will be deemed evil too- and must be reeducated or punished... The American flag won't represent what you say it represents- it will represent what "they" say it does. Then what are you going to do?
Well said.
A society that attempts to please all interest groups, is often unable to please all of its citizens. We are in a tailspin right now and I don't see us pulling out any time soon. These days, diversity is confused with division.
Sorry gents but comparing the rebel flag to the US flag as symbols of the same category...and they are coming to get you!... is a Jade Helm moment.
Strap that tinfoil on tightly.
Old Dog New Trick
06-28-2015, 12:56
That's ok this 21y/o thought the south was a different country. LOL
Shah Khokker, 21, said he likes the marker’s historic significance but thinks the Confederate flag should no longer be publicly flown. “Who won the war? The U.S. won the war,” Khokker said.
Why and how Confederate Battle Flag was created 154 years ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/why-and-how-the-confederate-battle-flag-was-created-154-years-ago/2015/06/24/aedcf21a-1a98-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop_b
And then there's this guy. I think he gets it:
And on Main Street in Fairfax City, Mike Mpalong, who is African American, applauded the marker and defended the use of the flag.
“I really don’t think they should take it down,” the 20-year-old said, explaining that he was worried about a racial backlash, among other things. “Taking down the flag would just create more stuff, more problems.”
Besides, Mpalong added, “It’s a part of history.”
Perhaps this excerpt from Southern Historian and UVA Professor of History Edward Ayers offers a better explanation of the issue(s) and the catalytic role of slavery in the complex events that brought about the Civil War.
This thread and Professor Ayers' essay certainly makes one ponder the synergistic impact of rapid communications (which now includes global social media networks) and political aspirations upon a world trudging onward through the often murky pathways of History.
Richard
<snip>The role of modernity in the Civil War might better be understood as a catalyst for both the North and the South rather than as a simple difference between them. The debate and anger that fed into what became the Civil War contained “modern” elements that would not have existed before the middle of the nineteenth century: a struggle over a hypothetical railroad, a novel written by an obscure woman, an act of symbolic terrorism, a media war over a distant territory.
There can be no doubt that the North embodied many elements of what we would now see as modern: high literacy, rapidly growing towns and cities, early and widespread adoption of industrial methods, innovation in transportation and communication, the dominance of market values, and strong political engagement by a broad electorate of white men. The new Republican party combined these various notions in a potent ideology. The slave South generated fewer towns and factories than the North, to be sure, and its lower population density sustained fewer schools and newspapers. On the other hand, the white South welcomed political parties, nationalism, and political mobilization; it welcomed print, rapid change in ideas, and intimate connection to the cultural centers of Europe and the North; it welcomed the adoption of useful machinery of production and transportation, openness to immigration, rapid growth in churches, higher education, and missionary societies.
Make no mistake: Southern slavery was, as W.E.B. DuBois put it, “a cruel, dirty, costly, and inexcusable anachronism, which nearly ruined the world’s greatest experiment in democracy,” a system of oppression that created “widespread ignorance, undeveloped resources, suppressed humanity and unrestrained passions.” But the American South created prosperity for much of the white population, a sophisticated means of communication and governance, and a sense among white Southerners of themselves as an advanced and enlightened Christian people. The slave South, in other words, was modern in precisely the ways that encouraged white Southerners to think of themselves as members of a new nation with a destiny all their own, that allowed the Confederacy to form an enormous army out of almost nothing, and that permitted them to wage an effective war against the most thoroughly modern state in the world for four years. Slavery was not accidental in this process, not a mere drag on progress, but gave the Confederacy its only reason for existence.
Two critical components of modernity shared by the North and the South – print and popular politics – created the necessary contexts for the war. Print permitted people to cast their imaginations and loyalties beyond the boundaries of their localities, to identify with people they had never met, to see themselves in an abstract cause. People learned to imagine consequences of actions, to live in the future.
Print shaped everything we associate with the coming of the Civil War. Although Bleeding Kansas was far removed from the East and John Brown’s raid freed no slaves, these events gained critical significance because they were amplified and distorted by newspapers. Without the papers, many events we now see as decisive would have passed without wide consequence. With the papers, events large and small stirred the American people every day. The press nurtured anticipation and grievance. Americans of the 1850s grew newly self-conscious, deeply aware of who they were and who others said they were. The “north” and the “South” took shape in words before they were unified by armies and shared sacrifice.
It was surely no accident that a long-brewing animosity boiled over when railroads, telegraphs, and newspapers proliferated in the 1840s and 1850s. Suddenly, local bargains and gentlemen’s agreements in Washington could not stand. Politicians could no longer get away with saying one thing in one place an something altogether different somewhere else, for their speeches raced ahead of them by telegraph and newspapers. Rival editors wrenched the most inflammatory words out of context, underlining their danger, amplifying their threat. Territorial expansion took on a new meaning when railroads and steamboats accelerated America’s frantic rush in every direction, when American Indians were removed and foreign threats faded.
The Civil War was brought on by people imaginatively constructing chains of action and reaction beyond the boundaries of their own time and space. In distantly modern ways, people North and South in 1860 and 1861 anticipated events, made warnings and threats, imagined their responses, imagined thee responses of others. This is one reason the Civil War seems to have, as Lincoln put it, “come,” why the war seemed both inevitable and surprising, easily explainable yet somehow incomprehensible. People on both sides were playing out future scenarios even as they responded to immediate threats. They recognized how deeply contingency could run and how quickly things could shift; a Supreme Court decision or a presidential election could change the eevolution of vast structures of slavery and economic development.
The political system joined print in teaching Americans to think of themselves as connected to places beyond their communities. Long before an integrated national economy evolved, political parties welded American places together. The Democrats, Whigs, and Republicans gave Americans common cause with people who lived thousands of miles away while dividing them against their neighbors and relatives. The political system existed for such connections, for cooperation and division. The system created policy to help feed the machinery, created controversy to attract the undecided, created positions to reward the faithful. The system was the end as well as the means.
The role of modernity in the American Civil War, in short, was exactly the opposite of what we usually take it to be. A modern North did not go to war to eradicate an anti-modern South. Instead, modernity was a shared catalyst between North and South, a shared medium, a necessary precondition for anything like the war that began in 1861.
What caused the Civil War? If you have to offer a one-word answer, go ahead and just say slavery. But you should know what you mean by that answer. The Civil War did not come from the sheer intolerable existence of slavery in a nation built on the ideals of freedom, or from the past and the future caught in a death struggle, or from a familiar sequence of political events that crashed into one another in a chain reaction like so many billiard balls. Rather, you mean slavery as the key catalytic agent in a volatile new mix of democratic politics and accelerated communication, a process chemical in its complexity and subtlety. You mean, in short, history, the living connection among fundamental structures, unfolding processes, and unpredictable events.<snip>
Ayers, Edward. What Caused The Civil War? Reflections On The South And Southern History. W.W. Norton, NY: 2005. pp 139-142.
From your post, Richard.
"...these events gained critical significance because they were amplified and distorted by newspapers..."
Kinda' like the 24 hour news channels of today.
It ain't news unless they say it is.
From your post, Richard.
"...these events gained critical significance because they were amplified and distorted by newspapers..."
Kinda' like the 24 hour news channels of today.
It ain't news unless they say it is.
last week was a very good example of that....knee jerking hysteria about a flag and the 'Medias Stated Fact' that 'Most Americans' agree with gay marriage.
I would wager if were actually put to a vote of the people the result would be a landslide in the opposite direction.
frostfire
06-29-2015, 08:10
Gay marriage advocates are already talking about "passing the baton" to the Q crowd- to work on overturning the labels "male", "female", and "gay", and "straight". Is it a coincidence these same social reengineers are anti-war, anti-free markets, and anti-capitalism?
Spot on, Sir. A few years back during EO session when we were "instructed" to no longer use the term spouse, husband, or wife, but partner, I realized we've lost the battle.
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_2025%20Report.pdf
"The Prominence of the Non-military Aspects of Warfare. Non-military means of warfare, such
as cyber, economic, resource, psychological, and information-based forms of conflict will
become more prevalent in conflicts over the next two decades. In the future, states and nonstate
adversaries will engage in “media warfare” to dominate the 24-hour news cycle and manipulate
public opinion to advance their own agenda and gain popular support for their cause."
And then there's this guy. I think he gets it:
And on Main Street in Fairfax City, Mike Mpalong, who is African American, applauded the marker and defended the use of the flag.
“I really don’t think they should take it down,” the 20-year-old said, explaining that he was worried about a racial backlash, among other things. “Taking down the flag would just create more stuff, more problems.”
Besides, Mpalong added, “It’s a part of history.”
He gets it indeed. If that flag is entrenched deep as representation of things other than slavery, then its removal disenfranchise and undermine that segment of population. Any scholar of terrorism would point that that fear of annihilation of one's culture/tradition is one of the major precursor to political drive via violent means
Team Sergeant
06-29-2015, 09:55
FWIW, as a military officer, the Confederate flag isn't one I'd fight and die for, nor commit an element to combat for.
So take it down, whatever. Don't just forget it, though; put it into the historical register and the time capsules to be an artifact from a period in our history.
I will fight, die, and commit men to fight for the U.S. flag, however.
I pensively await the day that our political leadership calls for it to be taken down, or off uniforms, because it offends a particular group or religion.
“Give me enough medals and I’ll win you any war”
Napoléon Bonaparte
Flags are the same thing. I fight for an idea, not a symbol. But I'm just an enlisted grunt. ;)
miclo18d
06-29-2015, 11:00
FWIW, as a military officer, the Confederate flag isn't one I'd fight and die for, nor commit an element to combat for.
So take it down, whatever. Don't just forget it, though; put it into the historical register and the time capsules to be an artifact from a period in our history.
I will fight, die, and commit men to fight for the U.S. flag, however.
I pensively await the day that our political leadership calls for it to be taken down, or off uniforms, because it offends a particular group or religion.
Robert E. Lee fought for his country too. His country was the United States. He fought under the U.S. Flag against Mexico and even brought the terrorist John Brown to justice. Until his "country" seceded from a Union of countries. Then he fought for that flag.
If you understand that we are the united STATES of America. We are (or should say were) several different countries, united together under a central government. A limited central government that didn't have very much say in the way each country under its title did their business.
You NEVER know when YOUR country will no longer be yours and you find yourself fighting under another flag.
You NEVER know when YOUR country will no longer be yours and you find yourself fighting under another flag.
I wish I could say that's not possible here....:(
Members of this BB insist that the United States Constitution is the best single source for determining the "original intent" of its framers. Members of this BB insist that from this "original intent" one can confidently discern the framers' POVs on matters of public and national security policy. For many members of this BB, this "as written" approach to the U.S. Constitution is required for contemporaneous policy preferences to have legitimacy. Many members of this BB take a similar approach to in assessing Islam. Within this framework, the mission of all Muslims, regardless of time, place, or other circumstances, is establishing a global caliphate.
However, some members of this BB are using a different standard in this thread. This different standard allows for a piecemeal approach to the CSA's constitution. This approach allows for the commemoration (if not outright celebration) of the Confederate cause without regard to the intent of the framers of the CSA's constitution. This approach effaces, if not completely disregards in a few cases, what the framers of the CSA's constitution themselves emphasized: human slavery as the foundation of its political economy, social organization, and cultural values. In its statement of secession, the state of Mississippi put it this way <<LINK (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp)>>.Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
The CSA's provisional constitution of 8 February 1861 <<LINK (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csapro.asp)>> made specific mention of slavery in Articles I and IV:ARTICLE I.[...]
Sec. 7. (1) The importation of African negroes from any foreign country other than the slave-holding States of the United States, is hereby forbidden; and Congress are required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
(2) The Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of this Confederacy.
[....]
ARTICLE IV.
[....]
(3) A slave in one State escaping to another, shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom said slave may belong by the executive authority of the State in which such slave shall be found, and in case of any abduction or forcible rescue, full compensation, including the value of the slave and all costs and expenses, shall be made to the party, by the State in which such abduction or rescue shall take place.
Sec. 3. (1) The Confederacy shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and, on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.
The next month, the CSA put forth a permanent constitution that also offered specific measures IRT human slavery.
In Article I, "three fifths of all slaves" was codified as one of the metrics for determining representation in the CSA's house of representatives. Section 9 of that same article stated the following.
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
(3) The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
(5) No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.
Article IV also included provisions about human slavery.
ARTICLE IV
Section I. (I) Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
(2) A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.
Sec. 3. (I) Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.
(2) The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make allneedful rules and regulations concerning the property of the Confederate States, including the lands thereof.
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
(4) The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature or of the Executive when the Legislature is not in session) against domestic violence.
Members of the CSA's armed forces took the following oath <<SOURCE (http://scv-camp130.org/oaths.htm)>>.I, ........., do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Confederate States of America and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or oppressors whomsoever; and that I
will observe and obey the orders of the President of the Confederate States
and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and Articles of War.The president of the CSA took the following oath.I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the Confederate States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution thereof.
That is, members of the CSA's armed forces took oaths to follow the orders of a president who took an oath to defend a constitution that codified human slavery.
IMO, using two different standards in assessing documents at the foundation of a political philosophy is not intellectually sustainable. If "original intent" can be gleaned from the U.S. Constitution and must be the base for all subsequent conversations about American history, politics, society, culture, and law, then the same standard must be used for the CSA's constitution. If one allows for a piecemeal approach to the latter, then one also allows for a piecemeal approach to the former.
The AVALON PROJECT of Yale University has an archive of the CSA's documents available here. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp)
Old Dog New Trick
06-29-2015, 14:51
I'm all for fighting under the flag that represents the ideas and principles that make the most sense.
The idea to fight for which makes the most sense is currently embodied by many other like minded individuals and the U.S. flag.
I'd be surprised if the South's goals and intent didn't figure into Lee's service decision before the Civil War.
1) if you a German in 1936 you'd have made a great contribution to the Nazi party. They thought so.
2) that's an infinitesimally small number by current numbers - less than 1% of the U.S. population do/think so.
3) I don't follow your logic? Lee wasn't for the war, or secession, or slavery, and wasn't from the "South." He chose to fight for his home state of Virginia and to side with the South against "perceived" tyranny. Being a West Point'er and having served with distinction for 32 years in the U.S. Army probably gave him tremendous insight into his choice to pick a side that we can now debate as history is already told. A great question would be why did he choose the South?
Golf1echo
06-29-2015, 14:52
I'm all for fighting under the flag that represents the ideas and principles that make the most sense.
The idea to fight for which makes the most sense is currently embodied by many other like minded individuals and the U.S. flag.
I'd be surprised if the South's goals and intent didn't figure into Lee's service decision before the Civil War.
Hows that working out up there?
Old Dog New Trick
06-29-2015, 15:03
Members of this BB insist that the United States Constitution is the best single source for determining the "original intent" of its framers. Members of this BB insist that from this "original intent" one can confidently discern the framers' POVs on matters of public and national security policy. For many members of this BB, this "as written" approach to the U.S. Constitution is required for contemporaneous policy preferences to have legitimacy. Many members of this BB take a similar approach to in assessing Islam. Within this framework, the mission of all Muslims, regardless of time, place, or other circumstances, is establishing a global caliphate.
However, some members of this BB are using a different standard in this thread. This different standard allows for a piecemeal approach to the CSA's constitution. This approach allows for the commemoration (if not outright celebration) of the Confederate cause without regard to the intent of the framers of the CSA's constitution. This approach effaces, if not completely disregards in a few cases, what the framers of the CSA's constitution themselves emphasized: human slavery as the foundation of its political economy, social organization, and cultural values. In its statement of secession, the state of Mississippi put it this way <<LINK (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp)>>.
The CSA's provisional constitution of 8 February 1861 <<LINK (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csapro.asp)>> made specific mention of slavery in Articles I and IV:
The next month, the CSA put forth a permanent constitution that also offered specific measures IRT human slavery.
In Article I, "three fifths of all slaves" was codified as one of the metrics for determining representation in the CSA's house of representatives. Section 9 of that same article stated the following.
Article IV also included provisions about human slavery.
Members of the CSA's armed forces took the following oath <<SOURCE (http://scv-camp130.org/oaths.htm)>>.The president of the CSA took the following oath.
That is, members of the CSA's armed forces took oaths to follow the orders of a president who took an oath to defend a constitution that codified human slavery.
IMO, using two different standards in assessing documents at the foundation of a political philosophy is not intellectually sustainable. If "original intent" can be gleaned from the U.S. Constitution and must be the base for all subsequent conversations about American history, politics, society, culture, and law, then the same standard must be used for the CSA's constitution. If one allows for a piecemeal approach to the latter, then one also allows for a piecemeal approach to the former.
The AVALON PROJECT of Yale University has an archive of the CSA's documents available here. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp)
Exactly why we have the 13th and subsequent Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Should our framers' and those elected officials have stopped? Because it's evident that the founders hadn't thought of everything...
As a life-long resident of the South (except military service) I have sat on the sidelines of the debate here on this thread. I will change no one's mind and no one here has anything eye-opening that will change mine. I will say this: without a doubt, the Northeast is exponentially more racist and segregated. I've know this since a couple of visits to South Boston in the fall of '74 and a recent New Year's trip to NYC.
My Catholic school was opened to ALL Catholic children as early as 1961, in my personal experience. Most of my coworkers are black and we attend each other's weddings, funerals and birthday parties. On certain issues such as the POTUS, we agree to disagree.
People here talk about values they'd defend, but it's odd to me that the "Mayberry" values that are left in this country seem to primarily exist in the Deep South. They are certainly not widespread in the Cleveland OHio area, which I visited in the fall or San Francisco, which I visited in March. And Chicago..... Heyjackass.com
Y'all have fun with this debate.
Golf1echo
06-29-2015, 16:30
In Chicago? Terribly.
In the rest of the state? Pretty well, though we're getting more and more fed up.
I missed the part where I said that I'm unwilling to move. If Lee could move his whole allegiance in a war, I can drive a U-haul to another state. ;)
We both moved out from the flags below, I like the first one! I didn't realize flags and symbols evolved so much. Below is the story of the Illinois Seal ( Flag ) and it's context involved the Civil War as well:
http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/seals/il_seal.htm
I do see both sides to this 'argument' to a point but think we are mixing 'rights'.
The individuals right to free speech should be protected unto death...wear what you like, display what you like.
The Govt., however, is not an individual...it represents all of us and should show restraint and good sense with the 'speech' it presents.
When a symbol is displayed upon Govt. ground (State/Fed) it is Govt. speech and as such, should represent all of us.
I believe the Confederate BF to be contentious to a good many citizens of South Carolina.
Does that Govt. show good common sense and is it representative of all when it makes that 'speech'? I think it does not.
Display of that BF at appropriate memorials or historical sites is legitimate Govt. speech outlining it's history.
Old Dog New Trick
06-29-2015, 17:33
I read that the current dean of the National Cathedral in D.C. want to remove two Confederate flags and would presume Gen. Lee, and Gen. Stonewall Jackson's, images from the stained glass windows. I mean sure they haven't always been there, in fact they are kind of new (circa 1953.) So, if we are going to "eradicate" the history of the Civil War and right all previous wrongs...anyone here think it's a good idea to bulldoze-
Arlington Cemetery?(*)
Just think of all the injustice being buried on Confederate soil and the property of one, Robert E. Lee, General and Commander of the Confederate Armies.
(*) After exhuming all the non-Confederate soldiers of course.
Just stirring the pot boss, nothing a few ruffled feathers won't cure.
Old Dog New Trick
06-29-2015, 17:37
I do see both sides to this 'argument' to a point but think we are mixing 'rights'.
The individuals right to free speech should be protected unto death...wear what you like, display what you like.
The Govt., however, is not an individual...it represents all of us and should show restraint and good sense with the 'speech' it presents.
When a symbol is displayed upon Govt. ground (State/Fed) it is Govt. speech and as such, should represent all of us.
I believe the Confederate BF to be contentious to a good many citizens of South Carolina.
Does that Govt. show good common sense and is it representative of all when it makes that 'speech'? I think it does not.
Display of that BF at appropriate memorials or historical sites is legitimate Govt. speech outlining it's history.
Absolutely agreed.
So they need to change the law and either remove the flag or lower the flag and place it in/on the memorial in a case, or petition to remove that piece of property from the State grounds.
I'm just upset with PCness that swept the country. Even NASCAR jumped the band wagon and without Southern moonshine runners there wouldn't be NASCAR!
I read that the current dean of the National Cathedral in D.C. want to remove two Confederate flags and would presume Gen. Lee, and Gen. Stonewall Jackson's, images from the stained glass windows. I mean sure they haven't always been there, in fact they are kind of new (circa 1953.) So, if we are going to "eradicate" the history of the Civil War and right all previous wrongs...anyone here think it's a good idea to bulldoze-
Arlington Cemetery?(*)
Just think of all the injustice being buried on Confederate soil and the property of one, Robert E. Lee, General and Commander of the Confederate Armies.
(*) After exhuming all the non-Confederate soldiers of course.
Just stirring the pot boss, nothing a few ruffled feathers won't cure.
Now that would be stupid....and, are any of us surprised by over reach or stupid...
While I would of fought the South to my last breath I find Lee a damn fine General (except at Gettysburg thank God) and an honorable man.
His insistence that the South lay down it's arms and not conduct 'G' warfare is enough to elevate him to some day of honor on our calendar.
Exhuming Confederate dead would have no payoff, they were too skinny for fertilizer....how's that for pot stirring!
Old Dog...fyi...I know you have Confederate ancestors and none of this is directed at them....I doubt most 'soldiers' read or actually knew what their State/Confederation Constitution enumerated...they just felt what they did was right.
Old Dog New Trick
06-29-2015, 17:57
PRB-
That's just been my point. Stupid is as stupid does...
This whole exercise has been stuck on stupid since they equated one 21y/o white supremacist with selfie of himself and the knee jerk reaction of politicians.
I really don't care if a business does or doesn't want to sell, make, or promote any item they find goes against their ideas. There are or should be a business that will.
It's not about the flag for me it's just about the "stupid!"
Far as I know, no, my families came from Germany mid 1930s (backstory in there) and Portugal around the 1900s and moved west. Don't have no dog in this Civil War fight. I'm a product of the sixties (1960's.) :D
PRB-
That's just been my point. Stupid is as stupid does...
This whole exercise has been stuck on stupid since they equated one 21y/o white supremacist with selfie of himself and the knee jerk reaction of politicians.
I really don't care if a business does or doesn't want to sell, make, or promote any item they find goes against their ideas. There are or should be a business that will.
It's not about the flag for me it's just about the "stupid!"
Far as I know, no, my families came from Germany mid 1930s (backstory in there) and Portugal around the 1900s and moved west. Don't have no dog in this Civil War fight. I'm a product of the sixties (1960's.) :D
Well, adopt a Confederate grave :)
My family got here in 1719 (cousin David did the footwork) but the family farm in Michigan that my Uncle Howdy still lives on was built in 1850. He and his wife occupy that house and I've spent many a summer there as a kid.
Uncle Harold took me to Burr Oak Cemetery as a kid and showed me graves of my direct relatives that were killed at Pittsburg Landing (Shiloh). I've another buried at Gettysburg with the Michigan rgmt. Mary and I visited his grave on our battlefield tour...they did put the names on small blocks in regimental formation.
I had relatives from my paternal side die in both Camp Douglas and Andersonville. It was a bad time in America but it cannot be erased.
They had a rally here around the Confederate flag, oh, there were several black men there with their white brothers (on the same side). Not one protester against the flag.
The Reaper
06-29-2015, 18:50
Some of these flags have been in those places for years.
Where were all of these politicians while this was going on, and what has changed suddenly?
One murderous asshole with a selfie?
And I doubt that very many of those Confederate soldiers joined to support slavery. Units were generally raised in small multi-county areas from the people living there, and the biggest push seems to me to have been the claim that Federal troops invaded the Confederacy to try and force them to remain in the Union. North Carolina refused to secede until the Federal government attempted to levy troops from NC to put down the rebellion in the surrounding states. Just as in the U.S. military, while in uniform, you serve the elected leadership appointed over you, whether you agree with their agendas or not.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
They had a rally here around the Confederate flag, oh, there were several black men there with their white brothers (on the same side). Not one protester against the flag.The logic of this position doesn't make sense to me.
Shall American civilians conclude that they should not have a problem with John Kerry's conduct upon his return from the Vietnam War because other veterans didn't/don't mind?
Sigaba,
Today it is the Stars and Bars, what will it be tomorrow? Slavery began long before the Civil War, so how far do you takes this?
Do you you remove Jefferson and Washington from Mount Rushmore? Ben Franklin owned slaves do we erase him from history books? What should be done with the 7 month old Col. Jameson Boulevard in Culpepper, VA, named after Col John Jameson who according to the Star Exponent owned 72 slaves, and whos Uncle David who was Lt. Governor of VA was slave merchant?
Should Sons of Confederate Veterans, United Daughters of the Confederacy, Daughters of the American Revolution and Sons of the American Revolution be disbanded?
Sigaba,
Today it is the Stars and Bars, what will it be tomorrow? Slavery began long before the Civil War, so how far do you takes this?
Do you you remove Jefferson and Washington from Mount Rushmore? Ben Franklin owned slaves do we erase him from history books? What should be done with the 7 month old Col. Jameson Boulevard in Culpepper, VA, named after Col John Jameson who according to the Star Exponent owned 72 slaves, and whos Uncle David who was Lt. Governor of VA was slave merchant?
Should Sons of Confederate Veterans, United Daughters of the Confederacy, Daughters of the American Revolution and Sons of the American Revolution be disbanded?
I think you are losing your focus as are many libs.....the issue was removing the BF from a State Capitol grounds....all of the other 'add ons' are just that...purposely inflamitory.....you can ignore or add on yourself.
The logic of this position doesn't make sense to me.
Shall American civilians conclude that they should not have a problem with John Kerry's conduct upon his return from the Vietnam War because other veterans didn't/don't mind?
Reference logic, you are not living in the South (and I don't know if you have every lived here) so it appears that if it isn't written in your text books it must not be true. Years ago I had black friends that rode bulls on the rodeo circuit, real cowboys from the South. Is that redneck enough for you?
Reference Kerry, Bozo Kerry? Why the he'll did you bring him up? He has nothing to do with this and he is loosing the negotiations. :confused:
Peregrino
06-29-2015, 21:05
The Confederate Battle Flag in question is flying over a Confederate Memorial on the capitol grounds. Not the same as when it was flying from the capitol dome. Would you deny a Confederate flag flying over Confederate graves in one of the Confederate cemeteries? Those are memorials too, and they are usually state property as well.
Reference logic, you are not living in the South (and I don't know if you have every lived here) so it appears that if it isn't written in your text books it must not be true. Years ago I had black friends that rode bulls on the rodeo circuit, real cowboys from the South. Is that redneck enough for you?
My old man's family is from the south. They never spoke of what they left behind, but I saw the shadow of the past upon their hearts on a road trip to a church convention in the 1970s. An evangelist strong in the Lord, utterly fearless in the hard places of Oakland reduced to hands shaking, body trembling. The trigger was a young waitress throwing shade at her and whispering something to a colleague. A year or so later, on a road trip to another convention, that same evangelist and her minister husband lit the I-10 on fire to get through the south.
A bit later, towards the end of that decade, my old man made what would be his one return trip to the south. Days before his departure, he sat and looked westward at the Pacific Ocean. He said to me, "I hate the South." It was the only time I ever heard him use that word.
Ten years later, as a collegian, a mentor told me of how one of his mentors, an admiral, had recently driven across the South. The officer made it clear that he'd not worn his uniform at all during his journey; he was certain of what would would have happened to him had he done so.
So while you know blacks who had no apparent issues with their southern heritage, others have had different experiences. Where do the individual currents of the past join to become our history as a nation? Which collection of experiences should frame the narrative?
IRT textbooks, FWIW, Paul D. Escott's The Confederacy: The Slaveholders' Failed Venture (2009) is one of those rare works that elegantly balances narrative richness with historiographical nuance.
YMMV.
Old Dog New Trick
06-29-2015, 21:58
Sigaba-
It sounds like the stories you've heard have jaded you. That has not been my experience living in the south in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. All at different times and places from GA, SC, and NC. I've traveled many miles on a motorcycle from the beaches to the mountains of TN, and pine forests in between. Southern hospitality and an acceptance of strangers I've not seen in many places elsewhere. Well except my home state of Oregon.
My experience is along the lines of Mayberry RFD and Barney Fife was off duty. Would you like some ice tea. Not saying there aren't people 'round them parts that have the minimum qualifications to be a colonial soldier and remind me of the movie "Deliverance" but even those people didn't scare me. Never heard the banjo.
I like southern people- black and white.
...They...
YMMV.
Sigaba,
As I stated
...so it appears that if it isn't written in your text books it must not be true.
My challenge to you is go experience it for yourself. Do not live your life from others' lives. I have been in many places of the world and honestly can say FIRST HAND that there is much less discrimination here in the South than in other places.
Get off of your academic Ivory Tower and out of California and live the US, not just see it or listen to the jaded tales of others. Don’t just look for the evil in man, as that is all that you will see, but look for the compassion in man and you will be shocked.
Streck-Fu
06-30-2015, 05:30
My old man's family is from the south. They never spoke of what they left behind, but I saw the shadow of the past upon their hearts on a road trip to a church convention in the 1970s. An evangelist strong in the Lord, utterly fearless in the hard places of Oakland reduced to hands shaking, body trembling. The trigger was a young waitress throwing shade at her and whispering something to a colleague. A year or so later, on a road trip to another convention, that same evangelist and her minister husband lit the I-10 on fire to get through the south.
A bit later, towards the end of that decade, my old man made what would be his one return trip to the south. Days before his departure, he sat and looked westward at the Pacific Ocean. He said to me, "I hate the South." It was the only time I ever heard him use that word.
Ten years later, as a collegian, a mentor told me of how one of his mentors, an admiral, had recently driven across the South. The officer made it clear that he'd not worn his uniform at all during his journey; he was certain of what would would have happened to him had he done so.
After living in several Southern locations and traveled through most others, this reads terribly like a novel that a northerner would write if their only knowledge of the South came from books filled with stereotypes.....More likely it based on 60 or more year old second and third hand accounts.
It strikes me as similar to claiming to hate Japan based on information from the 30s....
Sigaba,
Get off of your academic Ivory Tower and out of California and live the US, not just see it or listen to the jaded tales of others. .
"That learning, which thou gettest by thy own observation and experience, is
far beyond that which thou gettest by precept; as the knowledge of a
traveler exceeds that which is got by reading." - Thomas ą Kempis
The confederate flag is an easy target.
Why is it that after some lone child does something stupid that all the rest of us people that share the same skin color have to give something up?
The liberals want us to accept the muslims because they all know one and he's good so they all must be good. I guess since there is a mal-adjusted, medicated youth that is a racist, then all the rest of us are racists too.
Fuck that kid. Fry his ass.
In the meantime, there are two flags on his jacket pictured here (http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Davidson-Dylann-Roof-and-a-Night-of-Hate-in-Charleston-1200.jpg), why are we not chasing down whatever that stands for and legislating it out of existence?
Furthermore, it is unfair to generalize the rest of white people due to this idiots actions. He obviously wasn't a patriot, was quite clearly a rebel, how many real Americans could do this? (http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2015/news/150629/dylann-roof-site-800.jpg)
There is no logic for this confederate flag bullshit. In the south (Georgia, Alabama, SC, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana) there are schools that have the confederate colors in their mascots, people hang them from the windows of their homes, fly them from the antennas of their trucks, tattoo them on their bodies. There is no preponderance of white on black hate crime resulting from this. Its a part of the history of this place.
So why attack the confederate flag? What is the REAL reason?
Old Dog New Trick
06-30-2015, 08:03
So why attack the confederate flag? What is the REAL reason?
Momentum and the popularity of the issues today. There is an election coming soon. Time is running out; only 18-months remaining for DOTUS to continue making a race war a topic of the 24-hour news cycle. Every politician should embrace his "white guilt" and show the world that taking down the symbols of division will somehow erase the history of the past.
Charleston isn't and didn't turn out to be Ferguson, Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, or Travon Martin. As soon as the spin-doctors realized that white people and black people in the South came together to remember, pay respect and share in grief, and that there wasn't one "Black Lives Matter" sign in the crowd, they had to place blame on something other than the shooter.
It wasn't even an issue until the little shit stain posed for a selfie with his vanity plate and a 2"x3" Southern Cross flag. Doesn't matter that he wore flags of Apartheid and Rhodesia. They may just have well been "Rainbow" flags to the unenlightened. It was the ANV/CBF that sparked the spin-doctors to take action.
A beer summit, wasn't going to wash this away!
Old Dog New Trick
06-30-2015, 08:19
Even the race baiter DeWayne Wickham - columnist and professor - for USA Today can somehow tie together what happened in Charleston to police matters in other places.
Check out this article from USA TODAY:
Wickham: Charleston legacy fleeting unless police discrimination ends
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/29/pinckney-eulogy-black-police-killings-column/29426809/
How these events are connected only the media knows!
The confederate flag is an easy target. <snip> So why attack the confederate flag?
In a nutshell, the BF of the ANV is an easy target ‘today’ because of its 150 year history of being used for and seen as a symbol of:
The military "arm" of the CSA’s failed “cause” for which it waged war against the USA.
The various white supremacy movements which sought to deny large segments of this nation their "natural" and constitutional rights through unlawful intimidation, fear, murder, rape, and plunder to restore what those movements viewed as “the natural order”.
Jim Crow and the Black Codes, the nefarious ‘legal’ machinations which virtually kept large segments of American citizens socially, economically, politically, and educationally deprived and marginalized for generations.
The anti-Civil Rights movement and continued segregation.
The spuriously facile claims that such a symbol merely represents "heritage" and not "hate".
IMO that is quite a symbolic "heritage" to try and justify flying above any governmental agency today in a nation representing the antithesis of such a symbol.
Richard
Perhaps a list of the good and unfortunate things that it represents should be compiled, then go from there.
(Being a Yankee and not having grown up with it, I wouldn't be qualified to list all of the good.)
That is a good question, outside of its original intent as the battle flag of the confederacy, I can't really offer much myself.
However, if that flags symbology (symbolism? Damn it Boondock Saints!) can be used to quantify its current position, could we not do the same to the US flag?
How many injustices have been done to people in other countries in the name of spreading democracy and peace? Should we take it down too, I'm sure the mooslems would be happy about that. They can't stand what it represents.
That flag is a symbol, meaning many things to many people. Some good, some bad. There is no slavery here today, there are no slave owners today. I don't want to see yet another piece of the history that made us removed in order to quiet screams of "racism and slavery" from the mouths of people who have never been a slave.
I'm already supposed to feel bad that I'm white, that I'm not fat, that I'm not a woman, that I'm not gay, that I'm not a liberal, that I have a job etc... I'm tired of people pointing to 80 years ago and demanding my hard earned life be punished as recompense.
I also fear that if that flag comes down, it will be soon replaced with a rainbow flag... but I guess I'm supposed to feel bad about that too.
IMO that is quite a symbolic "heritage" to try and justify flying above any governmental agency today in a nation representing the antithesis of such a symbol.
Thank you for taking the time to respond Richard. I can't dispute the validity of any of your bullet points.
None of those things are the cause of this sudden urge to remove it. If your points are enough to justify removing it today, why haven't they been used to remove it before today?
This tells me its just more political nonsense.
During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877, federal law provided civil rights protection in the U.S. South for freedmen, the African Americans who had formerly been slaves, and former free blacks. In the 1870s, Democrats gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures, having used insurgent paramilitary groups, such as the White League and Red Shirts, to disrupt Republican organizing, run Republican officeholders out of town, and intimidate blacks to suppress their voting. Extensive voter fraud was also used. Gubernatorial elections were close and had been disputed in Louisiana for years, with increasing violence against blacks during campaigns from 1868 onward. In 1877, a national Democratic Party compromise to gain Southern support in the presidential election resulted in the government's withdrawing the last of the federal troops from the South. White Democrats had regained political power in every Southern state.[3] These Southern, white, Democratic Redeemer governments legislated Jim Crow laws, officially segregating black people from the white population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws#Origins_of_Jim_Crow_laws
If I may, it appears to me that the anti civil rights legislation, and the Jim Crow laws were passed under the United States flag, not the confederate flag. How come no one is petitioning to remove it too?
Forgive me if my posts in this thread sound anti-US flag. I am absolutely NOT. Nor am I necessarily pro-CF. I just want to see a spade called a spade and this is not what it looks like at all.
Momentum and the popularity of the issues today. There is an election coming soon. Time is running out; only 18-months remaining for DOTUS to continue making a race war a topic of the 24-hour news cycle. Every politician should embrace his "white guilt" and show the world that taking down the symbols of division will somehow erase the history of the past.
Bingo.
Even the race baiter DeWayne Wickham - columnist and professor - for USA Today can somehow tie together what happened in Charleston to police matters in other places.
Check out this article from USA TODAY:
Wickham: Charleston legacy fleeting unless police discrimination ends
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/29/pinckney-eulogy-black-police-killings-column/29426809/
How these events are connected only the media knows!
lol - that was a big leap. I especially liked his reference to Obama's words: "For too long, we've been blind to the way past injustices continue to shape the present."
Hmm. How many decades will it be before we are allowed to close the book on what previous generations did (legally I may add).
Trapper John
06-30-2015, 09:15
Reference Kerry, Bozo Kerry? ........... he is loosing the negotiations. :confused:
The French are holding the line for him.....Ooops! wrong thread. :D
Trapper John
06-30-2015, 09:19
Don’t just look for the evil in man, as that is all that you will see, but look for the compassion in man and you will be shocked.
:lifter I am stealing that but I will give credit to you.
Old Dog New Trick
06-30-2015, 09:37
I suppose the argument could be made that any of the early American flags from those bearing St. George's Cross (seen as repressive in England) to Gadsden's "Don't Tread on Me" (American Superiority) to any of the Stars and Stripes flags, could be interpreted as the birth of an unlawful and rebellious nation. A nation that has conquered and tried to eradicate the indigenous people. And used slavey as an industrial tool for growth.
Some flags of the Colonial era would not survive the 20th century without 1st Amendment protections because of their religious overtones and it's those same 1st Amendment protections that keep "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance alive today.
This country is founded on principles that have questionable relevance to today's standards of decency yet, we celebrate them with vigor, acceptance and patriotism every year.
What if, someone or some group today found and took issue with George Washington's 'Pine Tree Flag' and declared it and it's motto "An Appeal to God" (An Appeal to Heaven) to be inconsistent with Separation of Church and State? Should we remove any such flag from the Naval Academy or Washington's Library?
What about that other "Pine Tree" flag: you know the one that represents "Pineland?" :munchin
None of those things are the cause of this sudden urge to remove it. If your points are enough to justify removing it today, why haven't they been used to remove it before today?
This tells me its just more political nonsense.
I think you missed the link in post #58 of this thread. As to some of the other remnants of the CSA's flags and their use by several states, just do a search and review the on-going struggles over them. It isn't new or recent - it only appears so because it is now a news lead...once again.
And inre to post #205 - those flags have been retired to the annals of history - where they rightfully belong, as does the BF of the ANV.
Richard
The military "arm" of the CSA’s failed “cause” for which it waged war against the USA.
Agree with all your bullets except the first one, which is one reason why removing the flag from battlegrounds and monuments (the next logical step according to political correctness) is rewriting history. It was not an "arm" but instead an official Army, drafted and formed by governments who had signed a Constitution. As for the "cause," yes Slavery was the institution that highlighted all the Southern grievances with the North, specifically that the South was losing the battle of demographics and likely would have no say in future Presidential elections, opening the door for a Northern stranglehold on the Executive Branch. Of course, it is never that simple when assigning retroactive motives to hundreds of thousands of soldiers who fought a prolonged, bloody war.
We are now applying moral relativism to the Civil War era, something that history has no place for. Oh the irony of the publicly stated desire to exhume Nathaniel Bedford Forrest in Memphis, the city to which he rode to intercept Fielding Hurst and stop the war crimes being committed there. He was successful in chasing Hurst to Nashville before Hurst resigned. He was, to a generation, the best soldier in the country and the savior of Memphis. Hence the monument. Sherman stated in the 1870s that it would have been "an honor" to fight alongside Forrest if the US went to war with Spain. But in the late 1800s Forrest failed to see the world through a late 1900s lens, so...
As for the hate associated with the Southern Cross, you're absolutely right and that is on Southerners to accept responsibility for and either eradicate it or live with the fact that it will forever be associated with the flag in popular opinion. Charlie Daniels may be right (http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/charlie-daniels/charlie-daniels-confederate-flag-restraint-and-common-sense), but if the peaceful majority remains silent and acquiescent to an extremist minority who co-opts the same symbols or doctrine as the majority, the majority will suffer in the end (*cough* Islamic Extremism *cough*).
Old Dog New Trick
06-30-2015, 11:30
. Deleted .
We are now applying moral relativism to the Civil War era[....]From a historiographical and historical perspective, this statement is not supportable. The "moral relativism" of which you speak was applied by various groups of Americans beginning in the 1830s and well into the mid-twentieth century.
Please look again at post #166 (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=586584&postcount=166) in which the state of Mississippi made a historical argument about the positive role slavery played in the progress of civilization. To argue that such a position does not reflect a very high degree of moral relativism requires one to ignore deliberately the millions of Americans alive at that time who questioned the morality of slavery.
I understand both of your points, but moral relativism across time (between today and the past) and moral relativism across space (between two places at the same time) are not one and the same. The latter is generally acceptable historiographically, albeit with its own problems, whereas the former is a slippery, slippery slope. There is a difference between "learning from history" and rewriting it. Also, my argument has always been about the soldiers who fought this war, not the politicians who oversaw it. I take issue with removing the Battle Flag from battlefields, museums, and monuments, not political places of (dis)honor. If the government tried to remove it from front porches in America, well that would become an entirely different debate.
Let us not forget that New York exhibited an African man in its zoo as late as 1906. The State of Mississippi's formal thoughts on slavery and white supremacy in 1861 are not the outlier, rather the abolitionists of the day are who we should see as pioneers. The Virginian George Mason spoke against slavery in the late 1700s. This doesn't make other Founders bigots or failures, it just makes George Mason all the more impressive as political philosopher and Civil Rights advocate. The few Union soldiers who may have fought the war to end slavery are true visionaries. The few pockets of Civil Rights advocates that began popping up in the 1830s in both South and North were also. Once could make the case that Virginia, coming within a Governor's vote of ending slavery on its own before Lincoln was ever elected, was truly ahead of its time considering the "normal" political climate of States in the South and the economic repercussions of what it was trying to do.
This is also why solid critiques of Lincoln's Presidency focus on Constitutional power in the Executive Branch and not his 180-degree about face on slavery midway through the war. No moral authority of the day would hold anyone to an abolitionist standard, case in point the Pope, who wrote Jeff Davis a letter of support after hostilities began. Lincoln's pre-1863 opinions, which are well documented, were much in accord with Mississippi's and what one would expect from your average political candidate. Please see Lincoln's 1858 debates, specifically his opening to the 4th debate (http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate4.htm) (which elicited laughter from the crowd when he mentioned racial equality and applause when he dismissed interracial marriage) to see my point. To apply moral relativism across time to those views is an exercise in futility. To apply moral relativism across space reveals that Lincoln was in line with many, many others.
Streck-Fu
07-01-2015, 07:42
Excellent post.
If you can ban a flag, then it seems to me that you should ban the political party that stood under it:
Whitewashing the Democratic Party’s History
The less racist the South gets, the more Republican it becomes.
By Mona Charen — June 26, 2015
Ban the Democrat Party!
Pat
Mark Levin, on his talk show, just called for banning the name Democrat Party. ;)
Pat
A member of this BB shared this piece with me back when it was first published. It might be of interest to some now.
While I don't agree with every point, I think the piece provides a good overview of how history, historiography, contemporaneous politics, and mass popular culture have intertwined IRT the American Civil War and Reconstruction.
A member of this BB shared this piece with me back when it was first published. It might be of interest to some now.
While I don't agree with every point, I think the piece provides a good overview of how history, historiography, contemporaneous politics, and mass popular culture have intertwined IRT the American Civil War and Reconstruction.
Thanks for sharing. However, this essay demonstrates exactly what I've been trying to emphasize - that we fail to view things in context. It starts off with the assertion that Lincoln stated "[o]ne section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute." Yes, he said that in the 27th paragraph of his 1861 Inaugural Address and the "extension" he is referring to is Westward expansion and the ongoing debate on whether new States would be slave States or not (something Lincoln took an adamant stance on in his Senatorial Debates). This quote came in his address after Lincoln spent dozens of paragraphs reassuring Southerners that the North would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, not try to affect Slavery in the existing South, and most importantly, respect States' Rights.
In the 1st paragraph after the mandatory "all procedures remain in effect" section of his inauguration, he starts immediately (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html) with "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." (emphasis added)
Are we now going to claim that an Army of mostly poor, non-slave owners fought the bloodiest war in our history to ensure that future, yet-to-exist States would be slave States?
Dishonest renditions of previous events/statements only serve the narrative that the government hopes takes hold - that the most formidable military resistance to perceived tyranny in the history of this nation was just a racist, morally reprehensible, misguided enterprise for white supremacy and any future endeavor to the same effect can now be branded the same. I've already admitted that the South was racist by modern standards, but only ask that modern minds realize that so too was the North and every other country during the 'Age of Imperialism.' There is no excuse for extremist organizations' adoption of the Battle Flag, but that does not change the meaning of the flag on historical grounds.
You'd think a former editor for Time, who picked Hitler as the 1938 Man of the Year, would appreciate context when discussing history. He also claims James McPherson's (North Dakota) Battle Cry of Freedom is considered the "authoritative one-volume history of the war." He chose "one-volume" for a reason - most serious historians consider Shelby Foote's (Mississippi) anthology to be the seminal work on the Civil War, hands down. Von Drehle highlights pre-war Missouri abolitionists but skips the part where Lincoln fired his leadership in Missouri for freeing slaves there, because that was not the goal.
Most egregiously, Von Drehle glosses over McClellan's assertion that war was not over the "negro question" by applying modern perspective and telling us what McClellan "failed to realize" the entire time he was the highest ranking Officer in the Union Army (right up until the moment the Emancipation Proclamation was issued to shift the narrative). It is a very bold claim to say that a multi-year wartime Commander of any armed force failed to realize what their war was about.
When almost every high ranking Union and Confederate Officer claims that they were not fighting to end or maintain slavery, regardless of what the politicians said at the time, how can we 150 years later claim that those soldiers didn't know what they were talking about? McClellan, Grant, Sherman, Lee, Johnston, Taylor, Lee Jr., Stuart, Alexander...the list goes on for notable military leaders who claimed slavery had nothing to do with why they wore their uniforms and fought for 4 bloody years. The current debate is about the Battle Flag, military monuments, and National Parks, and it is only the tip of the iceberg on the debate about how acceptable it is in our society to challenge the government.
Yes, slavery "caused" the war because it exacerbated every grievance the South had with the North. But this is about whether the spirit of the Declaration is still alive in Americans' minds, or if resistance is indeed futile lest you be branded a racist traitor. Rewriting history and applying moral relativism to the Civil War era is a slippery slope that will only end with political correctness winning and free thought and free speech losing.
I've already admitted that the South was racist by modern standards, but only ask that modern minds realize that so too was the North and every other country during the 'Age of Imperialism.' There is no excuse for extremist organizations' adoption of the Battle Flag, but that does not change the meaning of the flag on historical grounds.I noticed that you started writing your reply to my previous post before downloading and reading the attachment.
IMO, it may be accurate to say that you would prefer a focus on different contexts, I don't think it is sustainable to say that the essay fails address contexts. By my reading, the second half of the essay explores different interpretative contexts.
I think your continued defense of the Confederate cause is off the mark given the practice of despotism in the South. As noted above, the Confederate constitution gave the state broad powers to preserve the established order, not the least of which was a three-fifths clause for determining congressional representation. How do you square the systematic disenfranchisement of a large percentage of a population as anything but morally reprehensible? MOO, the North was racist too argument as you present it is increasingly noteworthy because it does not take into account the contemporaneous (held during the nineteenth century) views held by the millions of Americans who lived and labored in the American south involuntarily. You decry today's "moral relativism." Yet what defines your disregard for the view of millions of Americans who opposed the ideology that justified their enslavement? Why do they not factor into your assessment of how racism was viewed in antebellum America? Are you saying that they were not qualified to judge the morality of a system they lived, labored,
Additionally your comments about what is and is not historiographically sustainable do not square with your practice of negating the essence of historical study--change over time. You appear to want to freeze Lincoln in a moment and define his subsequent leadership from that vantage point. You do the same with the Union army and the north as a whole. You take a similar approach, albeit with a different interpretation, of the Confederates (but not all Southerners).
However, the study of history is the study of change over time, not the negation of it. What does an examination of the Confederate's position over time tell use about their cause? Did the Confederacy define their war as a conflict against tyranny or for tyranny? IMO, Gov. Zebulon Vance (D-N.C.) made clear his nation's commitment during the debate over arming slaves to fight for the CSA.Under no circumstances would I consent to see them [slaves] armed, which I would regard not only dangerous in the extreme, but as less degrading only than their employment in this capacity by our enemies. . . . This course would, it seems to me, surrender the entire question which has ever seperated the North from the South, would stultify ourselves in the eyes of the world, and render our whole revolution nugatory. . . . Our independence I imagine is chiefly desirable for the preservation of our great political institutions the principal of which, is slavery; and it is only to be won by the blood of white freemen.*
Do you have documentary evidence from Confederate political leaders that supports a different interpretation?
__________________________________________
* Zebulon Vance, Governor's Message, n.d., document number 1, Session 1864-65, North Carolina Executive and Legislative Documents, 1864, 1865, 1866 (Raleigh: n.p., n.d.), page 12, emphasis added.
I don't see how when I clicked 'reply' matters. Either my rebuttal is valid or not. I read the whole article you provided before submitting my post.
Both of you continue to quote politicians despite me being clear that my argument is based only on the soldiers who fought, since the debate is regarding the Southern Cross, a Battle Flag. In my first post on the matter, I said this would be different if the Bonnie Blue was being debated.
At this point, CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens' "cornerstone" speech must be approaching the most quoted item in thread history. For every aristocratic Southern politician who used slavery as an issue to rally support from their fellow politicians, there are two Union and Confederate soldiers who said that had nothing to do with why they fought. I could also provide you quotes from Northerners that would make your claim that "millions" supported abolition seem like a major exaggeration. One would have a hard time proving that millions supported abolition even after the Emancipation Proclamation, much less before the war. New York, to cite one example, responded violently to the prospect that "all men were created equal" could now include blacks. This thread has become a series of "quote someone saying something that makes me sound right" reposté (of which I am admittedly guilty too) with most of the quotes lacking the context I am calling for.
I am not defending the Confederacy; I am glad the Union won and I have ancestors who fought on both sides. I am defending our collective history, the Confederate soldiers who are being slandered (as soldiers I assume we can all empathize with that), and the right to take up arms for something you believe in without it being spun or villainized generations later by your own countrymen despite a plethora of historical documents you left behind explaining clearly why you did what you did. I am using our lack of contextual thinking and increased post-Progressive Era moral relativism to highlight those realities.
We are criminalizing the very concept of "resistance," and the consequences for that are dire. Our nation was founded upon that principle, and thankfully only once has it been put the arbitrament of arms.
bailaviborita
07-08-2015, 07:32
JGC2- great points, but, alas, you may be talking past many of these folks who are arguing with you. The current PC screed is very simplistic and plays well on bumper stickers: Confederacy evil (and by extension- current Republican Party), Union righteous (and by extension- the current Democrat Party).
I have a friend who is very smart- which makes it all the more curious to me when he rails against the evil corporations, Republicans, and religious folk. Outside of his day job he cannot apply the same level of critical thinking to politics- seeing the world as black and white, good and evil- his preferred side, of course, being all good- and everyone else evil.
This line of thinking is, although intellectually lazy, much more comforting. It makes sense of the world and gets away from nasty things like relativity and context. I submit if you've spent more than 10 days out in Pineland- you'd understand that context is everything and applying only one lens to things is a path to failure. Probably why we are struggling as a nation with ISIS, poverty, education, economic development, housing, Russia, --- you name it...
The South Carolina House approved a bill removing the Confederate flag from the Capitol grounds, a stunning reversal in a state that was the first to leave the Union in 1860 and raised the flag again at its Statehouse more than 50 years ago to protest the civil rights movement.
The move early Thursday came after more than 13 hours of passionate and contentious debate, and just weeks after the fatal shootings of nine black church members, including a state senator, at a Bible study in Charleston.
"South Carolina can remove the stain from our lives," said 64-year-old Rep. Joe Neal, a black Democrat first elected in 1992. "I never thought in my lifetime I would see this."
The House easily approved the Senate bill by a two-thirds margin (94-20), and the bill now goes to Republican Gov. Nikki Haley's desk. She supports the measure, which calls for the banner to come down within 24 hours of her signature.
(Cont'd) http://news.yahoo.com/confederate-flags-fate-hands-south-carolina-house-083453016.html#
And so it goes...
Richard
And so it goes...
Richard
Well, they have to make room for the gay pride flag...can only put so many on a flag pole I guess...
Well, they have to make room for the gay pride flag...can only put so many on a flag pole I guess...
Like this one at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv.
Link (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-embassy-in-tel-aviv-raises-gay-pride-flag-and-receives-backlash-of-criticism-from-angry-americans-9532972.html)
Like this one at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv.
Link (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-embassy-in-tel-aviv-raises-gay-pride-flag-and-receives-backlash-of-criticism-from-angry-americans-9532972.html)
That's gay. :D
bailaviborita
07-09-2015, 14:27
Next on the docket: how to re-educate military members to be tolerant of those people who self-identify as vampires: http://www.newsweek.com/real-vampires-exist-and-they-need-counseling-too-351575
The Atlanta Vampire Alliance, a “real”¯ vampire membership group, connected the researchers with 11 adult vampires. The research doesn't dwell on the bloody aspects. Instead, it explains how vampires feel that they cannot open up—or as the researchers write, “come out of the coffin”¯—to social workers. The participants reported feeling that if they disclosed their vampire identities, clinicians would view them as delusional or as a “threat to public safety.”¯ They feared losing their jobs. One person worried that “the state would take my children away.”
The subject is prescient in a time when how one self-identifies is a topic of national conversation—from the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage to Caitlyn Jenner's coming out as a woman and appearing on the cover of Vanity Fair. Williams says his research can apply to others who feel they too must hide how they self-identify. “Any little-understood minority group can be at risk for not being understood [by social workers]. So the same fears that these vampires reported would apply to other minorities
Maybe EO will add this identity to the other protected categories. Of course- maybe if one claimed that one self-identified as a long-dead Confederate Soldier he (or she or it) could claim to need protection for flying the stars and bars at one's cubicle...
I think you are losing your focus as are many libs.....the issue was removing the BF from a State Capitol grounds....all of the other 'add ons' are just that...purposely inflamitory.....you can ignore or add on yourself.
It is purposely inflammatory. The issue has swelled well beyond a mere flag.
Symbols play an important role in who we perceive ourselves to be, in what we profess to believe, in who we choose to hold in esteem and who we choose to hold in disdain, in how others may perceive us.
Richard
Yes it does.
http://patdollard.com/2015/07/female-black-wipes-ass-with-american-flag-posts-it-on-facebook/
Mustang Man
07-11-2015, 03:34
Do these hashtag idiots desecrating the flag even think or worry about the repercussions of posting such pics? Probably not since most of them are likely living off free handouts or stuck working minimum wage jobs at best.
Her personal interests on FB says it all.:mad:
Do these hashtag idiots desecrating the flag even think or worry about the repercussions of posting such pics? Probably not since most of them are likely living off free handouts or stuck working minimum wage jobs at best.
Her personal interests on FB says it all.:mad:
When the lunatics are running the asylum it doesn't matter....to quote the harmless Van Jones "Top Down, Bottom Up, and Inside Out"
Here is some YouTube hashtag coverage....and keep in mind if the uncensored General Lee were in the video it would be pulled in the blink of an eye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhGOZFkxGuI
Coming up.....displaying the Confederate Flag becomes a hate crime, Nathan Bedford Forest and his old lady get dug up and the New Orleans Saints need to change their name.
Has anything really been accomplished? Will Black on Black violence in Chicago see a decrease? Will ISIS cease and desist? Will I wake up tomorrow to a world of peace and love......
FWIW, I filed a report with FB on one of Dollard's posts in which she's desecrating the flag. (She has several.) Initially, FB ruled that the post was within policy. A couple of hours later, they changed their ruling and removed the post.
To be clear, I think people are allowed to say what they want under the First Amendment. However, a privately owned social network has policies that, IMO, should be applied consistently across the board.
Old Dog New Trick
07-12-2015, 22:27
Don't worry they have trashed enough of the Constitution lately that they will be coming after an Amendment you hold dearly too.
The First is currently under attack and they are going after the churches and free speech. Not that I care too much about the greedy religious fanatics but, when the "press" is bought and paid up front and the separation of church and state gets relegated to what the government says it should or should not believe in, I guess it's time to throw in the towel on the other Amendments too.
They can't control the people if they can't control the message. The Second has stood only so strong, but they will come after that shortly in ways we have yet to see.
There is an agenda and we are all becoming "sheepal" to the oligarchs.
I was born far enough north to call people born in Bangor Maine southerners, had no ancient relatives who fought on either side of the Civil War and didn't live in a Dixie Land State until I was 18 - while in the Army.
While in the south I found that for the most part everybody was polite. There were and are exceptions on both sides of any issue. Racists can be found sprinkled through most of society. Some wave the Battle Flag while others can let out their racists view in very subtle ways.
But I also found that many who had Battle Flags did it for Southern Pride kind of thing.
Bringing it up to date.
The Battle Flag issue of the day is a classic example of how the left craves power and when they get it - it brings out their nasty side. I've known some that six months ago wouldn't have given a second thought to sitting down and having a beer with an acquaintance who had a Battle Flag on the back of their T Shirt. Now, all kinds of vitriol is thrown their way.
They now have cover for their actions and they are going to push related issues just as hard as they can.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Team Sergeant
07-13-2015, 14:42
To be clear, I think people are allowed to say what they want under the First Amendment. However, a privately owned social network has policies that, IMO, should be applied consistently across the board.
You're making me laugh out loud...... The only reason a "social" networking website such as FaceBook with thousands of scams, cons, criminal activity, false claims, frauds and posers exists is for one and one reason only, to make money.
There are tens of thousands of criminals on Facebook and nothing will ever be done to stem the tide of crime on that "private" social network, not when there's money involved.
Surely you jest.......
Surely you jest.......
You rang ???
:munchin
You're making me laugh out loud...... The only reason a "social" networking website such as FaceBook with thousands of scams, cons, criminal activity, false claims, frauds and posers exists is for one and one reason only, to make money.
There are tens of thousands of criminals on Facebook and nothing will ever be done to stem the tide of crime on that "private" social network, not when there's money involved.
Surely you jest.......My point was that I had recently gotten some hateful posts about the LGBTQ community. Then, the process went a lot faster. This time, with the way the flag was being desecrated, I wasn't sure if FB would apply a double standard.
GratefulCitizen
08-01-2015, 13:43
A brief article shooting down some notions.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/lincoln_vs_lee_how_history_is_distorted_to_preserv e_legends_.html