Charleston Shooting Suspect (Derailed: Confederate Flag Debate)

[Peace]

From talking with people from the south who like and want to keep the Battle Flag, this is what I've gathered regarding the heritage part.  The heritage the battle flag represents is one of a people who opposed the government when they felt it was no longer working for them but against them.  Regardless of if you agree or disagree with slavery, the civil was a part of our nations history.  It was a time where we see a group of states unite together and form a rebellion against our government which they felt had lost its way and had overreached its authority (sounds like a familiar problem right now).  A government which no longer represented them or the purpose for which it was formed.  This is what they felt and this is what the battle flag was designed to show.  This is why the battle flag was kept in the south while the Confederate Nation flag was not.  This is why it was used on shows like the Dukes of Hazard because Bo and Luke where the rebels against a corrupt government force.

The battle flag is one of the only historical flags we have that shows that there was a time when American citizens mobilized and started a rebellion against the American government.  This is why it is called the rebel flag.  This is why it should be kept. It is a reminder to us Americans that when our government ceases to represent us then we must fight back like our ancestors had done.  It was also a reminder to politicians that if they try to abuse the people, then the people will rise up and they will fight back, so watch what you do and what bills you pass (TPP cough). 

The idea that the battle flag was about racism is, IMO, stupid. It's spirit is about rebellion. To say it's a sign of racism furthermore perpetuates the myth and revisionist history that the Union was filled with only anti-slave states, or that everyone in the union was anti-slavery and fighting to free the slaves.  All of these are false representations of the North.  This can be seen in the writings of the president, the actions of the states in the north and its citizens, and the treatment of black soldiers who fought in the Union army who were segregated from the whites because they were not seen as equals.  Make no mistake, the north was filled with racists.

I don't think what you have written here vibes too well with history. After the Civil War ended you do not see any significant public uses of the battle flag. You might have seen it in a few museums or in a few people's attics. You don't really see it's widespread use re-emerge until the 1940's by groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the segregationist Dixiecrat party, and others who were in strident opposition to the idea that black Americans should be treated equally under the law. The flag was heavily identified with the segregationist movement in the southern US since its reemergence during the 1940's to the 1960's, and has heavily been associated with the racist beliefs of people in that era for a long time now. That is precisely the reason why so many people complain about the flag and want to see it removed.

I think you can argue that the Confederate Flag should not be corrupted and should not have that connotation to it - but I think that is a battle that has already been lost. The fact of the matter is that the flag has been widely used by racist groups in our history, and that is the association that many people have with the flag. You can't change that any more than you can change the association that Jews (and most reasonable people) make when the see the swastika.

Again - if you want to fly a swastika on your front porch you certainly can. You can say "although large numbers of people today recognize this as a symbol of Nazi hate - to me it symbol that should represent 'good luck'". You are certainly free to do that. But realize that many people will find it offensive, consider you to be a racist, and insensitive to the pain of others.

It is the same thing with the Confederate Flag. It has been used widely as a symbol of hate and many people still view it that way. If you put it on your porch do not be surprised if people are offended by it and consider you to be a racist and insensitive. If you are OK with that, then by all means put it on your porch.

[KnightofChrist]

The flag never went away. But it gained in popularity during World War II not because of the KKK, not because of other racists. But because Southerners who fought for this country and gave their blood for it also had honor in their Southern home land. I guess when I stated that earlier it was ignored, and the fact that most Americans see the Confederate flag as a symbol of Southern pride is also ignored. This thread is lame because facts that are inconvenient to the "IT'S A SYMBOL OF RACISM" crowd.

Edited July 12, 2015 by KnightofChrist

[Didacus]

Purchase a Nazi Flag while you are at it.

Funny thing - apparently the Confederate flag prices are skyrocketing on Ebay...

Other sources are reporting record sales and shortages.  Strange isn't it?

Seems that banning the flag in public places may have been the best thing to happen to this symbol in years, even decades.  Just goes to show taht you can kill the symbol, but you can't kill the spirit - BooYaa!

[Credo in Deum]

Credo - that is a dead horse that I will gladly beat some more. If you want to stop posting on the topic you will not hear any arguments from me. But if you post a string of arguments asserting why you are right, you should expect that someone might respond to them. You can't exactly put forth a long string of arguments, write "I am tired of discussing this" and then expect everyone to be like "OK."

What I was suggesting was that you (and others) seem to have a desire to make the Civil War about something grander than what it was actually about. The Civil War specifically arose concerning the right of men in the Confederate States to enslave other men, and I think that one has to torture history in order to deny or re-frame what every 4th grader in the country can tell you at the drop of a dime. Why would someone want to torture history in that fashion? I do not know, but I image that it has to do with guilt in some sense. For whatever reason there seems to be this desire to make the Civil War about something noble (e.g. "States Rights") rather than about something abhorrent - the right of people living in the Confederate States to enslave men. I can understand that someone who desires to fly a Confederate Flag would not want to admit that is what the people who originally flew the flag were fighting for. It is much nicer to think that the flag on your porch was flown by men who were fighting a noble battle for "states rights".  As I explained before, it seems to be the same thing that you see with people who are pro-choice. The obvious reality is that they are fighting for the right to kill children. But they attempt to re-frame their fight as something more noble, as you have. They say that they are fighting for "privacy" or for "a right for a woman to control her own body." Why would they do that? Because nobody wants to face up to the reality that they are fighting for a right to kill children.

Of course, those are just my thoughts, and I would imagine that you would disagree. From your viewpoint, I suppose you are just stating the facts as you see them, or perhaps defending the noble confederates who have been unjustly slandered as fighting a war for the continued ability to enslave men . . .

 

I guess by stating historical facts the good people at CivilWar.org are probably also trying to defended the "noble confederates", right?  Or maybe, just maybe, they're looking at the bigger picture?!  If the right to own slaves was the main cause then why didn't Lincoln do it?  He said he would have if he thought it would end the war.  How did he know though that it wouldn't end the war?  It was because Lincoln knew this fight was about WHO was granting rights.  If the Fed granted the rights to own slaves then this would still be a problem according to the South because they did not believe the Fed had any right to tell them what to do regarding their property (slaves). 

Here, ill paste the article which explains the situation from civilwar.org for all to see:

 

States' Rights

THE RALLYING CRY OF SECESSION

The appeal to states' rights is of the most potent symbols of the American Civil War, but confusion abounds as to the historical and present meaning of this federalist principle. 

South Carolinians crowd into the streets of Charleston in 1860 to hear speeches promoting secession. 

The concept of states' rights had been an old idea by 1860. The original thirteen colonies in America in the 1700s, separated from the mother country in Europe by a vast ocean, were use to making many of their own decisions and ignoring quite a few of the rules imposed on them from abroad. During the American Revolution, the founding fathers were forced to compromise with the states to ensure ratification of the Constitution and the establishment of a united country. In fact, the original Constitution banned slavery, but Virginia would not accept it; and Massachusetts would not ratify the document without a Bill of Rights.

The debate over which powers rightly belonged to the states and which to the Federal Government became heated again in the 1820s and 1830s fueled by the divisive issue of whether slavery would be allowed in the new territories forming as the nation expanded westward.

 

The Missouri Compromise in 1820 tried to solve the problem but succeeded only temporarily. (It established lands west of the Mississippi and below latitude 36º30' as slave and north of the line—except Missouri—as free.) Abolitionist groups sprang up in the North, making Southerners feel that their way of life was under attack. A violent slave revolt in 1831 in Virginia, Nat Turner’s Rebellion, forced the South to close ranks against criticism out of fear for their lives. They began to argue that slavery was not only necessary, but in fact, it was a positive good.

 

As the North and the South became more and more different, their goals and desires also separated. Arguments over national policy grew even fiercer. The North’s economic progress as the Southern economy began to stall fueled the fires of resentment. By the 1840s and 1850s, North and South had each evolved extreme positions that had as much to do with serving their own political interests as with the morality of slavery.

As long as there were an equal number of slave-holding states in the South as non-slave-holding states in the North, the two regions had even representation in the Senate and neither could dictate to the other. However, each new territory that applied for statehood threatened to upset this balance of power. Southerners consistently argued for states rights and a weak federal government but it was not until the 1850s that they raised the issue of secession. Southerners argued that, having ratified the Constitution and having agreed to join the new nation in the late 1780s, they retained the power to cancel the agreement and they threatened to do just that unless, as South Carolinian John C. Calhoun put it, the Senate passed a constitutional amendment to give back to the South “the power she possessed of protecting herself before the equilibrium of the two sections was destroyed.”

Controversial—but peaceful—attempts at a solution included legal compromises, arguments, and debates such as the Wilmot Proviso in 1846, Senator Lewis Cass’ idea of popular sovereignty in the late 1840s, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, and the Lincoln-Douglas Debates in 1858. However well-meaning, Southerners felt that the laws favored the Northern economy and were designed to slowly stifle the South out of existence. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was one of the only pieces of legislation clearly in favor of the South. It meant that Northerners in free states were obligated, regardless of their feelings towards slavery, to turn escaped slaves who had made it North back over to their Southern masters. Northerners strongly resented the law and it was one of the inspirations for the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin in 1852.

Non-violent attempts at resolution culminated in violence in 1859 when Northern abolitionist John Brown abandoned discussion and took direct action in a raid on the arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. Though unsuccessful, the raid confirmed Southern fears of a Northern conspiracy to end slavery. When anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln won the presidential election in 1860, Southerners were sure that the North meant to take away their right to govern themselves, abolish slavery, and destroy the Southern economy. Having exhausted their legal and political options, they felt that the only way to protect themselves from this Northern assault was to no longer be a part of the United States of America. Although the Southern states seceded separately, without intending to form a new nation, they soon banded together in a loose coalition. Northerners, however, led by Abraham Lincoln, viewed secession as an illegal act. The Confederate States of America was not a new country, they felt, but a group of treasonous rebels.

 

[Ice_nine]

When I saw your argument in size 14 font I was like "nah, he's wrong," but now that you've bumped it up to size 26 or so, I can see your point

[Peace]

Funny thing - apparently the Confederate flag prices are skyrocketing on Ebay...

Other sources are reporting record sales and shortages.  Strange isn't it?

Seems that banning the flag in public places may have been the best thing to happen to this symbol in years, even decades.  Just goes to show taht you can kill the symbol, but you can't kill the spirit - BooYaa!

Well - that is right. It is difficult to kill the spirit of racism. Our country has struggled with that since its founding.

[Credo in Deum]

When I saw your argument in size 14 font I was like "nah, he's wrong," but now that you've bumped it up to size 26 or so, I can see your point

I'm glad my plan worked.

[Peace]

The flag never went away. But it gained in popularity during World War II not because of the KKK, not because of other racists. But because Southerners who fought for this country and gave their blood for it also had honor in their Southern home land. I guess when I stated that earlier it was ignored, and the fact that most Americans see the Confederate flag as a symbol of Southern pride is also ignored. This thread is lame because facts that are inconvenient to the "IT'S A SYMBOL OF RACISM" crowd.

It is seen as a symbol of racism at least by the vast majority of African Americans, whose ancestors were the victims of slavery, and many of whom are alive today were terrorized by groups such as the KKK, which explicitly used the flag. Again - you are free to fly it, if you do not care that the majority of African Americans view the flag in the same manner that Jews view the Swastika. If using the flag as a symbol of a "rebellious spirit" or a "southern homeland" is that important to you, then by all means go ahead and fly it.

Credo - I am not sure why you keep posting random articles in support of your position. I can just as easily do the same, as I did previously. Again - I do not see where that gets us.

Let's say that all of the Northern States were pro-slavery around the time the Civil War broke out. Do you believe that the Southern States would have left the union? For what concrete reason would they have left it?

As for whether the people at CivilWar.org  are "good people" or not - I have no idea whether or not they are good people. The article that you posted could have been written by a Klan member for all I know.

As for whether the information in the article are "historical facts" or not - I have no idea whether each of the statements is a historical fact. The article does not quote any sources whatsoever. Again - I can post an article that takes a contrary position and asserts opposite "historical facts" without citations. I do not see where that gets us.

A smaller font size would be greatly appreciated.

[Peace]

And again - if the southern states seceded because of "states rights" and not slavery, why is it that South Carolina's official "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession from the Federal Union" expliclity argues for slavery and against state's rights?  It is a bit tough to make the argument that State X is for ABC if State X explicitly argues against ABC, is it not?

[Credo in Deum]

Sorry, I cant make any promises regarding font size. My plan worked on Ice which is all that matters to me.  

And again - if the southern states seceded because of "states rights" and not slavery, why is it that South Carolina's official "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession from the Federal Union" expliclity argues for slavery and against state's rights?  It is a bit tough to make the argument that State X is for ABC if State X explicitly argues against ABC, is it not?

Who said the Civil War was just about State Rights? Ive said multiple times the Civil War was about State Rights AND Slavery, and that the document is about States Rights AND Slavery.  This is because slavery, according to the South, WAS SEEN AS A STATE RIGHT! A state property right. 

Again here are the causes for the Civil War:

State rights - The leaders in the South wanted the states to make most of their own laws. In the North, people wanted a stronger national government that would make the same laws for all the states.

Slavery - Most of the Southern states had economies based on farming and felt they needed slave labor to help them farm. The North was more industrialized and much of the North had made slavery illegal. The South was afraid that the Northern states would vote to make slavery illegal in all the states.

Western States - As there were more and more western states added to the growing United States, the Southern states were worried that this would mean less power and voting rights.

Abraham Lincoln - When Abraham Lincoln was elected president, it was the final straw for the Southern states. Lincoln was against slavery and wanted a strong federal government, two things the South did not agree with.

ALL of these things are what encompass the entire Civil War and the reasons for why the South left the Union. 

 

[Peace]

Credo - I think we can both agree that there was more than one factor contributing to the Civil War. I think we have been debating about the extent to which slavery is a primary cause. I am saying that it is the meat and potatoes. You seemed to have suggested that it was the salad.

As for the 4 caues you have quoted - they all come back to slavery, do they not?

1) State rights - The leaders in the South wanted the states to make most of their own laws. In the North, people wanted a stronger national government that would make the same laws for all the states.

Again - other than slavery - what "state rights" were important to the southern states at the time of the Civil War? What other rights were they advocating for? 

If you are arguing for a "right to control my own body" but the only concrete implementation of that abstract principle you can offer is the right to perform abortions - isn't the "right to control your own body" just a meaningless pretense to mask the reality of what you desire to do?

Even that Civilwar.org artice you posted offers no concrete concerns that do not directly relate to slavery.

And again - we barely see that concern in the secession declarations of the states. We do see slavery discussed heavily in all of them.

2) Slavery - Most of the Southern states had economies based on farming and felt they needed slave labor to help them farm. The North was more industrialized and much of the North had made slavery illegal. The South was afraid that the Northern states would vote to make slavery illegal in all the states.

Well. This relates to slavery obviously.

3)  Western States - As there were more and more western states added to the growing United States, the Southern states were worried that this would mean less power and voting rights.

Addition of the Western States would have meant less power if the Western States tended to vote differently than the Southern States. It would have meant MORE power if the Western States tended to vote the same as the Southern States.

As it just so happens to be - most of those Western States were FREE states (California being the major one). Again - it comes back to slavery. If California had come into the Union as a SLAVE state do you think that the Southern states would have been concerned about it? They were concerned about the Western States entering the union because they were FREE states, and that would have made national restrictions on slavery more likely.

4)  Abraham Lincoln - When Abraham Lincoln was elected president, it was the final straw for the Southern states. Lincoln was against slavery and wanted a strong federal government, two things the South did not agree with.

Again - one of the big issues here is slavery. Lincoln had spoken out against it and that made restrictions on slavery more likely. 

I will concede you the point concerning a strong federal government (but I think plenty of modern conservatives would disagree with you on that point).

[Seven77]

I don't get why this keeps going in circles. How hard is it to understand, as Peace and others have consistently argued, that everything about the Civil War is connected in some way or another to slavery, like it or not. 

And, most of us are not advocating banning the Confederate flag entirely. We have nuanced positions that those in favor of the flag like to ignore. We don't judge those who fought in the South--- we don't judge people, we judge actions and lack of actions,  and the bad ideas behind It all.

[dUSt]

 the fact that most Americans see the Confederate flag as a symbol of Southern pride is also ignored.

Fact? How is this a fact? Did you cite a study or a survey?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that most people who fly the confederate flag may see it as a symbol of pride, but "most Americans" seeing it the same way seems to be way waaaaay off.

Edited July 13, 2015 by dUSt

[Peace]

However you folks who want to fly the Confederate Flag want to rationalize it, this is what the army who flew that flag in battle was fighting to protect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_(slave)#/media/File:Gordon,_scourged_back,_NPG,_1863.jpg

And this is the group that widley used it during the 20th Century:

http://www.splcenter.org/media/klan-march

If that is the same flag that you want to fly on your front porch - be my guest.

 

[KnightofChrist]

It is seen as a symbol of racism at least by the vast majority of African Americans, whose ancestors were the victims of slavery, and many of whom are alive today were terrorized by groups such as the KKK, which explicitly used the flag. Again - you are free to fly it, if you do not care that the majority of African Americans view the flag in the same manner that Jews view the Swastika. If using the flag as a symbol of a "rebellious spirit" or a "southern homeland" is that important to you, then by all means go ahead and fly it.

It's certainly a problem that lies about the flag are believed by so many. But it's not a symbol of racism, no more and no less than the American Flag and American symbols. The KKK predominantly uses the American Flag and their own flag, not so much the Confederate. If anyone bothers to look up their little marches they can see with their own eyes that the US Flag is predominantly used by the KKK. But facts like that get in the way.

If we as a nation and as a phorum were logically consistent we'd have to let the extremist rip down US flags, knock down monuments to and dig up the graves of Union/American leaders and military dead.

Again, the red and white stripes of the American Flag were inspired by the East India Company Flag which was heavily involved with the slave trade in Madagascar.

Francis Hopkinson known to have designed Us flag and great seal of United States was a white supremacist he owned something like 130 slaves.

Abraham Lincoln was also a white supremacist he believed and I quote " I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Where are the calls to dig up Lincoln and to tear down monuments made in his image? Yes he used the war to free the slaves but he was still a big fat racist who wanted to ship African American people back to Africa. It is contradictory and completely hypocritical to just focus on tearing down Confederate symbols, if we used the same logic to tear down American symbols there would hardly be much of a America left.

This whole discussion reminds me of the passage "why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

If you have a problem with Confederate symbols and argue against the public display of them first argue against the public display of American symbols using the same logic. That or be a hypocrite.