What does the confederate flag mean to you? (2 Viewers)

[Mjolnirs]

do you think Southern whites are going to be resentful of it? Sounds like the prevailing emotion down there is more like resignation. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

If/when it comes down there will be plenty of anger and resentment. People feel this is the product of outside influence, and they aren't happy about it.It will be interesting to see how this plays out politically though. The last governor that made a move on the flag did not get re-elected. Whether the flag comes down or not, it will be interesting to see the re-election percentages based on what side of the vote a politician is on.

If your people didn't attack a church and kill nine people no "outsiders" would give a ####.

 

[Christo]

do you think Southern whites are going to be resentful of it? Sounds like the prevailing emotion down there is more like resignation. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

If/when it comes down there will be plenty of anger and resentment. People feel this is the product of outside influence, and they aren't happy about it.It will be interesting to see how this plays out politically though. The last governor that made a move on the flag did not get re-elected. Whether the flag comes down or not, it will be interesting to see the re-election percentages based on what side of the vote a politician is on.

If your people didn't attack a church and kill nine people no "outsiders" would give a ####.

Truth hurts

 

[BassNBrew]

Car parking on the front lawn encouraged.

Rioting and destroying the city not encouraged.

 

[timschochet]

Car parking on the front lawn encouraged.

Rioting and destroying the city not encouraged.

What are you referring to?

 

[Apple Jack]

Car parking on the front lawn encouraged.

Rioting and destroying the city not encouraged.

What are you referring to?

like he even knows

 

[BassNBrew]

Car parking on the front lawn encouraged.

Rioting and destroying the city not encouraged.

What are you referring to?

What I'm referring to is that most of the serious race issues are going down in the "north" and the "north" is more segregated than the south. Guys like Oats love to crack jokes from their McMansions with nary a colored person living within miles of them.

* Based upon the time I lived in eastern PA, northern VA, and NC. YMMV.

 

[General Malaise]

Car parking on the front lawn encouraged.

Rioting and destroying the city not encouraged.

What are you referring to?

What I'm referring to is that most of the serious race issues are going down in the "north" and the "north" is more segregated than the south. Guys like Oats love to crack jokes from their McMansions with nary a colored person living within miles of them.

* Based upon the time I lived in eastern PA, northern VA, and NC. YMMV.

Wasn't Maryland a "slave" state and isn't Baltimore in Maryland?

 

[BassNBrew]

Car parking on the front lawn encouraged.

Rioting and destroying the city not encouraged.

What are you referring to?

What I'm referring to is that most of the serious race issues are going down in the "north" and the "north" is more segregated than the south. Guys like Oats love to crack jokes from their McMansions with nary a colored person living within miles of them.

* Based upon the time I lived in eastern PA, northern VA, and NC. YMMV.

Wasn't Maryland a "slave" state and isn't Baltimore in Maryland?

Maybe back in the day, but it's more northeast than south in this day and age. Was DC the capitol during the civil war?

 

[Leviathan]

No comment, Tim? You've replied to subsequent posts.

 

[timschochet]

No comment, Tim? You've replied to subsequent posts.

I'm sorry, what are you asking me to comment to?

 

[timschochet]

Car parking on the front lawn encouraged.

Rioting and destroying the city not encouraged.

What are you referring to?

What I'm referring to is that most of the serious race issues are going down in the "north" and the "north" is more segregated than the south. Guys like Oats love to crack jokes from their McMansions with nary a colored person living within miles of them.

* Based upon the time I lived in eastern PA, northern VA, and NC. YMMV.

OK, but what does that have to do with the Confederate flag?

 

[timschochet]

States rights, IMO, is utter bull####, and most of the people who scream it the loudest will discard it if the situation doesn't go their way.

Not a fan of the Bill of Rights? Last time I looked, the 10th Amendment was still in there.Case in point: I heard over and over, by prominent politicians (including our current president), that gay marriage should be left to each individual state.

There was a vote in California regarding that exact issue.

In the end, what happened?

The question is, in the end, what's going to happen? And that is, hopefully this week, that the Supreme Court will find that gay marriage is a federal right, and that states won't be able to prohibit it. We'll see.

Are you stating that the Supreme Court has the power to nullify the Bill of Rights?Don't get me wrong, I agree with the "equal protection" argument.

Just sayin'.

Sorry, I thought this was a rhetorical post.

My answer is no, of course the SC does not have the power to nullify the Bill of Rights. Obviously, though, we disagree on the interpretation of the 10th. The courts often face conflicting rights and have to decide which one takes precedence.

 

[Leviathan]

No comment, Tim? You've replied to subsequent posts.

I'm sorry, what are you asking me to comment to?

Post #792.Nevermind, I'm hijacking.

Apologies.

 

[BassNBrew]

Car parking on the front lawn encouraged.

Rioting and destroying the city not encouraged.

What are you referring to?

What I'm referring to is that most of the serious race issues are going down in the "north" and the "north" is more segregated than the south. Guys like Oats love to crack jokes from their McMansions with nary a colored person living within miles of them.

* Based upon the time I lived in eastern PA, northern VA, and NC. YMMV.

OK, but what does that have to do with the Confederate flag?

We can focus on a piece of cloth or we can focus on the real issues.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Harriet Tubman Nesbitt is the only safe change, imo.

Forrest X

 

[timschochet]

Car parking on the front lawn encouraged.

Rioting and destroying the city not encouraged.

What are you referring to?

What I'm referring to is that most of the serious race issues are going down in the "north" and the "north" is more segregated than the south. Guys like Oats love to crack jokes from their McMansions with nary a colored person living within miles of them.

* Based upon the time I lived in eastern PA, northern VA, and NC. YMMV.

OK, but what does that have to do with the Confederate flag?

We can focus on a piece of cloth or we can focus on the real issues.

In THIS thread, the piece of cloth is the issue. Nobody is suggesting that removing it from state capitals is going to solve our social problems; what it will solve is the problem of having the Confederate Battle Flag on the state capital.

 

[Apple Jack]

We can focus on a piece of cloth or we can focus on the real issues.

In THIS thread, the piece of cloth is the issue. Nobody is suggesting that removing it from state capitals is going to solve our social problems; what it will solve is the problem of having the Confederate Battle Flag on the state capital.

and that what it represents is overtly or subtly supported by the state.

 

[proninja]

Harriet Tubman Nesbitt is the only safe change, imo.

Forrest X

Least likely post ever?

 

[GregR]

I know the flag is a lightning rod, but it is the soldiers' flag, and that is what I see.

The red one with a swastika on it was also someone's "soldiers' flag."

This comparison is being made all over the place today- I must have heard it a dozen times or more. And I find it offensive.

Slavery was a terrible evil. And the South were wrong to secede. And the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery, and should be removed. But the Confederacy were not Nazis. They didn't exterminate people en masse, and they weren't a dictatorship either. They were made up of Americans who valued most of the same principles as other Americans, and who believed that ultimately they were fighting for freedom- not for the Fuhrerprinzip.

It's gotten to the point in our politics where every time somebody does something we don't like, we compare them to the ####### Nazis.

Yeah, I hate it when people compare others to Nazis. Some people are really fascist about it, too.

 

[In The Zone]

Gov. Haley is going to push for removal of the flag from the grounds of the SC state capitol

This is usually political suicide in South Carolina. I would be surprised if this gets enough traction to actually get the 2/3 majority needed.

As a South Carolina voter, I will support gov Haley in any way possible on this issue.

Yeah, I think this time is gonna be different. I actually think it's coming down this time.

 

[jon_mx]

I can't believe Britain hasn't had to change their flag after all the horrors that thing flew over. British people are jerks.

Britain should acknowledge their faults, as should the USAif the confederacy was a nation it should too, it is not. They attempted to break apart from the union in armed rebellion and failed.

Also, the ideals of those countries aren't horrifying. There's a significant difference between standing for good but sometimes (or even often) failing to live up to those ideals and standing for evil from the get-go. The Confederacy stood for evil as its foundational "cornerstone" principle, to use the words of one of its leaders. To my knowledge- which is admittedly limited- no other flag that stood for evil on that scale is still proudly displayed anywhere else on earth.

Excellent post.

It all depends on how you define their cornerstone principle. Their principle was very much states rights, that is what drove most citizens to fight for the confederacy and IMHO a noble cause. The issue they drew the line on was slavery, but I think characterizing that as their cornerstone is disingenuous.

The States' rights argument was the driving force behind both the Civil War and the tooth-and-nail fight against integration. Trying to pretend that the states' rights argument as it was used by the South in those 100 years had anything other than race as its cornerstone is silly.

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Okay. What legitimate concerns about states' rights other than states' rights to have slaves, or to keep black people as second-class citizens, were so important? Actual, specific rights, please.

The very foundation of our government was that tge federal government would have very little say in Domestic issues. The Constitution did not empower the federal government to abolish slavery. Whether it was morally the right thing to do was not the issue. Constitutionally, it was something up to the states to abolish.

Putting aside the fact that what you're saying is historically inaccurate, and the fact that slavery was, in fact, abolished by a Constitutional amendment, do you have any other legitimate, important right that made the cause of states' rights "noble," and not just a thinly veiled attempt to keep on discriminating without the meddling of the federal government?

The fact that slavery was abolished by what amounted to an ammendment which greatly expanded federal power does not counter my point, but supports it.

 

[jon_mx]

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Color me shocked that you are on the wrong side of this.

Wrong side of what? We are not debating slavery, we are discussing the historical context of the reasons for the civil war. The Lincoln-Douglas debates show what many of the issues were. There was a ton of discussion of Douglas's doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, how Dred Scott impacted it, and states rights. And the debate showed how much racism existed back then. Shoot, even Lincoln came across as a white supremacist in those debates. Certainly racism and slavery were a primary driving issue, but states rights were also front and center, despite Tim's deep love affair with an all-powerful central government. States rights was an issue back then and is still is a powerful issue to this day as evidence in the many challenges to Obamacare on those grounds. Yes, the 9th and 10th Amendment are still part of our Constitution.

 

[Steve Tasker]

* Based upon the time I lived in eastern PA, northern VA, and NC. YMMV.

Sounds to me like you've only lived in the south....

 

[TobiasFunke]

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Color me shocked that you are on the wrong side of this.

Wrong side of what? We are not debating slavery, we are discussing the historical context of the reasons for the civil war. The Lincoln-Douglas debates show what many of the issues were. There was a ton of discussion of Douglas's doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, how Dred Scott impacted it, and states rights. And the debate showed how much racism existed back then. Shoot, even Lincoln came across as a white supremacist in those debates. Certainly racism and slavery were a primary driving issue, but states rights were also front and center, despite Tim's deep love affair with an all-powerful central government. States rights was an issue back then and is still is a powerful issue to this day as evidence in the many challenges to Obamacare on those grounds. Yes, the 9th and 10th Amendment are still part of our Constitution.

For like the fourth time in this thread:

The Corner Stone Speech

[a bunch of state's rights and financial stuff, as you alluded to]

...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Is it your position that a Detroit-area sports fan in 2015 has a better understanding of the reasons for rebellion and the principles of the Confederacy than the Vice-President of the Confederacy did in 1861?

 

[matttyl]

The "battle flag" raises different emotions for me, but it honestly should be removed from any "state grounds" like a state capitol. In other "public" locations, such as an actual battlefield, grave-site/memorial of Confederate soldiers, museum, or tomb (which I feel "Lee's Chapel" in Lexington, Virginia would qualify for) it should remain for historic purposes.

Lee's Chapel is a bit more complicated than that. It is a central building on campus, where there are many student events and meetings. It is a bit more than what you typically think of as a tomb. And the flag wasn't first put there until long after Lee died. My biggest complaint about the removal is that the SCV now hangs out on Jefferson Street waving a big Confederate flag as you drive by the chapel; so, it's become a bit more in-your-face than it used to be.

Yeah, I've been there a few times myself. It is a pretty complicated situation, especially considering that the flags they removed were just replicas, not originals - which I believe are to be placed back in the Chapel in a few years, after they've been restored?

Yes, but not in the same place. The opposition was to the flags in the Chapel by the tomb itself. The originals will go into the museum downstairs when restored. I think that's a good spot for them.

For accuracy purposes, that isn't his tomb. It's simply a statue. Lee is buried under the chapel.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I know the flag is a lightning rod, but it is the soldiers' flag, and that is what I see.

The red one with a swastika on it was also someone's "soldiers' flag."

This comparison is being made all over the place today- I must have heard it a dozen times or more. And I find it offensive.

Slavery was a terrible evil. And the South were wrong to secede. And the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery, and should be removed. But the Confederacy were not Nazis. They didn't exterminate people en masse, and they weren't a dictatorship either. They were made up of Americans who valued most of the same principles as other Americans, and who believed that ultimately they were fighting for freedom- not for the Fuhrerprinzip.

It's gotten to the point in our politics where every time somebody does something we don't like, we compare them to the ####### Nazis.

Yeah, I hate it when people compare others to Nazis. Some people are really fascist about it, too.

Oh for ####'s sake. What's fascist is this insistence that no comparison is ever valid if Nazis are involved. The comparison to the swastika is pretty much the most apt comparison we can make, especially since so many idiots in this thread seem to want to argue that if we get rid of the Confederate flag, then we have to get rid of any symbol that is even incidentally connected to some moral wrong.

Both the Confedrate flag and the Swastika are symbols of regimes that were organized around a morally evil principle. They aren't symbols of regimes that did some good things and some bad things or which have complicated histories. When a political regime is so closely associated with a moral wrong, the symbol of the regime becomes associated with that moral wrong. And even if slavery is less of a moral wrong than industrial-scale genocide, we shouldn't be arguing that this represents any sort of distinction with a difference.

 

[matttyl]

I've had southern folk call me a yankee on more than one occasion in a non-ironic way meant to put me down. Which of course I always take as a compliment.

There are large sections of St. Louis and Missouri in general that were settled by Germans, have German names. The German traditions and past are still celebrated but they don't fly the Nazi flag. The Confederate worship should be washed from our country too.

Because German-Americans would want to fly a Nazi flag?

This would be more like changing all German names from monuments and streets, because, you know, "nazis"

No it would be like having buildings, streets and monuments to Hitler, Himmler, Goebel et al. All while flying a Nazi flag. You know like we do for the Confederacy now. #### those slave owning traitors.

Wouldn't that also then include (in the eyes of the British) the vast majority of our founding fathers? I'm pretty sure George Washington owned over 300 slaves, and our countries capital is named for him.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just to be clear the nazi comparison came up via Tim and Bob about the need to eradicate all memory of the regime at issue. If the confederates are = nazis then yeah that makes sense, if the confederates are not = nazis then no the battle flag as swastika comp does not make sense. I think most people, like Tim himself who did a back flip within the space of a few hours, feels we are just talking about the battle flag and all the other stuff can stay, so that just reinforces that. Really that whole piece of the argument is jumping the shark, it's emotionally laden and unnecessary.

 

[Christo]

Car parking on the front lawn encouraged.

Rioting and destroying the city not encouraged.

What are you referring to?

What I'm referring to is that most of the serious race issues are going down in the "north" and the "north" is more segregated than the south. Guys like Oats love to crack jokes from their McMansions with nary a colored person living within miles of them.

* Based upon the time I lived in eastern PA, northern VA, and NC. YMMV.

OK, but what does that have to do with the Confederate flag?

We can focus on a piece of cloth or we can focus on the real issues.

But there are two issues with the piece of cloth--individuals' use of the flag and government's use of the flag. Discussing Billy Bob and Bubba's use of the flag is dumb. Discussing South Carolina's use of the flag is legitimate.

 

[Galileo]

Gov. Haley is going to push for removal of the flag from the grounds of the SC state capitol

This is usually political suicide in South Carolina. I would be surprised if this gets enough traction to actually get the 2/3 majority needed.

As a South Carolina voter, I will support gov Haley in any way possible on this issue.

Yeah, I think this time is gonna be different. I actually think it's coming down this time.

http://www.theonion.com/article/south-carolina-refuses-remove-confederate-flag-cap-50725

 

[matttyl]

The only real place for the confederate flag is at the grave sites of fallen confederate soldiers and at civil war memorials. I do believe dead soldiers have earned that right, but in general it shouldn't be displayed. I believe those who hate will always find instruments of hate no matter how many times you remove them.

That's exactly where the flag in question is located.

 

[jon_mx]

Just to be clear the nazi comparison came up via Tim and Bob about the need to eradicate all memory of the regime at issue. If the confederates are = nazis then yeah that makes sense, if the confederates are not = nazis then no the battle flag as swastika comp does not make sense. I think most people, like Tim himself who did a back flip within the space of a few hours, feels we are just talking about the battle flag and all the other stuff can stay, so that just reinforces that. Really that whole piece of the argument is jumping the shark, it's emotionally laden and unnecessary.

By extension, it seems we should eradicate all memory of our founding fathers who allowed the practice of slavery to continue when they started this country.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If you want to go the "by extension" route it gets even more ridiculous than that. But let's not.

 

[jon_mx]

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Color me shocked that you are on the wrong side of this.

Wrong side of what? We are not debating slavery, we are discussing the historical context of the reasons for the civil war. The Lincoln-Douglas debates show what many of the issues were. There was a ton of discussion of Douglas's doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, how Dred Scott impacted it, and states rights. And the debate showed how much racism existed back then. Shoot, even Lincoln came across as a white supremacist in those debates. Certainly racism and slavery were a primary driving issue, but states rights were also front and center, despite Tim's deep love affair with an all-powerful central government. States rights was an issue back then and is still is a powerful issue to this day as evidence in the many challenges to Obamacare on those grounds. Yes, the 9th and 10th Amendment are still part of our Constitution.

For like the fourth time in this thread:

The Corner Stone Speech

[a bunch of state's rights and financial stuff, as you alluded to]

...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Is it your position that a Detroit-area sports fan in 2015 has a better understanding of the reasons for rebellion and the principles of the Confederacy than the Vice-President of the Confederacy did in 1861?

And I could pull hundreds of quotes from the Lincoln-Douglas debates showing the issue is much more complex.

 

[Jayrok]

I don't understand the resentment towards the governor from south carolinians for her call to remove the flag from state grounds. Keep it in your homes/cars/boats/tattoos but why so adamant about it being flown there?

The good ole boys who don't want it removed don't realize how it can hurt revenue for the state. Sporting events not scheduled in SC in order to elude any controversy... maybe even recruitment for USC and Clemson. Think recruiting coaches don't try to use that flag and what it represents to deter blue chip athletes from going to school in SC?

 

[timschochet]

Just to be clear the nazi comparison came up via Tim and Bob about the need to eradicate all memory of the regime at issue. If the confederates are = nazis then yeah that makes sense, if the confederates are not = nazis then no the battle flag as swastika comp does not make sense. I think most people, like Tim himself who did a back flip within the space of a few hours, feels we are just talking about the battle flag and all the other stuff can stay, so that just reinforces that. Really that whole piece of the argument is jumping the shark, it's emotionally laden and unnecessary.

By extension, it seems we should eradicate all memory of our founding fathers who allowed the practice of slavery to continue when they started this country.

What extension? Some of this bull#### is unbelievable. Take down the ####### flag from the ####### state Capitol. That's it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

By your extension, Tim. It was/is a good thread, let's keep it tied down to the point.

 

[jon_mx]

If you want to go the "by extension" route it gets even more ridiculous than that. But let's not.

Why not? The PC police extend their reach constantly. And some point you have to tell them to shove it and draw a line. Probably have a point about the confederate flag on state houses, but street names and monuments? Sports team names. They are already moving to replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10, so it is not really even an extension. The seeds are being planted. The PC police have no love for the founding fathers.

 

[timschochet]

I know the flag is a lightning rod, but it is the soldiers' flag, and that is what I see.

The red one with a swastika on it was also someone's "soldiers' flag."

This comparison is being made all over the place today- I must have heard it a dozen times or more. And I find it offensive.Slavery was a terrible evil. And the South were wrong to secede. And the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery, and should be removed. But the Confederacy were not Nazis. They didn't exterminate people en masse, and they weren't a dictatorship either. They were made up of Americans who valued most of the same principles as other Americans, and who believed that ultimately they were fighting for freedom- not for the Fuhrerprinzip.

It's gotten to the point in our politics where every time somebody does something we don't like, we compare them to the ####### Nazis.

Yeah, I hate it when people compare others to Nazis. Some people are really fascist about it, too.

Oh for ####'s sake. What's fascist is this insistence that no comparison is ever valid if Nazis are involved. The comparison to the swastika is pretty much the most apt comparison we can make, especially since so many idiots in this thread seem to want to argue that if we get rid of the Confederate flag, then we have to get rid of any symbol that is even incidentally connected to some moral wrong.

Both the Confedrate flag and the Swastika are symbols of regimes that were organized around a morally evil principle. They aren't symbols of regimes that did some good things and some bad things or which have complicated histories. When a political regime is so closely associated with a moral wrong, the symbol of the regime becomes associated with that moral wrong. And even if slavery is less of a moral wrong than industrial-scale genocide, we shouldn't be arguing that this represents any sort of distinction with a difference.

I disagree. I believe the Nazis were evil and they practiced evil. I believe the Confederates practiced evil but were not evil. Perhaps that's not an important distinction to you but it is to me. I'll leave it at that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Color me shocked that you are on the wrong side of this.

Wrong side of what? We are not debating slavery, we are discussing the historical context of the reasons for the civil war. The Lincoln-Douglas debates show what many of the issues were. There was a ton of discussion of Douglas's doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, how Dred Scott impacted it, and states rights. And the debate showed how much racism existed back then. Shoot, even Lincoln came across as a white supremacist in those debates. Certainly racism and slavery were a primary driving issue, but states rights were also front and center, despite Tim's deep love affair with an all-powerful central government. States rights was an issue back then and is still is a powerful issue to this day as evidence in the many challenges to Obamacare on those grounds. Yes, the 9th and 10th Amendment are still part of our Constitution.

For like the fourth time in this thread:

The Corner Stone Speech

[a bunch of state's rights and financial stuff, as you alluded to]

...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Is it your position that a Detroit-area sports fan in 2015 has a better understanding of the reasons for rebellion and the principles of the Confederacy than the Vice-President of the Confederacy did in 1861?

And I could pull hundreds of quotes from the Lincoln-Douglas debates showing the issue is much more complex.

You think quotes from Illinois senatorial candidates in 1858 are a better indicator of the basis for the rebellion and the main principles of the Confederacy than a quote on that exact subject from the vice-president of the confederacy in April of 1861?

I guess if you're gonna try to defend using a confederate flag that's the sort of you have to rely upon.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Color me shocked that you are on the wrong side of this.

Wrong side of what? We are not debating slavery, we are discussing the historical context of the reasons for the civil war. The Lincoln-Douglas debates show what many of the issues were. There was a ton of discussion of Douglas's doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, how Dred Scott impacted it, and states rights. And the debate showed how much racism existed back then. Shoot, even Lincoln came across as a white supremacist in those debates. Certainly racism and slavery were a primary driving issue, but states rights were also front and center, despite Tim's deep love affair with an all-powerful central government. States rights was an issue back then and is still is a powerful issue to this day as evidence in the many challenges to Obamacare on those grounds. Yes, the 9th and 10th Amendment are still part of our Constitution.

For like the fourth time in this thread:

The Corner Stone Speech

[a bunch of state's rights and financial stuff, as you alluded to]

...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Is it your position that a Detroit-area sports fan in 2015 has a better understanding of the reasons for rebellion and the principles of the Confederacy than the Vice-President of the Confederacy did in 1861?

And I could pull hundreds of quotes from the Lincoln-Douglas debates showing the issue is much more complex.

But you probably won't. In the event that you do, however. Please provide those hundreds of quotes that deal with the issue of the South's secession from the Union. Because that would have been a novel thing for two candidates for Senator of Illinois to have been talking about in 1858.

 

[moleculo]

If you want to go the "by extension" route it gets even more ridiculous than that. But let's not.

Why not? The PC police extend their reach constantly. And some point you have to tell them to shove it and draw a line. Probably have a point about the confederate flag on state houses, but street names and monuments? Sports team names. They are already moving to replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10, so it is not really even an extension. The seeds are being planted. The PC police have no love for the founding fathers.

What is so wrong with being politically correct? You talk about the 'PC police' as if they are going to destroy the very fabric of society... It's a flag that (probably) a majority of Americans find offensive. Why exactly do we need to be cautious about the 'PC police'?

 

[General Tso]

If you want to go the "by extension" route it gets even more ridiculous than that. But let's not.

Why not? The PC police extend their reach constantly. And some point you have to tell them to shove it and draw a line. Probably have a point about the confederate flag on state houses, but street names and monuments? Sports team names. They are already moving to replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10, so it is not really even an extension. The seeds are being planted. The PC police have no love for the founding fathers.

What is so wrong with being politically correct? You talk about the 'PC police' as if they are going to destroy the very fabric of society... It's a flag that (probably) a majority of Americans find offensive. Why exactly do we need to be cautious about the 'PC police'?

I refer you to the thread on Liberalism killing free speech. You can no longer say "America is the land of opportunity" on a college campus in California.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If you want to go the "by extension" route it gets even more ridiculous than that. But let's not.

Why not? The PC police extend their reach constantly. And some point you have to tell them to shove it and draw a line. Probably have a point about the confederate flag on state houses, but street names and monuments? Sports team names. They are already moving to replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10, so it is not really even an extension. The seeds are being planted. The PC police have no love for the founding fathers.

What is so wrong with being politically correct? You talk about the 'PC police' as if they are going to destroy the very fabric of society...It's a flag that (probably) a majority of Americans find offensive. Why exactly do we need to be cautious about the 'PC police'?

I refer you to the thread on Liberalism killing free speech. You can no longer say "America is the land of opportunity" on a college campus in California.

False, of course. But don't let that stop you.

I'm just glad that in the midst of all this silly noise about mass murders in churches and rampant law enforcement abuse of power and threats from foreign and domestic terrorist groups, someone here has the courage to fight America's real enemy: overly cautious academics.

Funny note here: I googled this story and found it on foxnews.com. As a Fox News video clip played on the top of the screen with the message "UC School system bans the use of 'America, Land of Opportunity'" I read this exact quote further down the article:

She added that the university had not banned the words when it labeled them as examples of micro-aggressions and insisted that the university system is “committed to upholding, encouraging and preserving academic freedom and the free flow of ideas.”

Fox News, everyone.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Lincoln Douglas debates in full transcript are here, for any needing a reference:

http://lincoln-douglasdebates.weebly.com/transcripts.html

They're searchable too.

It's funny how people are all of a sudden into old US history. We have debates about the value of Alexander Hamilton vs Andy Jackson, and if anyone really wants to think deep on this topic you might want to look at the presidencies of Millard Fillmore, Frank Pierce and James Buchanan (who was actually president when the CW started).

And let's not forget the party who was there the whole time, the Democratic Party. Yeah the bad guys were the Southern conservatives (right?), ok, but we're talking symbols, here, right? The confederates were riding that ol' donkey the whole way. The donkey was first associated with Andrew Jackson because he was such a jckazz. That nice man was also a slave owner and an Indian killer. Nice symbol they got there.

And lest we forget, the US government - northerners and southerners together (yes, northern Democrats too) - engaged in expansionist policies which would have resulted in the expansion of slavery - The Louisiana Purchase followed by the 1820 Compromise, the Mexican-American War followed by the 1850 Compromise, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

And there were northern insurers, northern manufacturers, northern shipping companies, the retailers who bought the cotton goods, the northerns citizens who bought the cotton goods. Boys, everybody went along except for the few, hard core abolitionists out there. No profits (north) no slaves.

This harkens to mind another great debate that I once personally witnessed. My friends, I put it to you, to paraphrase that great American, Eric Stratton, if the confederates are guilty, are not the Democrats then guilty? And if the Democrats are guilty, is not the whole United States of America not guilty?

I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society???

Well. You can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you bad mouth the United States of America!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PYb_anBMus

 

[cstu]

And let's not forget the party who was there the whole time, the Democratic Party. Yeah the bad guys were the Southern conservatives (right?), ok, but we're talking symbols, here, right? The confederates were riding that ol' donkey the whole way. The donkey was first associated with Andrew Jackson because he was such a jckazz. That nice man was also a slave owner and an Indian killer. Nice symbol they got there.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't understand the resentment towards the governor from south carolinians for her call to remove the flag from state grounds. Keep it in your homes/cars/boats/tattoos but why so adamant about it being flown there?

The good ole boys who don't want it removed don't realize how it can hurt revenue for the state. Sporting events not scheduled in SC in order to elude any controversy... maybe even recruitment for USC and Clemson. Think recruiting coaches don't try to use that flag and what it represents to deter blue chip athletes from going to school in SC?

I don't think college athletics are in a hurry to talk about the legacy of slavery given their business model. Besides, if they want to use the race angle, there is plenty to go after about how one of those schools was founded...

On that note, if people are looking for something to remove from the statehouse grounds, Pitchfork Ben represents much more racism and hatred than a memorial to Confederate soldiers. Yet his statue is right near the memorial to Confederate soldiers. The dude basically rose to power because he led a massacre of 7 members of a black militia during the Reconstruction. That is the type of thing that needs to be removed yesterday. I haven't heard a peep about it though.

 

[Otis]

I know the flag is a lightning rod, but it is the soldiers' flag, and that is what I see.

The red one with a swastika on it was also someone's "soldiers' flag."

This comparison is being made all over the place today- I must have heard it a dozen times or more. And I find it offensive.

Slavery was a terrible evil. And the South were wrong to secede. And the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery, and should be removed. But the Confederacy were not Nazis. They didn't exterminate people en masse, and they weren't a dictatorship either. They were made up of Americans who valued most of the same principles as other Americans, and who believed that ultimately they were fighting for freedom- not for the Fuhrerprinzip.

It's gotten to the point in our politics where every time somebody does something we don't like, we compare them to the ####### Nazis.

Not really. It's a fair analogy. You've got a bunch of people with ideologies that the rest of us think are incredibly screwed up, and those people with those screwed up ideologies are willing to fight and die for them, and they have a flag that represents their fight and their crazy ideologies, and to this day they still honor that crazy ideology flag. You can argue one is a whole lot worse than the other, but the concept is the same.

 

[timschochet]

I know the flag is a lightning rod, but it is the soldiers' flag, and that is what I see.

The red one with a swastika on it was also someone's "soldiers' flag."

This comparison is being made all over the place today- I must have heard it a dozen times or more. And I find it offensive.

Slavery was a terrible evil. And the South were wrong to secede. And the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery, and should be removed. But the Confederacy were not Nazis. They didn't exterminate people en masse, and they weren't a dictatorship either. They were made up of Americans who valued most of the same principles as other Americans, and who believed that ultimately they were fighting for freedom- not for the Fuhrerprinzip.

It's gotten to the point in our politics where every time somebody does something we don't like, we compare them to the ####### Nazis.

Not really. It's a fair analogy. You've got a bunch of people with ideologies that the rest of us think are incredibly screwed up, and those people with those screwed up ideologies are willing to fight and die for them, and they have a flag that represents their fight and their crazy ideologies, and to this day they still honor that crazy ideology flag. You can argue one is a whole lot worse than the other, but the concept is the same.

There are state capitols in Germany flying the Swastika? News to me.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Some Southerners I have known like to live in an imaginary world were the bravery of their fighting boys provided such a moral victory that the south did not go down in defeat. That they did not surrender, and that they were not fighting for an immoral regime. They insist that 99% of the Confederates were somehow morally opposed to the practice of slavery, and that left alone they would have resolved the issue in say just a few weeks, but that the north drove them to succession. They claim they were fighting for home and hearth, and southern womanhood. They were fighting for protection of the family farm.

Seems to me most of the early battles of the war were not in the deep south. They were on the border between the states or in the north. The south was not protecting home and hearth, but was advancing for a knockout blow. The north narrowly survived, rallied, and then took the fight south, stamping everything the north saw. The south sued for peace, they surrendered. During the war it is to be noted that the south committed atrocities unimaginable in pursuit of their perpetuation of the immoral system of slavery. One need only turn to Andersonville for an example.

The only reason the north did not crush all last vestiges of southern pride out of the south is that literally they were our relatives and family members. Rather than seeing this as compassion the south sees it as weakness. They truly, the true believers, believe somehow they won and that their rebellion, war, slavery, and atrocities are worth celebrating as some sort of moral victory today. They believe defiance after surrender is some form of honor. Not so. If they wanted to exercise defiance they should have done so more during the war. I am sure Sherman would have been happy to march to the gulf also.

It is past time to stop pretending "the boys" need to be honored. In fact, if you want to honor their deeds, honor their surrender. They gave up their swords and their flags, honor that by upholding that, not by trying to creep back on what happened.