Monday, September 5, 2011

If truth statements fall in the wilderness, will a Southern apologist hear it?

Another comment on a Linkedin group I belong to spurred me to post a reply.

Chris Rivait posted a link to his blog that quoted in full the Roanoake Times article Rebel flags barred from Lexington poles outlining the Lexington, Virginia, city council's recent decision not to raise the Confederate battle flag at city-sponsored events:
    The arguments have been made thousands of times before. The Confederate flag is a symbol of history and Southern heritage. No, the flag is a symbol of hatred and racism.
    In essence, the same arguments dominated a public hearing held Thursday night by the Lexington City Council . . .
The first commenter in this post was a gentleman named Stephen Quick, who linked to his website on which he attempted to defend the representation of the Confederate battle flag. I will leave it up to the reader to navigate to Quick's website to read his interpretation in full.

In reply to Quick, I wrote:
    Stephen, I'm going to respond to your link not because I have any faith whatsoever that you would change your interpretive stance on the issue, but because such myopic quasi-historical & ideological points of view need to be challenged.
    Your argument in favor of respect for the Confederate battle flag is specious for at least four reasons.
    First, the Confederate battle flag, more than any other Confederate flag, represents the fact that slavery was a primary cause of the American Civil War (http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2007/12/24/slavery-did-too-cause-the-civil-war/).
    Second, it may be the case that "antipathy toward the flag is a recent phenomenon" from the 1980s. However, if it is the case, it's not because of "a liberal media irritated at the lingering conservatism in the South" and a financially strapped NAACP. It's because after the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, African Americans were finally able to voice their opposition to White supremacy in all it's various manifestations, _and_ there was a wider White constituency open to hearing and responding positively to these critiques.
    Third, because slavery was a main cause of the war, and because by the 1960s the points of view of African Americans started to make their way into the mainstream of American culture & discussion, many people -- myself included -- have come to associate the Confederate battle flag with injustice. I will leave it up to the descendents of slaves to correct, modulate, or refine what I'm about to write, but, for me, a White male, the Confederate battle flag is just a notch below the Nazi Swastika, in terms of its symbolic resonance with deeply racist ideology.
    Fourth, regardless of the extent to which any given Southerner understands or agrees with the interpretations sketched briefly above, to ignore that they exist, or to dismiss them off-hand, or not to engage with their very real substance, is to be intellectually dishonest.
    In summary: It's certainly not "irrational flag hysteria" for people to challenge the government-sponsored presentation of the Confederate battle flag. Southerners need to face up to the facts that slavery was a main cause of the Civil War and that, for this reason at least, these days the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of intolerance to a great many Americans.

--

75 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To which I received the following three replies:

    [#1, by Stephen Quick] "Well James, you may challenge all you like but you are just plain dead wrong. That you have swallowed the American myth is your problem, not mine and I would not embarrass myself with such a self-rightous diatribe.
    If the South had freed all the slaves and seceded, war would have come. Had the South not seceded they would have retained their slaves. One nation, or two. That is the contest. Your pathetic "argument" dies there.
    Amend the Constitution to say it should never be altered to interfere with slavery."-- Abraham Lincoln, 24 December 1860, presenting his stand on slavery to the Senate
    The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure. – Lysander Spooner (Nineteenth-Century lawyer, abolitionist, entrepreneur)
    “The contest so commenced, which ended in the War was indeed a contest between opposing principles, but not such as bore on the the policy or impolicy of African Subordination. They were principles deeply underlying all consideration of that sort. They involved the very nature and organic structure of the Government itself. The conflict, on the question of Slavery, in the Federal councils, from the beginning was not a contest between advocates or opponents of that peculiar Institution, but a contest, as stated before, between the supporters of a strictly Federative Government on one side and a thoroughly National one on the other” p65 The Causes of the Civil War Kenneth M Stampp
    "[T]o tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage, is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age."
    James Webb (D) Senator from Virginia
    “The flags of the Confederate States of America were very important and a matter of great pride to those citizens living in the Confederacy. They are also a matter of great pride for their descendants as part of their heritage and history.”
    Winston Churchill
    “Congressman George Julian of Indiana meant every word when he declared that the sole purpose of the conflict was the total subjugation of the South. ‘Both our people and our army have been learning to hate rebels as Christian patriots ought to have done from the beginning’” Dark Union Gutteridge and Neff, page 47. "

    ReplyDelete
  3. [#2] [Stephen Quick] "I could go on but it is obvious when it comes to this subject your brain is closed tighter than a clam shell. But the words of Jefferson Davis are indeed prophetic
    “The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert it’s self, though it may be at another time and in another form.”
    President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A.
    Blue v Gray is now blue v- red....and red is going to win."

    ReplyDelete
  4. [#3] [Steve Ross] Growing up in Alabama, we had rebel flags everywhere. But when I was a teenager, a black friend of mine saw my giant Confederate flag hanging ceiling to floor and said "Steve, why you gotta have that thing in here?". He seemed genuinely upset and depressed about it. I tried to make a case for the thing (Northerners was just as racist or even more so)... but it did no good. So, for him, I took it down right there and then. And ever since then, I haven't displayed them anywhere.

    I personally have no problem with it, but perception is "Reality". With the KKK and Neo-Nazi's toting that thing around, that flag has a LOT of baggage (deserved or not). And I can't staple a leaflet to every flag explaining MY case. So I "keep it in the closet" lest I offend the indoctrinated millions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My reply to the above . . .

    Stephen, thanks for your comments. We certainly do disagree -- not only about the empirical content of the argument, but, more fundamentally, about what it means to have an historical argument.

    As I wrote in my first sentence, and based upon my reading of your website, I didn't have any faith that you would modify your interpretive stance on the issue. I am not surprised, then, by your response. I didn't comment with any intention to change your mind, or the mind of anyone else who believes as you do; I responded in the interest of speaking truth to overly-simplistic interpretations of history that shade into intolerance and racism, such as your own.

    Steve conveys a telling story about an African American communicating to him about the racism that the Confederate battle flag signifies to a great many Americans, and his agreeing not to display the flag openly. I certainly disagree with his characterization of people who are uneasy with representations of the Confederate battle flag as the "indoctrinated millions," but I appreciate his openness to self-reflection and change.

    In the end, my purpose here is to provide a voice of dissension to racially and culturally insensitive information that does not reflect the full spectrum of American history and culture.

    ReplyDelete
  6. [Paul Doyle] It was the usage of the Confederate Flag by protesters in the desegregation and Civil rights marches of the Sixties that is the argument against. Shelby Foote said this in an interview in 2000:

    "..They're condemned on the face of it because they take that flag to represent what those yahoos represent as - in their protest against civil rights things. But the people who knew what that flag really stood for should have stopped those yahoos from using it as a symbol of what they stood for. But we didn't - and now you had this problem of the confederate flag being identified as sort of a roughneck thing, which it is not."

    Maybe the "indocrinated millions" have a fresher memory in what ways that symbol also was used against.

    ReplyDelete
  7. [Steve Ross] I'm not saying there was a plot to demonize that flag by "northern agitators"or something through some Goebbels-esc indoctrination. I just mean, as Paul/Shelby Foote said, most people will inhale the most recent usage/association of something without knowing the entire arc/meaning of it. And we can't change that (the same way people see 1.5 billion muslims as potential suicide pilots since 9/11)

    It's kinda like the rainbow: My daughters love 'em and I'm sure they'd like to slap a rainbow sticker on my car. But displaying one NOW = gay/lesbian. Not that there's anything wrong with that (NO H8 baby), but driving around with a rainbow sticker in Texas would get me some dirty looks.

    Then there's the whole "tiny mustache" thing. I COULD grow a Charlie Chaplin mustache, but everyone would yell "Hitler!" so I keep that "in the closet" as well;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. [Paul Doyle] Steve, Not to necessarily equate the two, but the swastika was originally a Sanskrit symbol indicating good luck. I belong to SABR (Society of American Baseball Research) and a couple years ago, someone discovered pictures of ballplayers wearing the swastika on their baseball uniforms back in the teen decade of last century. Conjecture was that the ballplayers were anti-semitic--until someone did more in-depth research and found the connection to the "good luck symbol" and the fact that Nazism was just a glimmer back in 1912 or so.

    So, as you state "perception is reality".
    Also, the fact that the public persona of a David Duke, National Alliance or the Council of Conservative Citizens have sometimes been associated with both the Confederate flag and racist/anti-semitic rantings doesn't help any historic interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. [Mark Langer] I think that what really counts is what the flag represents now, not what it historically represented, and why people fly it now, not why they flew it in the past.

    In this day and age, it's mostly flown by racists who like to flaunt their racism. As Steve said, percenption is reality. Those who fly it are perceived as racists. That is the reality.

    ReplyDelete
  10. [Steve Ross] eah the Third Reich took the Swastika down the tubes along w/ the Chaplin mustache (and the name Adolf too).

    Paul I haven't seen the baseball teams but sometimes I saw some old hockey teams with swastikas.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Windsor_Swastikas_hockey_team_Dark_Outfits_1910.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  11. [Paul Doyle] Steve,
    There was an actual minor league team whose nickname was the Swastikas from that same era (1912):

    http://www.lelands.com/Auction/AuctionDetail/64946?page=4

    I went back and looked at what I had found and there is also some indications that the symbol also had Native American roots. I also found reference that the Boy Scouts adopted it in some form, again linking it to American Indian ties. I also found some reference that the U.S. Army 45th Infantry Division had a patch including same. The 45th's derivation was the Oklahoma National Guard, which probably would tie into the American Indian theme.

    Some older architecture included it in their ornamentation. There's a building down in Paris, Kentucky that was built in 1917 that has 22 swastikas in its stone facade. The Ellicott Square Bldg in downtown Buffalo, which was built in 1893 had its original mosaic tile floors embedded with Native American symbols including Swastikas. Most of these are of the original angled swastika from the Sanskrit. Some have argued that the Nazi symbol is not a true swastika, but a "hooked cross" because of the tilted angle.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I appreciate the points in the posts above. There certainly is a lot of nuance here that influences the present-day perception of the Confederate battle flag (and the swastika). This illustrates a common dynamic of change-over-time -- that certain words, symbols, concepts, etc., gain and shed meanings over time. It's rare (if not impossible) when any given symbol or word means just one thing, and rarer still that such a singularity of meaning would persist for decades or centuries.

    In my original comment, the point I was trying to make is that, at least since the 1970s, a growing number of people take offense at the Confederate battle flag, for reasons that deserve the respect of a full hearing & consideration. Once we've looked at the full range of evidence in support of the reasons why people would take offense at this particular symbol, I, for one, believe strongly that it does not serve the best interests of any community in the U.S.A. that its city, county, or state government would sponsor the display of such a flag.

    I certainly hold that display of these flags by individuals is a Constitutionally-protected right. However, in my view, there is a more important right for members of any of our communities not to feel threatened because their local, county, or state government sponsors the representation of such offensive symbols.

    ReplyDelete
  13. [John Hinz] Yes, Slavery was a part of the cause of the war. But when I see the two flags( the Stars and Bars and the American flag) flying side by side, I think of the 600,000 men and women that gave their lives for what they thought was right. One of the main reasons for the Civil War was states rights and human rights which were being overtaken by the federal government and it seems that battle rages on today. I feel the display of the fags can mean different things to different people, but thank GOD that we have these reminders of where we have been and how we are supposed to be a United
    States of American, even though we are still a divided nation with The Tea Party, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Liberals, Conservatives and other factions we seem to continue the battle through ploitics and greed. What happened to Statesmen who loved this country and looked for ways to Unite us and solve our problems with out looking how they might benifit the most. We all need to take the time to evaluate where do I stand on all of the government policies, such as the violoation of human rights with the ObomaCare which forces us to by Insurance or face a fine. I am not an Isolatianist but why do we allow so much of our industry to leave the country, don't say that it can't be done, but make it so the companys want to use America's talent to manufacture here in the USA. Give Americans a desire to show their talents and abilities to create new inventions, new companies, and not rely on the dole from the Governmnet to live better than if they worked. I soon will be 79 years old and since the age of 10 I have worked and never collected a days pay as unemployment. I have been to many countries and America is still the greatest but we are sure slipping.
    GOD bless AMERICA

    ReplyDelete
  14. [Stephen Quick] Well James, you may challenge all you like but you are just plain dead wrong. That you have swallowed the American myth is your problem, not mine and I would not embarrass myself with such a self-rightous diatribe.
    If the South had freed all the slaves and seceded, war would have come. Had the South not seceded they would have retained their slaves. One nation, or two. That is the contest. Your pathetic "argument" dies there.
    Amend the Constitution to say it should never be altered to interfere with slavery."-- Abraham Lincoln, 24 December 1860, presenting his stand on slavery to the Senate
    The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure. – Lysander Spooner (Nineteenth-Century lawyer, abolitionist, entrepreneur)
    “The contest so commenced, which ended in the War was indeed a contest between opposing principles, but not such as bore on the the policy or impolicy of African Subordination. They were principles deeply underlying all consideration of that sort. They involved the very nature and organic structure of the Government itself. The conflict, on the question of Slavery, in the Federal councils, from the beginning was not a contest between advocates or opponents of that peculiar Institution, but a contest, as stated before, between the supporters of a strictly Federative Government on one side and a thoroughly National one on the other” p65 The Causes of the Civil War Kenneth M Stampp
    "[T]o tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage, is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age."
    James Webb (D) Senator from Virginia
    “The flags of the Confederate States of America were very important and a matter of great pride to those citizens living in the Confederacy. They are also a matter of great pride for their descendants as part of their heritage and history.”
    Winston Churchill
    “Congressman George Julian of Indiana meant every word when he declared that the sole purpose of the conflict was the total subjugation of the South. ‘Both our people and our army have been learning to hate rebels as Christian patriots ought to have done from the beginning’” Dark Union Gutteridge and Neff, page 47.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. [James Hillegas] Stephen, thanks for your comments. We certainly do disagree -- not only about the empirical content of the argument, but, more fundamentally, about what it means to have an historical argument.

    As I wrote in my first sentence, and based upon my reading of your website, I didn't have any faith that you would modify your interpretive stance on the issue. I am not surprised, then, by your response. I didn't comment with any intention to change your mind, or the mind of anyone else who believes as you do; I responded in the interest of speaking truth to overly-simplistic interpretations of history that shade into intolerance and racism, such as your own.

    Steve conveys a telling story about an African American communicating to him about the racism that the Confederate battle flag signifies to a great many Americans, and his agreeing not to display the flag openly. I certainly disagree with his characterization of people who are uneasy with representations of the Confederate battle flag as the "indoctrinated millions," but I appreciate his openness to self-reflection and change.

    In the end, my purpose here is to provide a voice of dissension to racially and culturally insensitive information that does not reflect the full spectrum of American history and culture.

    ReplyDelete
  17. [Paul Doyle] It was the usage of the Confederate Flag by protesters in the desegregation and Civil rights marches of the Sixties that is the argument against. Shelby Foote said this in an interview in 2000:

    "..They're condemned on the face of it because they take that flag to represent what those yahoos represent as - in their protest against civil rights things. But the people who knew what that flag really stood for should have stopped those yahoos from using it as a symbol of what they stood for. But we didn't - and now you had this problem of the confederate flag being identified as sort of a roughneck thing, which it is not."

    Maybe the "indocrinated millions" have a fresher memory in what ways that symbol also was used against.

    ReplyDelete
  18. [Steve Ross] I'm not saying there was a plot to demonize that flag by "northern agitators"or something through some Goebbels-esc indoctrination. I just mean, as Paul/Shelby Foote said, most people will inhale the most recent usage/association of something without knowing the entire arc/meaning of it. And we can't change that (the same way people see 1.5 billion muslims as potential suicide pilots since 9/11)

    It's kinda like the rainbow: My daughters love 'em and I'm sure they'd like to slap a rainbow sticker on my car. But displaying one NOW = gay/lesbian. Not that there's anything wrong with that (NO H8 baby), but driving around with a rainbow sticker in Texas would get me some dirty looks.

    Then there's the whole "tiny mustache" thing. I COULD grow a Charlie Chaplin mustache, but everyone would yell "Hitler!" so I keep that "in the closet" as well;)

    ReplyDelete
  19. [Paul Doyle] Steve, Not to necessarily equate the two, but the swastika was originally a Sanskrit symbol indicating good luck. I belong to SABR (Society of American Baseball Research) and a couple years ago, someone discovered pictures of ballplayers wearing the swastika on their baseball uniforms back in the teen decade of last century. Conjecture was that the ballplayers were anti-semitic--until someone did more in-depth research and found the connection to the "good luck symbol" and the fact that Nazism was just a glimmer back in 1912 or so.

    So, as you state "perception is reality".
    Also, the fact that the public persona of a David Duke, National Alliance or the Council of Conservative Citizens have sometimes been associated with both the Confederate flag and racist/anti-semitic rantings doesn't help any historic interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  20. [Mark Langer] I think that what really counts is what the flag represents now, not what it historically represented, and why people fly it now, not why they flew it in the past.

    In this day and age, it's mostly flown by racists who like to flaunt their racism. As Steve said, percenption is reality. Those who fly it are perceived as racists. That is the reality.

    ReplyDelete
  21. [Steve Ross] Yeah the Third Reich took the Swastika down the tubes along w/ the Chaplin mustache (and the name Adolf too).

    Paul I haven't seen the baseball teams but sometimes I saw some old hockey teams with swastikas.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Windsor_Swastikas_hockey_team_Dark_Outfits_1910.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  22. [Paul Doyle] Steve, There was an actual minor league team whose nickname was the Swastikas from that same era (1912):

    http://www.lelands.com/Auction/AuctionDetail/64946?page=4

    I went back and looked at what I had found and there is also some indications that the symbol also had Native American roots. I also found reference that the Boy Scouts adopted it in some form, again linking it to American Indian ties. I also found some reference that the U.S. Army 45th Infantry Division had a patch including same. The 45th's derivation was the Oklahoma National Guard, which probably would tie into the American Indian theme.

    Some older architecture included it in their ornamentation. There's a building down in Paris, Kentucky that was built in 1917 that has 22 swastikas in its stone facade. The Ellicott Square Bldg in downtown Buffalo, which was built in 1893 had its original mosaic tile floors embedded with Native American symbols including Swastikas. Most of these are of the original angled swastika from the Sanskrit. Some have argued that the Nazi symbol is not a true swastika, but a "hooked cross" because of the tilted angle.

    ReplyDelete
  23. [James Hillegas] I appreciate the points in the posts above. There certainly is a lot of nuance here that influences the present-day perception of the Confederate battle flag (and the swastika). This illustrates a common dynamic of change-over-time -- that certain words, symbols, concepts, etc., gain and shed meanings over time. It's rare (if not impossible) when any given symbol or word means just one thing, and rarer still that such a singularity of meaning would persist for decades or centuries.

    In my original comment, the point I was trying to make is that, at least since the 1970s, a growing number of people take offense at the Confederate battle flag, for reasons that deserve the respect of a full hearing & consideration. Once we've looked at the full range of evidence in support of the reasons why people would take offense at this particular symbol, I, for one, believe strongly that it does not serve the best interests of any community in the U.S.A. that its city, county, or state government would sponsor the display of such a flag.

    I certainly hold that display of these flags by individuals is a Constitutionally-protected right. However, in my view, there is a more important right for members of any of our communities not to feel threatened because their local, county, or state government sponsors the representation of such offensive symbols.

    ReplyDelete
  24. [Stephen Quick] There is nothing in the constitution that covers this nonsense about "being offended". I am offended by currency with images of Hamilton, Lincoln and Grant. I accept it as tender and spend it as the good capitalist that I am. I could run off a list that would exceed the character limits many times over. If I don't like it I don't watch it, buy it or patronize it. I am free to criticize it. I am not free to tell people to take it down, or tell them how to feel about it. I wrote an essay which has been republished many times, stating the reaction is hysteria, and promptly got a response that was hysterical.
    Swastika's? How do you ever expect anyone to take you seriously with such an absurd comparison? Mr Doyle have you EVER read anything about the conduct of your armies in Missouri, the Shenandoah Valley, Mississippi, Georgia and SC? Wanna talk Wehrmacht, that's the place to start.
    A tiny minority misused a flag (just as they did the cross and old glory) in the 60s. In the 70's a reb flag went on top of an orange car in a stupid tv series. Southern bands used the flag as album covers and backdrops....in the 70's and 80's. In the 80s politicians (Gore and Clinton among them) honored the Confederate heritage of their states. Then along came the NAACP, broke, in trouble and in need of money and relevance. THAT is where this nonsense started. Lets be honest about that. The media picked up and ginned the thing into what it has become.
    The entire point is simply this, if you WANT to be offended, it a CHOICE. That's your right. But its not my choice and I have read enough over 50 years to know that everything we have been taught is propaganda. Civil Rights pimps/Hollywood/NYT.the DNC and so-called academes cannot haul that flag down, or change its meaning. Thay can (and have) poisoned the discourse and repolarized the country.
    SC flies the Battle flag on the capital grounds and the hounds of hell cannot move it. One of many reasons when I cash in and move out I will be going there. What is not known, and what or media will never tell you is that there is another monument on the capital grounds, the ONLY one of its kind in the entire nation. Won't find one in NY, Taxachussetts, the left coast....only in SC. It is a monument to the struggle of Blacks. THAT is tolerance. THAT is real diversity. Google HK Edgerton if you'd like a different perspective....you'll never see him on BSNBC

    ReplyDelete
  25. [Stephen Quick] Rainbow flags
    Apples to tires I'm afraid. There was no rainbow flag before and no one is arguing that it means anything else.
    Rainbow flag = gay. No argument from anyone
    Swastika. A symbol as someone pointed out extracted from history with no relationship to the idealogy to which it was wed.
    Swastika = nazi. No problem. As much as we disagree on virtually everything else we are probably in rare agreement...twice.
    The flag did not mean anything hateful to Ross. He explained it as such. He made a DECISION, out of consideration for a friends feelings, to take it down. His right, his choice andgiven what i have come to know about this man, an honorable gesture.
    For me, and I know I speak for 99.9% of those like me, the flag has nothing, nada,zilch to do with the meaning those who are already predisposed to hate it (and usually the South, Southernors and all things conservative anlong with it)
    I could not entertain a friendship whose cost was the surrender of my heritage, and the acceptance of an interpretation I know to be wrong.
    Utterly predictable are lame charges of racism (which have pounded from dead horse into pony pate), unctious condescension ("simplistic" and "don't know how to argue") and the regurgitation of tired hackneyed catechisms.
    David Duke no more represents the majority of flag lovers any more than the Unibomber represents all environmentalists.
    The reaction of flag haters? Hysterical. Read the essay again, then the ressponse.
    Read Lincoln's Grant's Sherman's own quotes. The historical record cannot be squared with a modern politically leftist interpretation. Its called propaganda. And along with Goebbels, Alinsky did it best.

    ReplyDelete
  26. [Charles Rand] While the Confederate Battle flag to most in the South represents a heritage of hard work and fighting for what you believe in, in the North it stands for the same thing, which is why so many Democrats oppose it. The Battle banner still stands for a proud Southern heritage, but it has been wrongfully co-opted by the Neo-Natzis and the KKK. Just as the Democrat party has been hijacked by the Communists and other folks that want to see our once great nation fail.

    ReplyDelete
  27. [Christopher Mickunas] As it has been co-opted by hate parties do we need to go the road of Germany who has systematically abolished any portrayl of the swastika or other signs of Nazi-Germany in a blind attempt of forgetting history by not be reminding of it? Germany has gone so far as to alter books, model kits etc so as to black out or eliminate these symbols. Revisionist history is,in the end, more damaging than displaying the Confederate flag. By trying to eliminate it from flying in any southern state, by saying it could be viewed as offensive is to deny the reason behind the flag. It is a symbol of Southern states associated with our Civil War. Argue all you want over the cause of the civil war, slavery, economics, state rights vs federal rights. In the end the lasting fact is our country faced a division whose cost, because history isnt taught in schools at an acceptable level anymore, is being lost to modern memory. If flying the Confederate flag brings those points out and encourages us to discuss or argue the symbolism of that flag then it has done its purpose. I dont support erasing those symbols from the landscape nor ignoring their value as a piece of living history anymore than I would support digging up graves in Confederate cemetary's and moving those solidiers to different resting places. Slave owners, as a point of fact, were certainly the minority in the South. I know my great grandfather that fought for the South certainly didnt own slaves. But he did proudly march behind the Confederate flag before the surrender and his taking a loyalty oath. The common fallacy is the flag represents slavery or support of it, no it represented Southern states. Much like the "yankee's", those "rebels" had different reasons for fighting and few fought to protect the institution of slavery. There is no doubt that slavery is a burden that scars our country and will take many years to heal. However, banning flags is not the solution.

    ReplyDelete
  28. [Stephen Quick] A tiny minority of kooks cannot define, besmirch or have our flag. They have no historical or blood right to it. We will cherish our flag and dangle our participles and we really don'care what anyone thinks.

    ReplyDelete
  29. [Mark Langer] Stephen, It looks like it's a bit too late. The Confederate flag shouldn't be flow in public anymore for the same reason the swastika can't be flown in public. The vast majority associate it with racism and ethnic hatred. Basides, in the year 2011, regional differences have faded and "Southern Culture" really doesn't exist anymore, except in the memories of some old people.

    ReplyDelete
  30. [Renee Guzzardi] Wow, I have stayed not commented on this thread because I know little of the history behind this flag (although I am learning!) however, Mark your comment has moved me to comment. Please rethink your statement - this is still the United States of America and we tolerate many things that are offensive to us in the name of the freedoms guaranteed to us in our Constitution. For you to state that flying a flag with so much meaning to people and to equate it with Nazi Swastika is political correctness run amuck.

    As an American, my position is I may not agree with what you say or do, but I will defend your right to do it.

    To set up society as the arbitrator of what is right or wrong would allow for consequences you would not like. For instance, interracial friendship (let alone marriage) would not be allowed, after all the majority of people felt it was wrong, Gay Rights (let alone marriage) would not be tolerated, after all, everytime the isse of gay marriage has been voted on by the people, they have rejected it. The list is endless, child labor, unions, women's rights, abortion rights, the death penalty...all those things that the majority either didn't initially support or the majority supported.

    As an American of Jewish descent, I am personally offended by the Nazi flag as well as the anti-semetic rantings of the those who use the Confederate flag in association with those rantings, however, I will not give them power over me by acting against my belief in our rights as citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  31. [Charles Rand] Mark, as they're prone to saying in the South, "You're not from around here, are you?" South Florida is as Southern as Albany, NY. The Southern Culture is very much alive and well in the Southern part of the US. Admittedly, it's not what you see on "King of the Hill" or some other TV (since I don't watch TV, I can't think of any others) show that is making fun of that culture. While I have an anscestor whose name is in the Hall of Honor (recipient of the Medal of Honor) in the Pentagon and burried on General Lee's estate (Arlington National Cemetary) for his deeds fighting for the Northerners in the War Between the States, I admire and participate in the Southern culture.

    I get what you're saying, though. You seem to think that because there are a few ignorant people out there, the rest of the world should walk away from their heritage. While I see the German Natzis of the 1930's and 1940's as comparable to modern day US Democrats (not much is worse, except an idiot that thinks that increasing taxes on the very people that create jobs is going to create jobs), I'm smart enough to recognise that the Swastika is a symbol of good luck. If you can pry yourself out of a region that has no culture long enough to visit the National Air and Space museam in Washington, you'll be surprised to learn that that same symbol decorated the inside of Charles Limburg's "Spirit of St Louis" nose cone.

    ReplyDelete
  32. [Mark Langer] Folks, I don't intend to bash on the South. I'm just trying to make the point that the use of the swastika became unacceptable after it was co-opted as a symbol of evil, even though it has other legitimate meanings. The same thing happened to the Confederate flag. When most people see the flag they don't think of Southen pride and Southern culture. They think "that guy hates black people". The root issue is that Americans as a whole don't believe that Southern culture accepts black people as equals, so Southern culture is equated with racism, which is why racism is assumed when the flag is seen.

    By the way, Charles Lindburgh was a fascist and a racist and a Nazi supporter.

    ReplyDelete
  33. [Charles Rand] Mark, as far as Southern Culture not existing, I would strongly disagree with you. Take a trip to a rural area of the South (like Alabama or Georgia, they're not that far from you), stay at a B&B and listen, in conversation, to some of the locals. Or even go to the Bourbon Festival in Bardstown, KY (it's going on now) and do the same. You can't see it from where you are because you live in a city, where there is no distinct culture anyway (except for mayby Boston) because city folk tend to be transient.
    The Southern Culture is very distinct. It's a culture of respect for family (how many Yankee call their father "sir" into their 50's), friends, the land, neighbors, Country, self and God and the cooking style is very unique. Just because the most Southerners don't dig things like the ballet doesn't mean that they don't have culture. I know that the liberals would like to say that the Southern Culture doesn't exist any more because that respect I wrote about would prevent liberals from being elected (tell a lie long enough...). One of the best things that ever happen to me was at age 8, when my family moved from Western Massachusetts to the Foothills of North Carolina. As they say, I'm American by birth and Southern by choice.
    To me, the Confederate Battle Banner sybolizes the South, both the good and the bad. My job, as an man, to keep the good in the forefront of my mind when I see something like that. Honestly, I can't help that the ignorant, who refuse to actually learn more history than they "learned" in high school, are offended by a symbol of a beautiful culture.
    I'm actually more offended by seeing the Mexican flag flying by those "undocumented Democrats".

    ReplyDelete
  34. [John Boykin] Stephen...thanks for speaking for me and so, so many more "old" southerners. You do it so well.

    Mark...don't you have more to do than look down your nose at a great and proud people ?

    I fly the American flag every day of the world but my heart will always be with Dixie.

    Southern Born ...Southern Bred...When I die I'll be Sothron Dead !

    ReplyDelete
  35. [Mark Langer] Guys; I just have one question: Does the black population of the South buy into Southern culture and the Confederate flag?

    ReplyDelete
  36. [Charles Rand] Mark, Do the Cubans in South Florida buy into the American culture and the US Flag? Heck even the First Lady doesn't.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2011/sep/13/michelle-obama-all-just-flag/

    ReplyDelete
  37. [Charles Rand] Or better yet, do the illegal aliens (I know, I said that I'd stop using that term, because it's offensive to those that are sensitive to the truth, so I mean, "undocumented Democrats") buy into the idea of the American culture, by learning English and flying the US flag or do they fly that green and red POS and expect me to learn their language?

    The point is, you liberals insist on multiculturism from the right, but refuse to practice it yourselves when it involves American culture. Just a friendly word of advice, Mark, take your racist comments somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  38. [John Boykin] Mark...we each have personal likes and dislikes as allowed by our constitution. I happen to be from a "southern" culture. Many folks here in San Antonio are very involved in a version of the Mexican culture. I don't tell them what kind of food to eat and they don't tell me. I don't fly a Confederate flag above my American flag and I don't expect to see a Mexican flag above it either. As far as black folks culture thats up to them. I don't try to tell them how to act other than within the law and I certainly don't expect them to stop Kwanza just because I think it's goofy.

    So why should I cowtow to some Al Sharpton version of history and give up a very important part of my culture and heritage. It might make liberals and the misinformed happy but what of my rights ? If it's all the same I'll keep my freedom and my flag.

    Where does this end ? I expect liberal groups to demand Christians to stop that activity as well.

    ReplyDelete
  39. [Mark Langer] First of all, I am not a liberal. I get infuriated at immigrants who celebrate the culture from where they came from ahead of American culture. My attitude is "If you want to live in America, be an American. Leave your old culture at the border".

    That being said, you guys are evading the issue and the question. The issue is that there is a perception that Southern Culture is not accepting of non-Eurpean whites as full-fledged equals. Is that true? If I go to an event that celebrates Southern culture, will I see a fair share of black and brown people there, enjoying the event the same as everyone else?

    This crapola of separate black and white and Hispanic cultures has to stop. If America is to survive and prosper we need to pull together and be one people.

    ReplyDelete
  40. [Charles Rand] Mark, would I be welcome at a Cuban festival in South Florida? Seriously, an event that celebrates Southern Culture? Sounds like something at the local church, so yeah, you'd see all of the black and brown people that wanted to be there. Also, it kind of depends where you are. On the Eastern Shore of Virginia, you'd likely seen bunches. Personally, you'll never likely see me at an event that celebrates homosexuality in the US, but I don't deny them the right to fly their little rainbow flag, even though it symbolizes hatred toward traditional values.

    I don't have any problems with immigrants, just the illegal ones (you know, the "undocumneted Democrats").

    ReplyDelete
  41. [Mark Langer] Charles, the funny thing about Cuban festivals is that while their first language is Spanish, most of the Cubans are white Europeans. Ask a Cuban where his family originally came from, and the standard answer will be Spain,with a few French and Germans mixed in. And you know what makes a Cuban immigrant nuts? The fact that his grandchildren speak Spanish poorly, if at all. The third-generation Cubans are completely Americanized. Miami is still very Spanish-speaking because of new immigrants from Central and South America. That being said, lots of Anglos go to the major Cuban festivals because they are fun and they know how to party. Would you be welcome? Absolutely! Bring the kids.

    That being said, when you asked "would I be welcome at a Cuban festival in South Florida?", your tone came across as dubious, which makes me think that you expect Cubans and Anglos to not readily welcome each other at each others events. I still believe that attitude is a standard Southern value; that the different races do not naturally co-mingle. I think a main difference between the North and the South is that Northern culture is trying to make that atittude go away, and as for the South, they are not trying so hard.

    ReplyDelete
  42. [Charles Rand] Dubious? I know that unless I'm speaking in Spanish, I feel less than welcome in parts of town where the majority are Mexicans. I also feel less than welcome at events that are populated by mostly African Americans. That said, if the groups that are crying foul about a flag that stands for the Heritage of one of the oldest parts of the country are less than welcoming (they believe in multiculturalism, except when they're the ones doing the exclusion), why should I care if they don't like a group of people celebrating their own heritage at their own expence and on their own time? Furthermore, the intellegent Northerner, Floridian or African American will look at that flag and reflect on how far we've come since that flag was flown in anger. Heck, we even have a president that wants to distroy the country now, so I'm sure that the Floridians and racist parts of the African American community are happy.

    ReplyDelete
  43. [Tim Burns] As an individual, fly any flag you want. Cherish any heritage that suits you and your past. But, I don't remember seeing or hearing of any rainbow flag, any swastikas, any peace symbols, any raised fist flags, any Mexican flags or any of the same ilk flying on any state capitol grounds as an official representation of government. (above OR below Old Glory) Only some southern states do that and it is a stretch of the imagination to believe that the the Stars and Bars and what brought it into being and the intentions of those who fought under it represents the totality of thought in the minds of many citizens in those states today, especially those whose real heritage began when they were truly allowed the rights and privileges of anyone born in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  44. [James Hillegas] In looking through the comment thread, it's disappointing to read so many denigrative and dismissive comments from Confederate battle flag supporters -- i.e., "we even have a president that wants to distroy the country now," "why should I cowtow to some Al Sharpton version of history," "undocumented Democrats," etc. This kind of negative language only distracts from what I understand to be the starting point of this discussion: Shall a local, state, or federal government body display the Confederate battle flag on government property? The people of Lexington, as the linked article documents, decided that the answer to this question was "no." (Note that Lexington's answer doesn't apply to individuals.)

    In an earlier post, I tried to provide a brief outline about why some people don't hold positive feelings for the Confederate battle flag. In my view, these reasons are certainly sufficient to warrant the banning of this flag on government property by government agencies; individual citizens and private businesses are certainly free to display this flag in whatever manner, but publicly-funded government agencies should not display the flag, because these bodies are there to serve _all_ of the citizens.

    I understand that some people react to change with fear and sadness, and that these emotions often manifest themselves in anger and hate-filled words -- it certainly happens to me at times! Since we're all humans here, and it seems as though we're all Americans as well, I would like to invite us all to eschew language that is both inaccurate and denigrating, and attempt to communicate with and about one another with mutual respect.

    ReplyDelete
  45. [Charles Rand] Does the city of Lexington, KY have the right to display the Confederate Battle Banner on government property? The answer to that question is also a question. Did any of the sons of Lexington fight under that banner? If the answer of that question is "yes", then they absolutely have the right to fly it. If the answer is "No", the they have the right, but its meaning would be lost. If Lexington didn't have any sons and daughters that died while fighting under that banner, then their flighing it would be as silly as it flying from the Statehouse in Boston. I would think that it would make more sense seeing the North Vietnamese flag flying from the Statehouse in California.

    James, in light of the now defunct ACORN, what is inaccuarate with "undocumented Democrat" and I challenge you to prove that our current president doesn't want to distroy the country because if that's his goal, then he's doing a stellar job, and if it isn't, then he's a fool.

    ReplyDelete
  46. [Mark Langer] It's hard to get past the reality that the Confederate flag was flown by a government that advocated keeping humans in slavery. To most Americans, that is all that flag means.

    ReplyDelete
  47. [Charles Rand] Actually, the Flag was flown by the troops of a nation that believed more in the US Constitution than either their contemporary Federal Government or the current one. I see the Mexican flag flown by undocumented Democrats and their government advocates stealing and drug use, does that mean that we should burn down the home of undocumented Democrats? I see Michael Moore telling us how great Cuba is, yet he won't move there. It's very hard to get past the reality that there are people in this group that haven't studied history since high school.

    ReplyDelete
  48. [James Hillegas] Charles, to respond to your _ad hominem_ denigration of my credentials: I happen to hold an MA in history specializing in 19th and 20th century environmental history of North America. This means two things apropos to your insinuation: 1) whereas I make no claim to expertise in the history of the Civil War specifically (as I do claim with aspects of the history of urban environments, sanitation, public policy, and related issues), 2) I do make a claim to a deep understanding of the historical method, which, among other things, doesn't involve the perpetuation of logical fallacies. It's precisely this kind of mean-spirited personal attack that I was lamenting in my post above.

    ReplyDelete
  49. [Charles Rand] James, I'm sure, then, that you drank lots of kool-aid from your professors that lead you to the erroneous conclussion that the War Between the States was fought over slavery or that it was the intention of the brave men who fought for what they believed to protray hate and intolerance.

    ReplyDelete
  50. [Steve Ross] Where's Rivalt on all this? He throws grenades on our roundtable and runs out of the room;)

    Even though I run other groups with thousands of members, this is my favorite. And I love it when folks speak their mind. However, we gotta admit that sometimes the inability for civil discourse is rather depressing. So many members make such great points but then ruin their credibility via petty insults & blatant hyperbole (hell, I've done it as much as anyone).

    But what is even MORE depressing is how many great minds have quit posting on this group (or quit the group altogether)-- NOT because they lost any arguments per se... but because they were simply appalled at the tone/ juvenile manner in which so many responses are packaged.

    Being an Alabama boy, I guess what I'm trying to say is "Don't chase off ALL the varmints... or there won't be any thing left to shoot";)

    ReplyDelete
  51. [Paul Doyle] Rand-om thought:

    "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
    ---Abraham Lincoln

    ReplyDelete
  52. [Steve Ross] Good to see Mr. Doyle's great mind is still here! It was starting to feel like a monster truck rally;)

    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

    ReplyDelete
  53. [Vasco Phillip de Sousa] Steve, you said it very, very well. If anyone catches my tone getting out of line, please feel free to point it out to me.

    ReplyDelete
  54. [John Boykin] So let me get this straight .... if I defend my region of the country I am an example of the lowest denominators from the area, is that the civil discourse method you think is "proper". You all can say whatever you want about the south and we are supposed to sit in the corner and drool while marveling at your supreme intelligence.

    Let me use a yankee expression I learned from northern brilliance, "fa get about it". Ain't gonna happen. We will not be silenced by insults however high minded they are phrased.

    Thank you very much....

    btw Paul and other rock fans...found another great newbie..go to Utube and check out Austin native Gary Clark. This is a true rocker from the blues back ground. Sounds like the Robin Trower and sings like the guy who sang with Robin.

    ReplyDelete
  55. [John Boykin] Sorry for the memory lapse..it's happening more and more these days...James Dewar was the bassist and lead singer on Bridge of Sighs with Robin Trower.

    ReplyDelete
  56. [Vasco Phillip de Sousa] John, well said. The insults on both sides destroy the argument (and I think Steve was trashing both side's insult as well). I think Stephen Quick's defense in his linked essay is the best argument I've seen so far concerning the flag.

    The swastika argument brought the whole discussion downhill.

    I hate seeing the media insults of a Southern accent, or other forms of tribalism. It just encourages more from the other side.

    People will do it anyway, but if someone joins the conversation late they don't understand what's going on.

    As far as some things on this forum go (this discussion is relatively tame), it's not what is said, it is how it is said.

    ReplyDelete
  57. [Paul Doyle] John, I deeply resent your mispelling of Northern dialect. It's spelled Fuhgeddaboudit.
    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  58. [John Boykin] This whole southerner's are racists and redneck stereotype thing drives me nuts. I met a teacher who was a delegate to the democrat national convention back in 76. She couldn't vote for Carter because he talked slow therefore he had to be a stupid southerner. A teacher..a representative of her union..from a very northern state. He was already the nominee. She had no choice but her prejudice against southerners was so strong she refused to participate.

    ReplyDelete
  59. [Paul Doyle] John, Maybe it's not that Carter talked too slow, maybe the teacher/delegate listened too fast!
    You're right also about age and memory lapse. Last week it took me an hour and a half to watch "60 minutes".!

    ReplyDelete
  60. [Lori Gonzales] I have to agree with Stephen and John on this one. The Civil War was about individual state rights, which happened to include one of the largest issues; slavery. While many have attempted to connect the rebel flag with "only" the issue of slavery, it signifies much more. Most Southerners did not even own slaves! They were too poor. Only the prosperous had the ability to own slaves. If I remember correctly, only about 10 percent of the population owned slaves.

    The issue of slavery was tied to economics; hence, states right. The North had all the industry and the money. Slaveholders in the South interpreted the abolition of slavery as an intrusion of the federal government into their economic way of life. To say the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery is too simplistic. It also ignores the many non-slave holding Southerners, who fought and died for something they truly believed to be a larger issue.

    It should also be noted that Abraham Lincoln as the great emancipator is only a myth. If the war was fought solely on the issue of slavery, he could have emancipated the slaves much sooner than he did. His goal was not emancipation, it was to keep the nation together. This is why emancipation came so late during the course of the war.

    Unfortunately, the rebel flag has become associated with certain hate groups over the years, but this is a fairly recent phenomenon. I spent some of my childhood in the South during the 70's. At that time, we really could have cared less about who was flying it or displaying it. It was simply a symbol of Southern heritage.

    As Stephen pointed out, we are constantly surrounded by symbols that offend us. Yet, we live with it. I am particularly offended by the "In God we Trust" on our currency, as I find it to be a symbolic oxymoron considering the way the Bible speaks of money. I would love to see the currency stamped with its original, "Mind Your Business," but I know that will never happen. So, I just accept the fact that while it may offend me, many others do not feel the same way. This is no different than the situation with the Confederate flag.

    The rebel flag is a part of the U.S. history that should not be denied. We certainly do not have to like it, but we must accept that it is part of our history. Lately, there seems to be a trend in omitting, twisting or writing out histories we do not like or care to acknowledge. The fact is, that our very disagreement on subject only strengthens the arguments of those groups, who continue to use it as a twisted symbol of hate and racism.

    ReplyDelete
  61. [James Hillegas] Lori, I, too, am disappointed that we have the government sponsorship of religion on our money -- "In God We Trust.". If it were up to me, these words would not be on our money. In a similar vein, it saddens me when I hear of intransigent judges retaining the Ten Commandments on government property (http://articles.cnn.com/2003-11-13/justice/moore.tencommandments_1_ethics-panel-state-supreme-court-building-ethics-charges?_s=PM:LAW).

    I do commend the City of Lexington for disallowing the presentation of the Confederate battle flag on government buildings & grounds.

    Private citizens, private groups & businesses, etc., can certainly exclaim "In God We Trust" as they stand on a marble monument to the Ten Commandments and wave their Rebel flags, but our government entities -- as representative of our entire citizenry -- should not do so.

    ReplyDelete
  62. [Vasco Phillip de Sousa] Oh come on! When you enter government property, you're allowed to burn American flags, to crap on the steps, to denounce the country, but not to express your faith or your heritage?

    Personally, I prefer the Texas flag to the Confederate one. The X isn't my symbol, whether its Malcolm X or Scottish X.

    The Lexington law is relatively fair as it only allows three flags, city, state and union. It also bans Mexican, Canadian, German, Rainbow, Pirate, Iron Maiden, Anarchist and British flags. If it didn't ban any of these, however, it would be hypocritical.

    Anywhere you're allowed to attack someone's beliefs on public property, that person should be allowed to defend them on the same property that their money paid for.

    What I'm really offended about is the courts pretending that the first amendment allows people to disrupt funerals, march and scream outside of churches, harrass private citizens.

    The reason many politicians don't like the ten commandments is because it tells them not to lie, cheat or steal.

    I'll revise my earlier statement. The best argument for the confederate flag is hearing people attack it.

    ReplyDelete
  63. [Lori Gonzales] James-- Perhaps, spending half my childhood in VA influences my stance on the flag. In fact, my family still lives there. I see it as symbolic of the struggle of the South in areas more complex than slavery. Ultimately, it should be up to the citizens of Lexington.

    I agree with you about government sponsored Christianity. It has no place in government. Politicians will always be, in part, swayed by their personal beliefs, so there is no need to impose faith upon others. Ironically, I am neither atheist or anti-religious, but I do believe we should respect the fact that not all citizens share in the same faith. Nor, have I ever understood the need to open each Congressional and Senate hearing with a prayer, from a paid minister. In this moment, our representatives need to work on action, rather than prayer.

    ReplyDelete
  64. [Lori Gonzales] Vasco-- you're right. Protests at funerals just turn my stomach. Because they are, for the most part, private affairs I think the government should crack down on this practice. It is harrassment. It is disrespectful not only to the deceased, but to the family and friends of the soldier. Those who want to blame the U.S. military for atrocities, should not seek to harrass already grieving families. The choice to enter into military service should be treated with the same respect as one's choice in career, religion or faith.

    ReplyDelete
  65. [Stephen Quick] Any state can fly any flag it likes. The city of Chicago has had rainbow flags lining the streets of "the district" so enough of the nonsense. So has Milwaukee. Don't like the Reb flag. Fine. don't expect me to buy your definition. The people of SC decided to relocate the flag. There it flys. There it stays. The state of Mississippi VOTED (wow, imagine that. Real democracy!) and the Battle flag remains in the canton. What is hilarious is that in Georgia the will of the people was hijacked, the flag was changed. It went from a flag that was 66% Confederate to 100% Confederate. Liberals are sooooo stupid. Every single southern state flag is inspired or pays tribute to its Confederate heritage. Always has, always will. All the digestive juices of materialism, public indoctrination (commonly called education) and political correctness cannot dissolve what it means to be "southern". If you don't understand that 1) You have never been to the South 2) You hate the fact it can't be changed.
    Better get used to it.

    ReplyDelete
  66. [Stephen Quick] Paul. Carter is an idiot. I just can't figure out if he had a stoke after he was evicted from the WH, or before he ever arrived.

    ReplyDelete
  67. [Stephen Quick] I have a brother who has. PhD. It is in literature but he really does believe it makes him and expert on everything. it is fascinating and enlightening when he spews on about he "understands the method"'retreating into shards of Latin or French as if somehow how it compensates for the fact he does not know jack sh*t about the subject at hand. He has also been so indoctrinated into the leftist catechism he has a visceral reaction to anyone who dares to disagree with him. Hit him with facts and he practically soils himself. I grew up with mythology. I overcame it. No, it's not politically correct. It is not the intellectual fashion of the day. Behind the smokescreen of slavery ( the US permitted slavery, under an American flag and "slave states" fought for father Abraham) is the reality that a group of men sought to wed government and corporate interests in a way that was anti-democratic and the unholy alliance of consolidated government and capital has resulted in the ruin of genuine republic. THAT is why the south fought. With 7 states out did Congress move against slavery? NO, the passed their long cherished and deferred tariff. Did the GOP platform call for it's abolition? NO. Did Lincoln go so far as to promise an amendment forever protecting slavery? YES, the Corwin amendment. Was the government willing as late as 1865 to permit the retention of slavery if the South returned? The ONLY condition LIncoln required of his commissioners at Hampton Roads was that the South would not be permitted it's independence. Facts, not methods. There are mountains of facts out there no one wants to talk about. They won't go away, and 150 years later more and more people are hearing them, most for the first time. We ain't just whistlin' Dixie.

    ReplyDelete
  68. [Paul Doyle] Did Lincoln go so far as to promise an amendment forever protecting slavery? YES, the Corwin amendment. Was the government willing as late as 1865 to permit the retention of slavery if the South returned?

    "Corwin Amendment," named after the Ohio Republican who proposed it, as a measure that would have "forever protected slavery" is misleading. In the first place, as you pointed out, slavery had been "enshrined" in the Constitution from the very beginning. It was Buchanan that signed the Corwin amendment during the interim period of the election of 1860 and Lincoln's inauguration in March, 1861. Lincoln said he would preserve the amendment, if passed.

    Anyway, the Corwin Amendment, which, if ratified, would indeed have become the 13th Amendment, simply reinforced the idea, already present in the Constitution, that the federal government would not interfere in certain matters pertaining to the states, in this case the decision to be free or slave. The Amendment would not have prevented the eventual abolition of slavery; it merely left it up to the individual states to decide to do this, as all Northern states had already done by the beginning of the Civil War.

    Corwin proposed this Amendment, and Lincoln supported it, as a last-ditch attempt to prevent the secession of the Southern states and the inevitable conflict that would ensue, given Lincoln's determination to preserve the Union.

    Lincoln believed very much in the concept of the "rule of law," the very foundation of this country, and did not believe that he, or any president, could simply abolish slavery. He loathed slavery, and believed that it's stain must eventually be removed from this country, but he believed that the only proper way to do this was through the law, else the Constitution was not worth the paper it was printed on.

    Lincoln was no saint, and he did some things, such as the temporary suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War, for which he has rightfully been criticized.

    Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as something being "forever enshrined" in the Constitution.Prohibition was "enshrined" in the Constitution by the 18th Amendment, until it was "unenshrined" by the 21st Amendment.

    By the way, if slavery was not the prime reason for the South to secede, they made an awful attempt to indicate otherwise in many of their articles of secession:

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=92

    ReplyDelete
  69. [Stephen Quick] Another hyperlink. Paul. If the south had freed the slaves and declared independence would war have still come? If the south had never seceded would they have retained their slaves? Why did the southern states with 70% of the population (VA,NC,TN,AR) vote down their initial ordinance of secession. Why did they ultimately secede? You simply cannot bring yourself to accept the fact that this was a war of conquest by the stronger against the weaker while soldiers in blue who were themselves slave-owners went south to fight, their slave-owning states supporting them. Perhaps King George III should have tried to make the WOI a slavery crusade? No slaves in Britain, slaves in all 13 colonies. Was our Revolution a conflict to preserve slavery? Look, I have already heard all your hackneyed well worn catechisms, seen the leftist hyperlinks and still wait after all these months for you to admit and undisputed fact ( Sherman exonerated Forrest for Pillow, I remember) believe it was about slavery. I don't care, and I ain't buying in it. I have read too many books, the pandora's box is open. I have moved on.

    ReplyDelete
  70. [Stephen Quick] "The State" is a left-leaning publication which would be better named the Columbia SC insert of the NYT. It has led the way is trashing Confederate Heritage and removing the Battle Flag from the capital grounds. Alas, no one buys their tommyrot. Two weeks ago they had a survey which posed 10 questions, the three most interesting of which I now attach:
    1. What should happen to the Confederate flag on the State House grounds?

    Nothing. It should stay where it is – 948, 40.5 percent

    Move it back to the flag pole on top of the State House dome – 686, 29.3 percent

    Take it down and retire it to a museum – 706, 30.2 percent

    1. Do you expect a state or states to ever again secede from the United States?

    Yes – 1,096, 46.8 percent

    No – 1,244, 53.2 percent

    1. Did the right or wrong side win the Civil War?

    The right side, the Union – 1,041, 44.5 percent

    The wrong side; we’d be better off today if the Confederacy had won – 1,299, 55.5 percent

    The only opinions that matter on the topic are those of SC, where the flag flies. Doesn't look like anyone is buying the "co-opt" argument.


    Read more: http://www.thestate.com/2011/09/25/1984566/civil-war-survey-results.html#ixzz1YzTgnxpz

    ReplyDelete
  71. [James Hillegas] Stephen, part of me certainly would like to stoop to your level of disparaging ad hominem attacks, because I know how good it feels to "win" an argument by not addressing the substantive points of the issue and talking negatively about a person's character, ideology, etc. When my friends and I are tipping a pint at the pub, it's the easiest thing in the world to over-generalize about philosophies and groups that we don't agree with, and put them all in a category that we can dismiss easily. It's the easiest thing in the world to do, and when I'm speaking to people who hold the same political & philosophical beliefs, we regularly do this, and it feels great . . . for awhile. I'm certainly human, and, therefore, certainly fallible.

    However, disparaging and dismissing people, groups, arguments, etc., out of hand in an ad hominem way does not contribute to the greater good.

    You, John, and Charles have all conveniently side-tracked the central point of the article and attempted to steer the argument into the realm of counting the number of Rebels that can stand atop the point of a star in the Confederate flag. The central point of the article was that the citizens of a community in the U.S. South opted no longer to support the city government presenting the Confederate battle flag on city property, under city sponsorship, etc.

    In response to this city's vote, I replied that I was certainly in agreement with it, because the Confederate battle flag represents some negative things to a great many of this country's citizens. Certainly not all of this country's citizens, but enough to warrant the removal of governmental support of the representation of the flag. _Individuals_ can still fly the flag -- I have no problem with this -- but government agencies should not.

    To me, this is the critical thing: Any local, county, state, or federal government agency, receiving taxes from more-or-less all of its citizens, has a duty, at least, not to shut-out (implicitly or otherwise) large segments of the population, by default. Exhibiting the Confederate battle flag on government property does just this. Therefore, government should not do it.

    People can get deep into the weeds of arguing about the _real_ causes of the Civil War, or whether or not the Confederate battle flag has deeper historical roots, or precisely what were Lincoln's deepest beliefs on November 13,1863, compared to a week later, etc. These weeds are not important to the central points spurred by the article. The most important issue is that a great many people of color in this country, and a great many white people, see in the Confederate battle flag deep-rooted racism, terror, and denial, and, for this reason alone, it's best for all of us if government agencies do not sponsor the display the Confederate battle flag.

    [As an aside, there _is_ evidence to support my "racism, terror, and denial" claim, but this isn't the thread to discuss this point (if you want to discuss this point, feel free to start another discussion thread).]

    In closing, to you, John, Charles, and others with a similar combative, dismissive, approach to the issue: You all need to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that the world is much more complex than you think it is. There are tens of millions of your fellow citizens who have very valid critiques of the representation of the Confederate battle flag. You would be well-served by listening to and truly reflecting on these perspectives, and then trying to engage with them from an open-minded place.

    ReplyDelete
  72. [John Boykin] James, While I don't agree with what you say I appreciate the gentlemanly way you said it. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  73. [Stephen Quick] Stoop. Your arrogance is matched only by your vitriol and your unthinking faith in the myth most people outgrow when they start thinking for themselves. People of color are NOT the only people in this country. Other people also have opinions which are just as valid and in this case more informed. I dismiss your froth as predictable left coast nonsense. Check out someone on the net named HK Edgerton and then check out a few related searches. Maybe you you could ever read a book on black confederates. They are out there. You won't though. Your mind is closed tighter than a clam.
    You support Lexington, you support censorship. And all the nonsense on the left about "diversity" is just that, nonsense. Now, I have NEVER met a leftist who resist the last word and I doubt you are any different. I suspect next weekend I will find another condescending missive. My friend, you really do NOT know what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete