Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jihadin wrote:
Stay out of my NCOPD/EOA files there Manchu.....

Found them while trying to loot your prescriptions ...

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.

 Psienesis wrote:
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:

Ah yes, got myself caught in a muddle. Thanks for the correction.

Everyone, go read "Gone With The Wind"
The south honestly and sincerly thought they where doing the slaves a favor

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.

 whembly wrote:
(7): Onerous tariffs on the south agri industry:
http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

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.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 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:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

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.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

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.

MB

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

Rich Man's War Poor Man's Fight was a real thing.

 Frazzled wrote:

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

from http://thomaslegion.net/listofgeneralskilled.html







from http://thomaslegion.net/totalcivilwarkilleddeadsoldiers.html

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.

 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.

 CptJake wrote:

 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:

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:
This is a study I think is relevant – it’s on the political legacy of American slavery.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/slavery.pdf

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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 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?

BeAfraid wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 sebster wrote:
This is a study I think is relevant – it’s on the political legacy of American slavery.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/slavery.pdf

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.

And yet another article tying the flag issue to Army bases named for confederates:

http://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/

in part:

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.

The battle flag is symbolically present to us in a way that largely invisible names are not.

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.

good point Hordini.

Reality now is all about the surface symbolism.

Is there any more news about the shootings? It seems to me that the next piece of news will be the trial.