So I think I have come full circle on this issue. I understand why, and I sympathize as to why southerners don't think it's an issue. In fact growing up in the south, watching dukes of hazard, and wearing t-shirts with the flag, I never considered it hateful, or even a problem. In fact if you didn't like it, too bad... I still don't consider it hateful, but I do think it's inconsiderate, not as bad as Nazi flag, but almost.
I mean the Nazi flag flown, even for the best intentions(if that were even possible), is still a Nazi flag.
I am the point that the confederate flag not be flown on state or US government property, and belongs in a museum.
If people want to fly it at their homes, that's their right, but take it down from public buildings. It represents too much hurt for minorities, and especially African American descendants of slaves.
It doesn't belong on government building or on any government property in general; it belongs in a museum. I don't care how anyone spins it, the Confederacy was treason. It was never a legitimate state and no nation recognized it as a sovereign nation and on top of that, they lost.
I'm technically from the South, my great-great-greatgrand uncle fought in the Civil War for Virginia, and I even live in Mosby Heritage Area... I fully enjoy the history of my state and my family, but I understand that what they did was wrong and I don't condone it.
I agree with John Oliver on the topic: "The Confederate flag one of those symbols that should really only be seen on T-shirts, belt buckles, and bumper stickers to help the rest of us identify the worst people in the world."
It has no purpose being on public property (unless for historical purpose such as a memorial to the US civil war). I wouldn't want to compare the CSA to Nazi Germany. The CSA were undeniably evil, but not Nazi level evil.
The problem I think is that for many, the Confederate flag has become a symbol of Southern US culture, rather than the symbol of an opressive regime. I still think it should be banned from any but historical use though. It is used by racist groups a lot as well, and combined with its origins I think that provides enough reason to ban it.
While technically no flag other than official national flags should be displayed I don't think it's really a big deal. I mean... it's a flag? It would be like me being upset at my British neighbor for him having his British flag displayed. Heck or even the American flag given what we see them get up to on the news. Both those flags have had disgusting things done under them but ultimately they are still merely flags.
Like all other flag issues no one will remember. A few years ago there was a huge thing about the Maori flag here in NZ and now I don't even remember what the issue is.
My friends and I walked into a house party in college. One of my friends is black. There was a confederate flag on the side of the house. We walked in, and the volume stopped. No sound. We decided to leave right away. As we walked out, somebody whispered the N-word. feth the confederate flag. And feth the southern, inbred traitors who had two teeth in their mouths.*
*reflection of people alive during the civil war who actively chose to be donkey-caves. Not people alive today, unless they approve of what the south did back then.
Swastakowey wrote: While technically no flag other than official national flags should be displayed I don't think it's really a big deal. I mean... it's a flag? It would be like me being upset at my British neighbor for him having his British flag displayed. Heck or even the American flag given what we see them get up to on the news. Both those flags have had disgusting things done under them but ultimately they are still merely flags.
The difference is that the Confederate flag is about nothing but the disgusting things done under it. The only reason the CSA ever existed is because they wanted an expansion of slavery, and a president was elected who wouldn't give that to them. Their constitution was the same as the US Constitution, except they added some bits supporting enslaving black people. Then they started a war against the rest of the United States.
The confederate flag is a symbol of slavery its like if the German national building all started having swastikas on them. Yeah not a great image huh. There is nothing justifable about a building especially a government building having a damn confederate flag on their buildings.
Asherian Command wrote: The confederate flag is a symbol of slavery its like if the German national building all started having swastikas on them. Yeah not a great image huh. There is nothing justifable about a building especially a government building having a damn confederate flag on their buildings.
Actually started out as a Battle Standard for those units representing the South
that Battle Flag was in turn used by Hate groups.
As for the Confederate Solders who are buried in the cemetery does that mean they to have to be relocated?
Asherian Command wrote: The confederate flag is a symbol of slavery its like if the German national building all started having swastikas on them. Yeah not a great image huh. There is nothing justifable about a building especially a government building having a damn confederate flag on their buildings.
Actually started out as a Battle Standard for those units representing the South
that Battle Flag was in turn used by Hate groups.
As for the Confederate Solders who are buried in the cemetery does that mean they to have to be relocated?
No no. Just what the symbol has become, it should be taken off of the government not the people who have died, they are already dead how can a dead person offend someone?
They fought for and died for the South. Are the stones marked with a Confederate flag? The American Flag is now being refer somewhat like the Confederate flag
but we have this
Also a lot of
Notice the Symbol engraved?
A few of these also
Edit
Just checking the images are good. If they start calling for these symbolism to be removed. Would you agree or disagree to it?
The American Civil War was over slavery? I thought the issue that the South had was that they opposed all the states being bunched together under a central government. Hmn, I suppose the route causes were many, but saying that it was all down to that one thing is a gross simplification. For one the Union had plenty of people who supported slavery, hell Lincoln's opposition began with him just bowing down to public pressure on the matter (what was his line, "nobody wants you here, go back to Africa"). That and both sides treated foreigners pretty poorly in general (even when under the same flag things didn't get better fast, look at the railroad). Frankly that war had jack all to do with slavery, apart from to the politicians and those with money invested in the plantations, etc. The average guy was fighting for their state and the people they knew more than anything (Custer was originally going to lead the Union, but his home was in the South.).
I don't know what grave marker or three with a confederate flag has to do with someone not wanting a flag flown on government property.
If he had been annoyed at it etched onto a grave marker, then fair cop. In regards to the topic of the thread though, you're a way off ways. We're talking about flying the flag, for all to see and all to be revolted by, rather than a small copy of the flag etched into a grave marker. May that be an issue eventually and need to be dealt with? Sure. Is that the issue here? Not at all.
Long story short, don't try and equate people wanting a flag like the confederate flag to stop being flown in front of government buildings with people wanting to change graves of the dead. Separate issues are separate issues, and trying to tag one side with "you also want to change grave markers", which is usually considered a pretty dodgy thing, is in and of itself a dodgy way to argue.
Ah, and on the subject of Confederate gravestones.
It'd be offensive to the people buried there to modify their graves just because someone doesn't agree with it, or do we do the same to Roman burials as our current society has moved on? Yeah, censoring history's a pretty dumb idea, or shall people start jumping into the same boat as say those terrorist groups in the Middle East who go about destroying pre-Islamic monuments because it doesn't fit their idea of the world (even if yes symbols like that interpretation of the swastika are reprehensible)?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Not to mention, the flag wasnt even the confederate states of america flag. It was a regimental flag.
the KLAN was the one who popularized it
It started out as a proposed design for the national flag, but was rejected for one that looks like the Texas one. Years later though it then replaced the older one. IIRC it originally took up the part of the US flag that has the stars on it instead of being the whole thing (that flag was all white too, without the stripes). So yes, technically it was a wide used banner and the real flag looked different, but the actual flag at least contained that image.
Meh, personally I prefer the blue flag of their's that came before any one was formally chosen. Though nowadays that too's more linked to neo-Nazi groups, because those guys seriously find trouble picking any imagery that isn't linked to a nationalist, Christian or Nazi symbol. =P
Heh, and for all the controversy about flying that particular flag, a couple of states have flags that are heavily influenced by it and the others used by the Confederacy... Hell two of them (scratch that Georgia went for an "influenced by" one) have the Confederate saltier on them.
It'd be offensive to the people buried there to modify their graves just because someone doesn't agree with it, or do we do the same to Roman burials as our current society has moved on? Yeah, censoring history's a pretty dumb idea, or shall people start jumping into the same boat as say those terrorist groups in the Middle East who go about destroying pre-Islamic monuments because it doesn't fit their idea of the world (even if yes symbols like that interpretation of the swastika are reprehensible)?
Nothing I hate more than sanitising the past because it doesn't coincide with our current beliefs.I experience moments of horror every time one of those monuments gets blown up as it's gone forever, never to be replaced. Actually no, I hate ascribing modern terms onto people from the past . Lizzie I being the first feminist, don't make me vomit, she was a noble playing a high stakes game to become ruler, nothing about that is feminist, it's all about being in line for the throne and making a play for it. Also see Hebzibah.
Wyrmalla wrote: The American Civil War was over slavery? I thought the issue that the South had was that they opposed all the states being bunched together under a central government. Hmn, I suppose the route causes were many, but saying that it was all down to that one thing is a gross simplification.
You have been fed a line of apologist bs, Wyrmalla. The central government became an issue when their side lost the presidential election. It wasn't about states' rights, it was about the states' rights to continue and expand slavery.
Not just the Presidential Election, but for the first time since the ratification of the Constitution and the formation of the parties, the Democratic Party had lost control of both the House, Senate, and the White House. And they threw a hissy fit like spoiled children and started a war that killed millions because they were paranoid about abolition.
Yeah. Let's celebrate that the South fought for that
The Grave stones and things from the time when the flag was used have historical significance.
There is a huge difference between telling people to modify historical artifacts from x years ago and "Hey, lets hang this flag from x years ago because history!"
No. Germany doesn't hang Nazi flags. It's an embarrassing stain on their history. One to be remembered for what it was and as a lesson to not let it happen again.
I am all for the removal of the Confederate Flag from ALL government buildings. You can say you like the flag and display it because its a southern culture thing, hell I have seen black people wearing Confederate flags on their clothing, but at the end of the day it has become a symbol of hatred.
I do hate that it took the murder of 9 people including a former US senator for people to think "hey lets take down that hate symbol flying on our state capital."
I've got mixed views on this. Firstly, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the first amendment yet.
Secondly, the whole treason thing is another issue. Yes, they were traitors, but American history is full of traitors. After all, the most famous traitor in American history has a capital city named after him...
It's a tough one. I can see this going all the way to the supreme court.
Probably because it has nothing to do with this discussion. I find it hard to believe myself, but occasionally Americans can have a discussion of an issue without inappropriately citing the first (or second) amendment.
I can see this going all the way to the supreme court.
It won't, because there's no court case involved and there never will be.
Probably because it has nothing to do with this discussion. I find it hard to believe myself, but occasionally Americans can have a discussion of an issue without inappropriately citing the first (or second) amendment.
I can see this going all the way to the supreme court.
It won't, because there's no court case involved and there never will be.
There is a relevance here. The governor of SC is calling for the confederate flag to be removed from public buildings. Anti-Racist groups want to go further.
It could snowball, and yet, even racists and idiots have first amendment rights.
Probably because it has nothing to do with this discussion. I find it hard to believe myself, but occasionally Americans can have a discussion of an issue without inappropriately citing the first (or second) amendment.
I can see this going all the way to the supreme court.
It won't, because there's no court case involved and there never will be.
There is a relevance here. The governor of SC is calling for the confederate flag to be removed from public buildings. Anti-Racist groups want to go further.
It could snowball, and yet, even racists and idiots have first amendment rights.
Anyway, where does it stop? Hawaii has the British flag as part of its state flag, and you could argue that Britain was a bigger menace to America than the confederacy. After all, If Britain had won the revolutionary war...
They changed the Mississippi flag back in 2001 to one that din't have any Confederate symbols due to needing to comply with federal legislation (or something, it wasn't that a vote was taken in other words). However upon changing it two thirds of those who voted on what the new flag should look like went for the current design. Though it should be pointed out that the alternative design, whilst not having the saltire, appears to still have Confederate connotations which the choice of stripes.
Will that state or any of the others with such symbols have the same flag in 100 years? Pft, nah. Will there still be states in 100 years ...ah, hmn.
It is funny, because it is a flag that is directly against the U.S.
It is more anti-US than the ISIS flag or the Nazi flag. It was only ever officially used as to fight the U.S.
generalgrog wrote: So I think I have come full circle on this issue. I understand why, and I sympathize as to why southerners don't think it's an issue. In fact growing up in the south, watching dukes of hazard, and wearing t-shirts with the flag, I never considered it hateful, or even a problem. In fact if you didn't like it, too bad... I still don't consider it hateful, but I do think it's inconsiderate, not as bad as Nazi flag, but almost.
I mean the Nazi flag flown, even for the best intentions(if that were even possible), is still a Nazi flag.
I am the point that the confederate flag not be flown on state or US government property, and belongs in a museum.
If people want to fly it at their homes, that's their right, but take it down from public buildings. It represents too much hurt for minorities, and especially African American descendants of slaves.
What say Dakka?
GG
Agreed. When I was young the flag was a symbol of rebellion, of home. Had it not been for the KLan and the wackjobs it would have really been that.
But its not. The flag has become a symbol of racism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've got mixed views on this. Firstly, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the first amendment yet.
Secondly, the whole treason thing is another issue. Yes, they were traitors, but American history is full of traitors. After all, the most famous traitor in American history has a capital city named after him...
It's a tough one. I can see this going all the way to the supreme court.
First Amendment doesn't apply to government property-aka government speech. Thats why Texas can stop slack jawed yokels from getting their "Sons of the Confederacy" License plates.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. When I was young the flag was a symbol of rebellion, of home. Had it not been for the KLan and the wackjobs it would have really been that.
But its not. The flag has become a symbol of racism.
The flag has always been a symbol of racism. It wasn't the KKK who marched under the flag in a literal war against freedom and against democracy, it was the Confederates.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. When I was young the flag was a symbol of rebellion, of home. Had it not been for the KLan and the wackjobs it would have really been that.
But its not. The flag has become a symbol of racism.
The flag has always been a symbol of racism. It wasn't the KKK who marched under the flag in a literal war against freedom and against democracy, it was the Confederates.
Some of us are older than others, foreigner. Don't tell me what it was about.
One other thing to consider. I have a few ancestors that fought for North Carolina in the civil war. I personally thinks it's way overboard to call them traitors, because I think for the most part the lowly soldier was fighting to defend what they considered their home land.
But aside from that, I can honor their memory without the use of the battle flag, which I have read, was pretty much retired from public use until the 50's and 60's, when the civil rights era ramped up. I.E. it had gone out of style, until segregation was threatened.
So for me there were two instances that the battle flag was used by the south for the wrong reasons.
I recently read a good book by John Keegan on the civil war, in which he states a pretty interesting thing.
While most white southerners didn't own slaves, they certainly aspired to be slave owners, or at a minimum agreed with the practice. It was a small minority of southern whites who disagreed with slavery. I mean it was so imbedded in the culture that you had Huge Christian denominations split over the issue, such as the southern baptists, and southern methodists, and prebyterian splitting away from their northern counterparts over slavery.
This is an unfortunate era, and it does not need to be "Celebrated"
Frazzled wrote: Some of us are older than others, foreigner. Don't tell me what it was about.
Just to be sure: is your argument that you were already a grown man during the whole civil war thing? Woah, you are quite the elder!
No (far older baby-the last of the neaderthals remembers the good old days). Times have changed. When I was young they would play Dixie at important events, not the (incomprehensible) national anthem. You stood up. The South was the South. The flag was just a part of that. Very different times.
Lucky for me, I still have the Texas flag, which like the Wiener Dog Flag* is a symbol of ultimate Greatness.
Wyrmalla wrote: The American Civil War was over slavery? I thought the issue that the South had was that they opposed all the states being bunched together under a central government. Hmn, I suppose the route causes were many, but saying that it was all down to that one thing is a gross simplification. For one the Union had plenty of people who supported slavery, hell Lincoln's opposition began with him just bowing down to public pressure on the matter (what was his line, "nobody wants you here, go back to Africa"). That and both sides treated foreigners pretty poorly in general (even when under the same flag things didn't get better fast, look at the railroad). Frankly that war had jack all to do with slavery, apart from to the politicians and those with money invested in the plantations, etc. The average guy was fighting for their state and the people they knew more than anything (Custer was originally going to lead the Union, but his home was in the South.).
The ACW was over many things. Slavery was a key topic, but the primary reasoning that many like to point it was state rights. The southern states felt that the FedGov was in violation of the constitution, stepping on the 10th Amendment left and right, to include the issue over slavery.
If you read the articles of Secession produced by the states, you'll see that for the majority of them, keeping Slavery was the #1 listed reason they were doing it. So I always have a good laugh when you have the revisionist who argue that slavery was not the primary cause of the war. It wasn't the only cause though, that is certain.
One thing that I do lament about the war, the North did such a good job of winning it that the argument for state rights almost doesn't even exist anymore today. The FedGov's level of power has simply sky rocketed since the days that hundreds of thousands of Americans were willing to give there lives over the issue.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. When I was young the flag was a symbol of rebellion, of home. Had it not been for the KLan and the wackjobs it would have really been that.
But its not. The flag has become a symbol of racism.
The flag has always been a symbol of racism. It wasn't the KKK who marched under the flag in a literal war against freedom and against democracy, it was the Confederates.
Its was a Battle Standards flown alongside Regimental Colors which was used to a be a rallying point for Extremists group of a certain nature after the war.
Same as the American flag was used as a Battle Standard flown alongside Regimental Colors which is used as a rallying point for organizations today.
I mention patriotism, state right, etc etc etc that a soldier of that time line join up. After that first engagement that individual no longer fight whatever cause he initially join being he is now driven by hatred against the other side.
Do I feel the Confederate flag should be flown alongside the American flag? No. A memorial on the capitol grounds, as it currently stands? I have no problem with that. The Confederacy was a very important part of history for South Carolina. Not all memorials are there to embrace the good. We have federally ran memorials for Auschwitz. No one can point to that and say it's something to be celebrated, except for the Iranian's maybe.
We shouldn't hide history, and that flag represents a very important part of our national history. Should it be glorified? No. Should it be horrified? No. Should it be hidden away? No. It should be treated as what it is. History. Let the people see it, let them learn about it.
Since I don't care two rats fething about this issue being one can hang on their property the flag ('ve a metal plate Confederate flag on my driveway gate below metal "Badges" of my stack on the gate to) I concern if they're going to go on a tangent to remove all symbolism of the south from the grave sites. As someone mention who think its just maybe three markers, the removal of all Confederate symbols on the markers being those symbols were approved by the Confederate Congress (Southern Cross)
Edit
Vast majority of markers have the symbolism of the Southern Cross and CSA stamp into the stone
djones520 wrote: Do I feel the Confederate flag should be flown alongside the American flag? No. A memorial on the capitol grounds, as it currently stands? I have no problem with that. The Confederacy was a very important part of history for South Carolina. Not all memorials are there to embrace the good. We have federally ran memorials for Auschwitz. No one can point to that and say it's something to be celebrated, except for the Iranian's maybe.
We shouldn't hide history, and that flag represents a very important part of our national history. Should it be glorified? No. Should it be horrified? No. Should it be hidden away? No. It should be treated as what it is. History. Let the people see it, let them learn about it.
The only time I can see confederate flags on US or state government property are:
*Really old cematary with CSA war dead.
*ACW battlefield as one of the combatant flags.
*A display where all the state flags in history are displayed.
This is the last Confederate federal flag (March 4,1865 specifically)
Without the white and red parts it's just the confederate battle flag (or naval jack if its rectangular). It was picked as the symbol of the KKK because they originally claimed to be the spirits of dead confederate soldiers. They started as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction period, only becoming a "legitimate" organization after the turn of the century.
So yeah, it shouldn't be flown over government buildings in my opinion
Frazzled wrote: Times have changed. When I was young they would play Dixie at important events, not the (incomprehensible) national anthem. You stood up. The South was the South,
Very different times.
Yeah, thing changes. Are you sad that people in the South feel like being a citizen of the U.S. is a more important part of their identity relatively to being part of the south of the U.S. now?
djones520 wrote: Do I feel the Confederate flag should be flown alongside the American flag? No. A memorial on the capitol grounds, as it currently stands? I have no problem with that. The Confederacy was a very important part of history for South Carolina. Not all memorials are there to embrace the good. We have federally ran memorials for Auschwitz. No one can point to that and say it's something to be celebrated, except for the Iranian's maybe.
Well, the Auschwitz memorial do not fly Nazi flag. Actually, those are completely forbidden in Germany. And no, the Iranian would definitely not call it a good thing. You would be surprised.
So, your example is really, really bad.
Putting the flag behind some glass in a museum? Sure. Flying it is a completely different matter.
generalgrog wrote: So I think I have come full circle on this issue. I understand why, and I sympathize as to why southerners don't think it's an issue. In fact growing up in the south, watching dukes of hazard, and wearing t-shirts with the flag, I never considered it hateful, or even a problem. In fact if you didn't like it, too bad... I still don't consider it hateful, but I do think it's inconsiderate, not as bad as Nazi flag, but almost.
I mean the Nazi flag flown, even for the best intentions(if that were even possible), is still a Nazi flag.
I am the point that the confederate flag not be flown on state or US government property, and belongs in a museum.
If people want to fly it at their homes, that's their right, but take it down from public buildings. It represents too much hurt for minorities, and especially African American descendants of slaves.
What say Dakka?
GG
Agreed. When I was young the flag was a symbol of rebellion, of home. Had it not been for the KLan and the wackjobs it would have really been that.
But its not. The flag has become a symbol of racism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've got mixed views on this. Firstly, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the first amendment yet.
Secondly, the whole treason thing is another issue. Yes, they were traitors, but American history is full of traitors. After all, the most famous traitor in American history has a capital city named after him...
It's a tough one. I can see this going all the way to the supreme court.
First Amendment doesn't apply to government property-aka government speech. Thats why Texas can stop slack jawed yokels from getting their "Sons of the Confederacy" License plates.
Damn it, Frazz! I want this to be a first amendment issue!!
I want the supreme court involved, I want lawyers making vast sums of money out of this. I want the film rights sold to Ridley Scott. I want Tom Cruise starring as an underdog lawyer, as he fights against corporate forces. I want Morgan Freeman giving Tom Cruise advice, I want this film winning Oscars.
I'm getting carried away. Anyway, am I right in saying that Kentucky was a slave state, but still stayed in the Union?
Yeah, thing changes. Are you sad that people in the South feel like being a citizen of the U.S. is a more important part of their identity relatively to being part of the south of the U.S. now?
Oh contraire. I am happy that Texans have finally realized their Greatness and ultimate humility in allowing the other states to join with it.
"You can all go to Hell. I am going to Texas." -some guy.
I'm getting carried away. Anyway, am I right in saying that Kentucky was a slave state, but still stayed in the Union?
yep, as did Missouri. if only Texas had stayed in the Union, we could have taken Louisiana and Arkansas as a war prize. Oh wait, looks like we lucked out.
Wyrmalla wrote: The American Civil War was over slavery? I thought the issue that the South had was that they opposed all the states being bunched together under a central government. Hmn, I suppose the route causes were many, but saying that it was all down to that one thing is a gross simplification. For one the Union had plenty of people who supported slavery, hell Lincoln's opposition began with him just bowing down to public pressure on the matter (what was his line, "nobody wants you here, go back to Africa"). That and both sides treated foreigners pretty poorly in general (even when under the same flag things didn't get better fast, look at the railroad). Frankly that war had jack all to do with slavery, apart from to the politicians and those with money invested in the plantations, etc. The average guy was fighting for their state and the people they knew more than anything (Custer was originally going to lead the Union, but his home was in the South.).
The Civil war was complicated.
It was slavery, technology, religion, political, and based on several other things. The Civil War happened because it was bound to happen whether it was by slavery or not.
The Northernors did use the moral right of slavery as bad to justify their side of the war. But the civil war was mostly born from fear of change.
And to answer that no confederate grave stones are fine, why wouldn''t they? Thats not on a government building. I know some people who were a pendant of the nazi regime because they served under hitler's regime, they said it was a very proud moment for them to gate that pendant from the Third Reich. I see no problem with it as the military of the third reich were not the problem the SS were.
Wyrmalla wrote: (Custer was originally going to lead the Union, but his home was in the South.).
Are you referring to Lee? Because Custer was from Ohio (a northern state) and fought for the Union.
^^^^
Yeah Custer wasn't even a great general, like most north generals as well who are all basically screwed up until Chamerblin and another general started to lead the north.
Are black people offended by flying the confederate flag from government buildings -- yes.
Do they have a reasonable cause to be genuinely offended, or is this just the typical kind of complaint that SIWs complain about? Obviously they do have ample cause to be offended, given the flag's asssociation with decades of discrimination against them.
Who will suffer if the flags are taken down? Essentially, SIWs.
How will they suffer? It compromises their interests in frustrating black people. They can still fly the flags themselves to spread as much offence as they want, protected by free speech.
So take the flags down. No-one is the slightest bit worried about Hawaii.
Wyrmalla wrote: (Custer was originally going to lead the Union, but his home was in the South.).
Are you referring to Lee? Because Custer was from Ohio (a northern state) and fought for the Union.
^^^^
Yeah Custer wasn't even a great general, like most north generals as well who are all basically screwed up until Chamerblin and another general started to lead the north.
Chamberlain was a COL at Gettysburg, and was never a general who 'led the North'. He got a Division command, no higher.
As for the flag issue, at what point will folks be happy? Do we need to outlaw it so that even having accurate confederate flags for miniature war game units is illegal (much like you cant have accurate WW2 German markings on model aircraft/ships and so on sold in Germany?)
Wyrmalla wrote: (Custer was originally going to lead the Union, but his home was in the South.).
Are you referring to Lee? Because Custer was from Ohio (a northern state) and fought for the Union.
^^^^
Yeah Custer wasn't even a great general, like most north generals as well who are all basically screwed up until Chamerblin and another general started to lead the north.
Chamberlain was a COL at Gettysburg, and was never a general who 'led the North'. He got a Division command, no higher.
As for the flag issue, at what point will folks be happy? Do we need to outlaw it so that even having accurate confederate flags for miniature war game units is illegal (much like you cant have accurate WW2 German markings on model aircraft/ships and so on sold in Germany?)
I think they won't be. I mean right now there is an ultra sensitivity thing going on.
But Germans are quite sensitive on the Nazi's but I think there is a big difference between the confederacy and the Nazi Regime. One committed genocide one was doing something that was considered an old tradition. A horrible horrible tradition. But I don't think that it sshould be flown over a government building whether people have the confederate flag and fly it on their own personal property. That is completely fine thats their right. Its offensive but it is their right.
Slavery has been apart of history for thousands of years. I mean the word slave comes from the Word Slav. Aka Slavic peoples became slaves for others to use.
Also thanks for the correction its been a long time since I read civil war history.
Wyrmalla wrote: (Custer was originally going to lead the Union, but his home was in the South.).
Are you referring to Lee? Because Custer was from Ohio (a northern state) and fought for the Union.
^^^^
Yeah Custer wasn't even a great general, like most north generals as well who are all basically screwed up until Chamerblin and another general started to lead the north.
Chamberlain was a COL at Gettysburg, and was never a general who 'led the North'. He got a Division command, no higher.
As for the flag issue, at what point will folks be happy? Do we need to outlaw it so that even having accurate confederate flags for miniature war game units is illegal (much like you cant have accurate WW2 German markings on model aircraft/ships and so on sold in Germany?)
Not outlaw. Take off government property (as noted outside of battlefields and such).
Note: Don't be deceived by the polite discussion we're having here. Here's more the flavor of what the real defenders of this stuff are saying on other sites when you disagree:
"You are as ignorant of history as you are a worthless POS. I would expect you to be right up front of the PC crowd burning books and restricting speech.You have really mainlined that crap about ones pride of the South having to do with hate and racism.
My family has been in Texas since 1826 . No slaves in our history but many proud warriors that fought for Texas in the War of Northern Aggression .
It is my hope that a-holes like yourself would remove your worthless bed wetting hides from Texas and take your POS PC crowd with you.
I would fully support Texas leaving the US again. "
i must admit I haven't heard someone seriously call it the WNA in more than a few years. Now that brings back memories. I'd hate to see what the real mouthbreather sites are saying.
Wyrmalla wrote: (Custer was originally going to lead the Union, but his home was in the South.).
Are you referring to Lee? Because Custer was from Ohio (a northern state) and fought for the Union.
^^^^
Yeah Custer wasn't even a great general, like most north generals as well who are all basically screwed up until Chamerblin and another general started to lead the north.
Chamberlain was a COL at Gettysburg, and was never a general who 'led the North'. He got a Division command, no higher.
As for the flag issue, at what point will folks be happy? Do we need to outlaw it so that even having accurate confederate flags for miniature war game units is illegal (much like you cant have accurate WW2 German markings on model aircraft/ships and so on sold in Germany?)
Nobody is going to stop a person's right to express themselves. But government buildings flying a flag now associated with racism and prejudice? Well within the scope of reasonable removal.
My personal opinion is states (and counties/municipalities) should figure it out. If the residents of South Carolina are ready to embrace modernity and ditch the confederate battle flag, great for them. I don't think the federal gov't ought to get involved.
I also worry about how it eventually goes, using my war game unit as an example. When the torches get lit and the mobs gather, they tend to go way overboard. I personally feel having to remove a picture from a war gaming web site for showing a painted 1:2400 model of the Bismarck with the swastika on the bow is asinine (and it happened to me, I posted a picture of the model on LAF). I can very much see laws being written in such a way that existing grave stones, museums and sanctioned history books are the only places the flag can be displayed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Do we need to rename Ft Lee, Ft Hood, Ft Gordon, Ft Benning, Ft Bragg, Ft Polk and so on as well?
Confedrate Flag = teddy bear for people whose ancestors were not capable of winning a war for secession and slavery, with a thinly veiled dash of "it's not over yet".
No way the US or State governments should be waving this flag anywhere. The flag of North Korea would be more acceptable.
jasper76 wrote: The flag of North Korea would be more acceptable.
Do you really think so? A flag of a nation currently enslaving and starving the majority of its people and threatening one of our allies with nukes is more acceptable than a confederate battle flag? How do your come to that conclusion?
When some idiot starts arguing that Germany's gakky censorship laws are something to be emulated, then you can start worrying about that. Until then, I'm happy saying that the Confederates and their war are undeserving of the respect shown to them by flying their flag on a government flagpole.
AlexHolker wrote: When some idiot starts arguing that Germany's gakky censorship laws are something to be emulated, then you can start worrying about that. Until then, I'm happy saying that the Confederates and their war are undeserving of the respect shown to them by flying their flag on a government flagpole.
You mean calls for laws like this one:
California is looking to bar the “Stars and Bars.”
A bill sits on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk to ban California from displaying or selling the Confederate flag or objects with images of it. The state’s Legislature passed the bill nearly unanimously last week.
Assemblyman Isadore Hall III, D-Compton, introduced the legislation after his mother discovered the Capitol gift shop sold a replica of Confederate money that contained a picture of the flag, according to the L.A. Times.
Wyrmalla wrote: (Custer was originally going to lead the Union, but his home was in the South.).
Are you referring to Lee? Because Custer was from Ohio (a northern state) and fought for the Union.
^^^^
Yeah Custer wasn't even a great general, like most north generals as well who are all basically screwed up until Chamerblin and another general started to lead the north.
Chamberlain was a COL at Gettysburg, and was never a general who 'led the North'. He got a Division command, no higher.
As for the flag issue, at what point will folks be happy? Do we need to outlaw it so that even having accurate confederate flags for miniature war game units is illegal (much like you cant have accurate WW2 German markings on model aircraft/ships and so on sold in Germany?)
I think they won't be. I mean right now there is an ultra sensitivity thing going on.
But Germans are quite sensitive on the Nazi's but I think there is a big difference between the confederacy and the Nazi Regime. One committed genocide one was doing something that was considered an old tradition. A horrible horrible tradition. But I don't think that it sshould be flown over a government building whether people have the confederate flag and fly it on their own personal property. That is completely fine thats their right. Its offensive but it is their right.
Slavery has been apart of history for thousands of years. I mean the word slave comes from the Word Slav. Aka Slavic peoples became slaves for others to use.
Also thanks for the correction its been a long time since I read civil war history.
I think people are forgetting how bad American Style slavery was. And it's lasting influence on this country. As many posters have said, in the Confederacy's founding documents, the secessionists cause was to the right to maintain and expand a horrible institution that tortured, raped, and killed millions of people over its long American history. American slavery was really bad. Not a "tradition."
I see no reason for the US government to celebrate (by flying a symbol of the Confederacy) a organization that took arms against America to expand such a process.
AlexHolker wrote: When some idiot starts arguing that Germany's gakky censorship laws are something to be emulated, then you can start worrying about that. Until then, I'm happy saying that the Confederates and their war are undeserving of the respect shown to them by flying their flag on a government flagpole.
You mean calls for laws like this one:
California is looking to bar the “Stars and Bars.”
A bill sits on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk to ban California from displaying or selling the Confederate flag or objects with images of it. The state’s Legislature passed the bill nearly unanimously last week.
Assemblyman Isadore Hall III, D-Compton, introduced the legislation after his mother discovered the Capitol gift shop sold a replica of Confederate money that contained a picture of the flag, according to the L.A. Times.
I think people are forgetting how bad American Style slavery was. And it's lasting influence on this country. As many posters have said, in the Confederacy's founding documents, the secessionists cause was to the right to maintain and expand a horrible institution that tortured, raped, and killed millions of people over its long American history. American slavery was really bad. Not a "tradition."
I see no reason for the US government to celebrate (by flying a symbol of the Confederacy) a organization that took arms against America to expand such a process.
It was technically a tradition they brought over from other countries.
I see no reason for the US government to celebrate (by flying a symbol of the Confederacy) a organization that took arms against America to expand such a process.
Not sure the Fed gov't does fly a confederate battle flag except maybe at some battlefield sites which are national parks.
Can I assume you are in the camp that thinks we need to rename all the military bases (and streets on federal installations and so on) named after confederate troops/officers?
jasper76 wrote: The flag of North Korea would be more acceptable.
Do you really think so? A flag of a nation currently enslaving and starving the majority of its people and threatening one of our allies with nukes is more acceptable than a confederate battle flag? How do your come to that conclusion?
Bit of hyperbole, I admit. But the North Korean government was not formed by US citizens actively engaged in acts of open treason against the United States.
I see no reason for the US government to celebrate (by flying a symbol of the Confederacy) a organization that took arms against America to expand such a process.
Not sure the Fed gov't does fly a confederate battle flag except maybe at some battlefield sites which are national parks.
Can I assume you are in the camp that thinks we need to rename all the military bases (and streets on federal installations and so on) named after confederate troops/officers?
What why? why would we change the names of sites that were named after confederate troops? The troops and soldiers didn't do anything terrible there are american soldiers but who cares. Most of them were veterans.
Frazzled wrote: No. Again it says "California" again thats the state. THE STATE should not be in the business of doing so.
The legislators in that state voted almost unanimously to outlaw 'items displaying' the confederate flag. A state with 55 electoral college votes, and one sending 2 senators and 53 representatives to congress (including one who was the Speaker of the House and is still the minority leader).
I do believe it is their right to make that law, I also believe if it can happen in that state, in the current emotionally charged environment it can happen in other places. And we know the fed DoJ LOVES to get involved in gak like this, and I bet we seem some representative or senator propose a similar bill in the federal congress.
I see no reason for the US government to celebrate (by flying a symbol of the Confederacy) a organization that took arms against America to expand such a process.
Not sure the Fed gov't does fly a confederate battle flag except maybe at some battlefield sites which are national parks.
Can I assume you are in the camp that thinks we need to rename all the military bases (and streets on federal installations and so on) named after confederate troops/officers?
What why? why would we change the names of sites that were named after confederate troops? The troops and soldiers didn't do anything terrible there are american soldiers but who cares. Most of them were veterans.
General Lee lead the confederate army in defense of slavery. Is it good and proper to have Ft Lee?
CptJake wrote: A flag of a nation currently enslaving and starving the majority of its people and threatening one of our allies with nukes is more acceptable than a confederate battle flag? How do your come to that conclusion?
Well, who killed more U.S. soldiers? The Confederate states, or North Korea? Wikipedia says it was the Confederate states. Not to mention that the Confederate states did threaten the United states very existence in a way North Korea never could. And here we are not even talking about the flag of a nation, but the flag of an army whose very purpose was destroying the United states. In this regard, I think even ISIS flag seems more appropriate to me, but what do I know.
Bringing up slavery and starvation as a defense for the Confederate states is an interesting idea though.
Frazzled wrote: No. Again it says "California" again thats the state. THE STATE should not be in the business of doing so.
The legislators in that state voted almost unanimously to outlaw 'items displaying' the confederate flag. A state with 55 electoral college votes, and one sending 2 senators and 53 representatives to congress (including one who was the Speaker of the House and is still the minority leader).
I do believe it is their right to make that law, I also believe if it can happen in that state, in the current emotionally charged environment it can happen in other places. And we know the fed DoJ LOVES to get involved in gak like this, and I bet we seem some representative or senator propose a similar bill in the federal congress.
I see no reason for the US government to celebrate (by flying a symbol of the Confederacy) a organization that took arms against America to expand such a process.
Not sure the Fed gov't does fly a confederate battle flag except maybe at some battlefield sites which are national parks.
Can I assume you are in the camp that thinks we need to rename all the military bases (and streets on federal installations and so on) named after confederate troops/officers?
What why? why would we change the names of sites that were named after confederate troops? The troops and soldiers didn't do anything terrible there are american soldiers but who cares. Most of them were veterans.
General Lee lead the confederate army in defense of slavery. Is it good and proper to have Ft Lee?
Again its the state. the state cannot sell or display. this is not hard. The state can do what it wants with its own property.
jasper76 wrote: The flag of North Korea would be more acceptable.
Do you really think so? A flag of a nation currently enslaving and starving the majority of its people and threatening one of our allies with nukes is more acceptable than a confederate battle flag? How do your come to that conclusion?
Bit of hyperbole, I admit. But the North Korean government was not formed by US citizens actively engaged in acts of open treason against the United States.
Are there still confederates actively engaged in acts of open treason against the US? The handful of nutters out there are MUCH less of a threat than the Norks.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And here we are not even talking about the flag of a nation, but the flag of an army whose very purpose was destroying the United states.
The Confederate army wasn't trying to destroy the United States.
Again its the state. the state cannot sell or display. this is not hard. The state can do what it wants with its own property.
And again, I was replying to a post saying 'when laws like that are trying to be passed you can start worrying'. And I pointed out laws like that ARE being passed.
Hordini wrote: The Confederate army wasn't trying to destroy the United States.
Oh? Just secede then? Would they have stopped the war if they were allowed to secede?
Yes, they were trying to secede and they almost certainly would have stopped the war if they were allowed to secede. The war started because they were not simply just allowed to secede. They weren't trying to take over the North and turn all the northern states into slave states, if that's what you're thinking.
jasper76 wrote: The flag of North Korea would be more acceptable.
Do you really think so? A flag of a nation currently enslaving and starving the majority of its people and threatening one of our allies with nukes is more acceptable than a confederate battle flag? How do your come to that conclusion?
Bit of hyperbole, I admit. But the North Korean government was not formed by US citizens actively engaged in acts of open treason against the United States.
Are there still confederates actively engaged in acts of open treason against the US? The handful of nutters out there are MUCH less of a threat than the Norks.
Let's hope not. I really don't care what kind of flag someone decides to wave in their front yard or place as a bumper sticker on a car, or wear as a t-shirt. Freedom of speech is good.
But state governments loyal to the Union? Hell no.
Again its the state. the state cannot sell or display. this is not hard. The state can do what it wants with its own property.
And again, I was replying to a post saying 'when laws like that are trying to be passed you can start worrying'. And I pointed out laws like that ARE being passed.
And clearly the 'state can do what it wants with its own property' viewpoint is currently a one way view point. If a state decides to display the confederate flag, not many are coming to their defense with that argument.
Hordini wrote: The Confederate army wasn't trying to destroy the United States.
Oh? Just secede then? Would they have stopped the war if they were allowed to secede?
Yes, they were trying to secede and they almost certainly would have stopped the war if they were allowed to secede. The war started because they were not simply just allowed to secede. They weren't trying to take over the North and turn all the northern states into slave states, if that's what you're thinking.
The CSA did actually have plans for Mexico and Cuba however.
Again its the state. the state cannot sell or display. this is not hard. The state can do what it wants with its own property.
And again, I was replying to a post saying 'when laws like that are trying to be passed you can start worrying'. And I pointed out laws like that ARE being passed.
No, they aren't. The government not selling Confederacy memorabilia is not the same thing as the government forbidding private individuals from producing, displaying, buying or selling Confederacy iconography.
Sorry. I was arguing that state governments were a part of the United States Government (as a whole, not as a part of the federal government. ) But I will back off on that statement.
On the naming convention: What is the justification for celebrating people who took arms against America? Do we at least agree that by naming bases and roads after them is honoring people who fought on the side against the government of the United states?
The CSA was fighting to break up the United States. Is there an argument that breaking up the United States is different from destroying a United American country?
Hordini wrote: Yes, they were trying to secede and they almost certainly would have stopped the war if they were allowed to secede. The war started because they were not simply just allowed to secede. They weren't trying to take over the North and turn all the northern states into slave states, if that's what you're thinking.
My bad. I guess it is more like if North Korea was close to annexing half of the US rather than destroying all of it, then .
CptJake wrote: A flag of a nation currently enslaving and starving the majority of its people and threatening one of our allies with nukes is more acceptable than a confederate battle flag? How do your come to that conclusion?
Well, who killed more U.S. soldiers? The Confederate states, or North Korea? Wikipedia says it was the Confederate states. Not to mention that the Confederate states did threaten the United states very existence in a way North Korea never could. And here we are not even talking about the flag of a nation, but the flag of an army whose very purpose was destroying the United states. In this regard, I think even ISIS flag seems more appropriate to me, but what do I know.
Bringing up slavery and starvation as a defense for the Confederate states is an interesting idea though.
Major difference between 1863 and today. A threat back then that was defeated and is now gone just isn't as scary to me as Lil Kim with nukes right now. DaIsh slaughtering folks and beheading prisoners today is a bit more troublesome than Mosby's raiders are right now. I don't think Mosby and his boys have capped anyone in a couple hundred years. Sorry if you cannot differentiate the two or for some reason honestly feel current enemies are more appropriate than a historical one, especially one like the rebels, who once defeated were very largely integrated back into the union .
Hand on heart, this is a pretty tough issue to resolve, and I speak from experience.
Here in the UK, we have similar problems with the past.
We have streets named after Slave owners, Opium dealers in China, Cecil Rhodes, Viceroys responsible for the death of thousands of people in British India etc etc
We gave Karl Marx a home for years, Lenin stayed in London a while, and if rumours and speculation are to be believed, one A Hitler stayed in Liverpool a while.
On the naming convention: What is the justification for celebrating people who took arms against America? Do we at least agree that by naming bases and roads after them is honoring people who fought on the side against the government of the United states?
Most of those posts have been named for quite a while. Camp Lee (now Ft Lee) was built in 1917. Ft Hood in 1942. Ft Bragg in 1918. I honestly don't know the justification for naming them what they did, and really don't care. I am wondering NOW, if we as a nation are gonna be against all things honoring confederates done by state and federal governments, if we need to rename all these things.
the flag is part of the country's history, should it be flown? honestly i don't know if i have an opinion on that i'm from the nortth and never have really been exposed to southern heritage or their pride. Its kind of a weird issue because it has alot of pride attached to it but also its been tied to alot of hate and bad things. But then again so has alot of other flags in the world...
From what little experience i've had with the flag, it seems to be worn or flown by wannabe hicks or as a symbole of racism.(keep in mind this is in the north, not the south where the flag means pride and heritage to most)
I am 100% fine with not flying the Confederate Flag at a state or national government building.
I see no reason to rename our existing Forts Hood, Lee, or Bragg. This is not an "all or nothing" situation.
I also see no reason to outright ban the confederate flag from private citizens. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech. That makes it easy to know who the donkey-caves are.
Hordini wrote: The Confederate army wasn't trying to destroy the United States.
Oh? Just secede then? Would they have stopped the war if they were allowed to secede?
Yes, they were trying to secede and they almost certainly would have stopped the war if they were allowed to secede. The war started because they were not simply just allowed to secede. They weren't trying to take over the North and turn all the northern states into slave states, if that's what you're thinking.
Actually, the very act of seceding from the union was a hugely provocative act. There is no way that the United States could have afforded to allow the confederacy to exist. Most people look at it from the perspective of the united states losing 1/2 of it's land mass, and the economic loss that would have entailed the USA.
However what is not always considered is, there is no way the USA could allow a hostile neighbor to exist on a hypothetical USA/CSA border. If the USA simply allowed the CSA to secede, it may have avoided a war in 1860, but most certainly they would have eventually gone to war, as both the USA and the CSA expanded west. There would have been wars fought over western territory, and even possibly Central/South america, and Caribbean islands, as each of them tried to expand their colonial empires. You must also remember that this was during the age of colonialism.
When the CSA seceded, there had to be an armed response by the USA.
We're going to have issues if the PC crowd goes all out on name changes
Arlington National Cemetery is a United States military cemetery in Arlington County, Virginia, across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., in whose 624 acres (253 ha) have been buried the dead of the nation's conflicts beginning with the American Civil War, as well as reinterred dead from earlier wars.
The cemetery was established during the Civil War on the grounds of Arlington House, which had been the estate of the family of Confederate general Robert E. Lee's wife Mary Anna (Custis) Lee (a great-granddaughter of Martha Washington). The cemetery, along with Arlington House, Memorial Drive, the Hemicycle, and the Arlington Memorial Bridge, form the Arlington National Cemetery Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places in April 2014.[2][3]
I have an honest question. Not being facitious or rude.
What does the south have "Pride" in? Why do they need a symbol of "The South" and what do they have pride in?
kronk wrote: I am 100% fine with not flying the Confederate Flag at a state or national government building.
I see no reason to rename our existing Forts Hood, Lee, or Bragg.
I do.
Fort Hood: Fort TBone
Fort Lee: Fort Vader
Fort Bragg: Fort Mel Brooks
I have an honest question. Not being facitious or rude.
What does the south have "Pride" in? Why do they need a symbol of "The South" and what do they have pride in?
*Our proximity to Mexico
*Our superior culinary and pickup driving skills
*We have most of our teeth.
*Bourbon
kronk wrote: I am 100% fine with not flying the Confederate Flag at a state or national government building.
I see no reason to rename our existing Forts Hood, Lee, or Bragg. This is not an "all or nothing" situation.
I also see no reason to outright ban the confederate flag from private citizens. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech. That makes it easy to know who the donkey-caves are.
I'm with kronk here...
It also feels like it's becoming a side-show here, feeding the perpetual outrage machine.
kronk wrote: I am 100% fine with not flying the Confederate Flag at a state or national government building.
I see no reason to rename our existing Forts Hood, Lee, or Bragg. This is not an "all or nothing" situation.
I also see no reason to outright ban the confederate flag from private citizens. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech. That makes it easy to know who the donkey-caves are.
I'm with kronk here...
It also feels like it's becoming a side-show here, feeding the perpetual outrage machine.
Considering what just a few people can do, shut down a business or ruin it online with outrage, you best listen to them.
I mean, you must always appease those who threaten you into doing what they are saying, even if they tend to be small people who use threats to get what they want.........wait......isnt that terrorism
CptJake wrote: A threat back then that was defeated and is now gone just isn't as scary to me as Lil Kim with nukes right now.
So it is about being scary?
As a Southerner who lives in the South, IME It's about any of the following, in any combination:
-Giving homage to ancestors who died in battle
-Being openly racist
-Expressing open disapproval of the US Government
-Expressing unfriendliness with non-WASP neighbors.
-Being a "rebel" in the rock and roll sense of the word (the same reason why many European hip hop types are drawn to Islam)
CptJake wrote: A threat back then that was defeated and is now gone just isn't as scary to me as Lil Kim with nukes right now.
So it is about being scary?
Maybe poor word choice on my part. Having said that, to think there is any level of appropriateness to flying a Nork or DaIsh flag here just astounds me. Folks can give historical reasons to fly a confederate flag (and there are some mentioned in this thread). Folks can explain why that flag is insulting (and have in this thread). But the flag of nations/organizations we are actively fighting or are actively threatening our allies just don't have any reasonable excuse to be flown here. That not one of you suggesting they are more appropriate can (or has) come up with any justification to display them is pretty telling. Seems to be hyperbolic spouting off more than a real argument/point trying to be made.
CptJake wrote: A threat back then that was defeated and is now gone just isn't as scary to me as Lil Kim with nukes right now.
So it is about being scary?
Maybe poor word choice on my part. Having said that, to think there is any level of appropriateness to flying a Nork or DaIsh flag here just astounds me. Folks can give historical reasons to fly a confederate flag (and there are some mentioned in this thread). Folks can explain why that flag is insulting (and have in this thread). But the flag of nations/organizations we are actively fighting or are actively threatening our allies just don't have any reasonable excuse to be flown here. That not one of you suggesting they are more appropriate can (or has) come up with any justification to display them is pretty telling. Seems to be hyperbolic spouting off more than a real argument/point trying to be made.
Plenty of people have given you justifcations
...you just don't like them, which is fine.
At the same title, of course it's hyperbolic. There's no reason for the government to fly any flag of a state it is no part of, he rebel flag included.
CptJake wrote: A threat back then that was defeated and is now gone just isn't as scary to me as Lil Kim with nukes right now.
So it is about being scary?
Maybe poor word choice on my part. Having said that, to think there is any level of appropriateness to flying a Nork or DaIsh flag here just astounds me. Folks can give historical reasons to fly a confederate flag (and there are some mentioned in this thread). Folks can explain why that flag is insulting (and have in this thread). But the flag of nations/organizations we are actively fighting or are actively threatening our allies just don't have any reasonable excuse to be flown here. That not one of you suggesting they are more appropriate can (or has) come up with any justification to display them is pretty telling. Seems to be hyperbolic spouting off more than a real argument/point trying to be made.
Plenty of people have given you justifcations
...you just don't like them, which is fine.
No, they have given justification for not flying the confederate flag. If I missed justifications for the Norks or DaIsh actually being more appropriate, please point me towards them.
If you can name a failed state born out of treason against the US, who raised arms against their countrymen on US soil, and who were utterly defeated and brought to heel, and whose progeny continue to idealize the failed state, then we have apples to apples.
jasper76 wrote: -Being a "rebel" in the rock and roll sense of the word (the same reason why many European hip hop types are drawn to Islam)
Why “European”? What about American groups like “Nation of Islam”, for instance?
CptJake wrote: But the flag of nations/organizations we are actively fighting or are actively threatening our allies just don't have any reasonable excuse to be flown here.
Well, the point was that neither have the flags of organizations who were actively fighting against the U.S. for the whole duration of their existence.
CptJake wrote: That not one of you suggesting they are more appropriate can (or has) come up with any justification to display them is pretty telling.
They are not “more appropriate” per se, they are somehow less inappropriate. They are of course not appropriate, but it seems to me the Confederate flag is even less so.
How far do we need to go? If that flag turned into something that means racism and must be taken down from public spaces, then anything to Robert C Byrd would need to be taken down/renamed.
Just playing by the same rules... eh?
As anyone living in West Virginia, that former Senator Robert C Byrd can be seen everywhere, who was once a high ranking member of the KKK (keagle), who infamously FILIBUSTERED the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.
The Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope in Green Bank, West Virginia. Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center, Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center, Marshall University Graduate College in South Charleston, West Virginia[9][10] Robert C. Byrd Auditorium, National Conservation Training Center in Shepherdstown, West Virginia[9][10][11] Robert C. Byrd Biotechnology Science Center, Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia[6][9][10][12][13] Robert C. Byrd Cancer Research Laboratory, West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd Center for Legislative Studies, Shepherd University in Shepherdstown, West Virginia[9][10][14] Robert C. Byrd Center for Pharmacy Education, University of Charleston in Charleston, West Virginia[9][10] Robert C. Byrd Center for Rural Health, Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia[6][9] Robert C. Byrd Clinical Teaching Center, Charleston Area Medical Center Memorial Hospital in Charleston, West Virginia[9][10] Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope, Green Bank, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd Hardwood Technologies Center, Princeton, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd Health and Wellness Center, Bethany College in Bethany, West Virginia[9][10] Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center, West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center Charleston Division, Charleston, West Virginia[9] Robert C. Byrd High School, Clarksburg, West Virginia[6][9][15] Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing (RCBI) Bridgeport Manufacturing Technology Center, Bridgeport, West Virginia[9][10][16] RCBI Charleston Manufacturing Technology Center, South Charleston, West Virginia[6][9][10][16] RCBI Huntington Manufacturing Technology Center, Huntington, West Virginia[9][10][16] RCBI Rocket Center Manufacturing Technology Center, Rocket Center, West Virginia[9][10][16][17] Robert C. Byrd Institute for Composites Technology and Training Center, Bridgeport, West Virginia[9] Robert C. Byrd Library, Wheeling, West Virginia[9] Robert C. Byrd Library and Robert C. Byrd Learning Resource Center, University of Charleston in Beckley[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd Life Long Learning Center, Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College in Moorefield, West Virginia[9] Robert C. Byrd Life Long Learning Center, West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia[10] Robert C. Byrd Metals Fabrication Center, Rocket Center, West Virginia[9][10][17] Robert C. Byrd National Aerospace Education Center, Bridgeport, West Virginia (affiliated with Fairmont State University)[9][10] Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center, Wheeling Jesuit University in Wheeling, West Virginia[6][9][18] Robert C. Byrd Regional Training Institute, Camp Dawson near Kingwood, West Virginia[9] Robert C. Byrd Science and Technology Center, Shepherd University in Shepherdstown, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd Technology Center, Alderson–Broaddus College in Philippi, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd United Technical Center[6][10] Commerce[edit] Robert C. Byrd Hilltop Office Complex, Rocket Center, West Virginia[6][9][10][17] Robert C. Byrd Industrial Park, Moorefield, West Virginia[6][9][10] Community[edit] Robert C. Byrd Community Center, Pine Grove, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd Community Center, Sugar Grove, West Virginia[6][10] Government[edit] Robert C. Byrd Rooms, Office of the West Virginia Senate Minority Leader, West Virginia State Capitol in Charleston, West Virginia[9] Robert C. Byrd United States Courthouse and Federal Building, Beckley, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd United States Courthouse and Federal Building, Charleston, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd Federal Correctional Institution, Hazelton, West Virginia[6][10] Healthcare[edit] Robert C. Byrd Clinic, West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine in Lewisburg, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd Clinical Addition to Veteran's Hospital, Huntington, West Virginia[6][9][10] Recreation and tourism[edit] Robert C. Byrd Addition to the Lodge at Oglebay Park, Wheeling, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd Conference Center (also known as the Robert C. Byrd Center for Hospitality and Tourism), Davis & Elkins College in Elkins, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd Visitor Center, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia[6][9][10] Transportation[edit]
The Robert C. Byrd Bridge crossing the Ohio River between Huntington, West Virginia and Chesapeake, Ohio. Robert C. Byrd Appalachian Highway System, Appalachian Development Highway System in West Virginia[9][10][19] Robert C. Byrd Bridge, crosses the Ohio River between Huntington, West Virginia and Chesapeake, Ohio[6][9][10][19] Robert C. Byrd Bridge, Ohio County, West Virginia[19] Robert C. Byrd Drive, West Virginia Routes 16 and 97 between Beckley and Sophia, West Virginia[6][10] Robert C. Byrd Expressway, United States Route 22 near Weirton, West Virginia[6][9][10] Robert C. Byrd Freeway, United States Route 119 between Williamson and Charleston, West Virginia (also known as Corridor G)[6][9] Robert C. Byrd Highway, United States Route 48 between Weston, West Virginia and the Virginia state line near Wardensville, West Virginia (also known as Corridor H)[6][19] Robert C. Byrd Interchange on Interstate 77[9] Robert C. Byrd Interchange on United States Route 19, Birch River, West Virginia[9][19] Robert C. Byrd Intermodal Transportation Center, Wheeling, West Virginia[9][10] Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, Ohio River in Gallipolis Ferry, West Virginia[6][9][10]
It's a fething side show that doesn't address real world issues.
For cripes sake, during Bill Clinton political career, his campaign used the bars and stripes motif endlessly.
An enemy 200+ years ago is just not the same as a current one. Heck, we are good allies with the UK, yet they burned down the White House (which I am sure Lee regretted not being able to do ).
I guess if folks want to have a discussion about the confederate flag, putting forth the position that the DaIsh flag is more appropriate today is not an argument winner. They (DaIsh) are currently a VERY brutal actor and are currently engaging in the enslavement of folks they conquer. And we are currently sending pilots and flight crews into danger in an attempt to contain them. Admitting it is hyperbole is good. Continuing to argue it (as someone seems to be doing) frankly flabbergasts me.
To quote a Muslim friend of mine "[The Nation of Islam] are about as Muslim as the Westboro Baptist Church". Which is to say they are not in any way, outside using the name 'Islam'.
An enemy 200+ years ago is just not the same as a current one. Heck, we are good allies with the UK, yet they burned down the White House (which I am sure Lee regretted not being able to do ).
I guess if folks want to have a discussion about the confederate flag, putting forth the position that the DaIsh flag is more appropriate today is not an argument winner. They (DaIsh) are currently a VERY brutal actor and are currently engaging in the enslavement of folks they conquer. And we are currently sending pilots and flight crews into danger in an attempt to contain them. Admitting it is hyperbole is good. Continuing to argue it (as someone seems to be doing) frankly flabbergasts me.
I think the main point is that its kind of silly for citizens to expect their government to issue license plates with the flag of a traitor nation, just because they identify with it for whatever reason.
Just go buy a damn bumper sticker, a t-shirt, wave a flag in your front yard, or whatever, and whistle Dixie til your face turns blue.
An enemy 200+ years ago is just not the same as a current one. Heck, we are good allies with the UK, yet they burned down the White House (which I am sure Lee regretted not being able to do ).
But the enemy is a current one, they just killed 9 americans on US soil. What flag is dylann proudly waving in the picture when you see links to his manifesto? How many americans have NK killed lately?
It doesn't matter how the flag was originally used, Today it is a symbol of racism, used by white supremacists groups. So leave it in a civil war museum and off of the flags used today. If people really honored the confederate flag they should be demanding it not be flown so that the racist groups don't continue to defile their southern heritage.
Yes Whembly the democrats USED to be the racist party, but that was then and today the republicans proudly wear that title.
as for naming places, The south lost, because they lost they were traitors to america, and deserve no recognition. Anyone honoring these traitors as "american hero's" are therefore traitors.
Really I agree with people saying that the south is the most racist, ignorant, inbreed, and counter productive parts of the country. And that flag is a symbol of oppression and slavery (shut up it is) So yeah I do think it should be removed...
It would be like if some town in Germany still uses a nazi flag (a little overboard I know.)
But what do I know I live in the wacky state of California *sigh*
All this "I can't believe you want to change every place that is named after a civil war person" or "no one ever will be allowed to sell it ever"....where is that coming from? I mean the OP was about not flying it at state/federal government locations. That's it. Which side of the argument made it about renaming military bases and never ever selling it?
An enemy 200+ years ago is just not the same as a current one. Heck, we are good allies with the UK, yet they burned down the White House (which I am sure Lee regretted not being able to do ).
I guess if folks want to have a discussion about the confederate flag, putting forth the position that the DaIsh flag is more appropriate today is not an argument winner. They (DaIsh) are currently a VERY brutal actor and are currently engaging in the enslavement of folks they conquer. And we are currently sending pilots and flight crews into danger in an attempt to contain them. Admitting it is hyperbole is good. Continuing to argue it (as someone seems to be doing) frankly flabbergasts me.
I think the main point is that its kind of silly for citizens to expect their government to issue license plates with the flag of a traitor nation, just because they identify with it for whatever reason.
Just go buy a damn bumper sticker, a t-shirt, wave a flag in your front yard, or whatever, and whistle Dixie til your face turns blue.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And here we are not even talking about the flag of a nation, but the flag of an army whose very purpose was destroying the United states.
The Confederate army wasn't trying to destroy the United States.
That was the immediate purpose for its existence. To stop Federal armies from preserving the Union.
That is something worth talking about, and worth championing. I can't think of a more power act of what it's means to be a Christian there...
Christian what ? How did this thread become about Christianity?
jasper76 wrote: Fair enough. I was just throwing out an example of "counter-culture" off the top of my head with which you may be familiar.
Oh. Siouxsie Sioux wearing a swastika then.
Ahtman wrote: To quote a Muslim friend of mine "[The Nation of Islam] are about as Muslim as the Westboro Baptist Church". Which is to say they are not in any way, outside using the name 'Islam'.
To quote myself: whatever.
People saying other people are not Muslims or not Christians, but that they are the real deal…
Have you looked at the context? Certainly quite a bunch of black Americans turned to Islam as a “rebellion” against “white” Christianity. Which is funny when you think about it, given how Arabs have treated Black people. It was about on par with how Europeans (and Europeans abroad, I would have said Americans but the Native Americans have nothing to do into it) have treated Black people.
I've got the blood of a Union general flowing through my veins (General George Meade, if anyone actually wanted to know, on my dad's side of the family tree). Coupled with my experience in college of people flying the confederate flag, I'm pretty against what it used to stand for and what it stands for now.
Full disclosure: My ancestors on both sides of the family fought for the CSA.
I have never owned a confederate flag of any form, battle or otherwise. Though I probably have more "right" to wear it for heritage reason than most of the doorknobs who do actually fly the thing. I have no opinion on the flags presence on official government flagpoles and plates. I can see arguments for either side, really.
I think the main point is that its kind of silly for citizens to expect their government to issue license plates with the flag of a traitor nation, just because they identify with it for whatever reason.
Just go buy a damn bumper sticker, a t-shirt, wave a flag in your front yard, or whatever, and whistle Dixie til your face turns blue.
This.
I also see no reason to outright ban the confederate flag from private citizens.
But some do, and those people drive me closer and closer to flying the stars and bars for the simple joy of seeing them froth at the mouth.
Jihadin wrote: Wonder if the re-enactors who do the Gettysburg Battle have to stop flying the Stars and Bars
Edit
Since Gettysburg Battlefield is on government property
you should be more concerned about their potential for stroke and heart attacks while re-enacting. have you seen them? Some of them are right fluffy on the weight scale.
motyak wrote: All this "I can't believe you want to change every place that is named after a civil war person" or "no one ever will be allowed to sell it ever"....where is that coming from? I mean the OP was about not flying it at state/federal government locations. That's it. Which side of the argument made it about renaming military bases and never ever selling it?
It's called the slippery slope fallacy. A lot of that happening in this thread.
Dogma is better at explaining it Than I, but the basic strategy is to claim that if you take one minor step, it ABSOLUTELY HAS TOO lead to massive unexpected consequences, even though there really isn't proof that these MASSIVE consequences might happen.
Ghazkuul wrote: hell I have seen black people wearing Confederate flags on their clothing,
I do hate that it took the murder of 9 people including a former US senator for people to think "hey lets take down that hate symbol flying on our state capital."
Kanye West doesn't count
And actually, if you look deeper, this discussion has been going on for a long, long time. It's just that right now, it's the current "hot topic". Yes, I also hate that it took the murder of 9 people for it to become the "hot topic" but the discussion has been going on for some time.
Way back in 2000, the NCAA ruled that South Carolina, and Mississippi would never host any post-season sporting events, so long as the battle flag flew over government buildings in those states. (Of course, the NCAA is after money, and are hypocrites, because in 07 or 08, South Carolina did host some women's sport post-season event)
I do hope that THIS time, with Steve Spurrier, the President of USC, and the AD calling for it's removal, and the fact that SC sports are probably among the largest money draws for the state as a whole; that when they speak, people listen.
motyak wrote: All this "I can't believe you want to change every place that is named after a civil war person" or "no one ever will be allowed to sell it ever"....where is that coming from? I mean the OP was about not flying it at state/federal government locations. That's it. Which side of the argument made it about renaming military bases and never ever selling it?
It's called the slippery slope fallacy. A lot of that happening in this thread.
Dogma is better at explaining it Than I, but the basic strategy is to claim that if you take one minor step, it ABSOLUTELY HAS TOO lead to massive unexpected consequences, even though there really isn't proof that these MASSIVE consequences might happen.
GG
I also call it Escalation ideal. Where if one thing happens another thing happens. It rarely ever happens that way.
motyak wrote: All this "I can't believe you want to change every place that is named after a civil war person" or "no one ever will be allowed to sell it ever"....where is that coming from? I mean the OP was about not flying it at state/federal government locations. That's it. Which side of the argument made it about renaming military bases and never ever selling it?
I really don't know. It's not like "no one will be allowed to sell it" is even a remotely plausible situation, any law banning private sale or use of the flag would be instantly struck down in court.
As for the flag issue, at what point will folks be happy? Do we need to outlaw it so that even having accurate confederate flags for miniature war game units is illegal (much like you cant have accurate WW2 German markings on model aircraft/ships and so on sold in Germany?)
Personally, I think that the flag should not be flown over government buildings today. Private citizens should still be able to purchase it, just like we can the Gadsden Flag. Showing the flag in a museum dedicated to the ACW is also fine. Already existing memorials with metal/engraved stone or other "permanent" fixtures of the flag should be left alone as well (as we saw in the pic on page 1, with the German soldier who had a swastika on the headstone), as each would cost too much money to replace
Beyond that, as we have a 1st amendment right to free speech, as I said, people should be able to buy the flag to their hearts content, miniature wargames, historical statues, etc. designed for personal use are fine as well.
Ultimately, I think that we should be somewhere between where we are today, and Germany. IMHO, Germany went too far in removing swastikas and all mention of Nazism in the wake of WW2.
As Charleston marched in unity at sunset on Sunday night, two things were conspicuously missing. One was the progressive paid-agitation mob, normally so prevalent whenever an eager media trains its cameras on torched buildings and tear gas. The other was Barack Obama, who was golfing on the other side of the country and nowhere to be found. Just days earlier, an unthinkable act of racial terror had ripped the city apart and frayed the fabric of the nation: nine African-American members of the historic Emanuel A.M.E. Church were gunned down in a Bible study group by a white supremacist with yet another creepy bowl haircut. The dead included three pastors, one of which was noted State Senator Clementa Pinckney. Due to the time of night when the crime occurred, very few details initially emerged concerning the crime or its particulars.
But, to a narrative-happy media approaching another critical election year, it didn’t matter.
Before the sun was given a chance to rise, the usual media suspects had chosen their narrative. Before the shooter was even apprehended every professional grievance-hunter, from Talking Points Memo, Salon, and The Huffington Post to the Obama Administration, was placing blame for a terror attack at the feet of a Republican Governor and a flag. Before the weekend was out, every Republican candidate for President was being bombarded by Buzzfeeders and JuiceVoxers. The GOP campaigns, still apparently naïvely unaware as to what the goals of these outlets are, decided to play along and they were promptly rewarded with more blame and more questions. Leftist media finally had the Conservative Tea Party Monster they’d always intended James Holmes or Adam Lanza or Jared Loughner to be.
Republican Presidential candidates were being made to answer for a Democrat battle flag, representing a Democrat war in a chapter of American history remembered as a Democrat revolt against the Republican proposition that human beings shouldn’t be held as chattel property. And all this even before the victims of Emanuel A.M.E. Church were given a chance to be memorialized.
Before the crime scene had been cleared and the killer had been caught, our media was once again bludgeoning us over the head and telling us to submit before we had even begun to grasp what it was that had actually happened. As reports came in via social media and local news outlets in the heat of the late South Carolina night, we were all struggling to find out what was happening. We weren’t even able to catch our breath. POLITICO, the Washington Post, and the New York Times all began examining what they called an “uncomfortable relationship the GOP has with the Confederate Flag.” It doesn’t matter that their crack researchers ignored a quote from a prominent KKK Member on the front page of Democrat candidate for President, Lincoln Chafee‘s website. Or that Bill Clinton signed legislation in 1987 amending the Arkansas state flag to honor the Confederate States. This is not about a flag but that doesn’t matter.
We get flooded with opinions of Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee (polling somewhere around 2% nationally), but not once, in spite of her own husband’s legislative ties to the Confederate States, did media pressure Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
They were too busy partying at the wedding of one of her aides.
That’s how it has been for a long seven years (and if they have their way, another four). A tragedy is immediately politicized by the agitationist progressive left. Their targets are now dragged, unwillingly and unjustly, into a fight they neither wanted nor started. It’s like fighting off a rabid dog. Before we have a chance to catch our breath, progressive media has its jaws locked onto our throat and is foaming at the mouth. Over a flag.
The Confederate battle flag is a stupidly retrograde symbol of a deservedly losing cause that flies over a Civil War memorial adjacent to the Columbia SC capitol building and which, in any event, was not responsible for the actions of a deranged individual in Charleston. If you think it was, then ask why have such modern mass-slaughters managed to spare Mississippi, a state that incorporates the Confederate battle standard into its official state flag? The Holy Cross is also disagreeable symbol to progressive media (for infinitely less justifiable reasons), and this past weekend there were more people in Charleston waving that than the Confederate flag. Before the victims can be memorialized and grieved for, the political ideology that the national media on the Left is at war with (the party that itself buried the Confederacy, mind you) must atone for sins that don’t belong to them.
And thus a powder keg is lit.
The pattern is all too familiar. Shooter commits crime. President blames guns. Media blames Republicans. Media glorifies leftist protest. Protest turns to riot. Rinse. Repeat. Hope and Change, or else. For the past six or so years, the country feels like we’re on the verge of just getting our teeth kicked in. Like one spark lights a fuse. There was a feeling, propagated on social media and online, that perhaps this was that spark. That’s the goal of Alinsky social policies. At all costs, keep people angry. Keep people divided. Keep people distracted. We feared as a country there was no coming back from this.
But then something happened. This time was different. This time things didn’t go according to the their plan. This time, spurred on by the courage of families left behind, forgiving an unforgivable monster, with arms linked on bridges and church pews, Charleston joined together and made it known to racial extremists, both black and white, that their community would not be defined by them.
Hate would not win.
The country isn’t divided. The country isn’t racist. The country is exhausted.
As we witnessed Charlestonians of every race, color, and confessional creed congregating and joining hands as services at Emanuel A.M.E. Church resumed on Sunday, our President and his special advisor Valerie Jarrett were finger-wagging everyone on Twitter from the confines of an exclusive private country club in Palm Springs, CA–literally the furthest point he could get from Charleston in the country without physically leaving it.
Obama entered the White House briefing room the morning after the attack, gave a short two minute statement, lectured the country about gun control and then got on his airplane and flew away to Hollywood. Beyond a couple sparse tweets, that was all we heard from him. It takes a truly special brand of narcissism to decide to sit out the healing and grieving process a country takes upon itself in its President’s absence, yet at the same time scold it from an iPhone at Tyler Perry’s house or a golf course in Palm Springs.
Ronald Reagan sat in the Oval Office and embedded the memory of Christa McAuliffe and her crew into the permanent consciousness of the country. Bill Clinton’s down-home personal touch helped a country cope with, and understand a devastating act of domestic terror in Oklahoma City. George W. Bush, on the night of September 11th, 2001, exited Marine One and marched across the south lawn of the White House alone, head unbowed, and addressed a confused and angry nation against the wishes of his Secret Service.
With this President, checking out seems to be his only coping mechanism of choice, an inadequate response for a man tasked as the leader of the free world. Barack Obama, indignant that he can’t use the Charleston shooting to pass his political agenda, seems to have found no use in acting as a consoler-in-chief, but instead offered up a half-hearted lecture on gun control premised on faulty statistics. Then he boarded Air Force One and flew to Hollywood for four fundraisers, a podcast with a comedian and two days of golf. Just as he did after the terror attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. Just as he did in the Hamptons and at the White House Correspondents Dinner as images of Ferguson and Baltimore being burnt to the ground blazed across cable channels.
A defining characteristic of this President is his constant (really, unique) ability to completely disappear when the country needs leadership the most, and instead let his bidding be done by junior staff on Twitter. A terrorist attack fundamentally changed the course of George W. Bush’s presidency. A terrorist attack doesn’t even change Barack Obama’s podcast schedule.
The last time he addressed the country from the Oval Office was in August of 2010. Every time the country has endured a tragedy since then, and has turned to its President looking for words of comfort or understanding, that office has remained empty.
This country doesn’t have a race problem. It has a leadership problem.
In spite of unimaginable horror, however (and in spite of the vacuum of leadership), Charleston has given us hope. For the first time in seven years, the country turned its back on divisive rhetoric and policies. It drowned out the voices of a leftist mob hoping to leave a scorched wasteland wherever it goes (but particularly wherever the cameras follow). Charleston has begun to put itself back together and has done so without Al Sharpton’s paid mob of leftist shock troops or Barack Obama’s idle threats and apathy. They didn’t turn their pain into rage and then take it out on businesses in the community. They harnessed it into a message of hope and forgiveness, thus neutering the shooter of his stated goals. It was illuminating. It was inspiring and the remaining remnants of an organized horde of occupiers and incendiaries were helpless to stop it.
Their self appointed leader, Deray McKesson, the seemingly fresh-spawned whelp of the Sharpton/Soros social media faux-activist mob, arrived in Charleston ready to stamp his feet and scream, only to be greeted by the nigh-incomprehensible (to him) sight of people singing with, and not screaming at, one another. Before the weekend was out, Deray was taking his frustrations with this so-called “forgiveness” narrative out on the families of the victims, and was being told to go home by a city and a state with its heart already full of grief and with no time for his shovel-ready anger-and-agitation tactics.
Deray was instead exiled to the blasted ratings heath of CNN to spread his message of widespread rampant racism in South Carolina, despite the solemn claims of the racist mass murderer in his manifesto. Despite the claims of Obama on Marc Maron’s podcast, or Deray’s daily racial Uberfact Tweets, racism was so scarce on the ground in South Carolina that the shooter couldn’t find anyone to go along with his ideology or his plan. He lamented about how alone he was in his demented ideals. Deray’s only outlet in Charleston became his Twitter feed, where he did his best impression of Vigo the Carpathian, desperately clinging onto a baby as he hears all the singing coming from outside the museum. In the end, the sight of thousands of peaceful people marching across the Revenal Bridge, waving flags and locked in arms was too much for him to stomach.
He sat it out.
Charleston turned their back on hate, and did so without occupying a park, torching a business, smashing up a single cop car, or burning a single American flag. It’s a country we aren’t used to seeing anymore, which is why the images from worshippers joining hands and embracing each other in faith felt so viscerally moving to so many. It’s something we haven’t seen in awhile and it’s not something the far left wants us to see. Progressive and network media were happy to wrap themselves in a biased political narrative about an outdated flag. The rest of the country wrapped itself in the of the arms of the victims, their families, and the congregants of Emanuel A.M.E. Church, and let it be known loud and clear that they were not alone. Charleston, like New York or Boston, is not alone.
I have been trying to figure out why Americans in the south portion of the country identify as Southerners as opposite to Northerners. Yet those in the North rarely seem to identify as Northerners. Some even identify by state, geographical region then country (looking at you Texas...).
Had a FB argument with a friend. He was under the impression that the CSA was more America then the Union and if they had won, the would of abolished slavery and racism wouldn't have come into existence. He also seemed to see it as a bastion of freedom. I tried to explain it to him that the CSA was doomed to fail as it had no central gov and amounted to just a handshake for mutual support. Likely the members of the CSA if it was left alone would resemble poor undeveloped countries...similar to now but without the federal gov proping them up lol.
Whembly, that is one of the worst, most inane things that I have ever read. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul. If you truly think that is representative of reality that is. You could have posted it as a joke (I can hope right?).
BrotherGecko wrote: I have been trying to figure out why Americans in the south portion of the country identify as Southerners as opposite to Northerners. Yet those in the North rarely seem to identify as Northerners. Some even identify by state, geographical region then country (looking at you Texas...).
Had a FB argument with a friend. He was under the impression that the CSA was more America then the Union and if they had won, the would of abolished slavery and racism wouldn't have come into existence. He also seemed to see it as a bastion of freedom. I tried to explain it to him that the CSA was doomed to fail as it had no central gov and amounted to just a handshake for mutual support. Likely the members of the CSA if it was left alone would resemble poor undeveloped countries...similar to now but without the federal gov proping them up lol.
You can't figure out why a Texan identifies as being Texan and northerners don't identify with their state? Maybe because you have to be proud of something to identify with it?
I've known New Yorkers. They were proud of their state too, as they should be (despite it being NY).
Now Oklahoma, yea I could understand....
being proud of your state means you can be proud of both your immediate location and the greater America Hurr! Its a twofer!
motyak wrote: Whembly, that is one of the worst, most inane things that I have ever read. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul. If you truly think that is representative of reality that is. You could have posted it as a joke (I can hope right?).
motyak wrote: All this "I can't believe you want to change every place that is named after a civil war person" or "no one ever will be allowed to sell it ever"....where is that coming from? I mean the OP was about not flying it at state/federal government locations. That's it. Which side of the argument made it about renaming military bases and never ever selling it?
Maybe because there are currently folks advocating the renaming? And there have been in the past? And some are tying the issues together?
n an era where there is little bipartisan accord, it is significant that many on the right are joining the chorus of voices on the left demanding that the Confederate battle flag be removed from the grounds of South Carolina’s statehouse. Republican Governor Nikki Haley herself made the case yesterday during a press conference for relocating the flag to a more neutral location.
For some this is just a beginning. According to Stars and Stripes, there has been talk for years about whether military bases named for Confederate generals, of which there are nine, should be renamed.
And I previously linked the the CA legislature banning the confederate flag from items sold at state run gift shops as an example of folks putting out laws that do more than take away the confedearte flag from being flown over gov't buildings.
Call it the slippery slope fallacy if you want, but the ideas ARE out there and being pushed a bit at a time.
It's not worth it, but I'll point out a key difference in the two situations:
In the first situation someone is murdered and the murderer is arrested, universally condemned, and the only question is whether he will get the death penalty or "merely" spend the rest of his life in prison. Meanwhile the victims are assumed to be innocent and nobody questions whether they might have done something to deserve death.
In the second situation someone is murdered and the murderer is protected by the state, defended by a large percentage of society, and is likely to face a temporary suspension and a "don't do it again" note at most. Meanwhile the victim is assumed to be guilty, discussion of the murder is full of speculation about all the horrible things they did in the past and how they probably deserved to die, and in less heavily moderated places than this site crosses the line into speculation about how all members of the victim's race/culture are inherently violent criminals.
Can you really not see why one of these situations is likely to produce peaceful memorials while the other is likely to produce anger and protests?
BrotherGecko wrote: I have been trying to figure out why Americans in the south portion of the country identify as Southerners as opposite to Northerners. Yet those in the North rarely seem to identify as Northerners. Some even identify by state, geographical region then country (looking at you Texas...).
Had a FB argument with a friend. He was under the impression that the CSA was more America then the Union and if they had won, the would of abolished slavery and racism wouldn't have come into existence. He also seemed to see it as a bastion of freedom. I tried to explain it to him that the CSA was doomed to fail as it had no central gov and amounted to just a handshake for mutual support. Likely the members of the CSA if it was left alone would resemble poor undeveloped countries...similar to now but without the federal gov proping them up lol.
You can't figure out why a Texan identifies as being Texan and northerners don't identify with their state? Maybe because you have to be proud of something to identify with it?
I've known New Yorkers. They were proud of their state too, as they should be (despite it being NY).
Now Oklahoma, yea I could understand....
being proud of your state means you can be proud of both your immediate location and the greater America Hurr! Its a twofer!
I will give you New Yorkers are the Northern counter to Texans. I live in Michigan and despite its problems I'm fully aware its the best state in the Union to live (natural disasters? Drought? lol wut?)
Still if I had to choose its U.S.A all the way, then way off in the distance its Michigander/Troll. Northerner only comes up when talking to Southerners....so they know which direction my state is ( )
It's not worth it, but I'll point out a key difference in the two situations:
In the first situation someone is murdered and the murderer is arrested, universally condemned, and the only question is whether he will get the death penalty or "merely" spend the rest of his life in prison. Meanwhile the victims are assumed to be innocent and nobody questions whether they might have done something to deserve death.
In the second situation someone is murdered and the murderer is protected by the state, defended by a large percentage of society, and is likely to face a temporary suspension and a "don't do it again" note at most. Meanwhile the victim is assumed to be guilty, discussion of the murder is full of speculation about all the horrible things they did in the past and how they probably deserved to die, and in less heavily moderated places than this site crosses the line into speculation about how all members of the victim's race/culture are inherently violent criminals.
Can you really not see why one of these situations is likely to produce peaceful memorials while the other is likely to produce anger and protests?
Of course and that is a meaningful difference.
But, don't tell me that the same crowd from Ferguson/Baltimore/NY didn't want to stir things up in Charleston either.
Don't forget, I lived 15 minutes away from Ferguson and I saw it happen in real time. As far as I'm concerned, those rioters can go themselves. And also any groups that HIRED them to do so... looking at your Soros! :shakes fist:
Asherian Command wrote: The Civil War happened because it was bound to happen whether it was by slavery or not.
This statement makes no sense.
There is an argument by some historians that eventually the (then) wealthier agrarian south would eventually conflict with the industrializing north no matter what. It doesn't explain why other ag states didn't join (Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, etc).
Worthwhile read on the subject. Address given in Charleston in 2011 - "Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners Fought"
This year initiates the commemoration of the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War. This is an occasion for serious reflection on a war that killed some 600,000 of our citizens and left many hundreds of thousands emotionally and physically scarred. Translated into today’s terms – our country is ten times more populous than it was then -- the dead would number some 6 million, with tens of millions more wounded, maimed, and psychologically damaged. The price was indeed catastrophic.
As a Southerner with ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, I have been intrigued with the question of why my ancestors felt compelled to leave the United States and set up their own country. What brought the American experiment to that extreme juncture?
The short answer, of course, is Abraham Lincoln’s election as president of the United States. What concerned Southerners most about Lincoln’s election was his opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories; Southern politicians were clear about that. If new states could not be slave states, went the argument, then it was only a matter of time before the south’s clout in Congress would fade, abolitionists would be ascendant, and the South’s “peculiar institution” – the right to own human beings as property – would be in peril.
It is easy to understand why slave owners would be concerned about the threat, real or imagined, that Lincoln posed to slavery. But what about those Southerners who did not own slaves? Why would they risk their livelihoods by leaving the United States and pledging allegiance to a new nation grounded in the proposition that all men are not created equal, a nation established to preserve a type of property that they did not own?
In order to find an answer to this question, please travel back with me to the South of 1860. Let’s put ourselves into the skin of Southerners who lived there then. That’s what being an historian is about: putting yourself into the minds of people who lived in another time to understand things from their perspective, from their point of view. Let’s set aside what people said and wrote later, after the dust had settled. Let’s wipe the historic slate clean and visit the South of 150 years ago through the documents that survive from that time. What were Southerners saying to other Southerners about why they had to secede?
There is, of course, a historical backdrop that formed the foundation of experience for Southerners in 1860. More than 4 million enslaved human beings lived in the south, and they touched every aspect of the region’s social, political, and economic life. Slaves did not just work on plantations. In cities such as Charleston, they cleaned the streets, toiled as bricklayers, carpenters, blacksmiths, bakers, and laborers. They worked as dockhands and stevedores, grew and sold produce, purchased goods and carted them back to their masters’ homes where they cooked the meals, cleaned, raised the children, and tended to the daily chores. “Charleston looks more like a Negro country than a country settled by white people,” a visitor remarked.
Fear of a slave rebellion was palpable. The establishment of a black republic in Haiti and the insurrections, threatened and real, of Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, and Nat Turner stoked the fires. John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry sent shock waves through the south. Throughout the decades leading up to 1860, slavery was a burning national issue, and political battles raged over the admission of new states as slave or free. Compromises were struck – the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850 – but the controversy could not be laid to rest.
The South felt increasingly beleaguered as the North increased its criticism of slavery. Abolitionist societies sprang up, Northern publications demanded the immediate end of slavery, politicians waxed shrill about the immorality of human bondage, and overseas, the British parliament terminated slavery in the British West Indies. A prominent historian accurately noted that “by the late 1850’s most white Southerners viewed themselves as prisoners in their own country, condemned by what they saw as a hysterical abolition movement.”
As Southerners became increasingly isolated, they reacted by becoming more strident in defending slavery. The institution was not just a necessary evil: it was a positive good, a practical and moral necessity. Controlling the slave population was a matter of concern for all Whites, whether they owned slaves or not. Curfews governed the movement of slaves at night, and vigilante committees patrolled the roads, dispensing summary justice to wayward slaves and whites suspected of harboring abolitionist views. Laws were passed against the dissemination of abolitionist literature, and the South increasingly resembled a police state. A prominent Charleston lawyer described the city’s citizens as living under a “reign of terror.”
WHAT THE CHURCHES WERE SAYING
With that backdrop, let’s take our trip back in time to hear what Southerners were hearing. What were they being told by their pastors, by their politicians, and their community leaders about slavery, Lincoln, and secession?
Churches were the center of social and intellectual life in the south. That was where people congregated, where they learned about the world and their place in it, and where they received moral guidance. The clergy comprised the community’s cultural leaders and educators and carried tremendous influence with slaveholders and non-slaveholders alike. What were Southern pastors, preachers, and religious leaders telling their flock?
Southern clergy defended the morality of slavery through an elaborate scriptural defense built on the infallibility of the Bible, which they held up as the universal and objective standard for moral issues. Religious messages from pulpit and from a growing religious press accounted in large part for the extreme, uncompromising, ideological atmosphere of the time.
As Northern opposition to slavery grew, the three major protestant churches split into northern and southern factions. The Presbyterians divided in1837, the Methodists in 1844, and the Baptists in 1845. The segregation of the clergy into Northern and Southern camps was profound. It spelt an end to meaningful dialogue, leaving Southern preachers to talk to Southern audiences without contradiction.
What were their arguments? The Presbyterian theologian Robert Lewis Dabney reminded his fellow Southern clergymen that the Bible was the best way to explain slavery to the masses. “We must go before the nation with the Bible as the text, and ‘thus sayeth the lord’ as the answer,” he wrote. “We know that on the Bible argument the abolition party will be driven to unveil their true infidel tendencies. The Bible being bound to stand on our side, they have to come out and array themselves against the Bible.”
Reverend Furman of South Carolina insisted that the right to hold slaves was clearly sanctioned by the Holy Scriptures. He emphasized a practical side as well, warning that if Lincoln were elected, “every Negro in South Carolina and every other Southern state will be his own master; nay, more than that, will be the equal of every one of you. If you are tame enough to submit, abolition preachers will be at hand to consummate the marriage of your daughters to black husbands.”
A fellow reverend from Virginia agreed that on no other subject “are [the Bible’s] instructions more explicit, or their salutary tendency and influence more thoroughly tested and corroborated by experience than on the subject of slavery.” The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, asserted that slavery “has received the sanction of Jehova.” As a South Carolina Presbyterian concluded: “If the scriptures do not justify slavery, I know not what they do justify.”
The Biblical argument started with Noah’s curse on Ham, the father of Canaan, which was used to demonstrate that God had ordained slavery and had expressly applied it to Blacks. Commonly cited were passages in Leviticus that authorized the buying, selling, holding and bequeathing of slaves as property. Methodist Samuel Dunwody from South Carolina documented that Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and Job owned slaves, arguing that “some of the most eminent of the Old Testament saints were slave holders.” The Methodist Quarterly Review noted further that “the teachings of the new testament in regard to bodily servitude accord with the old.” While slavery was not expressly sanctioned in the New Testament, Southern clergymen argued that the absence of condemnation signified approval. They cited Paul’s return of a runaway slave to his master as Biblical authority for the Fugitive Slave Act, which required the return of runaway slaves.
As Pastor Dunwody of South Carolina summed up the case: “Thus, God, as he is infinitely wise, just and holy, never could authorize the practice of a moral evil. But god has authorized the practice of slavery, not only by the bare permission of his Providence, but the express provision of his word. Therefore, slavery is not a moral evil.” Since the Bible was the source for moral authority, the case was closed. “Man may err,” said the southern theologian James Thornwell, “but God can never lie.”
It was a corollary that to attack slavery was to attack the Bible and the word of God. If the Bible expressly ordained slave holding, to oppose the practice was a sin and an insult to God’s word. As the Baptist minister and author Thornton Stringfellow noted in his influential Biblical Defense of Slavery, “men from the north” demonstrated “palpable ignorance of the divine will.”
The Southern Presbyterian of S.C observed that there was a “religious character to the present struggle. Anti-slavery is essentially infidel. It wars upon the Bible, on the Church of Christ, on the truth of God, on the souls of men.” A Georgia preacher denounced abolitionists as “diametrically opposed to the letter and spirit of the Bible, and as subversive of all sound morality, as the worst ravings of infidelity.” The prominent South Carolina Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell did not mince his words. “The parties in the conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders. They are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, Jacobins on the one side, and friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground – Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity at stake.”
During the 1850’s, pro-slavery arguments from the pulpit became especially strident. A preacher in Richmond exalted slavery as “the most blessed and beautiful form of social government known; the only one that solves the problem, how rich and poor may dwell together; a beneficent patriarchate.” The Central Presbyterian affirmed that slavery was “a relation essential to the existence of civilized society.” By 1860, Southern preachers felt comfortable advising their parishioners that “both Christianity and Slavery are from heaven; both are blessings to humanity; both are to be perpetuated to the end of time.”
By 1860, Southern churches were denouncing the North as decadent and sinful because it had turned from God and rejected the Bible. Since the North was sinful and degenerate, went their reasoning, the South must purify itself by seceding. As a South Carolina preacher noted on the eve of secession, “We cannot coalesce with men whose society will eventually corrupt our own, and bring down upon us the awful doom which awaits them.” The consequence was a pointedly religious bent to rising Southern nationalism. As the Southern Presbyterian wrote, “It would be a glorious sight to see this Southern Confederacy of ours stepping forth amid the nations of the world animated with a Christian spirit, guided by Christian principles, administered by Christian men, and adhering faithfully to Christian precepts,” ie., the slavery of fellow human beings.
Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Presbyterian minister Benjamin Morgan Palmer, originally from Charleston, gave a sermon entitled, “The South Her Peril and Her Duty.” He announced that the election had brought to the forefront one issue – slavery – that required him to speak out. Slavery, he explained, was a question of morals and religion, and was now the central question in the crisis of the Union. The South, he went on, had a “providential trust to conserve and to perpetuate the institution of slavery as now existing.” The South was defined by slavery, he observed. “It has fashioned our modes of life, and determined all of our habits of thought and feeling, and molded the very type of our civilization.” Abolition, said Palmer, was “undeniably atheistic.” The South “defended the cause of God and religion,” and nothing “is now left but secession.” Some 90,000 copies of a pamphlet incorporating the sermon were distributed.
Preachers were prominent at ceremonies held as troops marched off to war. In Petersburg, Virginia for example, Methodist minister R. N. Sledd railed against Northerners, an “infidel and fanatical foe” who embodied “the barbarity of an Atilla more than the civilization of the 19th Century” and who showed “contempt for virtue and religion according to their savage purpose.” Northerners, he warned, wanted to “undermine the authority of my Bible. You go to contribute to the salvation of your country from such a curse,” he told the departing soldiers. “You go to aid in the glorious enterprise of rearing in our sunny south a temple to constitutional liberty and Bible Christianity. You go to fight for your people and for the cities of your God.”
WHAT THE POLITICIANS WERE SAYING
What were the South’s politicians saying? In late 1860 and early 1861, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana appointed commissioners to travel to the other slave states and persuade them to secede. The commissioners addressed state legislatures, conventions, made public addresses, and wrote letters. Their speeches were printed in newspapers and pamphlets. These contemporaneous documents make fascinating reading and have recently been collected in a book by the historian Charles Dew.
William Harris, Mississippi’s commissioner to Georgia, explained that Lincoln’s election had made the North more defiant than ever. “They have demanded, and now demand equality between the white and negro races, under our constitution; equality in representation, equality in right of suffrage, equality in the honors and emoluments of office, equality in the social circle, equality in the rights of matrimony,” he cautioned, adding that the new administration wanted “freedom to the slave, but eternal degradation for you and me.”
As Harris saw things, “Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality.” Lincoln and his followers, he stated, aimed to “overturn and strike down this great feature of our union and to substitute in its stead their new theory of the universal equality of the black and white races.” For Harris, the choice was clear. Mississippi would “rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pyre than see them subjugated to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race.” The Georgia legislature ordered the printing of a thousand copies of his speech.
Two days before South Carolina seceded, Judge Alexander Hamilton Handy, Mississippi’s commissioner to Maryland, warned that “the first act of the black republican party will be to exclude slavery from all the territories, from the District of Columbia, the arsenals and the forts, by the action of the general government. That would be a recognition that slavery is a sin, and confine the institution to its present limits. The moment that slavery is pronounced a moral evil – a sin – by the general government, that moment the safety of the rights of the south will be entirely gone.”
The next day, two commissioners addressed the North Carolina legislature and warned that Lincoln’s election meant “utter ruin and degradation” for the south. “The white children now born will be compelled to flee from the land of their birth, and from the slaves their parents have toiled to acquire as an inheritance for them, or to submit to the degradation of being reduced to an equality with them, and all its attendant horrors.”
Former South Carolina Congressman John McQueen was crystal clear about where things stood when he wrote to a group of Richmond civic leaders. Lincoln’s program was based upon the “single idea that the African is equal to the Anglo-Saxon, and with the purpose of placing our slaves on a position of equality with ourselves and our friends of every condition. We, of South Carolina, hope soon to greet you in a Southern Confederacy, where white men shall rule our destinies, and from which we may transmit to our posterity the rights, privileges, and honor left us by our ancestors.”
Typical of the commissioner letters is that written by Stephen Hale, an Alabama commissioner, to the Governor of Kentucky, in December 1860. Lincoln’s election, he observed, was “nothing less than an open declaration of war, for the triumph of this new theory of government destroys the property of the south, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans. The slave holder and non-slaveholder must ultimately share the same fate; all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life, or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting all the resources of the country.”
What Southerner, Hale asked, “can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters in the not distant future associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality?” Abolition would surely mean that “the two races would be continually pressing together,” and “amalgamation or the extermination of the one or the other would be inevitable.” Secession, argued Hale, was the only means by which the “heaven ordained superiority of the white over the black race” could be sustained. The abolition of slavery would either plunge the South into a race war or so stain the blood of the white race that it would be contaminated for all time.” Could southern men “submit to such degradation and ruin,” he asked, and responded to his own question, “God forbid that they should.”
Congressman Curry, another of Alabama’s commissioner’s, similarly warned his fellow Alabamans that “the subjugation of the south to an abolition dynasty would result in a saturnalia of blood.” Emancipation meant “the abhorrent degradation of social and political equality, the probability of a war of extermination between the races or the necessity of flying the country to avoid the association.” Typical also was the message from Henry Benning of Georgia – later one of General Lee’s most talented brigade commanders – to the Virginia legislature. “If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished,” he predicted. “By the time the north shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that? It is not a supposable case.”
What did Benning predict would happen? “War will break out everywhere like hidden fire from the earth. We will be overpowered and our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth, and as for our women, the horrors of their state we cannot contemplate in imagination. We will be completely exterminated,” he announced, “and the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back to a wilderness and become another Africa or Saint Domingo.”
“Join the north and what will become of you” he asked. “They will hate you and your institutions as much as they do now, and treat you accordingly. Suppose they elevate Charles Sumner to the presidency? Suppose they elevate Frederick Douglas, your escaped slave, to the presidency? What would be your position in such an event? I say give me pestilence and famine sooner than that.”
In sum, the commissioners described one apocalyptic vision after another – emancipation, race war, miscegenation. The collapse of white supremacy would be so cataclysmic that no self-respecting Southerner could fail to rally to the secessionist cause, they argued. Secession was necessary to preserve the purity and survival of the white race. This was the unvarnished, near universal message of southern political leaders to their constituencies.
WHAT COMMUNITY LEADERS WERE SAYING
Southerners heard the identical message from their community leaders. In the fall of 1860, John Townsend, owner of a cotton plantation on Edisto Island, authored a pamphlet delineating the consequences of Lincoln’s elevation to presidency. The abolition of slavery would be inevitable, he warned, which would mean “the annihilation and end of all Negro labor (agricultural especially) over the whole South. It means a loss to the planters of the South of, at least, FOUR BILLION dollars, by having this labor taken from them; and a loss, in addition, of FIVE BILLION dollars more, in lands, mills, machinery, and other great interests, which will be rendered valueless by the want of slave labor to cultivate the lands, and the loss of the crops which give to those interests life and prosperity.”
More to the point, he noted, abolition meant “the turning loose upon society, without the salutary restraints to which they are now accustomed, more than four millions of a very poor and ignorant population, to ramble in idleness over the country until their wants should drive most of them, first to petty thefts, and afterwards to the bolder crimes of robbery and murder.” The planter and his family would “not only to be reduced to poverty and want, by the robbery of his property, but to complete the refinement of the indignity, they are to be degraded to the level of an inferior race, be jostled by them in their paths, and intruded upon, and insulted over by rude and vulgar upstarts. Who can describe the loathsomeness of such an intercourse;—the constrained intercourse between refinement reduced to poverty, and swaggering vulgarity suddenly elevated to a position which it is not prepared for?”
Non-slaveholders, he predicted, were also in danger. “It will be to the non-slaveholder, equally with the largest slaveholder, the obliteration of caste and the deprivation of important privileges,” he cautioned. “The color of the white man is now, in the South, a title of nobility in his relations as to the negro,” he reminded his readers. “In the Southern slaveholding States, where menial and degrading offices are turned over to be per formed exclusively by the Negro slave, the status and color of the black race becomes the badge of inferiority, and the poorest non-slaveholder may rejoice with the richest of his brethren of the white race, in the distinction of his color. He may be poor, it is true; but there is no point upon which he is so justly proud and sensitive as his privilege of caste; and there is nothing which he would resent with more fierce indignation than the attempt of the Abolitionist to emancipate the slaves and elevate the Negroes to an equality with himself and his family.”
CONCLUSION
There you have it. The reasons that Southerners gave their fellow Southerners for Secession – from the pulpit, from their political and community leaders, in their reading material. There was much more – I haven’t discussed newspapers yet -- but the message was the same. Secession was required to preserve slavery. Why should non-slaveholders care? Because slavery was the will of God, and those who opposed the institution – the abolitionists – were by definition anti-God. More to the point, secession was necessary to preserve white supremacy, to avoid a race war, and to prevent racial amalgamation. For Southerners to remain in the Union, be they slave-owners or non-slave-owners, meant losing their property, their social standing, and the “sacred purity of our daughters.” Tariffs appear nowhere in these sermons and speeches, and “states’ rights” are mentioned only in the context of the rights of states to decide whether some of their inhabitants can own other humans. The central message was to play on the fear of African barbarians at the gate.
The preachers and politicians delivered on their promise. The Confederate States were established explicitly to preserve and expand the institution of slavery. Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy’s vice president, said so himself in 1861, in unambiguous terms. “The Confederacy’s foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man,” he announced: “that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical and moral truth.”
The new nation’s constitution sealed the deal. In most respects it was identical to the United States Constitution. The big change regarded slavery. Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4, provided that "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." And Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3, stated that "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government."
Thus, while the rest of the western world followed an historic trajectory dedicated to abolishing slavery and bringing an expanded meaning to the concepts of human rights and participatory democracy, the South marched off in an opposite direction. The Confederacy was a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are not created equal, and that the Government’s job is to preserve and ensure that inequality.
Later, after the war, when Southern preachers and politicians felt moved to explain their actions to the world and to their progeny, they told a very different story. In 1881, former President Jefferson Davis claimed that slavery was an abstract matter only incidental to the conflict. The South, he proclaimed, had fought only for the noblest of principles, such as constitutional government, the supremacy of law, and the “natural rights of man.” And what about Alexander Stevens, he of the cornerstone speech, what did he have to say when he began to write about the past in 1868? The war, he assured his readers, had not been about slavery; it had been a grand struggle of principle between “the friends of constitutional liberty” on the one hand, and the “demon of centralism, absolutism, and despotism” on the other.
So where does this leave us. Unlike present-day South Africa, the South had no truth-and-reconciliation commission. Our ancestors did not have to come to grips with their own history at a time when honesty might have carried the day. Instead, we are left with the post-war fantastical tall-tales of men like Stephens and Davis that race and slavery had nothing to do with the South’s drive for independence, tall tales that have become grist for the mill of neo-confederates and their present day partisans. Those tall-tales and after-the-fact justifications, however, can survive only if we ignore what the South’s leaders actually said as they urged their countrymen to action. Those words are preserved in repositories such as the Charleston Library Society. They are here for the world to read. So long as libraries across the country preserve these original speeches, pamphlets, and sermons, the message remains loud and clear: You can run from the truth, but you cannot hide from it.
It is no accident that Confederate symbols have been the mainstay of white supremacist organizations, from the Ku Klux Klan to the skinheads. They did not appropriate the Confederate battle flag simply because it was pretty. They picked it because it was the flag of a nation dedicated to their ideals, i.e., “that the negro is not equal to the white man.” The Confederate flag, we are told, represents heritage, not hate. But why should we celebrate a heritage grounded in hate, a heritage whose self-avowed reason for existence was the exploitation and debasement of a sizeable segment of its population?
As a Southerner, a historian, and a descendant of former slave-owners, I sincerely hope that we use the opportunity of the Sesquicentennial to open a frank and civil dialogue about what happened 150 years ago. Our ancestors were unapologetic about why they wanted to secede; it is up to us to take them at their word and to dispassionately form our own judgments about their actions. It is time for Southerners to squarely face this era in our history so that we can finally understand it for what it was and move on.
@whembley, I'll leave it to you and Peregrine to discuss that article, as I really don't find anything to unusual about.....well, what Peregrine said in his last post sums up my thoughts on the matter.
Asherian Command wrote: The Civil War happened because it was bound to happen whether it was by slavery or not.
This statement makes no sense.
It is a common thing among historians to say that. That no matter what there would of been a civil war between the two opposing groups. The civil war hapened mainly because of politics and economics. Though the moral justifier for the war was: "The war to end slavery!"
It is a thing that happens that sometimes it is motivated by politics and agendas.
Asherian Command wrote: The Civil War happened because it was bound to happen whether it was by slavery or not.
This statement makes no sense.
There is an argument by some historians that eventually the (then) wealthier agrarian south would eventually conflict with the industrializing north no matter what. It doesn't explain why other ag states didn't join (Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, etc).
Plus, the agrarian vs industrial argument is meaningless absent slavery. As you yourself point out, it was never an issue of pastoral life generally but of slavery particularly.
whembly wrote: But, don't tell me that the same crowd from Ferguson/Baltimore/NY didn't want to stir things up in Charleston either.
They might have wanted to, but they failed. And the reason wasn't Christian forgiveness or national unity or whatever, it was very simple: the only target for protests/rioting/whatever is currently sitting in a jail cell, and is only going to leave that cell for the formality of his trial and conviction. If the police had said "it was probably self defense" and started digging up any possible criminal records or character flaws of the victims to justify it then it's a pretty safe bet things wouldn't be peaceful anymore.
whembly wrote: But, don't tell me that the same crowd from Ferguson/Baltimore/NY didn't want to stir things up in Charleston either.
They might have wanted to, but they failed. And the reason wasn't Christian forgiveness or national unity or whatever, it was very simple: the only target for protests/rioting/whatever is currently sitting in a jail cell, and is only going to leave that cell for the formality of his trial and conviction. If the police had said "it was probably self defense" and started digging up any possible criminal records or character flaws of the victims to justify it then it's a pretty safe bet things wouldn't be peaceful anymore.
I disagree on why they failed.
Its the fact that the victims families, at the court hearing, forgave him & expressed mercy on his soul.
It's the fact that many different race, groups and creed poured support and Unity to Charleston that blunted any attempt to turn this into another Ferguson.
That's powerful gak yo. THAT goes a looooong way in addressing these issues.
Roof fething wanted to start a Race War... and epically failed.
And yet, all we're really hearing about is this fething flag.
Because the Charleston didn't turn into another Ferguson or Baltimore or NY.
How did you get from “Should or should we not fly the confederate flag on government buildings” to “Did the Charleston turn into another Ferguson or Baltimore or NY” (whatever that means), and then how in turn did we go from this to “See how Christianity is awesome”? Do you really want to turn this thread into debating whether or not Christianity is awesome.
Because the Charleston didn't turn into another Ferguson or Baltimore or NY.
How did you get from “Should or should we not fly the confederate flag on government buildings” to “Did the Charleston turn into another Ferguson or Baltimore or NY” (whatever that means), and then how in turn did we go from this to “See how Christianity is awesome”? Do you really want to turn this thread into debating whether or not Christianity is awesome.
whembly wrote: Its the fact that the victims families, at the court hearing, forgave him & expressed mercy on his soul.
Again, it was a lot easier to forgive him knowing that he will spend the rest of his life in prison and nobody is defending him. Do you honestly think he would have received the same forgiveness if the police had said "must have been self defense", let him go, and closed the case? Do you honestly think that all those messages of peace and unity would have had the same effect?
I also don't understand the belief that the Confederate flag was twisted by racists. The CSA, by there own declarations, be championed white supremacy. American chattel slavery only "worked" because of the belief that blacks were inherently inferior.
Are we arguing that Confederate flag was not a symbol tied to the Confederacy? I don't understand how the flag's meaning has changed in this regard.
whembly wrote: Its the fact that the victims families, at the court hearing, forgave him & expressed mercy on his soul.
Again, it was a lot easier to forgive him knowing that he will spend the rest of his life in prison and nobody is defending him.
Doesn't change the fact that it's a powerful act.
Do you honestly think he would have received the same forgiveness if the police had said "must have been self defense", let him go, and closed the case? Do you honestly think that all those messages of peace and unity would have had the same effect?
Was there any doubt that hypothetical would ever happen? Why are you arguing from this viewpoint. You're tugging that goalpost awfully hard...
Asherian Command wrote: The Civil War happened because it was bound to happen whether it was by slavery or not.
This statement makes no sense.
There is an argument by some historians that eventually the (then) wealthier agrarian south would eventually conflict with the industrializing north no matter what. It doesn't explain why other ag states didn't join (Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, etc).
Plus, the agrarian vs industrial argument is meaningless absent slavery. As you yourself point out, it was never an issue of pastoral life generally but of slavery particularly.
It definitely doesn't explain why those states didn't rebel. it also glosses over the point that, absent some of the New England states which were heavily mercantile, the US had barely begun to industrialize. You basically had states with small farms vs. states with small farms and some plantations.
Asherian Command wrote: The Civil War happened because it was bound to happen whether it was by slavery or not.
This statement makes no sense.
There is an argument by some historians that eventually the (then) wealthier agrarian south would eventually conflict with the industrializing north no matter what. It doesn't explain why other ag states didn't join (Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, etc).
Plus, the agrarian vs industrial argument is meaningless absent slavery. As you yourself point out, it was never an issue of pastoral life generally but of slavery particularly.
It definitely doesn't explain why those states didn't rebel. it also glosses over the point that, absent some of the New England states which were heavily mercantile, the US had barely begun to industrialize. You basically had states with small farms vs. states with small farms and some plantations.
Kind of hard to join the rebellion when, with Habeas Corpus suspended, those wanting to vote to do so (state politicians favoring the rebellion) were arrested and jailed to prevent the votes. Other states (Delaware and Maryland) had the Union army presence in DC and the surrounding area to convince them it would be a Bad Thing, plus by staying with the Union they got to keep their slaves initially (the emancipation proclamation deliberately only freed slaves in states that rebelled). Kentucky tried to stay neutral, but basically both sides recruited from the population, and when the rebels under Polk (another general with a Ft named after him) took columbus,KY, the state legislature decided to back the union.
The border states frankly were pulled both ways and tried hard to make the best of a gakky situation and maintain some level of sovereignty.
This kid just wrote himself into the history books
Amazon will no longer sell items with Confederate flags on them
Valley Forge Company will no longer make the Confederate flag
Motions in State governments to debate to remove Stars and Bars on basically anything
AdeptSister wrote: I also don't understand the belief that the Confederate flag was twisted by racists.
Well, it was created by one era of racism and then reinterpreted by another era of racism. The character of racism had dramatically changed between the 1850 and the 1920s.
CptJake wrote: The border states frankly were pulled both ways and tried hard to make the best of a gakky situation and maintain some level of sovereignty.
This is a very good point that you almost never see thanks the "states rights" mythologization of the Southern Cause; resisting the Confederacy could also be a matter of state sovereignty.
CptJake wrote: The border states frankly were pulled both ways and tried hard to make the best of a gakky situation and maintain some level of sovereignty.
This is a very good point that you almost never see thanks the "states rights" mythologization of the Southern Cause; resisting the Confederacy could also be a matter of state sovereignty.
Yep, and Quantrill and his raiders tried hard to make Kansas pay, for example.
CptJake wrote: The border states frankly were pulled both ways and tried hard to make the best of a gakky situation and maintain some level of sovereignty.
This is a very good point that you almost never see thanks the "states rights" mythologization of the Southern Cause; resisting the Confederacy could also be a matter of state sovereignty.
Yep, and Quantrill and his raiders tried hard to make Kansas pay, for example.
The First Official Flag of the Confederacy. Although less well known than the "Confederate Battle Flags",the Stars and Bars was used as the official flag of the Confederacy from March 1861 to May of 1863. The pattern and colors of this flag did not distinguish it sharply fom the Stars and Stripes of the Union. Consequently, considerable confusion was caused on the battlefield.
The seven stars represent the original Confederate States; South Carolina (December 20, 1860), Mississippi(January 9, 1861), Florida (January 10,1861), Alabama (January 11, 1861), Georgia (January 19, 1861), Louisiana (January 26, 1861), and Texas (February 1, 1861).
The Confederate Battle Flag. The best-known Confederate flag, however, was the Battle Flag, the familiar "Southern Cross". It was carried by Confederate troops in the field which were the vast majority of forces under the confederacy.
The Stars represented the 11 states actually in the Confederacy plus Kentucky and Missouri.
The second Official Flag of the Confederacy. On May 1st,1863, a second design was adopted, placing the Battle Flag (also known as the "Southern Cross") as the canton on a white field. This flag was easily mistaken for a white flag of surrender especially when the air was calm and the flag hung limply.
The flag now had 13 stars having been joined officially by four more states, Virginia (April 17, 1861), Arkansas (May 6, 1861), Tennessee (May 7, 1861), North Carolina (May 21, 1861). Efforts to secede failed in Kentucky and Missouri though those states were represented by two of the stars.
The third Official Flag of the Confederacy.On March 4th,1865, a short time before the collapse of the Confederacy, a third pattern was adapted; a broad bar of red was placed on the fly end of the white field.
Confederate Navy Jack: Used as a navy jack at sea from 1863 onward. This flag has become the generally recognized symbol of the South.
Manchu wrote: Worthwhile read on the subject. Address given in Charleston in 2011 - "Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners Fought"[https://web.archive.org/web/20110321183207/http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html
That was a really fascinating read. Thanks for sharing it.
I'm not much for the "great man" school of history, in that I think social trends are more likely to impact history than any one person's actions, but do you think Lincon's assassination, and the ascendence of the more venegeful Andrew Johnson hurt relations in the long wrong? Or was the wound too deep and too tighly geographic to really heal easily?
I'm not much for the "great man" school of history, in that I think social trends are more likely to impact history than any one person's actions, but do you think Lincon's assassination, and the ascendence of the more venegeful Andrew Johnson hurt relations in the long wrong? Or was the wound too deep and too tighly geographic to really heal easily?
My guess is that it's the latter, but I do think that Lincoln would have done his damnedest to try and smooth relations as well as possible.
Manchu wrote: Worthwhile read on the subject. Address given in Charleston in 2011 - "Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners Fought"[https://web.archive.org/web/20110321183207/http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html
That was a really fascinating read. Thanks for sharing it.
I'm not much for the "great man" school of history, in that I think social trends are more likely to impact history than any one person's actions, but do you think Lincon's assassination, and the ascendence of the more venegeful Andrew Johnson hurt relations in the long wrong? Or was the wound too deep and too tighly geographic to really heal easily?
Agreed.... was a very interesting read..it also doubles as a good example of how bad biblical exegesis can lead to error.
Of course it also reveals the lengths people will go to, to bend the Bible to their own nefarious ends.
As to the Andrew Johnson thing, I thought he was impeached because the radical republicans thought he was too soft on the south during the time leading up to reconstruction ?
It seems to me that slavery and sovereignty were one and the same for the Southern states. The fear was, abolition would make the Southern states into clients of Northern patrons. Whether this became a self-fulfilling prophecy or whether they were simply right, their fears were in many ways realized after the war. Much of the South remains relatively poor and backwards even to this day. I am wary of the idea that Lincoln, a man who was assassinated because he embodied what the South dreaded so terribly, could have made much of a difference; no more so than he could have prevented the war in the first place.
whembly wrote: First, in this thread, what's the main topic?
The Confederate Flag... right?
Why are we talking about it?
Actually, you are not. That was my whole point. I was asking you why you were talking about something completely unrelated.
I'm decrying the media's overblown attention over a flag.
The *flag* did not turn Dylann Roof into a murderer.
In the aftermath of these horrific murders, I'm saying that we should be praising the victim's families' reaction at the court hearing AND how the community responded. Like this:
But, no... the media is talking about that stupid flag.
Or the media is over reporting that Obama said "november" (to use jihadin's "n-word" slang).
Plus the guy who did the shooting has a picture with the confederate flag and his gun on a website that hosts his manifesto.
As the confederate flag is used today by many racist groups the two flags together is in bad taste and it seems america has finally had enough of it, and they gak who did the shooting might have finally been the tipping point to seeing the flag reduced to the obscurity it belongs in.
whembly wrote: In the aftermath of these horrific murders, I'm saying that we should be praising the victim's families' reaction at the court hearing AND how the community responded. Like this:
Spoiler:
But, no... the media is talking about that stupid flag.
So, in this thread about the flag, you are telling us we should not be talking about the flag, but rather about something else. That is… weird.
Let's make one thing clear. As a United States Citizen, you still have the right to fly the stars and bars. No one is stopping you. No official federal actions forced the removal of the confederate flag in SC. Public pressure did that. No one is under the illusion that removing the Confederate flag from Charleston will erase racism, but it is a start. The idea that African Americans can now see that the state government of SC no longer actively endorses a symbol of racism will be a (very) small step in easing racial division.
As a conservative and a libertarian, I think the conservative movement shoots itself in the foot by constantly crying, "Now isn't the time to have this conversation" because it puts us in an uncomfortable position. National conversations happen because people want it to happen (or the media drums it up).
What is there to say about the Dylan Roof that hasn't been said about Columbine or Newtown or Virginia Tech or Birmingham back in 1963? Stop trying to shut down the debate because you don't like the way it's going. Stop trying to defend a flag that screams racism to almost every black American living today.
whembly wrote: In the aftermath of these horrific murders, I'm saying that we should be praising the victim's families' reaction at the court hearing AND how the community responded. Like this:
Spoiler:
But, no... the media is talking about that stupid flag.
So, in this thread about the flag, you are telling us we should not be talking about the flag, but rather about something else. That is… weird.
*rubs temple*...*sigh*...*soldier on*...
All I'm saying, is that we need to remember that this story began with the people of Charleston and of SC uniting together in support of the victims of a shooting.
The flag controversy( which is an oldcontroversy) is an attempt to deflect this story and pit us against one another.
whembly wrote: In the aftermath of these horrific murders, I'm saying that we should be praising the victim's families' reaction at the court hearing AND how the community responded. Like this:
Spoiler:
But, no... the media is talking about that stupid flag.
So, in this thread about the flag, you are telling us we should not be talking about the flag, but rather about something else. That is… weird.
*rubs temple*...*sigh*...*soldier on*...
All I'm saying, is that we need to remember that this story began with the people of Charleston and of SC uniting together in support of the victims of a shooting.
The flag controversy( which is an oldcontroversy) is an attempt to deflect this story and pit us against one another.
It pits people who support a racist symbol against those who do not. This is a case of people finally demanding that a state cease this insanity.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And here we are not even talking about the flag of a nation, but the flag of an army whose very purpose was destroying the United states.
The Confederate army wasn't trying to destroy the United States.
That was the immediate purpose for its existence. To stop Federal armies from preserving the Union.
That's not the same thing as trying to destroy the United States.
whembly wrote: Was there any doubt that hypothetical would ever happen? Why are you arguing from this viewpoint. You're tugging that goalpost awfully hard...
It's not a hypothetical, it's what happened in the cases where there were protests/riots/etc. Like I said, that's the key difference between the two: whether the murderer was immediately arrested, got no sympathy, and will spend the rest of his life in prison, or was given absurdly light punishment and the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity. There's no outrage and rioting in this case because there's no target for it, if there was a target (as in the other cases) there would probably be a lot more rioting and a lot less peaceful forgiveness.
whembly wrote: Was there any doubt that hypothetical would ever happen? Why are you arguing from this viewpoint. You're tugging that goalpost awfully hard...
It's not a hypothetical, it's what happened in the cases where there were protests/riots/etc. Like I said, that's the key difference between the two: whether the murderer was immediately arrested, got no sympathy, and will spend the rest of his life in prison, or was given absurdly light punishment and the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity. There's no outrage and rioting in this case because there's no target for it, if there was a target (as in the other cases) there would probably be a lot more rioting and a lot less peaceful forgiveness.
Okay... I do see your point and to certain extent, I agree with you now.
Since Ferguson, I've taken such a pessimistic view that whenever something like this happens, I'm expecting it to blow up.
FWIW, I believe this flag belongs in a museum (it's history) and no where near used in any "official" capacity. (yes, I know it's on 4 other state's flag too).
Manchu wrote: It seems to me that slavery and sovereignty were one and the same for the Southern states. The fear was, abolition would make the Southern states into clients of Northern patrons. Whether this became a self-fulfilling prophecy or whether they were simply right, their fears were in many ways realized after the war. Much of the South remains relatively poor and backwards even to this day. I am wary of the idea that Lincoln, a man who was assassinated because he embodied what the South dreaded so terribly, could have made much of a difference; no more so than he could have prevented the war in the first place.
It's not a coincidence that the Civil War occured right around the time of rapid industrialization and immigration to the North, which tilted both the population and economy of the country from the historically aristrocratic south to the capitalist north. The US was dominated by Southern Elites since before the US was independent, through roughly 1840 or so.
In many ways, the tragedy is that chattel slavery probably only had another generation in it as an economic force. It might have remained profitable in the deep south, but the mechanization of agriculture and the mass production of lower end craftsman made goods would have kicked the chair out of a slave economy. Brazil and Russia didn't free the slaves/serfs out of kindness. There is some evidence that landowners enjoyed higher incomes, albiet with less overall weath, under sharecropping than they did under slavery. Probably isolated instances, but slaves are expensive and completely unregulated labor is really cheap.
whembly wrote: All I'm saying, is that we need to remember that this story began with the people of Charleston and of SC uniting together in support of the victims of a shooting.
The flag controversy( which is an oldcontroversy) is an attempt to deflect this story and pit us against one another.
If that controversy is old, I guess it does predate that story you are talking about. I guess it will also outlive it. So why deflect from addressing it?
I'm not much for the "great man" school of history, in that I think social trends are more likely to impact history than any one person's actions, but do you think Lincon's assassination, and the ascendence of the more venegeful Andrew Johnson hurt relations in the long wrong? Or was the wound too deep and too tighly geographic to really heal easily?
My guess is that it's the latter, but I do think that Lincoln would have done his damnedest to try and smooth relations as well as possible.
I remember reading something that before his assassination, Lincoln intended to not only pardon every Confederate Solider, but to grant to them the dignity of being recognized as American military veterans.
Lincoln believed, that though they have fought for the wrong cause, they were still American citizens and deserved to be respected for their valintry on the battlefield.
Lincoln’s assassination, arguably, prevented the healing of our nation that he sought to bring about after the Civil War. I need to find that book since we're talking so much history. (and I hope I didn't butcher that... as it's coming from my old head)
I think, if you put yourself into the place of Southerners at the time, it would be awfully difficult to imagine a generation yet to come because that world would be so fundamentally different from the world you knew and had always known.
whembly wrote: In the aftermath of these horrific murders, I'm saying that we should be praising the victim's families' reaction at the court hearing AND how the community responded. Like this:
Spoiler:
But, no... the media is talking about that stupid flag.
So, in this thread about the flag, you are telling us we should not be talking about the flag, but rather about something else. That is… weird.
*rubs temple*...*sigh*...*soldier on*...
All I'm saying, is that we need to remember that this story began with the people of Charleston and of SC uniting together in support of the victims of a shooting.
The flag controversy( which is an oldcontroversy) is an attempt to deflect this story and pit us against one another.
I read that there is some speculation that the Charleston shooter may have been inspired by the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding states rights to refuse to print the Confederate Flag on license plates.
I saw that on CNN, no idea whether there's any real evidence that it's true. By the apartheid South African flag and other similar African flag he wore on his jacket in the imfamous creepy guy photo, and others have said there's some photos around of him with the rebel flag, it would seem this guy did have a fetish for white supremacist governments and their iconography.
It's really only natural that people who want the rebel flag removed from government buildings and such would use this moment as an opportunity to seize the initiative.
I read that there is some speculation that the Charleston shooter may have been inspired by the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding states rights to refuse to print the Confederate Flag on license plates.
I saw that on CNN, no idea whether there's any real evidence that it's true. By the apartheid South African flag and other similar African flag he wore on his jacket in the imfamous creepy guy photo, and others have said there's some photos around of him with the rebel flag, it would seem this guy did have a fetish for white supremacist governments and their iconography.
It's really only natural that people who want the rebel flag removed from government buildings and such would use this moment as an opportunity to seize the initiative.
CNN has gone off the rails lately...
They're now arguing that every Confederacy monument/statue needs to be removed.
It's not a coincidence that the Civil War occured right around the time of rapid industrialization and immigration to the North, which tilted both the population and economy of the country from the historically aristrocratic south to the capitalist north. The US was dominated by Southern Elites since before the US was independent, through roughly 1840 or so.
In many ways, the tragedy is that chattel slavery probably only had another generation in it as an economic force. It might have remained profitable in the deep south, but the mechanization of agriculture and the mass production of lower end craftsman made goods would have kicked the chair out of a slave economy. Brazil and Russia didn't free the slaves/serfs out of kindness. There is some evidence that landowners enjoyed higher incomes, albiet with less overall weath, under sharecropping than they did under slavery. Probably isolated instances, but slaves are expensive and completely unregulated labor is really cheap.
I believe it was actually the election of 1860, which saw Lincoln, or the congressional elections just prior to it in the 1850s. .. I was looking for an article I had read on the subject (couldnt find it), and came across an interesting summary.... Basically, the Democratic party divided itself in 1860, and could not come up with one candidate. The "Northern Democrats" suggested a Stephen A. Douglas, from Illinois who was a staunch supporter of "Popular Sovereignty", which was a policy that basically said, when a new state/territory is admitted to the union of the United States, the people of that territory will determine whether slavery shall exist or not. Apparently, according to an Electoral College map of 1860, Mr. Douglas managed to win Missouri in his presidential campaign... and nothing else. Lincoln won all the Northern States, plus Oregon and California. Interestingly, 3 states were won by a "Constitutional Union Party" (headed by a slaveowner from TN) who's stance was basically "we're not taking any stances". Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia went that route, while the rest of the Southern States went to the "Southern Democrats" nominee.
Anyhow, I seem to remember it wasn't the Presidential election that truly caused the secession, it was that beginning of industrializing, combined with the Irish and German Immigrants flooding into New York and Pennsylvania that turned politics upside down. The Northern States suddenly had more delegates, and thus more ability to affect changes, and while the Southern states didn't necessarily "lose" many seats, they certainly lost the majority of their voting and legislating power.
@whembley: Yeah, I really don't trust CNN as a news source (nor any of the cable news stations, come to think if it), so I feel the need to add a caveat whenever I mention something I saw on CNN or read on their website.
Asherian Command wrote: The Civil War happened because it was bound to happen whether it was by slavery or not.
This statement makes no sense.
There is an argument by some historians that eventually the (then) wealthier agrarian south would eventually conflict with the industrializing north no matter what. It doesn't explain why other ag states didn't join (Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, etc).
Plus, the agrarian vs industrial argument is meaningless absent slavery. As you yourself point out, it was never an issue of pastoral life generally but of slavery particularly.
Yes, actually, it is. One of the best professors I had in college vehemently stood behind that idea and our entire semester on the civil war was devoted as to why. One of Lincoln's well-known lines is "if I could prevent the civil war by freeing all the slaves, I would. If I could prevent the civil war by freeing none of the slaves, I would." The war was not all about slavery, as many believe. I paraphrased the quote a bit, as I don't remember it 100%, but look it up; never too old to continue learning!
If true, I hope his job was not teaching you history. Counterfactual arguments are ahistorical. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I have to assume that you misunderstood the point he was trying to make. Based on the quotation you cite, that point seems to have been that Lincoln did not see how the war could be prevented. The quotation does not support the idea that the war was not about slavery.
No, it was just the underlying cause on which all other "causes" were laid upon.
I mean, it doesn't get any clearer than Alexander Stephens speech in Savannah shortly before the start of the war:
"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."
People seem to regularly misunderstand their Civil War courses in my experience. My class on the subject was also heavily focused on "why did it happen" but Slavery was always front and center in any examination of that question.
Is the Civil War's roots more complicated than the words "it was about Slavery?" Yes it is. But it was still about slavery.
It was part of the civil war, yes. But the civil war would have happened with or without slavery. I won't deny it even played a large part. But the war would have happened regardless. And Stephens was also, I assume, making that speech in front of tons of plantation owners. You want their support, talk about keeping slavery.
Slavery, as an institution, was not truly the cause of the war. The North did not march down there to free the slaves because the felt that it was the right thing to do (as we would witness in post-War America for a century or more).
Slavery was, however, symptomatic of the root causes of the war, which were, in the main, two-fold. First, at the time, several states held to the belief that they alone had the right to determine what the laws in their state would be. This is often called the "State's Rights" issue. That a state should be free to choose whether or not they were a "slave state" or a "free state" was, as is often mentioned, a contentious issue at the time. In fact, it still is today, just on topics different than slavery.
The second issue was an economic one.The factory-owners of the North felt (wrongly, as it so happens) that the plantation-owners of the South had an unfair advantage in the labor pool by using slaves, rather than hiring people and paying them a wage. There was, unfortunately, several things wrong with this belief. One, slaves were really, really, really expensive to buy. Two, slaves actually only worked a few months out of the year (agricultural slaves, that is, the ones planting and picking tobacco, cotton, etc. So-called "house slaves" are a different matter entirely, but a much smaller part of the picture) while the factory workers in the North were employed year-round. Three, you couldn't really fire a slave like you could a wage-earning worker and, further, the owner of a slave was financially-responsible for maintaining his investment. That is to say, the costs of feeding, clothing and providing medical care for your slaves fell on the slave-owner... who, at the time, was not about to piss away the several hundred dollars (in that time, equivalent value of tens of thousands of dollars today) he'd spent on a slave by letting them starve or get sick or whatever.
Slaves were *expensive* to keep. Economic analysis of the antebellum South indicates that it would have been more profitable to plantation owners to hire white sharecroppers during the planting and harvesting seasons, and then fire them when the work was done, than to keep slaves... but tradition is a very, very powerful social element in the South. Always has been.
So, the North, thinking that the South was making money hand-over-fist with their "free" labor, got a bit pissy. Mind you, the North was as racist as the South was at the time, for those slaves who escaped the South and made it to the North often could not find work at all and, if they did, they were paid less than whites for the same work. This would remain true until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s (and remains true to an extent even today in some areas).
So, both yes and no, slavery was the cause of the war, but not for the reasons most people think. It was a symptom of the underlying causes, but not the central cause, if that makes any sense.
Wyrmalla wrote: The American Civil War was over slavery? I thought the issue that the South had was that they opposed all the states being bunched together under a central government. Hmn, I suppose the route causes were many, but saying that it was all down to that one thing is a gross simplification. For one the Union had plenty of people who supported slavery, hell Lincoln's opposition began with him just bowing down to public pressure on the matter (what was his line, "nobody wants you here, go back to Africa"). That and both sides treated foreigners pretty poorly in general (even when under the same flag things didn't get better fast, look at the railroad). Frankly that war had jack all to do with slavery, apart from to the politicians and those with money invested in the plantations, etc. The average guy was fighting for their state and the people they knew more than anything (Custer was originally going to lead the Union, but his home was in the South.).
I have about 4 years of letters from a great uncle who fought in the Civil War for the North. From his statements quite a few in the Union army didn't care about slavery, but were fighting for the preservation of the Union. In fact he talked of Blacks getting union soldiers in trouble and the ill feelings held against the Blacks by the Northerners in return. It's quite an illuminating books worth of writings from then.
timetowaste85 wrote: It was part of the civil war, yes. But the civil war would have happened with or without slavery.
If there was no slavery, the South would have been in completely different circumstances from the get-go, and likely would never have developed into a region capable of, or even interested in, conducting a Civil War-era war to secede from the Union.
They felt their rights as individual states were being trampled by an overruling federal government and they felt the need to secede. Slavery was part of that argument, but not all of it. Those links I provided are fairly decent reads, and they're educational sources.
Also, not to target you Manchu, but that history teacher was one of the best damn teachers I ever had.
timetowaste85 wrote: It was part of the civil war, yes. But the civil war would have happened with or without slavery.
Image removed --yakface
Would be my normal response, but we have one of these 2-3 times a year, and no one ever learns so I'm gonna save myself the time and just say it was totally about slavery on the off chance someone will listen this time
timetowaste85 wrote: Go ask a history professor. I've left links. Go find an expert and ask at this point.
The problem with that is that history is not a hard science. It is all, when you get right down to it, opinions which are somewhat based on evidence. People can look at the same piece of evidence and come to two different conclusions.
There are enough discussions online about it to see evidence though, unless willfully ignoring it. Those two things I pulled were the second and third link from a quick google search.
Think we all agree it took balls the size of the Titanic made of solid steel to stand in a line facing each other and fire .52cal musket balls/bullets at each other. Then work themselves up into a bayonet charge.
Weapon technology was more advance then the tactics being used.
I think if Lee had not been forced to battle at Gettysburg the ACW would lasted a bit more longer then needed
timetowaste85 wrote: It was part of the civil war, yes. But the civil war would have happened with or without slavery.
--image removed--
Would be my normal response, but we have one of these 2-3 times a year, and no one ever learns so I'm gonna save myself the time and just say it was totally about slavery on the off chance someone will listen this time
Not according to the letters I have that were written by someone in the middle of it. Slavery was definitely the cause for some of the people there, but there were quite a few that could have cared less about slaves.
timetowaste85 wrote: Go ask a history professor. I've left links. Go find an expert and ask at this point.
Any history professor worth their salt will tell you "it was about slavery" (may or may not then go into a more detailed triad following, but half the professors I know are as tired of fielding this nonsense as I am).
In short (because I never learn)
There would be no Civil War without slavery. Slavery and its spread into new territories was the driving economic factor that drove the North and South apart. A US without Slavery is a US so radically different from reality that anything concerning it belongs in fantasy fiction, not history. Hell the entire structure of Congress was driven in part by the existence of Slavery (Slaves totally count as people when it comes to voting in the Federal Government , 3/5s of a person... Even though Slaves have no rights or protections at all...)
The states rights bit was about slavery (and the claim that the South was the one being oppressed is complete hogwash). Yeah. the Federal government was totally trampling on the right's of Southern States. That's why the Federal government was constantly passing laws to support plantation owners, telling northern States they had no choice but to support the South's right to own slaves, and gutting any government policy that harmed cash crop business interests while throwing up barriers to Northern merchants and industrialists. The South trying to pretend they were being oppressed by the government is a rampant hypocrisy. The Democratic party held an absolute stranglehold on Federal politics from 1820-1856, and the South always got what it wanted in the end.
"It was about Slavery" is not a condemnation that the North was in the right and the South in the wrong either. Frankly, both sides had become completely unreasonable as to the issue of slavery and American society. Slavery was going to die anyway. There were people who knew it then, but the rabbling masses of politics by and large overruled them and created an increasingly hostile political landscape that eventually saw the South say "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" and the North respond "Aw nah you didn't!"
It was about Slavery. I don't know why people jump through logical hullahoops trying to explain it isn't. For example;
So, both yes and no, slavery was the cause of the war, but not for the reasons most people think. It was a symptom of the underlying causes, but not the central cause, if that makes any sense.
Everything in your post Psienesis, is a short story of why it was about slavery. The economic and political conflict that arouse in the US in the 1850's saw Slavery as a center point of the growing conflict.
The North had it's own version of slavery with child labor, extremely hazardous working conditions, starvation wages, etc.that far eclipse anything today.
Relapse wrote: The North had it's own version of slavery with child labor, extremely hazardous working conditions, starvation wages, etc.that far eclipse anything today.
Honestly, until the Haymarket Affair, no one in the US gave a gak US Labor relations would rapid replace Slavery as a political center point during the Reconstruction period and late 19th cenutry, but prior to the Civil War no one cared.
Free Soilers and Northerns are large weren't overly concerned about the ramifications of slavery on industrialization. Their interests were focused on agriculture and farming, as at the time that was still the core industry of the US (and would be up to the turn of the century), and the paranoid fear that super rich southern slave owners would buy up all the new land and work it with slaves, which was never gonna happen but I think I went out of my way to say the North was just as unreasonable as the South here
And yet American chattel slavery was really bad. I don't understand why people keep trying to downplay how bad it was. The effects are still being felt today.
Any history professor worth their salt will tell you "it was about slavery" (may or may not then go into a more detailed triad following, but half the professors I know are as tired of fielding this nonsense as I am).
My most recent one attributes the ACW to a mosquito.
timetowaste85 wrote: Manchu, I'll leave these links here for you. Yes, again, slavery is PART of the issue.
Let's review the so-called top five reasons for the Civil War mentioned in your link:
(1) Economic and social differences between the North and the South ... this is about the South's economic dependence on slavery. (2) States versus federal rights ... most importantly, basically so much so to the exclusion of all else, the right to maintain slavery. (3) The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents ... speaks for itself. (4) Growth of the Abolition Movement ... again, res ipsa loquitur. (5) The election of Abraham Lincoln ... because he was widely seen as anti-slavery.
Got any more reasons why the Civil was was not about slavery? Oh, that's right the other link ... which says it's an oversimplification to claim that the Civil War was about slavery but then immediately qualifies the supposed other reasons as being inseparable from the issue of slavery:
By April 1861, slavery had become inextricably entwined with state rights, the power of the federal government over the states, the South’s ‘way of life’ etc. – all of which made a major contribution to the causes of the American Civil War.
News flash: slavery was inextricably entwined with these issues long before 1861.
timetowaste85 wrote: Manchu, I'll leave these links here for you. Yes, again, slavery is PART of the issue.
Let's review the so-called top five reasons for the Civil War mentioned in your link:
(1) Economic and social differences between the North and the South ... this is about the South's economic dependence on slavery.
(2) States versus federal rights ... most importantly, basically so much so to the exclusion of all else, the right to maintain slavery.
(3) The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents ... speaks for itself.
(4) Growth of the Abolition Movement ... again, res ipsa loquitur.
(5) The election of Abraham Lincoln ... because he was widely seen as anti-slavery.
Got any more reasons why the Civil was was not about slavery? Oh, that's right the other link ... which says it's an oversimplification to claim that the Civil War was about slavery but then immediately qualifies the supposed other reasons as being inseparable from the issue of slavery:
By April 1861, slavery had become inextricably entwined with state rights, the power of the federal government over the states, the South’s ‘way of life’ etc. – all of which made a major contribution to the causes of the American Civil War.
News flash: slavery was inextricably entwined with these issues long before 1861.
Manchu right on the money. Makes me wonder if he has a copy of my Power Point Slides I've used during my time as a EOA at brigade level. Stay out of my NCOPD/EOA files there Manchu.....
It’s 50 pages of text, but you can cheat and just read the abstract;
“We show that contemporary differences in political attitudes across counties in the American South in part trace their origins to slavery’s prevalence more than 150 years ago. Whites who currently live in Southern counties that had high shares of slaves in 1860 are more likely to identify as a Republican, oppose affirmative action, and express racial resentment and colder feelings toward blacks. These results cannot be explained by existing theories, including the theory of contemporary racial threat. To explain these results, we offer evidence for a new theory involving the historical persistence of racial attitudes. We argue that, following the Civil War, Southern whites faced political and economic incentives to reinforce existing racist norms and institutions to maintain control over the newly free African-American population. This amplified local differences in racially conservative political attitudes, which in turn have been passed down locally across generations.”
To put it simply – it isn’t about the war but what came afterwards. Wealthy Southern Whites had their economic and social institutions position threatened when they lost the overt, state enforced power of slavery, so to maintain them they reinforced existing racial ideas. They couldn’t own people, but with state and social support they could control them well enough to make sure most of the wealth of the farms stayed in their hands.
In this sense the relevance of the Stars and Bars isn’t in its relation to the confederacy, where it was afterall a battle flag, but in its relation to its adoption by the KKK. The South isn’t so much living in the shadow of the Civil War, but in the shadow of the Reconstruction.
In this sense the relevance of the Stars and Bars isn’t in its relation to the confederacy, where it was afterall a battle flag, but in its relation to its adoption by the KKK. The South isn’t so much living in the shadow of the Civil War, but in the shadow of the Reconstruction.
The flag being argued about is not the Stars and Bars. The Stars and Bars was the official flag of the CSA, and looked like this:
Everything in your post Psienesis, is a short story of why it was about slavery. The economic and political conflict that arouse in the US in the 1850's saw Slavery as a center point of the growing conflict.
No more so than abortion, gay rights, same-sex marriage or any one of a number of topics that continually make the rounds in news these days is the "cause" of the socio-political divide in the US. These things are symptomatic of varying philosophies on a number of topics, they are not the cause of those beliefs.
Psienesis wrote: These things are symptomatic of varying philosophies on a number of topics, they are not the cause of those beliefs.
Given the subject to hand is the causes of the Civil War, I surmise you mean to argue that slavery was merely a symptom of Southern "philosophies" and it was those philosophies, rather than slavery, that are the chief causes of the war. This is demonstrably false. I posted a lecture earlier reviewing political, religious, and civic primary sources showing that slavery was the a priori basis of Southern attitudes about everything from the Bible to the economy to presidential elections.
No more so than abortion, gay rights, same-sex marriage or any one of a number of topics that continually make the rounds in news these days is the "cause" of the socio-political divide in the US. These things are symptomatic of varying philosophies on a number of topics, they are not the cause of those beliefs.
The 'philosophical difference' you describe is directly tied to the institution of slavery. Spend some time reading about a society with large, inherently unjust institutions like slavery, or South African apartheid, and you start to learn about how culture isn't just born in a bubble - culture is formed by those institutions.
Or just read the study I linked to - the prevalence of slaves in 1860 directly ties to political beliefs today.
I think that that was really a very minor reason for anyone to go to war. Before the ACW, 48% of the world's cotton came from the Southern part of the US. Another sizable chunk came from India. Regardless, England was the one buying up a ton of it for their own linen industry. This is also why countries like England and France were circling like buzzards, waiting to see how things would shake up.
That Marotta guy is a wealth planner. He co-wrote that article with his daughter for Forbes (it was also published in the Charlottesville paper). Their claims are not based on primary source research.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Everyone, go read "Gone With The Wind"
The south honestly and sincerly thought they where doing the slaves a favor
Yup. People will believe some truly incredible bs just in order to pretend they’re not doing something wrong. And what’s more, people will believe some truly incredible bs in order to pretend their ancestors didn’t do something wrong.
Wyrmalla wrote: They changed the Mississippi flag back in 2001 to one that din't have any Confederate symbols due to needing to comply with federal legislation (or something, it wasn't that a vote was taken in other words). However upon changing it two thirds of those who voted on what the new flag should look like went for the current design. Though it should be pointed out that the alternative design, whilst not having the saltire, appears to still have Confederate connotations which the choice of stripes.
Will that state or any of the others with such symbols have the same flag in 100 years? Pft, nah. Will there still be states in 100 years ...ah, hmn.
That would be wrong.
The state voted, by 65% to KEEP the Confederate Flag as a part of the state flag of Mississippi.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. When I was young the flag was a symbol of rebellion, of home. Had it not been for the KLan and the wackjobs it would have really been that.
But its not. The flag has become a symbol of racism.
The flag has always been a symbol of racism. It wasn't the KKK who marched under the flag in a literal war against freedom and against democracy, it was the Confederates.
Some of us are older than others, foreigner. Don't tell me what it was about.
Then I will tell you what the Flag was about (Whose ancestors were racist, Slave Owners who tried to kill their own children for taking sides against the South, among other things). It is not the prettiest thing about my family, but little is.
Read The Cornerstone Speech by Confederate VP Alexander Stephens:
Stephens outlines the racist tirade of the Southern Traitors, who rebelled, killing millions of people for NOTHING MORE than the right to own other human beings as Slaves.
And then after losing that war, using that flag as a symbol to rally their butt-hurt asses around to further kill blacks (until my Great-Grandfather killed his father in an act of defiance, and began giving our land away to the former slaves, which my grandfather continued by paying for the college educations of many of our former slaves) who did not "know their place."
The Confederate Flag is a fething symbol of shame. It is the symbol of ignorant traitors, seditionists, and Oath Breakers.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And here we are not even talking about the flag of a nation, but the flag of an army whose very purpose was destroying the United states.
The Confederate army wasn't trying to destroy the United States.
Yes. Yes it was.
Again, read the freaking Speeches by Jefferson Davis, RE Lee, and other Confederates who saw the continued existence of the North as a threat to their survival and existence.
The South AGRESSIVELY invaded the North, but were turned back twice. Remember Gettysburg?
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the topic of Forts and Military bases named after Confederates:
THEY NEED TO HAVE THEIR NAMES CHANGED.
Also, we need to re-name buildings and streets named after Confederate generals, soldiers, and politicians. And we need to re-name buildings named after members of the KKK and other racists from the post-war era.
Reconstruction after the war ended pre-maturely, and was never completed.
MAYBE it is time we complete it.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for barring the Confederate Flag from flying on government buildings (and re-naming military bases, and streets or buildings), the Flag, and ANY OTHER Comfederate memorabilia should be freely available to private citizens.
Free speech and all of that.
ESPECIALLY since that will then be, like the Nazi Flag, an easily recognized symbol of bigotry, and racism that INSTANTLY identifies the possessor as such.
What better way to help identify undesirable elements of society.
However, they will just resort to using coded and unfamiliar symbols (like 1488, or the Rhodesian Flag) to hide their bigotry.
Yes Whembly the democrats USED to be the racist party, but that was then and today the republicans proudly wear that title.
Care to back that up?
See? This is why we can't have nice things...
Rather trivial to back up.
If one were to look for the political party supported by 100% of Racists in the USA, it would be the GOP.
TRUE, there MIGHT be racists who support neither political party. But if a racist supports a political party, they are going to look to the GOP.
WHY.
Because the South is predominantly GOP.
Because the GOP supports voter ID restrictions, which are an overt move to disenfranchise minorities.
Because the Conservatives support Police, who have been effectively killing minorities at rates that are thousands of times those of whites for the same type of encounter.
Because of the coded language of "state's rights," which dates back to the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Because of the fear of immigrants (non-whites).
Because of their use of the word "Thug" or "Terrorist" for any non-white violent criminal.
And, it all boils down to this:
That racists choose the GOP as their party of choice means that the racists see something friendly to racists in the GOP's stated policy preferences, or they would not be actively supporting the GOP.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And here we are not even talking about the flag of a nation, but the flag of an army whose very purpose was destroying the United states.
The Confederate army wasn't trying to destroy the United States.
That was the immediate purpose for its existence. To stop Federal armies from preserving the Union.
That's not the same thing as trying to destroy the United States.
How is it different? The war was to preserve the union. By definition, the enemy army was trying to destroy the union.
So, Amazon are pulling the Confederate Flag. As somebody mentioned earlier, does this apply to troops used in miniature wargaming?
Also, what's the deal with the Union Jack, the British flag?
If they are claiming the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism, oppression etc etc then the logical conclusion would be to pull the British flag, as well.
After all, at one time, Britain was a mortal enemy of everything the USA stands for.
And what about the Vietnam flag? It's not so long ago that they killed 65,000 American troops and injured 250,000 more...
Late to this discussion, but the idea that the Confederacy was 'evil' is two dimensional at best.
For a start the Confederates for the most part fought honourably, it was the Union lot, particularly Grants march that caused massive deliberate damage to civilians infrastructure.
I would put challenge for anyone who compared th Conferates with the Nazis, yet many do.
As for the black rights thing. You honestly think the union cared. Yes slavery was an issue, but it was the mid 19th century and the issues should be seen though 19th century eyes and not the 21st century moral goggles some wear.
After all a full declaration of liberty waited until the Gettyburg address, for political ends. Had it been a pressing moral issue it would have been presented fully earlier. And we all know that Native American rights were well respected.
Anyone else see the error in the revisionist ideology "We were the good guys, we fought for black freedom and headed west with the same ideology of freedom, signed Custer."
Likewise I don't condemn the Union either, it was 19th century colonialism and everyone who could was at it. yet today people look at the UK and Spain with anti-colonial eyes, or sometimes its the Spanish looking at us, or the Americans. Its revisionism. We were all at it then, and considered it a good idea. The Victorian age justified colonialism, whether it was the conquest of the West, or South America, Africa, India or Indo-China.
The American Confederacy was a cause of the time, and efforts to retroactively condemn it are just ignorant revisionism. The only excuse to condemn them at all is on the grounds they failed. They are traitors say some modern Americans here. So what, wasn't Washington and Jefferson?
The Confederacy is condemnable simply because it was defeated and history was written after them. Black rights has nothing to do with it, those took at least another century to appear for real.
As for sons of the South wearing Stars & Bars. Why not. It's their fething heritage, they have every reason to be proud. Those who see wearing them as a way to out bigots are inadvertently right, the bigots are themselves. Live in Florida and want to wear the Confederate flag on your clothing, or fly it from your flagpole and you are celebrating your culture. What you do with that culture is up to you, but it is wrong for other to turn around and say 'slavery symbol'. And if anything the Confederates had a far better rapport with the native tribes, and what happened to them was in all likelihood a far greater crime.
19th century morality is a quagmire. Take the British for example, took more of other people land than the Mongols, and in less time, yet it was the British were the first major state to practice abilitionism and they were who set up anti-slavery patrols in the Atlantic, it was the 'freedom living Yankees' who were running much of the slave trade. 19th century western morals were skewed by our standards, but those standard were nevertheless visibly high. Each nation stood for separate inalienable principles more staunchy than we would today, yet did other very similar things which the peoples of the modern age would find repugnant.
...
Unless it was China doing them. China is selectively and aggressively 'moralising' in the same was as the 19th Century European and American would. So perhaps after all little really has changed.
Lee wasn't going all out to destroy the North on his adventure towards DC. In fact he gave strict orders not to "tread" heavily on the civilian pop. He was trying to force Lincoln to capitulation IIRC
timetowaste85 wrote: There are enough discussions online about it to see evidence though, unless willfully ignoring it. Those two things I pulled were the second and third link from a quick google search.
Your argument is not helped by the fact that nearly every state that seceded had, in their declarations, massive discussions of the rights to enslave other human beings.
It is also not helped by the fact that, in reality, both sides were agrarian. There was more trade on the seaboard, and more industrialization, but the Industrial Age didn't really kick in yet (indeed war production demands helped that along).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Think we all agree it took balls the size of the Titanic made of solid steel to stand in a line facing each other and fire .52cal musket balls/bullets at each other. Then work themselves up into a bayonet charge.
Weapon technology was more advance then the tactics being used.
I think if Lee had not been forced to battle at Gettysburg the ACW would lasted a bit more longer then needed
indeed. Fortunately the ones that started the war, didn't do any of the fighting.
indeed. Fortunately the ones that started the war, didn't do any of the fighting.
Rich Man's War Poor Man's Fight was a real thing.
I don't know Frazz, a lot of officers came from good/wealthy families, and a lot of them got killed and wounded in the war. Of course the enlisted came from poor families for the most part and as in most wars suffered, but to say the upper class sat this one out doesn't really ring true.
The loss in officers killed or wounded, in proportion to their number, was in excess of that of their men. Of the total number killed and wounded during the war, there were 6,365 officers, and 103,705 enlisted men; or, one officer to 16 men. In the common regimental organization there was one officer to 28 men; and this proportion would have consequently required only one officer to 28 men among the killed. The loss of officers, however, was not so excessive as the difference in these ratios would indicate; for, as the ranks became depleted the latter proportion was not maintained. In the Army of the Potomac, just before starting on the Wilderness campaign, the morning reports showed one officer to every 21 men "present for duty, equipped." As this latter proportion was a frequent one, it may be assumed that the difference between it and the actual ratio in the killed indicates fairly the excess of the loss in officers.
At Gettysburg, the officers lost 27 per cent. in killed and wounded, while the enlisted men lost 21 per cent.,-- as based on the number engaged. At Shiloh, the loss in officers killed and wounded was 21.3 per cent., and in men 17.9 per cent.,-- as based on the morning reports of Grant's six divisions.
This greater loss among the officers did not occur because they were so much braver than the men in the ranks, but because the duties of their position while under fire involved a greater personal exposure. - See more at: http://thomaslegion.net/listofgeneralskilled.html#sthash.Li3mrkuS.dpuf
Frazzled wrote: Officers are irrelevant. i am talking about the ones who voted to secession, and pushed for secession. I'm talking about all the plantation owners.
A lot of the officers came from the monied and political classes Frazz.
Orlanth wrote: For a start the Confederates for the most part fought honourably, it was the Union lot, particularly Grants march that caused massive deliberate damage to civilians infrastructure.
I would put challenge for anyone who compared th Conferates with the Nazis, yet many do.
Fighting "honorably" doesn't diminish the wrongness of your cause. Millions of German soldiers fought against the Allies honorably, but that doesn't make the Third Reich any better. Also, you're thinking of Sherman's March to the Sea (or more aptly named, the Savannah Campaign). Grant and Sherman both believed that the only way to end the war was by destroying their economic and psychological capacity to wage war. Sherman gave explicit orders to those under his command that, while they have the authority to destroy infrastructure, they must only do so if harassed by guerrillas. He rightly believed that the simple act of foraging the land would have enough of a negative impact on morale. The other thing that is funny here is that you go to great lengths to diminish the wrongness of the Confederate cause by saying, "We have to judge it through the lens of history," but you're happy to use the Savannah Campaign as a way to show how the Union was also "bad." In the context of the war and the time, what Sherman was able to achieve was nothing short of incredible. He defied the logic of the time, operating deep within enemy territory with no supply lines or communication with the main body of the Union Army. He truly was the first modern general.
As for the black rights thing. You honestly think the union cared. Yes slavery was an issue, but it was the mid 19th century and the issues should be seen though 19th century eyes and not the 21st century moral goggles some wear.
No. As a matter of fact, it has been routinely discussed in this thread that most people in America didn't care about the treatment of minorities. However, there was a rather large abolitionist movement in the North that turned public opinion towards emancipation. Besides, the issue of slavery wasn't a binary thing; it was more than possible to believe the white race was inherently better than the black race but still think slavery was abhorrent.
And yes, slavery was the issue, there is no dancing around it.
After all a full declaration of liberty waited until the Gettyburg address, for political ends. Had it been a pressing moral issue it would have been presented fully earlier. And we all know that Native American rights were well respected.
Anyone else see the error in the revisionist ideology "We were the good guys, we fought for black freedom and headed west with the same ideology of freedom, signed Custer."
See above.
Likewise I don't condemn the Union either, it was 19th century colonialism and everyone who could was at it. yet today people look at the UK and Spain with anti-colonial eyes, or sometimes its the Spanish looking at us, or the Americans. Its revisionism. We were all at it then, and considered it a good idea. The Victorian age justified colonialism, whether it was the conquest of the West, or South America, Africa, India or Indo-China.
You've engaged in quite a bit of revisionism yourself so far. Besides, was can most definitely use our position in history to condemn the Confederacy.
The American Confederacy was a cause of the time, and efforts to retroactively condemn it are just ignorant revisionism. The only excuse to condemn them at all is on the grounds they failed. They are traitors say some modern Americans here. So what, wasn't Washington and Jefferson?
The Confederacy is condemnable simply because it was defeated and history was written after them. Black rights has nothing to do with it, those took at least another century to appear for real.
No, we can condemn the Confederacy because they were wrong, just like they were condemned before and during the war. However, points for bring up the American Revolution as a bad attempt at tu quoque.
As for sons of the South wearing Stars & Bars. Why not. It's their fething heritage, they have every reason to be proud. Those who see wearing them as a way to out bigots are inadvertently right, the bigots are themselves. Live in Florida and want to wear the Confederate flag on your clothing, or fly it from your flagpole and you are celebrating your culture. What you do with that culture is up to you, but it is wrong for other to turn around and say 'slavery symbol'. And if anything the Confederates had a far better rapport with the native tribes, and what happened to them was in all likelihood a far greater crime.
That's rich. Because the CSA had a "better rapport" with the Native American tribes, they weren't that bad? The treatment of the native peoples of American is historically terrible, but to try use that as a way to justify or diminish the enslave of blacks and their ensuing treatment is just offensive. The battle flag is not heritage. I've already explained that I am from a Southern state, I live in a Mosby Heritage Area and near the site of the first major battle of the war, and I had family that fought for the CSA... but yet, I feel no need to use the symbol of an armed insurrection against my country to enjoy my "heritage."
Also, drop the "you're a bigot because you don't like bigots" bs.
Frazzled wrote: Officers are irrelevant. i am talking about the ones who voted to secession, and pushed for secession. I'm talking about all the plantation owners.
A lot of the officers came from the monied and political classes Frazz.
Proof that the signers volunteered is required. The fact the wealthy could legally pay their way out is telling.
Frazzled wrote: Officers are irrelevant. i am talking about the ones who voted to secession, and pushed for secession. I'm talking about all the plantation owners.
A lot of the officers came from the monied and political classes Frazz.
Proof that the signers volunteered is required. The fact the wealthy could legally pay their way out is telling.
I suggest you look at the land holdings of the Lee and Custis families for one pretty solid example. William Peck was a wealthy plantation owner. Burnside is an example of a Union general who was politically connected and an early industrialist. Arthur MaCarther (Doug's daddy) was from a very politically prominent family. One of my favorites, John Buford, was from a politically prominent family. Plenty more.
It’s 50 pages of text, but you can cheat and just read the abstract;
“We show that contemporary differences in political attitudes across counties in the American South in part trace their origins to slavery’s prevalence more than 150 years ago. Whites who currently live in Southern counties that had high shares of slaves in 1860 are more likely to identify as a Republican, oppose affirmative action, and express racial resentment and colder feelings toward blacks. These results cannot be explained by existing theories, including the theory of contemporary racial threat. To explain these results, we offer evidence for a new theory involving the historical persistence of racial attitudes. We argue that, following the Civil War, Southern whites faced political and economic incentives to reinforce existing racist norms and institutions to maintain control over the newly free African-American population. This amplified local differences in racially conservative political attitudes, which in turn have been passed down locally across generations.”
To put it simply – it isn’t about the war but what came afterwards. Wealthy Southern Whites had their economic and social institutions position threatened when they lost the overt, state enforced power of slavery, so to maintain them they reinforced existing racial ideas. They couldn’t own people, but with state and social support they could control them well enough to make sure most of the wealth of the farms stayed in their hands.
In this sense the relevance of the Stars and Bars isn’t in its relation to the confederacy, where it was afterall a battle flag, but in its relation to its adoption by the KKK. The South isn’t so much living in the shadow of the Civil War, but in the shadow of the Reconstruction.
Yep that sounds about right! I mean I remember having a discussion with one of my professors and one of his compatriots about how the South never truly recovered from the civil war. It was psychological now. It was still part of their identity for a very long time. And some people can't forget. I mean look at modern history and how certain countries/states feel about each other even though hundreds of years have passed. Reconstruction is semi-successful thanks sadly to Abraham Lincolns death. If Lincoln had not died there wouldn't be sympathy in the south. The South wouldn't of been as compliant as it was in actual history.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And here we are not even talking about the flag of a nation, but the flag of an army whose very purpose was destroying the United states.
The Confederate army wasn't trying to destroy the United States.
That was the immediate purpose for its existence. To stop Federal armies from preserving the Union.
That's not the same thing as trying to destroy the United States.
How is it different? The war was to preserve the union. By definition, the enemy army was trying to destroy the union.
They were trying to exit the Union, not force it to cease existing. Did the thirteen colonies leaving the British Empire cause it to cease existing?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And here we are not even talking about the flag of a nation, but the flag of an army whose very purpose was destroying the United states.
The Confederate army wasn't trying to destroy the United States.
Yes. Yes it was.
Again, read the freaking Speeches by Jefferson Davis, RE Lee, and other Confederates who saw the continued existence of the North as a threat to their survival and existence.
The South AGRESSIVELY invaded the North, but were turned back twice. Remember Gettysburg?
MB
Yes, the South invaded the North, and yes I remember Gettysburg. But the South knew they couldn't destroy the North. They had nowhere near the men or the materiel to do so, and anyone with a shred of sense knew it. They were hoping to pose enough of a threat to the North that the Union would sue for peace and allow the CSA to go its own way. That doesn't necessarily preclude seeing the continued existence of the North as a threat to their survival, but it also doesn't mean the primary objective of the CS Army was to destroy the North outright.
It’s 50 pages of text, but you can cheat and just read the abstract;
“We show that contemporary differences in political attitudes across counties in the American South in part trace their origins to slavery’s prevalence more than 150 years ago. Whites who currently live in Southern counties that had high shares of slaves in 1860 are more likely to identify as a Republican, oppose affirmative action, and express racial resentment and colder feelings toward blacks. These results cannot be explained by existing theories, including the theory of contemporary racial threat. To explain these results, we offer evidence for a new theory involving the historical persistence of racial attitudes. We argue that, following the Civil War, Southern whites faced political and economic incentives to reinforce existing racist norms and institutions to maintain control over the newly free African-American population. This amplified local differences in racially conservative political attitudes, which in turn have been passed down locally across generations.”
To put it simply – it isn’t about the war but what came afterwards. Wealthy Southern Whites had their economic and social institutions position threatened when they lost the overt, state enforced power of slavery, so to maintain them they reinforced existing racial ideas. They couldn’t own people, but with state and social support they could control them well enough to make sure most of the wealth of the farms stayed in their hands.
In this sense the relevance of the Stars and Bars isn’t in its relation to the confederacy, where it was afterall a battle flag, but in its relation to its adoption by the KKK. The South isn’t so much living in the shadow of the Civil War, but in the shadow of the Reconstruction.
Yep that sounds about right! I mean I remember having a discussion with one of my professors and one of his compatriots about how the South never truly recovered from the civil war. It was psychological now. It was still part of their identity for a very long time. And some people can't forget. I mean look at modern history and how certain countries/states feel about each other even though hundreds of years have passed. Reconstruction is semi-successful thanks sadly to Abraham Lincolns death. If Lincoln had not died there wouldn't be sympathy in the south. The South wouldn't of been as compliant as it was in actual history.
Texas recovered and is kicking all your economic butts.
It’s tough to top the historical amnesia that has let the Confederate flag fly over the South Carolina capitol for more than half a century. But the U.S. Army certainly can give Columbia’s banner a run for its money: it operates posts named for nine Confederate generals and a colonel, including the head of its army, the reputed Georgia chief of the Ku Klux Klan and the commander whose troops fired the first shots of the Civil War.
And yet, when I brought up the question I was accused of the slippery slope fallacy. Seems some want to start the snowball rolling down that slope.
Maybe that is good. Maybe not. But to think the issue starts and ends with flying the confederate flag over SC state buildings seems a bit wrongheaded.
It's interesting how they refer to flying the Confederate flag and naming army bases after Confederate generals as "historical amnesia." If anything, it's probably the opposite of that.
It's also interesting how the Confederate flag news coverage seems to have quickly overtaken that of the actual shooting, as if flying the Confederate flag is the real root of the problem, rather than a symptom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: The battle flag is symbolically present to us in a way that largely invisible names are not.
The names are only largely invisible to those citizens who have the privilege of being disconnected to and generally unaware of the military.
Manchu wrote: The battle flag is symbolically present to us in a way that largely invisible names are not.
Yeah, no one within 100 miles of Ft Hood or Ft Bragg or any of the others on that list have any idea those sprawling bases with 10s of thousands of troops and even more civilians and family members exists.
I'll bet a pay check that a search of news articles over the past say 10 years finds a LOT more references to Ft Bragg and Ft Hood than you will find references to the confederate flag.
Privilege of being disconnected from the military? Strange turn of phrase ...
What I mean is, the names are "invisible" to many people who know that X base has Y name. As with monuments, schools, roads, and all sorts of other landmarks, most people are unaware of who originally belonged to the name.
We have to be careful to distinguish in this conversation, not just here on Dakka of course but in the current national conversation, whether we are talking about meanings created during the course of this conversation (teetotaling) or meanings that already exist.
The present-day racist meaning of the battle flag is known to virtually all Americans, regardless of how much or little they know about the Civil War itself. The name "Ft Bragg" is nothing like this.
Manchu wrote: The battle flag is symbolically present to us in a way that largely invisible names are not.
Yeah, no one within 100 miles of Ft Hood or Ft Bragg or any of the others on that list have any idea those sprawling bases with 10s of thousands of troops and even more civilians and family members exists.
I'll bet a pay check that a search of news articles over the past say 10 years finds a LOT more references to Ft Bragg and Ft Hood than you will find references to the confederate flag.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is there any more news about the shootings? It seems to me that the next piece of news will be the trial.
Not that I've seen that hasn't been repeated. The next piece of actual news will either be more information on his life and possible organizations he belonged to, or press releases/motions from his attorney, if any. Then the trial.
In the meantime, we'll have 12-18 months of Flag bs to wade through on Facebook.
Manchu wrote: Privilege of being disconnected from the military? Strange turn of phrase ...
What I mean is, the names are "invisible" to many people who know that X base has Y name. As with monuments, schools, roads, and all sorts of other landmarks, most people are unaware of who originally belonged to the name.
What is so strange about it? What can you call it, other than a privilege, to receive all the benefits that being protected by others entails, while being able to be completely disconnected and unaware of the systems in place that provide this protection. Kind of like how people who live in racially homogenous communities don't often have to think about race, most Americans don't have to think about the military other than having a general warm fuzzy feeling about how they "support the troops" but aren't really interested in any of the details.
Now, I'm not saying that this is an inherently negative thing. Our all-volunteer military is set up to provide a system where the average American male has no responsibility to support the common defense other than to register for selective service, and the average American female has literally no responsibility whatsoever. In actual fact, I think it is a very great thing. But that doesn't change the fact that the ability to go through your entire life with significant lack of awareness of the military is a significant privilege, and it is a privilege that many, many people in other parts of the world do not have.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: So, Amazon are pulling the Confederate Flag. As somebody mentioned earlier, does this apply to troops used in miniature wargaming?
Also, what's the deal with the Union Jack, the British flag?
An article that I saw online yesterday said Walmart, and Amazon were pulling "everything" with that particular Confederate Flag. I hadn't looked for an ACW 15mm or 28mm miniature army on Amazon, but I know they weren't at Walmart I do have to wonder if the private sellers will have an opportunity to "Sell" their product to Amazon to try and keep it there, or have it listed without a picture?
Anyhow, with all the inbred rednecks that I know that shop at Walmart, I hope the backlash is strong and severe... Severe enough that Walmart files for bankruptcy and goes away forever
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: So, Amazon are pulling the Confederate Flag. As somebody mentioned earlier, does this apply to troops used in miniature wargaming?
Also, what's the deal with the Union Jack, the British flag?
An article that I saw online yesterday said Walmart, and Amazon were pulling "everything" with that particular Confederate Flag. I hadn't looked for an ACW 15mm or 28mm miniature army on Amazon, but I know they weren't at Walmart I do have to wonder if the private sellers will have an opportunity to "Sell" their product to Amazon to try and keep it there, or have it listed without a picture?
Anyhow, with all the inbred rednecks that I know that shop at Walmart, I hope the backlash is strong and severe... Severe enough that Walmart files for bankruptcy and goes away forever
I think it's political correctness gone mad, and predictably, some people aren't taking this lying down.
Confederate flag tattoos are on the increase. You just know someone will walk, bare-chested into Walmart, with their chest covered in that flag
jasper76 wrote: Here's a funny piece from Petri of the WaPost called "Every state flag is wrong, and here is why" on how hideous almost all the US state flags are:
If one were to look for the political party supported by 100% of Racists in the USA, it would be the GOP.
TRUE, there MIGHT be racists who support neither political party. But if a racist supports a political party, they are going to look to the GOP.
WHY.
Because the South is predominantly GOP.
Because the GOP supports voter ID restrictions, which are an overt move to disenfranchise minorities.
Because the Conservatives support Police, who have been effectively killing minorities at rates that are thousands of times those of whites for the same type of encounter.
Because of the coded language of "state's rights," which dates back to the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Because of the fear of immigrants (non-whites).
Because of their use of the word "Thug" or "Terrorist" for any non-white violent criminal.
And, it all boils down to this:
That racists choose the GOP as their party of choice means that the racists see something friendly to racists in the GOP's stated policy preferences, or they would not be actively supporting the GOP.
MB
Dude... really? None of that is even remotely right.
Let's simply take South Carolina here... since this is the state we're talking about in this thread.
-The Govenor, Niki Haley is a minority Republican woman.
- The GOP SC Senator is Tim Scott... who's black.
To reiterate, it was the Democratic Governor Fritz Hollins in 1962 who raised this flag over SC capital, and it was a GOP Governor Haley who led the charge to have it removed from Capital grounds in 2015.
There seems to be this fetish some folks want to push that it's the south, that's all racist and where Jim Crowism still lives.
If that's true, that why are blacks migrating in droves to the south?
The greatest trick the Democrats ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist in the South. And like that, poof. The Democrat's racial heritage is gone.
jasper76 wrote: Here's a funny piece from Petri of the WaPost called "Every state flag is wrong, and here is why" on how hideous almost all the US state flags are:
jasper76 wrote: Here's a funny piece from Petri of the WaPost called "Every state flag is wrong, and here is why" on how hideous almost all the US state flags are:
“You mean this isn’t taken yet?” Texas asked. “How is this not taken? This was literally the first thing I thought of.”
I liked:
“Two words: Confederate Yugoslavia.”
“But neither of those places exists any longer.”
“Sounds to me like their flags are free for the taking.”
“Well –”
“MISSISSIPPI!”
Only "new" news is the dashcam video of piece of crap being arrested. I think we're going to shift (news media) to Freddy Gray autopsy report is soup sandwich)
Back on the topic
Think we need to add a ACW debate backslash to title
Regardless of Union or Confederate trooper. Patriotism ideals values etc etc ends after the first fight. Hatred becomes the primary motivation. IIRC
Jihadin wrote: Regardless of Union or Confederate trooper. Patriotism ideals values etc etc ends after the first fight. Hatred becomes the primary motivation. IIRC
I think the high number of truces, trades, and meetings of soldiers on different sides that went on during the war puts a bit of a dent in that theory.
Manchu wrote: Privilege of being disconnected from the military? Strange turn of phrase ...
What I mean is, the names are "invisible" to many people who know that X base has Y name. As with monuments, schools, roads, and all sorts of other landmarks, most people are unaware of who originally belonged to the name.
We have to be careful to distinguish in this conversation, not just here on Dakka of course but in the current national conversation, whether we are talking about meanings created during the course of this conversation (teetotaling) or meanings that already exist.
The present-day racist meaning of the battle flag is known to virtually all Americans, regardless of how much or little they know about the Civil War itself. The name "Ft Bragg" is nothing like this.
So, by tht standard, if SC switched to the stars and bars which folks did not recognize as a confederate flag, all would be good?
skyth wrote: No the greatest trick you try to pull is trying to claim that the Democrats from 50 years ago are anything like modern Democrats.
You also didn't actually address his arguments...
Yes, there's a concept called realignment. Southern Democrats were viciously racist, at a time when much of the south was a one-party state. Things, you know, changed. There were hard conservative Democrats back then, and there were even, GASP, liberal Republicans. The parties slow alignment into the liberal/conservaitve approximations they are now didn't really kick in until Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968. Look at the voting record for the Civil Rights Act: all northern senators, GOP and Dem alike, voted yay, while all Southern senators, voted nay. After Nixon began winning the south, Reagan repeated the trick. (Carter in 76 was an anomaly, due partially to the unpopularity of the Nixon/ford era, and partially to being an evangelical Southern Governer). Keep in mind, southern dems increasingly did not support the national Democratic candidate, with "dixiecrats" actively splitting and campaigning in 1948. Even earlier, FDR knew that being racially progressive could hurt his support in the south. [side bar: even Nixon is an interesting case study, in that while a Republican, he championed diplomacy with China, signed into law environmental protections, and was the one that eventually pulled out of Vietnam, after Johnson escalated it.]
The south may have once been Democratic, but on a national level the cracks began in 48, widened in 68, and by 1980 the south and the national Democratic party weren't really on speaking terms. It took longer to filter down to the State and local levels, but the modern GOP, with it's broadest bases in pro-business, social conservatism, and evangelical christianity is much closer to the platform of Southern Democrats than the modern Democratic party.
Now, the segregationist democrats were, indeed, democrats, so I won't indulge in a "no true scotsman fallacy," but the parties are different now. Issues change, and demographics change, and thus the parties change.
Ulysses S. Grant wrote:I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley has directed that four Confederate flags be taken down from a Confederate memorial at the state capitol.
Bentley's order comes just two days after South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley asked state lawmakers to remove the flag from her state's capitol, and amid a seismic shift on the question of whether the flag should fly on government property, in the wake of last week's church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina.
Bentley spokeswoman Yasamie August told CNN that the flags were taken down because Bentley did not want to distract from legislative issues. August said the move will be permanent.
The Birmingham News reports that workers quietly removed the flags at 8:20 a.m. Wednesday and declined to answer questions. Bentley later told the paper that the flags had "the potential to become a major distraction" as state leaders work through the state budget and other issues.
Hordini wrote: to receive all the benefits that being protected by others entails, while being able to be completely disconnected and unaware of the systems in place that provide this protection
Ah, I thought you were referring to something particular about the military. This kind of "privilege" is everywhere. For example, the privilege of being "disconnected" from the legal system or medical research or food production.
CptJake wrote: So, by tht standard, if SC switched to the stars and bars which folks did not recognize as a confederate flag, all would be good?
As usual, the answer is "it depends." It depends on things like, what would be the motivation for doing so? What would that the stars and bars come to mean by the time a national conversation had taken place about a prospective change? If the stars and bars became a crypto-racist symbol, then the standard (your word) would obviously not apply.
Manchu wrote: Privilege of being disconnected from the military? Strange turn of phrase ...
What I mean is, the names are "invisible" to many people who know that X base has Y name. As with monuments, schools, roads, and all sorts of other landmarks, most people are unaware of who originally belonged to the name.
What is so strange about it? What can you call it, other than a privilege, to receive all the benefits that being protected by others entails, while being able to be completely disconnected and unaware of the systems in place that provide this protection. Kind of like how people who live in racially homogenous communities don't often have to think about race, most Americans don't have to think about the military other than having a general warm fuzzy feeling about how they "support the troops" but aren't really interested in any of the details.
Now, I'm not saying that this is an inherently negative thing. Our all-volunteer military is set up to provide a system where the average American male has no responsibility to support the common defense other than to register for selective service, and the average American female has literally no responsibility whatsoever. In actual fact, I think it is a very great thing. But that doesn't change the fact that the ability to go through your entire life with significant lack of awareness of the military is a significant privilege, and it is a privilege that many, many people in other parts of the world do not have.
It you are talking about conscription, it is the exception rather than the rule; worldwide there are a lot more countries with volunteer forces than conscripted ones. This is particularly true in the first world, where only a very few countries still have conscription laws, the USA ironically being one of them (conscription possible in emergencies.)
Apart from conscription, what constitutes a connection to the armed forces? If you mean awareness of and attendance to ceremonies such as Armistice Day, and the like, these are actually pretty widespread in the first world.
Fighting "honorably" doesn't diminish the wrongness of your cause. Millions of German soldiers fought against the Allies honorably, but that doesn't make the Third Reich any better.
Actually it does. There ought to be a distinction made, and frankly post 1945 there was. Some services muted party influence, Doenitz was effective at this.
However a lot of people use German and Nazi interchangably with regards to the war, this works as propaganda, but for historical purposes a finer distinction is required.
The other thing that is funny here is that you go to great lengths to diminish the wrongness of the Confederate cause by saying, "We have to judge it through the lens of history," but you're happy to use the Savannah Campaign as a way to show how the Union was also "bad."
I went to great lengths to say I didn't judge the Union either.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: No. As a matter of fact, it has been routinely discussed in this thread that most people in America didn't care about the treatment of minorities. However, there was a rather large abolitionist movement in the North that turned public opinion towards emancipation. Besides, the issue of slavery wasn't a binary thing; it was more than possible to believe the white race was inherently better than the black race but still think slavery was abhorrent.
Likewise I don't condemn the Union either, it was 19th century colonialism and everyone who could was at it. yet today people look at the UK and Spain with anti-colonial eyes, or sometimes its the Spanish looking at us, or the Americans. Its revisionism. We were all at it then, and considered it a good idea. The Victorian age justified colonialism, whether it was the conquest of the West, or South America, Africa, India or Indo-China.
You've engaged in quite a bit of revisionism yourself so far.
However, points for bring up the American Revolution as a bad attempt at tu quoque.
Why not.
If some can say, we want to govern ourselves, other can also. There is a logic to that. Especially on the context of success. Had the revolution failed how would history have seen those that tried?
As for sons of the South wearing Stars & Bars........
That's rich. Because the CSA had a "better rapport" with the Native American tribes, they weren't that bad?
Not relevant. The two comments are separate. One need not pass a moral judgement on the Confederacy in order to accept its influence on local history. Also no matter who the confederates were people have a right to have some measure of societal pride to say that come from that culture. You yourself do so to some extent, but a burden of guilt is evidently there.
The treatment of the native peoples of American is historically terrible, but to try use that as a way to justify or diminish the enslave of blacks and their ensuing treatment is just offensive.
It's offensive because that i the way American society today is conditioned. No attempt to justify maltreatment of others was made, only the highlighting that moral virtues were not absolute and there was no case of one side being wrongdoers and the other not. Besides the US has yet to come to terms with its treatment of native Americans, it has come to terms with its past treatment if blacks. There is a larger issue there. Black rights are a political point, other minority rights, Hispanic for example is lagging behind.
Many people are conditioned to have a collective guilt on the Confederacy because of black slavery, however in reality the entire nation is responsible for that.
The battle flag is not heritage. I've already explained that I am from a Southern state, I live in a Mosby Heritage Area and near the site of the first major battle of the war, and I had family that fought for the CSA... but yet, I feel no need to use the symbol of an armed insurrection against my country to enjoy my "heritage."
I agree with John Oliver on the topic: "The Confederate flag one of those symbols that should really only be seen on T-shirts, belt buckles, and bumper stickers to help the rest of us identify the worst people in the world.
You you agree that is someone wears the Confederate flag on their clothing you should immediately label them.
Perhaps they had an ancestor who fought for the South and had pride in the family name.
Is that cause to hate them.
I think you have been frankly conditioned to be embarrassed of your own culture. That rarely helps.
I hope that is the case, I would not want to think you are a screaming bigot who automatically assumes that some people groups are evil.
It might help for you to quantify 'worst people in the world'. I would have though Stalinists, Pol Pot and the Third Reich would IMHO sail past them.
There is good news though. There are re-enactors and history enthusiasts are not being deterred by the label, and many people in the south are not being successfully shamed into hating their heritage.
Also even the darker parts of history are just background, as it should be, as is healthy.
My ancestors fought for Parliament, one was a 'russet coated captain' knew Cromwell personally and approved the execution of King Charles. They were on the losing side eventually, the restoration ended all their gains. Yet now there is no division guilt or shame upon the bloodlines of those who served the Parliamentarian cause, we are up front about it. Those who can trace a family tree back that far and claim that their ancestors fight on one side or other or both having something to drink about with the others, and there is no factionalism.
I hope that those who want to label those who follow Confederate heritage receive similar welcome. The American Civil War might be a bloody episode, but frankly it makes for good history. You can either be asshats about it and hold grudges against people who descend from one side or another, or force people to be ashamed of descending from the wrong side of history or you can relish in your common heritage.
Orlanth wrote: Actually it does. There ought to be a distinction made, and frankly post 1945 there was. Some services muted party influence, Doenitz was effective at this.
However a lot of people use German and Nazi interchangably with regards to the war, this works as propaganda, but for historical purposes a finer distinction is required.
No, it really doesn't. A German can honor their ancestors gallantry in battle without flying the flag of the Third Reich.
I went to great lengths to say I didn't judge the Union either.
All while judging the Union.
Secessionism was the issue, slavery was an expedient catalyst.
An unlawful succession. Because of slavery.
Actually I had not.
Then you don't understand what the word "revisionist" means because literally everything you used to defend the CSA was based on revisionist history. The Union won the war, the CSA won the narrative.
The only position we have is that the Confederacy was destroyed. The moral argument cant really be made except through revisionism.
Sure it can, you just don't agree with it.
How were they wrong. They wanted to secede.
They were wrong on the issue of the continued support and expansion of slavery into the western territories and they were wrong because there is no legal basis for their succession from the Union.
Why not.
If some can say, we want to govern ourselves, other can also. There is a logic to that. Especially on the context of success. Had the revolution failed how would history have seen those that tried?
Again, you're making your entire argument on a tu quoque instead of addressing it.
Not relevant. The two comments are separate. One need not pass a moral judgement on the Confederacy in order to accept its influence on local history. Also no matter who the confederates were people have a right to have some measure of societal pride to say that come from that culture. You yourself do so to some extent, but a burden of guilt is evidently there.
You tried to make it relevant. The Confederate flag is not a matter of "societal pride." I have no guilt over my ancestor's role in the Civil War, but I also don't celebrate their treason.
It's offensive because that i the way American society today is conditioned. No attempt to justify maltreatment of others was made, only the highlighting that moral virtues were not absolute and there was no case of one side being wrongdoers and the other not. Besides the US has yet to come to terms with its treatment of native Americans, it has come to terms with its past treatment if blacks. There is a larger issue there. Black rights are a political point, other minority rights, Hispanic for example is lagging behind.
Many people are conditioned to have a collective guilt on the Confederacy because of black slavery, however in reality the entire nation is responsible for that.
What exactly are "Hispanic rights" and how are they lagging behind in the US? Your bring up of the historical treatment of Native Americans our government is whataboutism, just like you dragging the American Revolution into the argument.
However there is a very valid concerns. I read this earlier, it influenced my decision to post:
No they aren't, it's a failed argument.
You you agree that is someone wears the Confederate flag on their clothing you should immediately label them.
Perhaps they had an ancestor who fought for the South and had pride in the family name.
Is that cause to hate them.
I think you have been frankly conditioned to be embarrassed of your own culture. That rarely helps.
I hope that is the case, I would not want to think you are a screaming bigot who automatically assumes that some people groups are evil.
It might help for you to quantify 'worst people in the world'. I would have though Stalinists, Pol Pot and the Third Reich would IMHO sail past them.
There is good news though. There are re-enactors and history enthusiasts are not being deterred by the label, and many people in the south are not being successfully shamed into hating their heritage.
First of all, John Oliver is a comedian and his quip about the Confederate flag is what is commonly refereed to as a "joke." Let me say again, for probably the fourth of fifth time... I have ancestors that fought for the CSA against the Union. I am in no way embarrassed by my family's role in the Civil War and as a matter of fact, I'm quite proud of my connection to history. I'm a proud Virginian: I live next to Balls Bluff, I'm a short drive from Manassas National Battlefield Park, and I live on one of the main roads used by John Mosby and his partisan rangers. None of these things inspire me to wear the symbol of the failed insurrection against my country and the principles it stood for, which was this:
"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." -Alexander Stephens
Also even the darker parts of history are just background, as it should be, as is healthy.
My ancestors fought for Parliament, one was a 'russet coated captain' knew Cromwell personally and approved the execution of King Charles. They were on the losing side eventually, the restoration ended all their gains. Yet now there is no division guilt or shame upon the bloodlines of those who served the Parliamentarian cause, we are up front about it. Those who can trace a family tree back that far and claim that their ancestors fight on one side or other or both having something to drink about with the others, and there is no factionalism.
I hope that those who want to label those who follow Confederate heritage receive similar welcome. The American Civil War might be a bloody episode, but frankly it makes for good history. You can either be asshats about it and hold grudges against people who descend from one side or another, or force people to be ashamed of descending from the wrong side of history or you can relish in your common heritage.
I agree with John Oliver on the topic: "The Confederate flag one of those symbols that should really only be seen on T-shirts, belt buckles, and bumper stickers to help the rest of us identify the worst people in the world.
You you agree that is someone wears the Confederate flag on their clothing you should immediately label them.
Perhaps they had an ancestor who fought for the South and had pride in the family name.
Is that cause to hate them.
I think you have been frankly conditioned to be embarrassed of your own culture. That rarely helps.
I hope that is the case, I would not want to think you are a screaming bigot who automatically assumes that some people groups are evil.
...
Someone who wears a confederate flag, or has one on his car, or flies one from his house, demonstrates a most lamentable ignorance of the history of use and thereby the meaning of the symbol and why consequently it is genuinely repugnant to many modern Americans. Given the amount of media coverage on this issue, going back years, it is difficult to forgive such a level of ignorance as pure ignorance or stupidity, so it is easy to see why people might assume the flag wearer is a racist asshat even if he isn't.
Nonetheless, due to free speech, it is his right to fly the flag for whatever reason he decides. You can side with Voltaire on this, or cross the street holding your nose, depending on your inclination.
Confederate flags on gravestones 150 years old are okay. Flags in history books are okay. Flags in re-enactment are okay. Flags being flown by private individuals are not okay, but nothing can be done about that except a slow process of education to try and persuade them to stop. (Which to be honest I think would fail. The best thing is to take no notice of it.)
However it is government use of the flag rather than private use that is at issue here.
Wyrmalla wrote: The American Civil War was over slavery? I thought the issue that the South had was that they opposed all the states being bunched together under a central government. Hmn, I suppose the route causes were many, but saying that it was all down to that one thing is a gross simplification. For one the Union had plenty of people who supported slavery, hell Lincoln's opposition began with him just bowing down to public pressure on the matter (what was his line, "nobody wants you here, go back to Africa"). That and both sides treated foreigners pretty poorly in general (even when under the same flag things didn't get better fast, look at the railroad). Frankly that war had jack all to do with slavery, apart from to the politicians and those with money invested in the plantations, etc. The average guy was fighting for their state and the people they knew more than anything (Custer was originally going to lead the Union, but his home was in the South.).
The ACW was over many things. Slavery was a key topic, but the primary reasoning that many like to point it was state rights. The southern states felt that the FedGov was in violation of the constitution, stepping on the 10th Amendment left and right, to include the issue over slavery.
If you read the articles of Secession produced by the states, you'll see that for the majority of them, keeping Slavery was the #1 listed reason they were doing it. So I always have a good laugh when you have the revisionist who argue that slavery was not the primary cause of the war. It wasn't the only cause though, that is certain.
One thing that I do lament about the war, the North did such a good job of winning it that the argument for state rights almost doesn't even exist anymore today. The FedGov's level of power has simply sky rocketed since the days that hundreds of thousands of Americans were willing to give there lives over the issue.
The only issue I have with this post, is that the Southern States championed legislation such as the Fugitive Slave Act, which itself was a pretty flagrant violation of states rights, particularly those of the northern states. In addition, some of the Declarations of secession, such as South Carolinas go on to discuss that the Federal government is too weak to enforce federal laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act and too weak to defend the institution of slavery. Further, it goes on to list state laws (all of which were within the power of a states right to pass) from northern states that they found issue with, such as the granting of citizenship and suffrage to blacks in certain northern states. There really isn't any argument that it was an issue of states rights, unless you mean it was an issue of a states right to practice slavery specifically.
Kind of hard to join the rebellion when, with Habeas Corpus suspended, those wanting to vote to do so (state politicians favoring the rebellion) were arrested and jailed to prevent the votes. Other states (Delaware and Maryland) had the Union army presence in DC and the surrounding area to convince them it would be a Bad Thing, plus by staying with the Union they got to keep their slaves initially (the emancipation proclamation deliberately only freed slaves in states that rebelled). Kentucky tried to stay neutral, but basically both sides recruited from the population, and when the rebels under Polk (another general with a Ft named after him) took columbus,KY, the state legislature decided to back the union.
The border states frankly were pulled both ways and tried hard to make the best of a gakky situation and maintain some level of sovereignty.
Worth noting that the Confederate Army under General Lee did, at one point, enter Maryland, where they received a less than warm welcome... in fact (much to Lees surprise) they were met with rather open hostility by the majority of the population. Bear in mind that this occurred in 1862 when popular opinion was that the CSA had the upper hand in affairs.
Yes, actually, it is. One of the best professors I had in college vehemently stood behind that idea and our entire semester on the civil war was devoted as to why. One of Lincoln's well-known lines is "if I could prevent the civil war by freeing all the slaves, I would. If I could prevent the civil war by freeing none of the slaves, I would." The war was not all about slavery, as many believe. I paraphrased the quote a bit, as I don't remember it 100%, but look it up; never too old to continue learning!
History disagrees with you. When most (if not all) of the declarations of secession declare the issue of slavery as the reason for secession, history disagrees with you. When the President and Vice President of CSA state, very clearly, that the war is a fight over the survival of the institution of slavery, history disagrees with you. When the designer of the second national flag of the CSA (aka the Stainless Banner) writes and editorial saying that the CSA needs a white mans flag as a symbol of racial supremacy and a declaration that the CSA will defend the institution of slavery, history disagrees with you. The war was entirely about slavery. I mean, sure the Union army might have mobilized to preserve the Union rather than to end slavery directly, but it did so because an element of the Union sought to rebel because they wanted to continue to practice slavery. You can make the socio-economic and demographic argument until you're blue in the face, but thats a sideshow to the main event, one which might be used to explain *why* the southern states felt the way they did ABOUT slavery, and why they felt secession was their best course of action, but it doesn't change the fact that the war started, and thus was fought over, the issue of slavery specifically.
timetowaste85 wrote: It was part of the civil war, yes. But the civil war would have happened with or without slavery. I won't deny it even played a large part. But the war would have happened regardless. And Stephens was also, I assume, making that speech in front of tons of plantation owners. You want their support, talk about keeping slavery.
These links are terrible and full of misinformation. You want a real link full of valid first-hand information (I.E. the kind of stuff that you cant really misinterpret)? Try here:
You should read the secession documents for yourself. All of them are like 90% about slavery, 10% about other stuff mostly related to slavery. The idea that the war would have occurred without slavery is also rather absurd, as that was the fundamental difference in lifestyle that lead to friction between the states. You remove slavery from the issue and you're left with a divide between agrarian and industrialized societies, which is not something that would have lead to war (and in fact the demographic issues that eroded southern power at the federal level would have largely been resolved by making blacks full citizens with equal rights and say in government, i.e. a vote).
So, the North, thinking that the South was making money hand-over-fist with their "free" labor, got a bit pissy. Mind you, the North was as racist as the South was at the time, for those slaves who escaped the South and made it to the North often could not find work at all and, if they did, they were paid less than whites for the same work. This would remain true until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s (and remains true to an extent even today in some areas).
Thats some pretty strong revisionism there. Segregation and Jim Crow laws were a Southern issue, not a northern one. In fact, what you see in history is that the treatment of blacks in the US (specifically the norther states) was better before, during and immediately after the Civil War than it was 20-30 years later and going forward. Several northern states even granted blacks (including fugitive slaves) both suffrage and full citizenship, before the war even started. Sadly, Reconstruction threw blacks under the bus and stalled any chance of the advancement of freed slaves in american society in both the North and the South and made this nation even more collectively racist than it was before.
They felt their rights as individual states were being trampled by an overruling federal government and they felt the need to secede. Slavery was part of that argument, but not all of it. Those links I provided are fairly decent reads, and they're educational sources.
And you're still horribly wrong on this point. Again, read the full text of South Carolinas declaration of Secession, if anything they would have rather enjoyed a stronger federal government (so long as it was a federal government that protected slavery).
Any history professor worth their salt will tell you "it was about slavery" (may or may not then go into a more detailed triad following, but half the professors I know are as tired of fielding this nonsense as I am).
In short (because I never learn)
There would be no Civil War without slavery. Slavery and its spread into new territories was the driving economic factor that drove the North and South apart. A US without Slavery is a US so radically different from reality that anything concerning it belongs in fantasy fiction, not history. Hell the entire structure of Congress was driven in part by the existence of Slavery (Slaves totally count as people when it comes to voting in the Federal Government , 3/5s of a person... Even though Slaves have no rights or protections at all...)
The states rights bit was about slavery (and the claim that the South was the one being oppressed is complete hogwash). Yeah. the Federal government was totally trampling on the right's of Southern States. That's why the Federal government was constantly passing laws to support plantation owners, telling northern States they had no choice but to support the South's right to own slaves, and gutting any government policy that harmed cash crop business interests while throwing up barriers to Northern merchants and industrialists. The South trying to pretend they were being oppressed by the government is a rampant hypocrisy. The Democratic party held an absolute stranglehold on Federal politics from 1820-1856, and the South always got what it wanted in the end.
"It was about Slavery" is not a condemnation that the North was in the right and the South in the wrong either. Frankly, both sides had become completely unreasonable as to the issue of slavery and American society. Slavery was going to die anyway. There were people who knew it then, but the rabbling masses of politics by and large overruled them and created an increasingly hostile political landscape that eventually saw the South say "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" and the North respond "Aw nah you didn't!"
It was about Slavery. I don't know why people jump through logical hullahoops trying to explain it isn't. For example;
So, both yes and no, slavery was the cause of the war, but not for the reasons most people think. It was a symptom of the underlying causes, but not the central cause, if that makes any sense.
Everything in your post Psienesis, is a short story of why it was about slavery. The economic and political conflict that arouse in the US in the 1850's saw Slavery as a center point of the growing conflict.
This. So much this. SO. MUCH. THIS.
And yet American chattel slavery was really bad. I don't understand why people keep trying to downplay how bad it was. The effects are still being felt today.
Arguably what happened during Reconstruction was more damaging to race relations and the status of blacks within the fabric of American society than slavery itself. Dont get me wrong, slavery was terrible, up there with the Holocaust in terms of the atrocious treatment of fellow human beings. But, what you find is, after the abolition of slavery, freed slaves attempted to integrate into American society and culture, and were for a brief time very successful at it (in some areas more than others), establishing a thriving and rapidly growing middle class of educated freedmen in various areas of the American south. However, the rise of Jim Crow laws, the activities of the KKK, reconciliiatory reconstructionist policies and the withdrawal of federal control over the southern states ended all that pretty quickly. After that, what you find is that the black population was forced to grow around this concept of being 'seperate but equal' (and as we all know, they werent treated as equals by any stretch of the imagination), so instead of trying to enter American society and culture they were forced to develop their own seperate one, one which has at times clashed directly with "white culture" and perpetuated a racial divide to this day. Worse still, while there was always an element of racism in american society, you didnt really see such things as 'hate groups' until after the ACW, even worse is that particular brand of racism and hate became increasingly more pervasive and mainstream throughout american society as a whole, in part through Lost Cause romanticism, but also further political shifts which brought Southern Democrats into prominence in the Federal government once more and gave them a bigger soap box to preach their hate from. The high point (or low point depending on your perspective) would be the election of Woodrow Wilson as president, the first Southerner elected since the ACW and perhaps one of the most racist individuals to lead this country, arguably worse than Jackson.
It’s 50 pages of text, but you can cheat and just read the abstract;
“We show that contemporary differences in political attitudes across counties in the American South in part trace their origins to slavery’s prevalence more than 150 years ago. Whites who currently live in Southern counties that had high shares of slaves in 1860 are more likely to identify as a Republican, oppose affirmative action, and express racial resentment and colder feelings toward blacks. These results cannot be explained by existing theories, including the theory of contemporary racial threat. To explain these results, we offer evidence for a new theory involving the historical persistence of racial attitudes. We argue that, following the Civil War, Southern whites faced political and economic incentives to reinforce existing racist norms and institutions to maintain control over the newly free African-American population. This amplified local differences in racially conservative political attitudes, which in turn have been passed down locally across generations.”
To put it simply – it isn’t about the war but what came afterwards. Wealthy Southern Whites had their economic and social institutions position threatened when they lost the overt, state enforced power of slavery, so to maintain them they reinforced existing racial ideas. They couldn’t own people, but with state and social support they could control them well enough to make sure most of the wealth of the farms stayed in their hands.
In this sense the relevance of the Stars and Bars isn’t in its relation to the confederacy, where it was afterall a battle flag, but in its relation to its adoption by the KKK. The South isn’t so much living in the shadow of the Civil War, but in the shadow of the Reconstruction.
YESSSS, thank you!
This is also why countries like England and France were circling like buzzards, waiting to see how things would shake up.
Thats kind of historically inaccurate. All the European nations took interest in the ACW, because it was being fought in a very different manner from the most recent European wars. Slavery was politically repulsive to both England and France, and public opinion in both tended to favor the Union (although the political elite tended to be more favorable to the CSA). In regards to cotton, the war did cause a brief cotton famine that effected the textile industry in both countries, but they had found alternative sources for the white stuff within a year of the commencement of hostilities and were no longer dependent on american product (which is perhaps part of the reason why the southern economy lagged post-war).
For a start the Confederates for the most part fought honourably, it was the Union lot, particularly Grants march that caused massive deliberate damage to civilians infrastructure.
Shelton Laurel Massacre.
Centralia Massacre.
Lawrence Massacre.
Fort Pillow.
Camp Sumter/Andersonville.
Poison Spring.
The Battle of the Crater.
Simpsonville.
Gettysburg & Maryland Campaigns slave raids
etc.
They conducted themselves no more or less honorably than the Union did. Also, I believe its Shermans March that you're looking for.
This is also why countries like England and France were circling like buzzards, waiting to see how things would shake up.
Thats kind of historically inaccurate. All the European nations took interest in the ACW, because it was being fought in a very different manner from the most recent European wars. Slavery was politically repulsive to both England and France, and public opinion in both tended to favor the Union (although the political elite tended to be more favorable to the CSA). In regards to cotton, the war did cause a brief cotton famine that effected the textile industry in both countries, but they had found alternative sources for the white stuff within a year of the commencement of hostilities and were no longer dependent on american product (which is perhaps part of the reason why the southern economy lagged post-war).
We have many sources that show that both France and England were having debates as to whether they should aid one side or another. Apparently the CSA went so far as to actually ask France for aid. I probably made a bit of a logical jump there... But in my eyes, I think both England and France, while actually "quietly viewing" what was going on, were actually hoping for an opening to regain lost lands. Again, it's just a thought, and I don't particularly have documentation beyond the fact that they were keeping a keen eye on proceedings.
If one were to look for the political party supported by 100% of Racists in the USA, it would be the GOP.
TRUE, there MIGHT be racists who support neither political party. But if a racist supports a political party, they are going to look to the GOP.
WHY.
Because the South is predominantly GOP.
Because the GOP supports voter ID restrictions, which are an overt move to disenfranchise minorities.
Because the Conservatives support Police, who have been effectively killing minorities at rates that are thousands of times those of whites for the same type of encounter.
Because of the coded language of "state's rights," which dates back to the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Because of the fear of immigrants (non-whites).
Because of their use of the word "Thug" or "Terrorist" for any non-white violent criminal.
And, it all boils down to this:
That racists choose the GOP as their party of choice means that the racists see something friendly to racists in the GOP's stated policy preferences, or they would not be actively supporting the GOP.
MB
Dude... really? None of that is even remotely right.
Let's simply take South Carolina here... since this is the state we're talking about in this thread.
-The Govenor, Niki Haley is a minority Republican woman.
- The GOP SC Senator is Tim Scott... who's black.
To reiterate, it was the Democratic Governor Fritz Hollins in 1962 who raised this flag over SC capital, and it was a GOP Governor Haley who led the charge to have it removed from Capital grounds in 2015.
There seems to be this fetish some folks want to push that it's the south, that's all racist and where Jim Crowism still lives.
If that's true, that why are blacks migrating in droves to the south?
The greatest trick the Democrats ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist in the South. And like that, poof. The Democrat's racial heritage is gone.
What a great way to point to a few exceptions and try to pretend that they are the rule.
Just because the Plantation had an Uncle Tom living in it, does not mean that the Plantation Owners treated all their slaves to such luxuries, to remain with the Civil War themes, here.
The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.
You cannot pretend that the GOP's policies are not inordinately harsh toward minorities, OR THERE WOULD BE MORE MINORITIES VOTING FOR THE GOP! - Rather than the 1% - 3% of Blacks who vote for them, and the 20-30 odd% of Hispanics who vote for them.
Why is it that people like to bring up exceptions as if they are a rule? Did these people fail statistics? Or do they simply have no idea of what a statistical rule or majority is?
If one were to look for the political party supported by 100% of Racists in the USA, it would be the GOP.
TRUE, there MIGHT be racists who support neither political party. But if a racist supports a political party, they are going to look to the GOP.
WHY.
Because the South is predominantly GOP.
Because the GOP supports voter ID restrictions, which are an overt move to disenfranchise minorities.
Because the Conservatives support Police, who have been effectively killing minorities at rates that are thousands of times those of whites for the same type of encounter.
Because of the coded language of "state's rights," which dates back to the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Because of the fear of immigrants (non-whites).
Because of their use of the word "Thug" or "Terrorist" for any non-white violent criminal.
And, it all boils down to this:
That racists choose the GOP as their party of choice means that the racists see something friendly to racists in the GOP's stated policy preferences, or they would not be actively supporting the GOP.
MB
Dude... really? None of that is even remotely right.
Let's simply take South Carolina here... since this is the state we're talking about in this thread.
-The Govenor, Niki Haley is a minority Republican woman.
- The GOP SC Senator is Tim Scott... who's black.
To reiterate, it was the Democratic Governor Fritz Hollins in 1962 who raised this flag over SC capital, and it was a GOP Governor Haley who led the charge to have it removed from Capital grounds in 2015.
There seems to be this fetish some folks want to push that it's the south, that's all racist and where Jim Crowism still lives.
If that's true, that why are blacks migrating in droves to the south?
The greatest trick the Democrats ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist in the South. And like that, poof. The Democrat's racial heritage is gone.
What a great way to point to a few exceptions and try to pretend that they are the rule.
Just because the Plantation had an Uncle Tom living in it, does not mean that the Plantation Owners treated all their slaves to such luxuries, to remain with the Civil War themes, here.
The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.
You cannot pretend that the GOP's policies are not inordinately harsh toward minorities, OR THERE WOULD BE MORE MINORITIES VOTING FOR THE GOP! - Rather than the 1% - 3% of Blacks who vote for them, and the 20-30 odd% of Hispanics who vote for them.
Why is it that people like to bring up exceptions as if they are a rule? Did these people fail statistics? Or do they simply have no idea of what a statistical rule or majority is?
MB
Throw some links to back up the Extreme/Racist organizations that openly contribute to an individual/Party
I'm Minority that's a bit Republican
Manchu wrote: Privilege of being disconnected from the military? Strange turn of phrase ...
What I mean is, the names are "invisible" to many people who know that X base has Y name. As with monuments, schools, roads, and all sorts of other landmarks, most people are unaware of who originally belonged to the name.
We have to be careful to distinguish in this conversation, not just here on Dakka of course but in the current national conversation, whether we are talking about meanings created during the course of this conversation (teetotaling) or meanings that already exist.
The present-day racist meaning of the battle flag is known to virtually all Americans, regardless of how much or little they know about the Civil War itself. The name "Ft Bragg" is nothing like this.
So, by tht standard, if SC switched to the stars and bars which folks did not recognize as a confederate flag, all would be good?
WHY EXACTLY are people looking for reasons to white-wash this issue, to look for an excuse to retain a symbol of Traitors to our Nation, or to the USA?
It is like they have some sort of sympathy for a group whose sole purpose was to keep and own human beings that they saw as being "not really human."
Do people understand that this is the WHOLE POINT of banning the Confederate Flags (of ANYKIND!)?
That in doing so, they become symbols only adopted by bigots and racists (regardless of whether those bigots and racists are aware of their bigotry and racism). If you pick up a KKK Hood, and wear it, the ONLY possible defense is that you had absolutely no idea who the KKK is. Same thing with the Confederate Flag: Willingly picking it up, and waving it around signals a support for racism and bigotry. Defending the flags of the Confederacy is pretty much doing the same thing: announcing to the world racist and bigoted beliefs.
If you are playing a war game, and have need of a Confederate Flag for some miniatures, that is one thing.
But hanging that flag on your wall, or at your door, sends a completely different message.
Manchu wrote: Privilege of being disconnected from the military? Strange turn of phrase ...
What I mean is, the names are "invisible" to many people who know that X base has Y name. As with monuments, schools, roads, and all sorts of other landmarks, most people are unaware of who originally belonged to the name.
We have to be careful to distinguish in this conversation, not just here on Dakka of course but in the current national conversation, whether we are talking about meanings created during the course of this conversation (teetotaling) or meanings that already exist.
The present-day racist meaning of the battle flag is known to virtually all Americans, regardless of how much or little they know about the Civil War itself. The name "Ft Bragg" is nothing like this.
So, by tht standard, if SC switched to the stars and bars which folks did not recognize as a confederate flag, all would be good?
WHY EXACTLY are people looking for reasons to white-wash this issue, to look for an excuse to retain a symbol of Traitors to our Nation, or to the USA?
It is like they have some sort of sympathy for a group whose sole purpose was to keep and own human beings that they saw as being "not really human."
Do people understand that this is the WHOLE POINT of banning the Confederate Flags (of ANYKIND!)?
That in doing so, they become symbols only adopted by bigots and racists (regardless of whether those bigots and racists are aware of their bigotry and racism). If you pick up a KKK Hood, and wear it, the ONLY possible defense is that you had absolutely no idea who the KKK is. Same thing with the Confederate Flag: Willingly picking it up, and waving it around signals a support for racism and bigotry. Defending the flags of the Confederacy is pretty much doing the same thing: announcing to the world racist and bigoted beliefs.
If you are playing a war game, and have need of a Confederate Flag for some miniatures, that is one thing.
But hanging that flag on your wall, or at your door, sends a completely different message.
And I'm to lazy to find the source, but I'll take his word for it, even the GOP told their party not to take money from the CCC as they are highly racists, but that didn't stop some from taking the racists money.
skyth wrote: No the greatest trick you try to pull is trying to claim that the Democrats from 50 years ago are anything like modern Democrats.
You also didn't actually address his arguments...
Yes, there's a concept called realignment. Southern Democrats were viciously racist, at a time when much of the south was a one-party state. Things, you know, changed. There were hard conservative Democrats back then, and there were even, GASP, liberal Republicans. The parties slow alignment into the liberal/conservaitve approximations they are now didn't really kick in until Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968. Look at the voting record for the Civil Rights Act: all northern senators, GOP and Dem alike, voted yay, while all Southern senators, voted nay. After Nixon began winning the south, Reagan repeated the trick. (Carter in 76 was an anomaly, due partially to the unpopularity of the Nixon/ford era, and partially to being an evangelical Southern Governer). Keep in mind, southern dems increasingly did not support the national Democratic candidate, with "dixiecrats" actively splitting and campaigning in 1948. Even earlier, FDR knew that being racially progressive could hurt his support in the south. [side bar: even Nixon is an interesting case study, in that while a Republican, he championed diplomacy with China, signed into law environmental protections, and was the one that eventually pulled out of Vietnam, after Johnson escalated it.]
The south may have once been Democratic, but on a national level the cracks began in 48, widened in 68, and by 1980 the south and the national Democratic party weren't really on speaking terms. It took longer to filter down to the State and local levels, but the modern GOP, with it's broadest bases in pro-business, social conservatism, and evangelical christianity is much closer to the platform of Southern Democrats than the modern Democratic party.
Now, the segregationist democrats were, indeed, democrats, so I won't indulge in a "no true scotsman fallacy," but the parties are different now. Issues change, and demographics change, and thus the parties change.
There are some other issues that accreted the split, and the aggregation into the two parties we have now, which occurred from 1980 - 1995, which have to do with the decreasing cost of computation allowing the resolution of policy questions seen, not as a .Democrat/GOP split, but rather as a "Progressive/Conservative" split or division, and with the increasing entrance of Evangelicals into politics in the GOP specifically (I forget the names, but in 1976, the Southern Baptists, and other Evangelicals specifically chose the GOP as the vehicle for their political aspirations.
During the 1980s, the increasing entrance of Evangelicals into the GOP, and the decreasing cost of computation (itself leading to the ability to answer policy questions on social issues, which predominantly turned out to favor Progressive Policy Solutions) led to an increasing polarization between the two parties.
The GOP, prior to 1975, had been the predominant defender of the Sciences and Education (with roughly 60% of academia in the Sciences identifying as Republican in 1960 - 1970). The entry of the Evangelicals into the GOP had the secondary feature of denying a LARGE SWATH of the Sciences (outright rejection of their findings and facts).
Increasingly, this led Academics to support Democrats who were willing to fund what the GOP was no longer willing to fund. The end of the Cold War further accelerated this trend, with previous technological investment that heavily supported the pure sciences in exploring for new solutions to technical problems ending. Academics fled the GOP in MASSIVE NUMBERS through the 1990s as a result.
Together, these culminated in the adoption in 1995 of Newt Gingrich's "Total Political War" strategy to create a permanent Conservative Majority in the government to drive a final wedge between progressives/liberals and the GOP. Increasingly, the GOP began to instal filters in their political machine that filtered out people not seen as "True Conservatives," mixing social conservatism and fiscal conservatism to an uncomfortable degree (making the two currently indistinguishable).
Part of this can be read in the book (or seen in the movie of the same name) Merchants of Doubt, which outlines both fiscal and social conservative's War on Science beginning in the 1960's with the Oil Companies' fight against the removal of lead from Gasoline, following to Tobacco attempting to call into question the danger of their products,following to Evangelicals attacking the very foundations of Science in their war against Evolution and Cosmology (and consequently every science in existence), following to the current denial of Global Warming being Anthropomorphic in origin.
All of these issues are now tied intimately to political identity, which leads people to try to draw past exceptions to the current rule as if they prove a case (see my other post on this issue).
BeAfraid wrote: WHY EXACTLY are people looking for reasons to white-wash this issue, to look for an excuse to retain a symbol of Traitors to our Nation, or to the USA?
I am puzzled by this as well. I am also puzzled by people who have pride in their ancestors' participation in the CSA army. It wasn't long ago that we, as a country, were labeling one another traitors depending on how we ordered our fried potatoes (were they the French variety or full of FREEDOM?) and yet it is perfectly acceptable to want to honor those who took up arms against our nation. Very puzzling indeed.
And I'm to lazy to find the source, but I'll take his word for it, even the GOP told their party not to take money from the CCC as they are highly racists, but that didn't stop some from taking the racists money.
Okay
Congressional Candidates Receive Money from Islamists
Spoiler:
The Islamist Money in Politics project has identified 11 candidates -- two Republicans and nine Democrats -- who received campaign donations this year from Islamists.
The project concludes that prominent Islamists have given at least $700,000 to federal candidates over the past 15 years, including $85,451 to presidential campaigns.
The figures are probably only a shadow of the true numbers, as the first-of-its-kind project does not yet include state-level campaigns like governorships. It also does not include every Islamist or Islamist organization that has donated.
The compiled data is based on campaign contributions by senior officials with five groups. The five groups included in the database all have Islamist origins and are:
1. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. CAIR was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
2. Muslim American Society (MAS), a group that federal prosecutors confirmed was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”
3. Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), led by the radical preacher Siraj Wahhaj and included an anti-American militant named Luqman Ameen Abdullah who was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
4. Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. ISNA was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
5. Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group founded by Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, but has taken a stance critical of the Brotherhood and Islamism in recent years.
The Republican candidate with the most Islamist financial support is Rep. Terri Lynn Land, who is running for a Senate seat in Michigan. She was given $2,576 from donors linked to CAIR and MPAC.
RealClearPolitics has Land behind Rep. Gary Peters by an average of 12% in the polls. However, Rep. Peters has also received $11,000 since 2008, with $1,000 coming in 2014 from a CAIR-tied source.
The second Republican is Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, who received $250 from a CAIR-linked donor. He is in a tight race with Independent Greg Orman, who is leading in the polls by only 0.7% on average.
The Democrat with the most Islamist backing is Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota (himself a practicing Muslim), who received $130,692 from sources linked to CAIR, MAS, MANA and ISNA. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana has received $33,911 since 2008, with $6,750 being donated this election cycle. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia has received $5,450 since 2008, with $2,000 coming in 2014. He is considered a lock for re-election. Connolly’s opponent has released ads criticizing his support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
One ad has audio of Connolly opposing the overthrow of the Brotherhood in Egypt, describing locals concerned about the Islamic Saudi Academy as “bigots,” and arguing for U.S. financial aid to a Palestinian unity government that includes the Hamas terrorist group.
Connolly has even criticized President Obama for not supporting the Muslim Brotherhood enough, earning him the adoration of Muslim Brotherhood supporters.
Democratic nominee Bobbie McKenzie of Michigan has received $2,500 this year. The last poll recorded by RealClearPolitics has him behind his opponent by 12%.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona has gotten $1,450 since 2012, with $400 arriving this cycle. She is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland received $1,000 this year through the Van Hollen Victory Fund. He was earlier given $250 in 2012. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Mike Honda of California has received $750 since 2012, including a $500 donation this year. The latest poll shows him locked in a tight race with Ro Khanna, leading only by 2%.
Mike Obermueller of Minnesota has received $600 since 2013, including a $250 donation this year. The most recent poll showed Obermueller behind by 22%.
Islamists also donated to four former candidates who lost their primaries:
Alfonso Hoffman Lopez of Virginia, who received $500.
Mayor Bill Euille of Virginia, who received $250.
Valeria Ann Arkoosh of Pennsylvania who received $250.
Rep. Anesa Kajtazovic of Iowa who received $1,000 this year.
One notable donor in the database is Esam Omeish, who has donated $17,610 to Democratic and Libertarian candidates since 2005. This cycle, he gave $1,000 to Rep. Gerry Connolly.
Omeish is a board member of CAIR-National and president of MAS from 2004 to 2008. In 2000, he was videotaped praising Palestinians who believe “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” In 2004, he praised the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, as “our beloved.”
In 2010, Omeish “liked” a Facebook page for Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, who is the radical spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and is linked to Hamas. Omeish has also defended the Brotherhood and said, “We [MAS] still view them as a good ally.”
Another notable donor is former ICNA President Mohammad Yunus, who has donated $3,800 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and Rep. Carson, with the latter receiving $2,500 this year.
Presidential Campaigns
The Islamists in the database have also donated to presidential campaigns over the past 15 years, amounting to over $85,000.
President Barack Obama was easily the most favored candidate for Islamists in the 2012 general election, 2008 general election and 2008 Democratic primary.
Islamists directly donated $14,600 to Obama from 2004 to 2012. In addition, the Obama Victory Fund received from Islamists $39,700 in 2008 and $9,250 in 2011-2012. The total he has received is $63,550.
2012
President Obama received $9,250 from Islamists in the 2012 election cycle.
Republican nominee Mitt Romney was given $1,000 by a CAIR-linked source during the primary. Two of his rivals, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Rep. Ron Paul, received $500 and $1,200 from CAIR sources, respectively.
2008
Then-Senator Obama was given approximately $40,000 during the general election campaign.
During the Democratic primary, Obama received about $9,150 before winning the nomination on June 3, 2008, making him the candidate with the most Islamist financial backing.
The database shows both Senator Joe Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton receiving $2,000 during the primary from Islamists, although Biden received an additional $250 in 2002. However, Clinton reportedly received another $2,000 from three Islamist sources not included in the database.
During her Senate campaign in 2000, Clinton returned $50,000 in donations from Islamists. In addition, the Clinton Foundation has had organizational links to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and received millions from figures close to the governments Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Iran.
Former Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee John Edwards received $1,750; Governor Bill Richardson received $1,000 and former Senator Mike Gravel received $250.
2004
The most favored presidential candidate by Islamist donors was Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who received $4,400.
During the general election, Democratic nominee John Kerry received $1,500, while President Bush did not receive any donations from the Islamists included in the database.
The most favored candidate during the Democratic primary was Lyndon LaRouche Jr., who got $1,050. He was followed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich with $1,250; Senators Bob Graham and Joe Lieberman with $1,000 and Senator John Kerry with $250.
2000
In the 2000 cycle, Republican nominee and eventual President George W. Bush was the favored candidate. The Clarion Project has chronicled the close relationship between American Islamists and the Bush campaign and administration.
The Bush campaign returned $1,000 from Abdurrahman Alamoudi, a secret U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member who was later convicted on terrorism-related charges. The Bush campaign received $3,000 from other Islamist sources in 1999-2000, including $1,000 from Nihad Awad, executive-director of CAIR.
By contrast, Vice President Al Gore received $1,000 from Larry Shaw, a CAIR board member.
Conclusion
As the Islamist Money in Politics project states, this is only the tip of the iceberg, but the main issue here isn’t necessarily dollar amounts. It’s influence.
A donation of a few hundred dollars won’t buy a candidate’s loyalty, but it may give an Islamist access to a candidate or a campaign’s inner circle of staff and advisors. The donation may indicate a current relationship to a candidate’s campaign or open the doors to a relationship that can influence policy.
When the FBI wiretapped a secret Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 (which included two founders of CAIR), Hamas operative Abdel Haleem al-Ashqar was recorded explaining, “Forming the public opinion or coming up with a policy to influence …the way the Americans deal with the Islamists, for instance. I believe that should be the goals of this stage.”
Guess the Democrats get a by
Edit
Also have to remember in the early 90's anyone in the Armed Services were allowed to be in an Extremist/Hate organizations as long as they do not preach it
And I'm to lazy to find the source, but I'll take his word for it, even the GOP told their party not to take money from the CCC as they are highly racists, but that didn't stop some from taking the racists money.
Okay
Congressional Candidates Receive Money from Islamists
Spoiler:
The Islamist Money in Politics project has identified 11 candidates -- two Republicans and nine Democrats -- who received campaign donations this year from Islamists.
The project concludes that prominent Islamists have given at least $700,000 to federal candidates over the past 15 years, including $85,451 to presidential campaigns.
The figures are probably only a shadow of the true numbers, as the first-of-its-kind project does not yet include state-level campaigns like governorships. It also does not include every Islamist or Islamist organization that has donated.
The compiled data is based on campaign contributions by senior officials with five groups. The five groups included in the database all have Islamist origins and are:
1. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. CAIR was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
2. Muslim American Society (MAS), a group that federal prosecutors confirmed was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”
3. Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), led by the radical preacher Siraj Wahhaj and included an anti-American militant named Luqman Ameen Abdullah who was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
4. Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. ISNA was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
5. Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group founded by Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, but has taken a stance critical of the Brotherhood and Islamism in recent years.
The Republican candidate with the most Islamist financial support is Rep. Terri Lynn Land, who is running for a Senate seat in Michigan. She was given $2,576 from donors linked to CAIR and MPAC.
RealClearPolitics has Land behind Rep. Gary Peters by an average of 12% in the polls. However, Rep. Peters has also received $11,000 since 2008, with $1,000 coming in 2014 from a CAIR-tied source.
The second Republican is Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, who received $250 from a CAIR-linked donor. He is in a tight race with Independent Greg Orman, who is leading in the polls by only 0.7% on average.
The Democrat with the most Islamist backing is Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota (himself a practicing Muslim), who received $130,692 from sources linked to CAIR, MAS, MANA and ISNA. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana has received $33,911 since 2008, with $6,750 being donated this election cycle. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia has received $5,450 since 2008, with $2,000 coming in 2014. He is considered a lock for re-election. Connolly’s opponent has released ads criticizing his support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
One ad has audio of Connolly opposing the overthrow of the Brotherhood in Egypt, describing locals concerned about the Islamic Saudi Academy as “bigots,” and arguing for U.S. financial aid to a Palestinian unity government that includes the Hamas terrorist group.
Connolly has even criticized President Obama for not supporting the Muslim Brotherhood enough, earning him the adoration of Muslim Brotherhood supporters.
Democratic nominee Bobbie McKenzie of Michigan has received $2,500 this year. The last poll recorded by RealClearPolitics has him behind his opponent by 12%.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona has gotten $1,450 since 2012, with $400 arriving this cycle. She is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland received $1,000 this year through the Van Hollen Victory Fund. He was earlier given $250 in 2012. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Mike Honda of California has received $750 since 2012, including a $500 donation this year. The latest poll shows him locked in a tight race with Ro Khanna, leading only by 2%.
Mike Obermueller of Minnesota has received $600 since 2013, including a $250 donation this year. The most recent poll showed Obermueller behind by 22%.
Islamists also donated to four former candidates who lost their primaries:
Alfonso Hoffman Lopez of Virginia, who received $500.
Mayor Bill Euille of Virginia, who received $250.
Valeria Ann Arkoosh of Pennsylvania who received $250.
Rep. Anesa Kajtazovic of Iowa who received $1,000 this year.
One notable donor in the database is Esam Omeish, who has donated $17,610 to Democratic and Libertarian candidates since 2005. This cycle, he gave $1,000 to Rep. Gerry Connolly.
Omeish is a board member of CAIR-National and president of MAS from 2004 to 2008. In 2000, he was videotaped praising Palestinians who believe “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” In 2004, he praised the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, as “our beloved.”
In 2010, Omeish “liked” a Facebook page for Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, who is the radical spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and is linked to Hamas. Omeish has also defended the Brotherhood and said, “We [MAS] still view them as a good ally.”
Another notable donor is former ICNA President Mohammad Yunus, who has donated $3,800 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and Rep. Carson, with the latter receiving $2,500 this year.
Presidential Campaigns
The Islamists in the database have also donated to presidential campaigns over the past 15 years, amounting to over $85,000.
President Barack Obama was easily the most favored candidate for Islamists in the 2012 general election, 2008 general election and 2008 Democratic primary.
Islamists directly donated $14,600 to Obama from 2004 to 2012. In addition, the Obama Victory Fund received from Islamists $39,700 in 2008 and $9,250 in 2011-2012. The total he has received is $63,550.
2012
President Obama received $9,250 from Islamists in the 2012 election cycle.
Republican nominee Mitt Romney was given $1,000 by a CAIR-linked source during the primary. Two of his rivals, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Rep. Ron Paul, received $500 and $1,200 from CAIR sources, respectively.
2008
Then-Senator Obama was given approximately $40,000 during the general election campaign.
During the Democratic primary, Obama received about $9,150 before winning the nomination on June 3, 2008, making him the candidate with the most Islamist financial backing.
The database shows both Senator Joe Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton receiving $2,000 during the primary from Islamists, although Biden received an additional $250 in 2002. However, Clinton reportedly received another $2,000 from three Islamist sources not included in the database.
During her Senate campaign in 2000, Clinton returned $50,000 in donations from Islamists. In addition, the Clinton Foundation has had organizational links to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and received millions from figures close to the governments Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Iran.
Former Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee John Edwards received $1,750; Governor Bill Richardson received $1,000 and former Senator Mike Gravel received $250.
2004
The most favored presidential candidate by Islamist donors was Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who received $4,400.
During the general election, Democratic nominee John Kerry received $1,500, while President Bush did not receive any donations from the Islamists included in the database.
The most favored candidate during the Democratic primary was Lyndon LaRouche Jr., who got $1,050. He was followed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich with $1,250; Senators Bob Graham and Joe Lieberman with $1,000 and Senator John Kerry with $250.
2000
In the 2000 cycle, Republican nominee and eventual President George W. Bush was the favored candidate. The Clarion Project has chronicled the close relationship between American Islamists and the Bush campaign and administration.
The Bush campaign returned $1,000 from Abdurrahman Alamoudi, a secret U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member who was later convicted on terrorism-related charges. The Bush campaign received $3,000 from other Islamist sources in 1999-2000, including $1,000 from Nihad Awad, executive-director of CAIR.
By contrast, Vice President Al Gore received $1,000 from Larry Shaw, a CAIR board member.
Conclusion
As the Islamist Money in Politics project states, this is only the tip of the iceberg, but the main issue here isn’t necessarily dollar amounts. It’s influence.
A donation of a few hundred dollars won’t buy a candidate’s loyalty, but it may give an Islamist access to a candidate or a campaign’s inner circle of staff and advisors. The donation may indicate a current relationship to a candidate’s campaign or open the doors to a relationship that can influence policy.
When the FBI wiretapped a secret Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 (which included two founders of CAIR), Hamas operative Abdel Haleem al-Ashqar was recorded explaining, “Forming the public opinion or coming up with a policy to influence …the way the Americans deal with the Islamists, for instance. I believe that should be the goals of this stage.”
Guess the Democrats get a by
source? you americans like calling all Muslims terrorists, so I wouldn't be surprised if any American Muslim donated he'd be lumped in with terrorist organizations. But if you're worried that obama got $63,550 in donations and that might influence him, than surely the $65,000 this one group gave should be quite worrying that the GOP is being influenced by racists.
And both sides swear their undying support and loyalty to a foreign power, now isn't that interesting.
on a different note, for those who say the war was not about slavery. Let's hear it from SC who lead the revolt and proclaimed it must be a war against slavery.
"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. "
And I'm to lazy to find the source, but I'll take his word for it, even the GOP told their party not to take money from the CCC as they are highly racists, but that didn't stop some from taking the racists money.
Okay
Congressional Candidates Receive Money from Islamists
Spoiler:
The Islamist Money in Politics project has identified 11 candidates -- two Republicans and nine Democrats -- who received campaign donations this year from Islamists.
The project concludes that prominent Islamists have given at least $700,000 to federal candidates over the past 15 years, including $85,451 to presidential campaigns.
The figures are probably only a shadow of the true numbers, as the first-of-its-kind project does not yet include state-level campaigns like governorships. It also does not include every Islamist or Islamist organization that has donated.
The compiled data is based on campaign contributions by senior officials with five groups. The five groups included in the database all have Islamist origins and are:
1. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. CAIR was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
2. Muslim American Society (MAS), a group that federal prosecutors confirmed was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”
3. Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), led by the radical preacher Siraj Wahhaj and included an anti-American militant named Luqman Ameen Abdullah who was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
4. Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. ISNA was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
5. Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group founded by Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, but has taken a stance critical of the Brotherhood and Islamism in recent years.
The Republican candidate with the most Islamist financial support is Rep. Terri Lynn Land, who is running for a Senate seat in Michigan. She was given $2,576 from donors linked to CAIR and MPAC.
RealClearPolitics has Land behind Rep. Gary Peters by an average of 12% in the polls. However, Rep. Peters has also received $11,000 since 2008, with $1,000 coming in 2014 from a CAIR-tied source.
The second Republican is Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, who received $250 from a CAIR-linked donor. He is in a tight race with Independent Greg Orman, who is leading in the polls by only 0.7% on average.
The Democrat with the most Islamist backing is Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota (himself a practicing Muslim), who received $130,692 from sources linked to CAIR, MAS, MANA and ISNA. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana has received $33,911 since 2008, with $6,750 being donated this election cycle. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia has received $5,450 since 2008, with $2,000 coming in 2014. He is considered a lock for re-election. Connolly’s opponent has released ads criticizing his support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
One ad has audio of Connolly opposing the overthrow of the Brotherhood in Egypt, describing locals concerned about the Islamic Saudi Academy as “bigots,” and arguing for U.S. financial aid to a Palestinian unity government that includes the Hamas terrorist group.
Connolly has even criticized President Obama for not supporting the Muslim Brotherhood enough, earning him the adoration of Muslim Brotherhood supporters.
Democratic nominee Bobbie McKenzie of Michigan has received $2,500 this year. The last poll recorded by RealClearPolitics has him behind his opponent by 12%.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona has gotten $1,450 since 2012, with $400 arriving this cycle. She is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland received $1,000 this year through the Van Hollen Victory Fund. He was earlier given $250 in 2012. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Mike Honda of California has received $750 since 2012, including a $500 donation this year. The latest poll shows him locked in a tight race with Ro Khanna, leading only by 2%.
Mike Obermueller of Minnesota has received $600 since 2013, including a $250 donation this year. The most recent poll showed Obermueller behind by 22%.
Islamists also donated to four former candidates who lost their primaries:
Alfonso Hoffman Lopez of Virginia, who received $500.
Mayor Bill Euille of Virginia, who received $250.
Valeria Ann Arkoosh of Pennsylvania who received $250.
Rep. Anesa Kajtazovic of Iowa who received $1,000 this year.
One notable donor in the database is Esam Omeish, who has donated $17,610 to Democratic and Libertarian candidates since 2005. This cycle, he gave $1,000 to Rep. Gerry Connolly.
Omeish is a board member of CAIR-National and president of MAS from 2004 to 2008. In 2000, he was videotaped praising Palestinians who believe “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” In 2004, he praised the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, as “our beloved.”
In 2010, Omeish “liked” a Facebook page for Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, who is the radical spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and is linked to Hamas. Omeish has also defended the Brotherhood and said, “We [MAS] still view them as a good ally.”
Another notable donor is former ICNA President Mohammad Yunus, who has donated $3,800 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and Rep. Carson, with the latter receiving $2,500 this year.
Presidential Campaigns
The Islamists in the database have also donated to presidential campaigns over the past 15 years, amounting to over $85,000.
President Barack Obama was easily the most favored candidate for Islamists in the 2012 general election, 2008 general election and 2008 Democratic primary.
Islamists directly donated $14,600 to Obama from 2004 to 2012. In addition, the Obama Victory Fund received from Islamists $39,700 in 2008 and $9,250 in 2011-2012. The total he has received is $63,550.
2012
President Obama received $9,250 from Islamists in the 2012 election cycle.
Republican nominee Mitt Romney was given $1,000 by a CAIR-linked source during the primary. Two of his rivals, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Rep. Ron Paul, received $500 and $1,200 from CAIR sources, respectively.
2008
Then-Senator Obama was given approximately $40,000 during the general election campaign.
During the Democratic primary, Obama received about $9,150 before winning the nomination on June 3, 2008, making him the candidate with the most Islamist financial backing.
The database shows both Senator Joe Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton receiving $2,000 during the primary from Islamists, although Biden received an additional $250 in 2002. However, Clinton reportedly received another $2,000 from three Islamist sources not included in the database.
During her Senate campaign in 2000, Clinton returned $50,000 in donations from Islamists. In addition, the Clinton Foundation has had organizational links to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and received millions from figures close to the governments Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Iran.
Former Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee John Edwards received $1,750; Governor Bill Richardson received $1,000 and former Senator Mike Gravel received $250.
2004
The most favored presidential candidate by Islamist donors was Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who received $4,400.
During the general election, Democratic nominee John Kerry received $1,500, while President Bush did not receive any donations from the Islamists included in the database.
The most favored candidate during the Democratic primary was Lyndon LaRouche Jr., who got $1,050. He was followed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich with $1,250; Senators Bob Graham and Joe Lieberman with $1,000 and Senator John Kerry with $250.
2000
In the 2000 cycle, Republican nominee and eventual President George W. Bush was the favored candidate. The Clarion Project has chronicled the close relationship between American Islamists and the Bush campaign and administration.
The Bush campaign returned $1,000 from Abdurrahman Alamoudi, a secret U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member who was later convicted on terrorism-related charges. The Bush campaign received $3,000 from other Islamist sources in 1999-2000, including $1,000 from Nihad Awad, executive-director of CAIR.
By contrast, Vice President Al Gore received $1,000 from Larry Shaw, a CAIR board member.
Conclusion
As the Islamist Money in Politics project states, this is only the tip of the iceberg, but the main issue here isn’t necessarily dollar amounts. It’s influence.
A donation of a few hundred dollars won’t buy a candidate’s loyalty, but it may give an Islamist access to a candidate or a campaign’s inner circle of staff and advisors. The donation may indicate a current relationship to a candidate’s campaign or open the doors to a relationship that can influence policy.
When the FBI wiretapped a secret Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 (which included two founders of CAIR), Hamas operative Abdel Haleem al-Ashqar was recorded explaining, “Forming the public opinion or coming up with a policy to influence …the way the Americans deal with the Islamists, for instance. I believe that should be the goals of this stage.”
Guess the Democrats get a by
source? you americans like calling all Muslims terrorists, so I wouldn't be surprised if any American Muslim donated he'd be lumped in with terrorist organizations. But if you're worried that obama got $63,550 in donations and that might influence him, than surely the $65,000 this one group gave should be quite worrying that the GOP is being influenced by racists.
And both sides swear their undying support and loyalty to a foreign power, now isn't that interesting.
When have you ever seen me go down that line eh? I'm an American and I have never gone down that line. Ever. Since I am an American then I must be like that eh?
and they were wrong because there is no legal basis for their succession from the Union.
.....
Again, you're making your entire argument on a tu quoque instead of addressing it.
Argument is valid, both secessions were unlawful, one was lawful in retrospect because it succeeded. Simple and logical.
You tried to make it relevant. The Confederate flag is not a matter of "societal pride." I have no guilt over my ancestor's role in the Civil War, but I also don't celebrate their treason.
It can be a matter of local history and shared culture, it would also be mentally healthier to place that as the basepoint unless proven otherwise by an individual's actions. Wheras you quoted and supported calls to prejudicially label those who take pride in Confederate history prior to examining the motives.
What exactly are "Hispanic rights" and how are they lagging behind in the US? Your bring up of the historical treatment of Native Americans our government is whataboutism, just like you dragging the American Revolution into the argument.
Comparisons are a point of logic.
As you need to ask what Hispanic rights are, but probably don't need to ask what African American rights are the point stands. Under law you have equal rights, and have for a long time, but there is an emphasis on application which is still uneven.
Also point returns if a succession is illegal its 'wrong', then the application of right and wrong covers all cases and not individually.The Declaration of Independence document was equally illegal under the laws of the time. The principle difference between Jefferson Davis and George Washington was that one failed the other did not.
As for the wrongness of slavery, sure the Union was ok with unchaining blacks, but were happy to condone land seizures and disenfranchisement of native americans. This is a fact. Morally the two sides were less separated than it therefore appears if you concentrate purely on African American rights alone.
Again as stated earlier this doesn't condemn the Union, despite your claims that I do so, because I made the point that similar moral positions were commonplace in European and post European societies.
To put it simply when you add policies and activities like the bloody conquest of Africa, by the European powers and the rape of the Native Americans etc etc etc the Confederacy had no moral gulf between it and contemporary western nations, despite having heavy infrastructural investment in slavery.
To highlight the evils of slavery while airbrushing out similar human ills of the colonial era is gross revisionism.
This might help you.
Monticello House.
Owned by Thomas Jefferson, where he lives and though of his treaties on liberty and where he kept approx 100 black slaves.
Man or monster?
You have to think of people as men of their times, and history treats Jefferson as a man of liberty.
Secessionism was the issue, slavery was an expedient catalyst.
An unlawful succession. Because of slavery.
Sadly that simple act of level reasoning distant to you. If the hipocrisy of slavery illegalises the Confederates, why didnt it not illegalise Jefferson and those of his time who supported slavery.
Try not to squawk 'tu quoque', rationalise rather than parrot your argument.
Again for the record, I don't concern Jefferson, because I am placing people in their time. He probably didn't consider himself bigoted, and others generally didn't think that of him.
I agree with John Oliver on the topic: "The Confederate flag one of those symbols that should really only be seen on T-shirts, belt buckles, and bumper stickers to help the rest of us identify the worst people in the world.
If you think blanket questioning assumptions of bigotry is a 'failed argument' then it appears liberal progressivism has done a number on you.
First of all, John Oliver is a comedian and his quip about the Confederate flag is what is commonly refereed to as a "joke."
That is referred to as weaponised comedy It's a common ploy.
Comedy takes advantage of something called fools license. Fools license traditionally had a lot of obligations to cover its social advantages, most notably the need for impartiality. Politicised comedy is often a means to make critique, in an imbalanced setting, without the normal safeguards of rational argument and without adequate right of reply.
In civil society if a so called 'joke' encourages bigoted labeling based on superficial evidence it should be censured.
None of these things inspire me to wear the symbol of the failed insurrection against my country and the principles it stood for, which was this:
Noone is asking you to wear the symbol of the Confederacy, I am logically asking you not to label those who do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: on a different note, for those who say the war was not about slavery. Let's hear it from SC who lead the revolt and proclaimed it must be a war against slavery.
"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. "
Propaganda is not a new art, declarations of causes are just political comments, when it comes to war they are often heavily divorced from truth.
Take the Iraq invasion, the cause was Saddams supposed 'weapons of massed destruction', which those planning the invasion already believed didn't exist. The real reasons were very different.
Likewise a successful succession of the Confederacy would strip the US of half its expansion room. Its however easier to find another excuse. Slavery was such an excuse. If it was the main reason the succession may well have been negotiated or negated by peaceful dialogue.
When have you ever seen me go down that line eh? I'm an American and I have never gone down that line. Ever. Since I am an American then I must be like that eh?
See what I did there?
so no source?
but in any case, you asked for someone to Throw some links to back up the Extreme/Racist organizations that openly contribute to an individual/Party
Propaganda is not a new art, declarations of causes are just political comments, when it comes to war they are often heavily divorced from truth.
Take the Iraq invasion, the cause was Saddams supposed 'weapons of massed destruction', which those planning the invasion already believed didn't exist. The real reasons were very different.
Likewise a successful succession of the Confederacy would strip the US of half its expansion room. Its however easier to find another excuse. Slavery was such an excuse. If it was the main reason the succession may well have been negotiated or negated by peaceful dialogue.
Oh ok, so all that talk of slavery was just rhetoric to gain the support of all the racists in the south, who liked owning slaves, and to get them motivated to fight a war to keep slavery.
If one were to look for the political party supported by 100% of Racists in the USA, it would be the GOP.
TRUE, there MIGHT be racists who support neither political party. But if a racist supports a political party, they are going to look to the GOP.
WHY.
Because the South is predominantly GOP.
Because the GOP supports voter ID restrictions, which are an overt move to disenfranchise minorities.
Because the Conservatives support Police, who have been effectively killing minorities at rates that are thousands of times those of whites for the same type of encounter.
Because of the coded language of "state's rights," which dates back to the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Because of the fear of immigrants (non-whites).
Because of their use of the word "Thug" or "Terrorist" for any non-white violent criminal.
And, it all boils down to this:
That racists choose the GOP as their party of choice means that the racists see something friendly to racists in the GOP's stated policy preferences, or they would not be actively supporting the GOP.
MB
Dude... really? None of that is even remotely right.
Let's simply take South Carolina here... since this is the state we're talking about in this thread.
-The Govenor, Niki Haley is a minority Republican woman. - The GOP SC Senator is Tim Scott... who's black.
To reiterate, it was the Democratic Governor Fritz Hollins in 1962 who raised this flag over SC capital, and it was a GOP Governor Haley who led the charge to have it removed from Capital grounds in 2015.
There seems to be this fetish some folks want to push that it's the south, that's all racist and where Jim Crowism still lives.
If that's true, that why are blacks migrating in droves to the south?
The greatest trick the Democrats ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist in the South. And like that, poof. The Democrat's racial heritage is gone.
What a great way to point to a few exceptions and try to pretend that they are the rule.
Just because the Plantation had an Uncle Tom living in it, does not mean that the Plantation Owners treated all their slaves to such luxuries, to remain with the Civil War themes, here.
The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.
You cannot pretend that the GOP's policies are not inordinately harsh toward minorities, OR THERE WOULD BE MORE MINORITIES VOTING FOR THE GOP! - Rather than the 1% - 3% of Blacks who vote for them, and the 20-30 odd% of Hispanics who vote for them.
Why is it that people like to bring up exceptions as if they are a rule? Did these people fail statistics? Or do they simply have no idea of what a statistical rule or majority is?
MB
jihadin's right... you need to back that up, because it sure as hell looks like you pulled that out where the sun doesn't shine.
Here, in addition to Polonius' post describing some of the "Southern Strategy", the Democrats had to respond.
So what did they do?
In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option... duh.
Enter President Lyndon B Johnson (D), who famously stated "I'll have those novembers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their New Deal programs with racism.
From a purely tactical political perspective, LBJ and his party knew exactly what they were doing, and were extremely effective.
Orlanth wrote: Late to this discussion, but the idea that the Confederacy was 'evil' is two dimensional at best.
Not if you properly understand how nations can be judged. It’s gibberish to think of a whole people as evil, or to think that people in a nation are more likely than others to take individual evil actions. It is institutions which the nation operates that are evil.
So, for instance, by your understanding you think because the South is deemed therefore it’s armies must fight less honourably, and so proof they didn’t means the South mustn’t have been an evil institution. But that’s nonsense, troops can fight bravely and honourably in defence of a nation that is built around immoral institutions.
As for the black rights thing. You honestly think the union cared. Yes slavery was an issue, but it was the mid 19th century and the issues should be seen though 19th century eyes and not the 21st century moral goggles some wear.
That the North cared to keep the US together as it’s primary cause means nothing as to why the South started the war.
The Victorian age justified colonialism, whether it was the conquest of the West, or South America, Africa, India or Indo-China.
Of course the Victorian age justified colonialism, nations always find some way or another to justify behaviour that is in it’s own economic advantage. That doesn’t mean colonialism was okay.
The American Confederacy was a cause of the time, and efforts to retroactively condemn it are just ignorant revisionism. The only excuse to condemn them at all is on the grounds they failed.
Only if we insist on following a moral understanding with personal judgements. Which would be pointless nonsense. It is quite simple to recognise institutions as unethical or even evil, without having to personally condemn every person who part of those institutions.
19th century western morals were skewed by our standards, but those standard were nevertheless visibly high. Each nation stood for separate inalienable principles more staunchy than we would today, yet did other very similar things which the peoples of the modern age would find repugnant.
That’s a really weird kind of generalisation, sure there are examples of nations standing for inalienable principles, but there’s also plenty of cases where they didn’t. They were inconsistent in their moral convictions, same as we are today.
Yep that sounds about right! I mean I remember having a discussion with one of my professors and one of his compatriots about how the South never truly recovered from the civil war. It was psychological now. It was still part of their identity for a very long time. And some people can't forget.
Yep. People ask why people keep going on about slavery... but people keep going on about the Civil War. That's how people function. History leaves a mark for centuries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: It's also interesting how the Confederate flag news coverage seems to have quickly overtaken that of the actual shooting, as if flying the Confederate flag is the real root of the problem, rather than a symptom.
That's a really good point. And yeah, banning the flag is treating a symptom, not addressing the legacy of racism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The greatest trick the Democrats ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist in the South. And like that, poof. The Democrat's racial heritage is gone.
Everytime people talk about politics, they talk about nasty stuff done by Democrats in the 1960s. But that's just lazy tribalism, thinking something done by a party one time must forever be a part of that party.
The Democrats used to be overtly racist, but that changed when progressives won the internal power struggle, resulting in the Civil Rights act which caused many of the racists to leave, and the rest to drift away over time. Spotting an opportunity, Nixon catered to them with his Southern Strategy, and it worked brilliantly delivering the South to the Republicans for the first time since the Civil War.
The legacy of this is that to this day part of the Republican party operates a kind of covert racism. Now, I personally think this legacy is weaker with each election, arguments against welfare tend to be less loaded with welfare queen dog whistles, but we can’t just pretend this isn’t there by talking about how nasty the Democrats were in the 1960s.
The Victorian age justified colonialism, whether it was the conquest of the West, or South America, Africa, India or Indo-China.
Of course the Victorian age justified colonialism, nations always find some way or another to justify behaviour that is in it’s own economic advantage. That doesn’t mean colonialism was okay.
19th century western morals were skewed by our standards, but those standard were nevertheless visibly high. Each nation stood for separate inalienable principles more staunchy than we would today, yet did other very similar things which the peoples of the modern age would find repugnant.
That’s a really weird kind of generalisation, sure there are examples of nations standing for inalienable principles, but there’s also plenty of cases where they didn’t. They were inconsistent in their moral convictions, same as we are today.
It's Westphalian principles in a nutshell right there....
In reality, no one had to "justify" Colonialism or Imperialism (it's actually a somewhat hazy line there), because they went into a new area an colonized or subjugated it because if "they" didn't then "the other guy" would. It really is the way that Europe maintained the peace for nearly 100 years: What England does within it's borders, is not the concern of the French, and vice versa.
They weren't really inconsistent in their morals, just, as I said... no one cared all that much how people not of the same country were treated, so long as it was outside the country
Don't ban it. The day Free Speech dies is the same day my faith in this nation continuing to be semi-decent dies as well. Exceptions besides destructive libel or screaming in a fire in a theater can't be added, it flies in the face of some of the concepts this nation was founded upon.
The Confederate Flag may be a disgusting symbol of traitors, but that isn't grounds to ban it. For the same reason of protecting free speech, I fully support the public usage of Swastikas or pointy white hats. Not only does it help us identify the asses of society, but it also ensures we remember.
Ignorance of the past begets horrors of the future.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: In reality, no one had to "justify" Colonialism or Imperialism (it's actually a somewhat hazy line there), because they went into a new area an colonized or subjugated it because if "they" didn't then "the other guy" would.
Everyone justifies everything, if only to themselves. No-one thinks of themselves as a bad actor, despite so many people doing so many selfish and horrible things every day. Colonialism was no different, the European powers built elaborate rationalisations for why European rule must be good for the colonised territories. It was the point at which you see a genuine notion of racialism, as opposed to more generalised xenophobia, and it can pretty much all be boiled down to people figuring out a way to morally justify doing the thing that was making them rich.
They weren't really inconsistent in their morals, just, as I said... no one cared all that much how people not of the same country were treated, so long as it was outside the country
Eh, if the point is just about sovereign independence dominating over a notion of universal human rights, then sure, sovereignty was more important then – it’s more complex than an absolute statement, but I really don’t care enough to go in to it.
I was more focusing on this statement, “those standard were nevertheless visibly high. Each nation stood for separate inalienable principles more staunchy than we would today” which is at best a ridiculous caricature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyzilla wrote: Don't ban it. The day Free Speech dies is the same day my faith in this nation continuing to be semi-decent dies as well. Exceptions besides destructive libel or screaming in a fire in a theater can't be added, it flies in the face of some of the concepts this nation was founded upon.
The Confederate Flag may be a disgusting symbol of traitors, but that isn't grounds to ban it. For the same reason of protecting free speech, I fully support the public usage of Swastikas or pointy white hats. Not only does it help us identify the asses of society, but it also ensures we remember.
Sorry, is there a genuine effort to make the flag illegal?
My quote button didn't work, was supposed to be quoting Iron from page one.
Although I also have heard of some people talking about banning it, but never in force. But any talk of banning symbols needs to be brought down in regards to America- it goes against our ideals as a nation.
If one were to look for the political party supported by 100% of Racists in the USA, it would be the GOP.
TRUE, there MIGHT be racists who support neither political party. But if a racist supports a political party, they are going to look to the GOP.
WHY.
Because the South is predominantly GOP.
Because the GOP supports voter ID restrictions, which are an overt move to disenfranchise minorities.
Because the Conservatives support Police, who have been effectively killing minorities at rates that are thousands of times those of whites for the same type of encounter.
Because of the coded language of "state's rights," which dates back to the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Because of the fear of immigrants (non-whites).
Because of their use of the word "Thug" or "Terrorist" for any non-white violent criminal.
And, it all boils down to this:
That racists choose the GOP as their party of choice means that the racists see something friendly to racists in the GOP's stated policy preferences, or they would not be actively supporting the GOP.
MB
Dude... really? None of that is even remotely right.
Let's simply take South Carolina here... since this is the state we're talking about in this thread.
-The Govenor, Niki Haley is a minority Republican woman.
- The GOP SC Senator is Tim Scott... who's black.
To reiterate, it was the Democratic Governor Fritz Hollins in 1962 who raised this flag over SC capital, and it was a GOP Governor Haley who led the charge to have it removed from Capital grounds in 2015.
There seems to be this fetish some folks want to push that it's the south, that's all racist and where Jim Crowism still lives.
If that's true, that why are blacks migrating in droves to the south?
The greatest trick the Democrats ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist in the South. And like that, poof. The Democrat's racial heritage is gone.
What a great way to point to a few exceptions and try to pretend that they are the rule.
Just because the Plantation had an Uncle Tom living in it, does not mean that the Plantation Owners treated all their slaves to such luxuries, to remain with the Civil War themes, here.
The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.
You cannot pretend that the GOP's policies are not inordinately harsh toward minorities, OR THERE WOULD BE MORE MINORITIES VOTING FOR THE GOP! - Rather than the 1% - 3% of Blacks who vote for them, and the 20-30 odd% of Hispanics who vote for them.
Why is it that people like to bring up exceptions as if they are a rule? Did these people fail statistics? Or do they simply have no idea of what a statistical rule or majority is?
MB
Throw some links to back up the Extreme/Racist organizations that openly contribute to an individual/Party
I'm Minority that's a bit Republican
The Council of Concerned Citizens, just as a Start:
If you are a minority who support the GOP, then you must be pretty self-hating to willfully ignore everything they have done to not just hurt minorities, but to be so overtly attractive to racists.
WHY IS IT that Racists are not just a "little" attracted to the GOP, but IFF there is a party they support, they they support the GOP?
What exactly is it about GOP Policies that racists find so attractive that they not just support the GOP, but SOLELY support the GOP (Or the Libertarian wing of the GOP created when Libertarians realized that a Third Party in the USA was impossible due to Duverger's Law)?
themselves. And also any groups that HIRED them to do so... looking at your Soros! :shakes fist:
