South Carolina and the Confederate flag...
- Thread starter rog1187
- Start date
I posted in your other thread that should address this. However, you probably should do a little research on your own to understand it. You do a disservice to yourself by having such an uninformed opinion on our history. It's very shortsighted. Further, the analogies you try to make are ludicrous and the need to refute ignorance of this magnitude would be a monumental effort.
Liberals preach tolerance but you quickly learn that their tolerance is a one way street. And often their lack of knowledge of all the facts is truly breathtaking.
I love our history and do know quite a lot about it. If the south was pushed to the limit, why didn't they get the nerve to rebel in 1828 or 1832? With the Tariff of Abomination? Why wait until a Republican takes office who happens to want to prevent the spread of slavery? Yeah, that's when they "had enough". Their TRAITOR behavior was not worth any celebration or heritage claims. They acted out because about 1% of the southern population (Planters) were possibly going to lose THEIR money. Then they used their political influences and manipulation of the uneducated majority of southerners at the time to build support for their rebellion in the name of "states rights" and constitutionality of their right to their way of life. It was a joke.
As for the flag, it's time to be taken down. End of discussion. It serves no purpose. It celebrates nothing.
Really? You have a warped view of history. I wonder if you know what the Cornerstone Speech is/was? Let me help you. It was given by confederacy VP Alexander Stephens. In his speech, he described some of the fundamental beliefs of the south at the time setting up their starting the war in SC. Here are a few tidbits from that speech:
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.”
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.
One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.
Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.
The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch “of the accursed soil.” Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave
That as the admission of States by Congress under the constitution was an act of legislation, and in the nature of a contract or compact between the States admitted and the others admitting, why should not this contract or compact be regarded as of like character with all other civil contracts liable to be rescinded by mutual agreement of both parties? The seceding States have rescinded it on their part, they have resumed their sovereignty. Why cannot the whole question be settled, if the north desire peace, simply by the Congress, in both branches, with the concurrence of the President, giving their consent to the separation, and a recognition of our independence?
A reasoned analysis that all should read.
by David French June 19, 2015 4:00 PM @DavidAFrench Like many Southern boys, I grew up with two flags hanging in my room — an American flag and a Confederate battle flag. The American flag was enormous, taking up much of one wall. It was the “1776” flag, with 13 stars in a circle in the field of blue. My grandmother bought it for me on the bicentennial, and for years it was a treasured possession. The flag took on a special meaning later in life, when I learned more of a family history that included service with General Washington, suffering at Valley Forge. The Confederate battle flag was much smaller, and it hung over my bookshelf. We bought it at the Shiloh battlefield in Tennessee, where one of my Confederate ancestors fought and where Albert Sidney Johnston died — the general that many considered the great hope of the Confederate Army in the West. My Confederate forefathers went on to fight at Vicksburg, at the battles of Franklin and Nashville, and in countless skirmishes across Tennessee and Mississippi. I grew up looking at old family pictures, including men who still wore their Confederate uniform for formal portraits — long after the war had ended. Like many Southern families’, my family’s military story didn’t end with the Civil War — it continued on to World War I, the European theater in World War II, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and then to my own recent deployment during the Surge in Iraq. The martial history of our family is inseparable from the family story, and it includes men in gray. So I’ve followed this most recent round of debate over the Confederate battle flag with perhaps greater than normal interest. In the immediate aftermath of mass shootings, there is always a demand to “do something.” Always, that demand involves gun control — typically, gun-control measures that wouldn’t have actually stopped the shooting in question. But often there’s something more. In the aftermath of the Gabby Giffords shooting, the Left demanded “civility” — despite zero evidence that the barking-mad perpetrator was motivated by any form of political discourse. Now the demand is to remove the Confederate battle flag from a Confederate memorial in South Carolina (and presumably elsewhere). The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, with characteristic vehemence, says, “Take down the flag. Take it down now.” His call — and others — have resonated around the web. If the goal of our shared civic experience was the avoidance of pain, then we’d take down that flag. But that’s of course not the goal. There’s a disturbing habit on the Left of trying to find the position that renders one especially virtuous in their identity politics culture — regardless of its real-world impact — and then sneering from that high ground at all who dissent. But that’s certainly not everyone’s motive, and it’s certainly not the motive of those calling for the flag’s removal at National Review. It’s simply undeniable that the Confederate battle flag is a painful symbol to our African-American fellow citizens, especially given its recent history as a chosen totem of segregationists. So it’s critical to respond to the argument in good faith. And just as the history of the Civil War is personal to me, so is America’s present racial reality. As I’ve mentioned before, my youngest daughter is quite literally African-American (born in Ethiopia and now as American as apple pie), and when she’s a little bit older, we’ll no doubt have many tough conversations about history and race. If the goal of our shared civic experience was the avoidance of pain, then we’d take down that flag. But that’s of course not the goal. Rather, we use history to understand our nation in all its complexity — acknowledging uncomfortable realities and learning difficult truths. For white southerners — especially those with deep roots in the South — those difficult truths are presented front and center throughout our lives. Yes, the South seceded in large part to preserve slavery. Yes, had the South prevailed, slavery not only would have been preserved for the indefinite future, it may have even spread to new nations and territories. And no, while some southerners were kinder than others, there was nothing “humane” about the fundamental institution of slavery itself. As Coates and others have often and eloquently explained, it was a system built on plunder and pain. But there are other difficult truths. Among them, when the war began, it was not explicitly a war to end slavery. Indeed, had the Union quickly accomplished its war aims, slavery would have endured, at least for a time. When hundreds of thousands of southern men took up arms (most of them non-slave-owning), many of them fought with the explicit belief that they were standing in the shoes of the Founding Fathers, men who’d exercised their own right of self-determination to separate from the mother Country. Others simply saw an invading army marching into their state — into their towns and across their farms — and chose to resist. And no one can doubt their valor. Both sides displayed breathtaking courage, but the South poured itself into the fight to an extent the modern American mind simply can’t comprehend. If you extrapolated Southern losses into our current American population, the war would cost the lives of a staggering 9 million men, with at least an equivalent number injured. To understand the impact of that human loss, I’d urge you to read Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust’s Republic of Suffering — a book that explores the psychological impact of omnipresent, mass-scale death on southern culture. Those men fought against a larger, better-supplied force, yet — under some of history’s more brilliant military commanders — were arguably a few better-timed attacks away from prevailing in America’s deadliest conflict. Then, the defeated survivors came home to the consequences of total war. Large sections of the South were simply devastated — crops burned, homes burned, and livestock slaughtered or scattered. Entire cities lay in ruin. Flying it as a symbol of white racial supremacy is undeniably vile, and any official use of the flag for that purpose should end, immediately. Flying it over monuments to Confederate war dead is simply history. The South had to rebuild — under military occupation — and it had to rebuild more than just its physical infrastructure. It had to reimagine itself. It ultimately did so for good and ill. The worst of that new South was obvious: the gradually tightening grip of a new and different era of racial oppression, one that culminated in Jim Crow, lynching, and systematic segregation. This is the side of history that is now taught clearly and unflinchingly — and should be taught. But that wasn’t the whole story, not by any means. The region also rebuilt by honoring its war dead and extolling a culture of military valor. Through this reverence for valor, the defeated South, ironically enough, soon supplied the newly reunified nation with many of its greatest warriors — men who were indispensable in preserving our democracy against the existential threats of fascism and communism. To this day, the South supplies more than its fair share of soldiers, men and women who lay down their lives to protect us from the deadly threat of jihad. It is telling that the South’s chosen, enduring symbol of the Confederacy wasn’t the flag of the Confederate States of America — the slave state itself — but the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, Robert E. Lee’s army. Lee was the reluctant Confederate, the brilliant commander, the man who called slavery a “moral and political evil,” and the architect — by his example — of much of the reconciliation between North and South. His virtue grew in the retelling — and modern historians still argue about his true character — but the symbolism was clear. If the South was to rebuild, it would rebuild under Lee’s banner. Since that time, the battle flag has grown to mean many things, including evil things. Flying it as a symbol of white racial supremacy is undeniably vile, and any official use of the flag for that purpose should end, immediately. Flying it over monuments to Confederate war dead is simply history. States should no more remove a Confederate battle flag from a Confederate memorial than they should chisel away the words on the granite or bulldoze the memorials themselves. I no longer have a battle flag at my house. The American flag flies proudly from (by far) the tallest flagpole in the neighborhood — a gift from my father-in-law, raised when I was deployed. But we have a room in our home that honors my family’s history of service. On one side of a framed picture from my own time in Iraq is a painting from the Revolutionary War, on the other side is a picture tracing the history of the Confederate Army in the Civil War. It’s all a part of the complicated, messy picture of who I am — of who we are. Removing the Confederate flag from Confederate memorials doesn’t change that history, it merely helps shroud it in ignorance. The flag should stay.
by David French June 19, 2015 4:00 PM @DavidAFrench Like many Southern boys, I grew up with two flags hanging in my room — an American flag and a Confederate battle flag. The American flag was enormous, taking up much of one wall. It was the “1776” flag, with 13 stars in a circle in the field of blue. My grandmother bought it for me on the bicentennial, and for years it was a treasured possession. The flag took on a special meaning later in life, when I learned more of a family history that included service with General Washington, suffering at Valley Forge. The Confederate battle flag was much smaller, and it hung over my bookshelf. We bought it at the Shiloh battlefield in Tennessee, where one of my Confederate ancestors fought and where Albert Sidney Johnston died — the general that many considered the great hope of the Confederate Army in the West. My Confederate forefathers went on to fight at Vicksburg, at the battles of Franklin and Nashville, and in countless skirmishes across Tennessee and Mississippi. I grew up looking at old family pictures, including men who still wore their Confederate uniform for formal portraits — long after the war had ended. Like many Southern families’, my family’s military story didn’t end with the Civil War — it continued on to World War I, the European theater in World War II, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and then to my own recent deployment during the Surge in Iraq. The martial history of our family is inseparable from the family story, and it includes men in gray. So I’ve followed this most recent round of debate over the Confederate battle flag with perhaps greater than normal interest. In the immediate aftermath of mass shootings, there is always a demand to “do something.” Always, that demand involves gun control — typically, gun-control measures that wouldn’t have actually stopped the shooting in question. But often there’s something more. In the aftermath of the Gabby Giffords shooting, the Left demanded “civility” — despite zero evidence that the barking-mad perpetrator was motivated by any form of political discourse. Now the demand is to remove the Confederate battle flag from a Confederate memorial in South Carolina (and presumably elsewhere). The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, with characteristic vehemence, says, “Take down the flag. Take it down now.” His call — and others — have resonated around the web. If the goal of our shared civic experience was the avoidance of pain, then we’d take down that flag. But that’s of course not the goal. There’s a disturbing habit on the Left of trying to find the position that renders one especially virtuous in their identity politics culture — regardless of its real-world impact — and then sneering from that high ground at all who dissent. But that’s certainly not everyone’s motive, and it’s certainly not the motive of those calling for the flag’s removal at National Review. It’s simply undeniable that the Confederate battle flag is a painful symbol to our African-American fellow citizens, especially given its recent history as a chosen totem of segregationists. So it’s critical to respond to the argument in good faith. And just as the history of the Civil War is personal to me, so is America’s present racial reality. As I’ve mentioned before, my youngest daughter is quite literally African-American (born in Ethiopia and now as American as apple pie), and when she’s a little bit older, we’ll no doubt have many tough conversations about history and race. If the goal of our shared civic experience was the avoidance of pain, then we’d take down that flag. But that’s of course not the goal. Rather, we use history to understand our nation in all its complexity — acknowledging uncomfortable realities and learning difficult truths. For white southerners — especially those with deep roots in the South — those difficult truths are presented front and center throughout our lives. Yes, the South seceded in large part to preserve slavery. Yes, had the South prevailed, slavery not only would have been preserved for the indefinite future, it may have even spread to new nations and territories. And no, while some southerners were kinder than others, there was nothing “humane” about the fundamental institution of slavery itself. As Coates and others have often and eloquently explained, it was a system built on plunder and pain. But there are other difficult truths. Among them, when the war began, it was not explicitly a war to end slavery. Indeed, had the Union quickly accomplished its war aims, slavery would have endured, at least for a time. When hundreds of thousands of southern men took up arms (most of them non-slave-owning), many of them fought with the explicit belief that they were standing in the shoes of the Founding Fathers, men who’d exercised their own right of self-determination to separate from the mother Country. Others simply saw an invading army marching into their state — into their towns and across their farms — and chose to resist. And no one can doubt their valor. Both sides displayed breathtaking courage, but the South poured itself into the fight to an extent the modern American mind simply can’t comprehend. If you extrapolated Southern losses into our current American population, the war would cost the lives of a staggering 9 million men, with at least an equivalent number injured. To understand the impact of that human loss, I’d urge you to read Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust’s Republic of Suffering — a book that explores the psychological impact of omnipresent, mass-scale death on southern culture. Those men fought against a larger, better-supplied force, yet — under some of history’s more brilliant military commanders — were arguably a few better-timed attacks away from prevailing in America’s deadliest conflict. Then, the defeated survivors came home to the consequences of total war. Large sections of the South were simply devastated — crops burned, homes burned, and livestock slaughtered or scattered. Entire cities lay in ruin. Flying it as a symbol of white racial supremacy is undeniably vile, and any official use of the flag for that purpose should end, immediately. Flying it over monuments to Confederate war dead is simply history. The South had to rebuild — under military occupation — and it had to rebuild more than just its physical infrastructure. It had to reimagine itself. It ultimately did so for good and ill. The worst of that new South was obvious: the gradually tightening grip of a new and different era of racial oppression, one that culminated in Jim Crow, lynching, and systematic segregation. This is the side of history that is now taught clearly and unflinchingly — and should be taught. But that wasn’t the whole story, not by any means. The region also rebuilt by honoring its war dead and extolling a culture of military valor. Through this reverence for valor, the defeated South, ironically enough, soon supplied the newly reunified nation with many of its greatest warriors — men who were indispensable in preserving our democracy against the existential threats of fascism and communism. To this day, the South supplies more than its fair share of soldiers, men and women who lay down their lives to protect us from the deadly threat of jihad. It is telling that the South’s chosen, enduring symbol of the Confederacy wasn’t the flag of the Confederate States of America — the slave state itself — but the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, Robert E. Lee’s army. Lee was the reluctant Confederate, the brilliant commander, the man who called slavery a “moral and political evil,” and the architect — by his example — of much of the reconciliation between North and South. His virtue grew in the retelling — and modern historians still argue about his true character — but the symbolism was clear. If the South was to rebuild, it would rebuild under Lee’s banner. Since that time, the battle flag has grown to mean many things, including evil things. Flying it as a symbol of white racial supremacy is undeniably vile, and any official use of the flag for that purpose should end, immediately. Flying it over monuments to Confederate war dead is simply history. States should no more remove a Confederate battle flag from a Confederate memorial than they should chisel away the words on the granite or bulldoze the memorials themselves. I no longer have a battle flag at my house. The American flag flies proudly from (by far) the tallest flagpole in the neighborhood — a gift from my father-in-law, raised when I was deployed. But we have a room in our home that honors my family’s history of service. On one side of a framed picture from my own time in Iraq is a painting from the Revolutionary War, on the other side is a picture tracing the history of the Confederate Army in the Civil War. It’s all a part of the complicated, messy picture of who I am — of who we are. Removing the Confederate flag from Confederate memorials doesn’t change that history, it merely helps shroud it in ignorance. The flag should stay.
Thanks for bringing to light the actions of one of your fellow beloved Democrats, Alexander Stephens...... Just proves my point about the history of overt racism in the Democrat Party.
you don't possess a shred of intellectual honesty. and you know nothing about the evolution of the two political parties over time. but keep acting like you have a point while anyone with an iq over room temp knows you are a moron.
Bath then you had Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats. The southern were all about slavery, while the northern pushed for popular sovereignty.
Now, look at how the politics and political parties have changed since. Democrats went from being pro-slavery to the time of FDR when he included African-Americans in to his inner circle (thanks to Eleanor) and then JFK and lastly Lyndon Johnson, who pushed the hardest for equality. Now look at the Republicans. They went from championing the right for equality for newly freed slaves in the mid-1860s to ????????? You fill in what you want, but we know how they feel about "equality" of "minority" groups. :wink: I guess those three Republican candidates took money from the white supremacist and they didn't know who he really was or what his beliefs were.....
He ignores the fact that his ancestors that fought for the Confederacy were traitors to the US. He also ignores the fact that the reason the flag is such a big deal today is it's revival during the time when the South was resisting segregation.
The South lost the war everyone everywhere in the US today is much better for it. What is the point of honoring something that was bad?
What in the hell are you talking about? So you are spewing garbage that Republicans are now "pro slavery" and Repubs don't stand for equality for "minority groups" Complete and utter rubbish. Have you also examined what Democrats took money from hate groups? I bet most politicians have taken donations from many whom they know nothing about, I'm sure you aren't as naive as you appear.
Most who post here know who the real moron is. I know more the evolution and history of the political parties than you ever thought of. You don't have a clue about any kind of honesty. You are a total asshole wannabe. Now get back into your little make believe world.
Here a few facts about how FDR cared about Blacks;
The Tennessee Valley Authority — FDR’s government-power-generating monopoly funded by the 98 percent of American taxpayers who didn’t live in the Tennessee Valley — was touted as a bold social experiment. But, among other things, the TVA flooded an estimated 730,000 acres of land behind its dams, and 15,654 people were forced out of their homes. Farm owners received cash settlements for their condemned property. But tenant farmers — a substantial number of whom were black — got nothing.
What about New Deal spending programs? They were channeled away from the poorest people, including millions of blacks, who lived in the South. These people were already on FDR’s side, so, from a political standpoint, there wasn’t anything for FDR, as an incumbent, to gain by giving them money. The bulk of New Deal spending went to western states and eastern states where previous election returns had been relatively close, because FDR was focused on winning the next election.
The Wagner Act (1935) harmed blacks by making labor union monopolies legal. By giving labor unions the monopoly power to exclusively represent employees in a workplace, the Wagner Act had the effect of excluding blacks, since the dominant unions discriminated against blacks. The Wagner Act had originally been drafted with a provision prohibiting racial discrimination. But the American Federation of Labor successfully lobbied against it, and it was dropped. AFL unions used their new power, granted by the Wagner Act, to exclude blacks on a large scale. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and Marcus Garvey were all critical of compulsory unionism.
If FDR’s New Deal policies weren’t conceived with racist intent, they certainly had racist consequences.
When the federal government purchased the land or flowage easement, it could only legally purchase those rights from land OWNERS. Tenant farmers did receive compensation, they received compensation from the loss of revenue from their current agricultural leases.
Try to share the whole truth next time.
I gave you the truth, here are a few more truths about FDR;
From the time FDR took office in 1933, he absolutely refused to desegregate the government. The Republican platform of June 24, 1940 called for integration of the armed forces, but for the balance of his time in office, FDR refused to order it. FDR refused to even endorse a federal anti-lynch law, saying it would cause him to lose southern votes.
And, let's not forget how FDR threw 110,000 loyal Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, seized their properties and turned their property and possessions over to whites. It would seem Roosevelt had preconceived (and racist) prejudices against the Japanese: "Anyone who has traveled to the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results.
And then, there was the appointment of former KKK lawyer, U.S. Senator Hugo Black, to the Supreme Court.
AND, despite all the intelligence reports, FDR absolutely refused to talk about what the Nazis were doing to European Jews. He refused to change immigration laws to provide Jews a safe haven in the United States. No mystery there. Roosevelt was raised among the New England wealthy, where Jews were "restricted" -- not allowed to go to the night clubs and other social gatherings of the anti-Semitic elite.
Why are only pointing out the obvious biases against FDR? Fact is that in his SECOND New Deal he included African-Americans. Was he a champion of equality? No. But he was a beginning of a shift towards that direction.
As for the Japanese internment, that was a decision that was wrong but at the time he made it the majority of Americans agreed with it.
You spoke of the anti-lynching law that he refused to sign. Well, you left out the countless number of Republican presidents before him that refused to sign one as well. Ida Wells campaigned for it during the turn of the 20th century. Dwight D. Eisenhower refused to step in to force integration in schools, but had to when Little Rock jumped out and bit him in the a$$ because he could no longer turn a blind eye. But he's put in history books as a "champion of civil liberties" for African-Americans.
If we are going have to constantly defer to the ignorant least common denominator ...then we are going to have a bad time.
Do we need a history lesson of how political parties have changed in the last 50+ years?
I actually don't have a bias against FDR, I think he did what he had to do. I only pointed several interesting things he said and did. You and your friends think ANY Democrat is great and seem to forget any shortcoming they have. You and your friends can enlighten us to the fact that Marco Rubio had FOUR traffic tickets, BUT can't seem to find any misdeeds that any Democrat has.
Here you go, a double dose of stupidity. Here's what Faux news watchers think and believe; pretty disgusting.https://www.facebook.com/ShepardSmi...077130490/?type=1&comment_tracking={"tn":"O"}
Actually it's an equally valid view of the flag, and not ignorant. You need to get out more.
This doesn't mean that governments should be flying it, however.
You need to get out more too. Maybe a library or a history class. The flag that flies above the SC statehouse is the battle flag of northern virginia. Not the flag of the confederacy. It was co-opted by racists in the 50s as a symbol of their obstruction to segregation. In fact, it was never flown on the SC statehouse until 1961...100 years after the civil war. It has very little to do with "heritage". So yes...the view is ignorant. Do I need to define the word ignorant?
Wow. Had I never seen the internet, I may have never known any of that. Thatnks! You're quickly reaching doc level in your ignorance.
It was used for other purposes well before that. Like I said. Get out more.
They really haven't changed. At their core they are still the same as they were at their foundation, well, actually what the Democrats claim as their foundation was Jefferson's Anti-federalist ideals that are the basis for the Republican Party today. But at the end of the day the parties are still essentially a separation between small government and large government, between Jefferson and Adams, between Federalist and Anti-Federalist. That doesn't negate the hypocrisy of both parties on various issues, but at the core they haven't changed as much as you may think.
I t
You think it's a coincidence that the South began to abandon the Democratic Party after the 1964 Civil Rights Acts was passed? You think it's a coincidence that before that, all the state legislatures and all the states' US Congressmen and US Senators where overwhelmingly Democrat? After that bill passed, a bill which LBJ championed, he said "We've lost the South for a generation". Nixon exploited that fact with his "southern strategy" in 1968-a strategy which blatantly appealed to racial divisions in the aftermath of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That act was precipitated by many acts of institutional racism-like governors standing in doorways of schools not allowing Blacks to enroll, poll taxes making it difficult or impossible for Blacks to vote, separate water fountains, back of the bus, ....and all these atrocities were supported by the vast majority of White southerners. They were aghast when the 1964 law was enacted.
The South continues to this day a being dominated by the GOP. Many old-school, blue dog democrats have switched to the GOP for political expediency. It is true that on many issues, the two parties haven't changed much. But on race and civil rights, they have done an about-face.
You think it's a coincidence that the South began to abandon the Democratic Party after the 1964 Civil Rights Acts was passed? You think it's a coincidence that before that, all the state legislatures and all the states' US Congressmen and US Senators where overwhelmingly Democrat? After that bill passed, a bill which LBJ championed, he said "We've lost the South for a generation". Nixon exploited that fact with his "southern strategy" in 1968-a strategy which blatantly appealed to racial divisions in the aftermath of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That act was precipitated by many acts of institutional racism-like governors standing in doorways of schools not allowing Blacks to enroll, poll taxes making it difficult or impossible for Blacks to vote, separate water fountains, back of the bus, ....and all these atrocities were supported by the vast majority of White southerners. They were aghast when the 1964 law was enacted.
The South continues to this day a being dominated by the GOP. Many old-school, blue dog democrats have switched to the GOP for political expediency. It is true that on many issues, the two parties haven't changed much. But on race and civil rights, they have done an about-face.
Absolutely fukin amazing. Nine people have been murdered at their weekly prayer meeting. Here we elect to debate a flag that has been the object of debate for a few years. South Carolina resolved the debate a few years back when it was removed from the state capitol and permitted to fly over the confederate memorial on the capitol grounds and a memorial to the black folks constructed on the capitol grounds. This was accomplished by state law and 2/3 vote is required to overturn.
We have hard and fixed opinions on the board about the flag. Some say the flag represents Southern heritage while others insist that it represents slavery. Although there are few, if any, on here who have felt the impact of the segregated South, but have fixed feelings based on their readings. There has been zero thought of the author and his liberal or conservative bias. We all agree that slavery was wrong even though none of us were personally impacted by slavery. Few were plantation owners who were the large owners of slaves.
Why did the average Johnny Reb fight for the South? How can we look at it at this point in history and say the Rebs, who were not slave owners, were willing to risk it all to fight in a war simply to maintain the rule of slavery? For me, there has to be something else involved in the decision to risk life in the Civil War.
I would suggest a parallel between the non-slave owner of that time with the Iraqi soldier now who laid down his arms and walked away because the outcome had no impact on their life. Johnny Reb had something invested and he never owned slaves nor would ever be an owner of a plantation.
It hasn't been a subject of debate for a few year nor was it resolved a few years ago. It's been the subject of debate ever since it went up in 1961 although the degree to which it's in the news varies over time.
Of all the many things that would be taken to represent Southern heritage isn't it kinda weird that the thing they pick is a flag that Confederates used in battle? Why that instead of oh, say, anything else? As a symbol of Southern heritage why not instead use the South Carolina state flag from BEFORE the Civil War?
Johnny Reb fought because he had "nationalist" pride. Southern leaders , like any political institution, affected public opinion by playing to the emotions of the common man. The political power brokers in the South were wealthy, powerful men who utilized propaganda to garner support for their cause. Anyone who's ever read Shelby Foote appreciates the politics involved in convincing Johnny Reb to fight. Johnny Reb was convinced that he was fighting for the Southern way of life. He was convinced that he was repelling Northern aggression. What he was really fighting for was for the ability of big business to continue to have cheap labor and protect their profit margins.
The "average" Johnny Reb fought because he was mostly uninformed and uneducated and was duped in to thinking that the federal government was coming in to the southern states and would "enslave" them with their industrial ways (getting rid of agricultural livelihood). Although between 1%-3% of the South were wealthy Planters, they controlled every aspect of life in the South, including the opinions of the small farmers. These same small farmers resented the control of the Planter class, but were powerless to do anything about it.
For people to say that "southern pride" was the main reason for many to join the Confederate army and fight aren't exactly wrong, but they are not understanding that the Planter class and their puppets (southern state and national politicians) mislead these everyday, hard-working southerners with their wild accusations and claims. Most of them didn't even know what Lincoln had said about NOT wanting to end slavery, just not wanting it to spread. If these rural farmers had knew that, they would have liked it because the Planter class and their slave system were obstacles for the small farmers and these people would like nothing better than to have the wealthy Planters obstructed from gaining more territory, more wealth.
Whats your take on Shelby Foote? I have been working my way thru his 14 volumes of "The Civil War" narrative.
I think he was a genius. Great writer. The details that he provides and his ability to get inside of the heads of everyone he writes about-from the Northern infantryman to Robert E Lee is amazing and spellbinding. Anyone interested in history should read his Civil War: A Narrative. Or a least watch the PBS series. He was a great storyteller in that series. I had a man-crush on Foote.
It's just one of MANY things that will be taken down.
Flood gates ......... engage.
In full disclosure, I am not a big fan of the Confederate flag. I find it generally hateful and am not heartbroken to see it taken down. However, one day society will get around to the thing(s) I DO care about. That's not where we are headed ...... it's where we're at.
If it was not for all the men and women who bravely stand for something and risk their lives for a principal that once existed, I'm not sure I would care much for the American flag, let alone the Confederate flag. Thousands died for my freedom ..... only one died for my soul.
I think he was a genius. Great writer. The details that he provides and his ability to get inside of the heads of everyone he writes about-from the Northern infantryman to Robert E Lee is amazing and spellbinding. Anyone interested in history should read his Civil War: A Narrative. Or a least watch the PBS series. He was a great storyteller in that series. I had a man-crush on Foote.
Wow another agree. I have done a lot of reading about the Civil War. His "The Civil War"; A Narrative is extremely detailed. It is by far the most comprehensive narrative about the Civil War. His work in the Ken Burns PBS Civil War documentary propelled him into becoming a national treasure.
I think that is my point. You, and your following, keep insisting that it is ALL about slavery. The vast majority of the Johnny Rebs were fighting for a way of life that they liked and their country was invaded by those who chose to change that way of life, their heritage. Slavery was not that important to this group, not important enough to die for.
First of all, I don't know why people keep saying it's all about slavery. Just because slavery gets all the press it doesn't mean that people aren't upset about the South being, you know, traitorous during the Civil War.
Secondly, what do you mean by "their country was invaded?" The USA was one country and then then South declared itself its own country and attack US forces at Fort Sumter to start the war. It's not like the South was just minding their own business and the North invaded to piss them off.
What way of life did the South have that the North was trying to change? The North was trying to prevent the South from seceding and then later to abolish slavery. It's not like the North was coming down and telling people they weren't allowed to drink mint juleps. If my "way of life" is punching you in the face it's reasonable for you to try to change my way of life.
I am not a history buff in any shape, form or fashion. Authors /textbooks I read normally stuck to telling a story of what happened. Thankfully, they did not get into the psychological thinking of the characters. Obviously your books got into the real weeds far enough to psycho analyze what people were thinking. Sorta allows the authors to do a bit of speculation to add color to their comments. What were your sources that you attempt to give a parallel to their thinking? As I said, I have not been that far into the weeds of the Civil War to be able to analyze or predict what the North was thinking. Ditto the South.
I am aware of a previous war where the residents raised arms to declare independence from someone else who thought their thinking and approach reigned supreme. I would think Johnny Reb allowed that to enter into his thought process - speculation, I have no facts how the ordinary man thought over a hundred years ago. Obviously, your authors have no problem to report as fact their speculation.
Could Johnny Reb have felt he was being slapped in the face and he elected to fight as you put it "to make a change". When he got home, they usually found their homes destroyed and the crops likewise. Their familywas scattered all over hell. Most wars, the invaders rape the resident women. Do you think that could have happened as the South's way of life was being changed.
Response is really not called for, I struggle with the way the rabbits scatter in the responses.
