garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5352
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:34 pm

Quoting ALexeu (Reply 45):


United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Japan, Australia and many other countries were racist. Should we change these flags too?

When I see British flag, I think of all the injustices they did to Indians, Irish people, Aboriginals, English people and the Africans. Perhaps British flag should have its future in museums too.

The difference is that none of those nations were founded on the basis of racist thought and those nations have largely sought to make amends for their actions. The Confederate States, from the onset, was founded as a white supremacist government intent on expanding their sphere into Central and South America on the back of human enslavement. Beyond that there's the historical basis of the CSA being a failed rebellion and a nation that went unrecognized by any government.

Quoting ALexeu (Reply 49):
But it represents rebel against centralized gov't more than anything. Paradoxically, the flag now represents liberty and freedom. And it also represents the South, it's people, culture and history. Yes it was racist at one time, but it became a completely different symbol now.

No, it doesn't. When we talk about the second and third national flags of the Confederacy (the Stainless Banner and Blood-Stained Banners, which incorporates the Southern Cross) we read this from its designer, William Thompson, who referred to it as "The White Man's Flag:"

As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause. … Such a flag…would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as the white mans flag. … As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals.

Liberty and freedom? Maybe if you're a slaveowner. And as a Southerner I feel that flag doesn't represent me one whit. And when, precisely, did it become "a completely different symbol?" Dylann Roof must not have gotten that memo when he was waving it around in photos.

[Edited 2015-07-14 11:41:22]
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12292
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:43 pm

Quoting ALexeu (Reply 49):
But it represents rebel against centralized gov't more than anything. Paradoxically, the flag now represents liberty and freedom. And it also represents the South, it's people, culture and history. Yes it was racist at one time, but it became a completely different symbol now.

Freedom to own slaves, yep, makes total sense.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
ALexeu
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:01 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:46 pm

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 50):
The difference is that none of those nations were founded on the basis of racist thought and those nations have largely sought to make amends for their actions.

Taking away the land of indigenous population is not a foundation of racism? Or taking away the people of Africa and using them as slaves in the new lands? I know that the people of Confederation didn't ''buy'' Africans and enslave them. Yes, they were born and bred in racism, and I am glad their ideology failed, but that flag doesn't represent them. It represents struggle against centralism and freedom of thought.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13398
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Tue Jul 14, 2015 8:05 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 42):
I didn't know those carvings so took a look at wikipedia, and not only where they commissioned by the KKK, but they were only finished in 1972, with the help of the state. Not exactly historic in my book.

Historic. Well know or important in history


Not of a great age, for sure but commemorating Historic figures in the most bloody war we have fought. This monument was created to commemorate/ perpetuate racial hatred, instead it has become a monument to the defeat of those ideas. These figures were traitors, and were defeated trying to destroy the US and enslave people. Important to our history, equals historic to me.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5839
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Tue Jul 14, 2015 8:24 pm

To many people, the subject flag is enraging. Like all symbols, it could mean something terribly bad, or not, and the perception of what it means is in large measure up to the person being asked.

Perhaps it is high time that its display at governmental facilities cease - and it appears that the people, and their elected legislators, are speaking clearly on this point.

But it is not for me, or for anyone else, to presume to know what another person thinks it means, or intends by its display, unless that person tells us.

I have known many people for whom the display of that flag was and is not intended as a hostile act towards anyone. You (or I) might think they're unwise to adopt that symbol, for any number of reasons, but that doesn't mean we're correct in so thinking.

We must (all) be very careful about unilaterally deciding what is and is not allowable, what is and is not "hate speech," what is and is not a reasonable form of expression, for the first step down that hill may commit you to slide down the slippery slope to intellectual tyranny.

There are many who challenge the ACLU for what they do (usually, when the civil liberties of those whom the challenging person doesn't like are being protected), but you cannot pick and choose when rights are protected, and this must surely include the rights of free speech and unfettered thought.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5352
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Tue Jul 14, 2015 8:49 pm

Quoting ALexeu (Reply 52):

Taking away the land of indigenous population is not a foundation of racism? Or taking away the people of Africa and using them as slaves in the new lands? I know that the people of Confederation didn't ''buy'' Africans and enslave them. Yes, they were born and bred in racism, and I am glad their ideology failed, but that flag doesn't represent them. It represents struggle against centralism and freedom of thought.

As in racism and white supremacy being the reason those nations were founded. Let's look at the "Cornerstone Speech" by Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens. All emphasis mine

When perfect quiet is restored, I shall proceed. I cannot speak so long as there is any noise or confusion. I shall take my time I feel quite prepared to spend the night with you if necessary. I very much regret that everyone who desires cannot hear what I have to say. Not that I have any display to make, or anything very entertaining to present, but such views as I have to give, I wish all, not only in this city, but in this State, and throughout our Confederate Republic, could hear, who have a desire to hear them.

I was remarking that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood.

This new constitution. or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark: it amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. Some changes have been made. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old.

Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,000,000. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.

Another feature to which I will allude is that the new constitution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives and may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration. I should have preferred that this provision should have gone further, and required the President to select his constitutional advisers from the Senate and House of Representatives. That would have conformed entirely to the practice in the British Parliament, which, in my judgment, is one of the wisest provisions in the British constitution. It is the only feature that saves that government. It is that which gives it stability in its facility to change its administration. Ours, as it is, is a great approximation to the right principle.

Under the old constitution, a secretary of the treasury for instance, had no opportunity, save by his annual reports, of presenting any scheme or plan of finance or other matter. He had no opportunity of explaining, expounding, enforcing, or defending his views of policy; his only resort was through the medium of an organ. In the British parliament, the premier brings in his budget and stands before the nation responsible for its every item. If it is indefensible, he falls before the attacks upon it, as he ought to. This will now be the case to a limited extent under our system. In the new constitution, provision has been made by which our heads of departments can speak for themselves and the administration, in behalf of its entire policy, without resorting to the indirect and highly objectionable medium of a newspaper. It is to be greatly hoped that under our system we shall never have what is known as a government organ.

Another change in the constitution relates to the length of the tenure of the presidential office. In the new constitution it is six years instead of four, and the President rendered ineligible for a re-election. This is certainly a decidedly conservative change. It will remove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition. The only incentive to that higher ambition which should move and actuate one holding such high trusts in his hands, will be the good of the people, the advancement, prosperity, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of the confederacy.

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.
This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. 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. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. 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 architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.

Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that “in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread,” and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.

But to pass on: Some have propounded the inquiry whether it is practicable for us to go on with the confederacy without further accessions? Have we the means and ability to maintain nationality among the powers of the earth? On this point I would barely say, that as anxiously as we all have been, and are, for the border States, with institutions similar to ours, to join us, still we are abundantly able to maintain our position, even if they should ultimately make up their minds not to cast their destiny with us.
That they ultimately will join us be compelled to do it is my confident belief; but we can get on very well without them, even if they should not.

We have all the essential elements of a high national career. The idea has been given out at the North, and even in the border States, that we are too small and too weak to maintain a separate nationality. This is a great mistake. In extent of territory we embrace five hundred and sixty-four thousand square miles and upward. This is upward of two hundred thousand square miles more than was included within the limits of the original thirteen States. It is an area of country more than double the territory of France or the Austrian empire. France, in round numbers, has but two hundred and twelve thousand square miles. Austria, in round numbers, has two hundred and forty-eight thousand square miles. Ours is greater than both combined. It is greater than all France, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain, including England, Ireland, and Scotland, together. In population we have upward of five millions, according to the census of 1860; this includes white and black. The entire population, including white and black, of the original thirteen States, was less than four millions in 1790, and still less in 76, when the independence of our fathers was achieved. If they, with a less population, dared maintain their independence against the greatest power on earth, shall we have any apprehension of maintaining ours now?

In point of material wealth and resources, we are greatly in advance of them. The taxable property of the Confederate States cannot be less than twenty-two hundred millions of dollars! This, I think I venture but little in saying, may be considered as five times more than the colonies possessed at the time they achieved their independence. Georgia, alone, possessed last year, according to the report of our comptroller-general, six hundred and seventy-two millions of taxable property. The debts of the seven confederate States sum up in the aggregate less than eighteen millions, while the existing debts of the other of the late United States sum up in the aggregate the enormous amount of one hundred and seventy-four millions of dollars. This is without taking into account the heavy city debts, corporation debts, and railroad debts, which press, and will continue to press, as a heavy incubus upon the resources of those States. These debts, added to others, make a sum total not much under five hundred millions of dollars. With such an area of territory as we have-with such an amount of population-with a climate and soil unsurpassed by any on the face of the earth-with such resources already at our command-with productions which control the commerce of the world-who can entertain any apprehensions as to our ability to succeed, whether others join us or not?

It is true, I believe I state but the common sentiment, when I declare my earnest desire that the border States should join us. The differences of opinion that existed among us anterior to secession, related more to the policy in securing that result by co-operation than from any difference upon the ultimate security we all looked to in common.

These differences of opinion were more in reference to policy than principle, and as Mr. Jefferson said in his inaugural, in 1801, after the heated contest preceding his election, that there might be differences of opinion without differences on principle, and that all, to some extent, had been Federalists and all Republicans; so it may now be said of us, that whatever differences of opinion as to the best policy in having a co-operation with our border sister slave States, if the worst came to the worst, that as we were all co-operationists, we are now all for independence, whether they come or not.

In this connection I take this occasion to state, that I was not without grave and serious apprehensions, that if the worst came to the worst, and cutting loose from the old government should be the only remedy for our safety and security, it would be attended with much more serious ills than it has been as yet. Thus far we have seen none of those incidents which usually attend revolutions. No such material as such convulsions usually throw up has been seen. Wisdom, prudence, and patriotism, have marked every step of our progress thus far. This augurs well for the future, and it is a matter of sincere gratification to me, that I am enabled to make the declaration. Of the men I met in the Congress at Montgomery, I may be pardoned for saying this, an abler, wiser, a more conservative, deliberate, determined, resolute, and patriotic body of men, I never met in my life. Their works speak for them; the provisional government speaks for them; the constitution of the permanent government will be a lasting monument of their worth, merit, and statesmanship.

But to return to the question of the future. What is to be the result of this revolution?

Will every thing, commenced so well, continue as it has begun? In reply to this anxious inquiry, I can only say it all depends upon ourselves. A young man starting out in life on his majority, with health, talent, and ability, under a favoring Providence, may be said to be the architect of his own fortunes. His destinies are in his own hands. He may make for himself a name, of honor or dishonor, according to his own acts. If he plants himself upon truth, integrity, honor and uprightness, with industry, patience and energy, he cannot fail of success. So it is with us. We are a young republic, just entering upon the arena of nations; we will be the architects of our own fortunes. Our destiny, under Providence, is in our own hands. With wisdom, prudence, and statesmanship on the part of our public men, and intelligence, virtue and patriotism on the part of the people, success, to the full measures of our most sanguine hopes, may be looked for. But if unwise counsels prevail if we become divided if schisms arise if dissentions spring up if factions are engendered if party spirit, nourished by unholy personal ambition shall rear its hydra head, I have no good to prophesy for you. Without intelligence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism on the part of the people, no republic or representative government can be durable or stable.

We have intelligence, and virtue, and patriotism. All that is required is to cultivate and perpetuate these. Intelligence will not do without virtue. France was a nation of philosophers. These philosophers become Jacobins. They lacked that virtue, that devotion to moral principle, and that patriotism which is essential to good government Organized upon principles of perfect justice and right-seeking amity and friendship with all other powers-I see no obstacle in the way of our upward and onward progress. Our growth, by accessions from other States, will depend greatly upon whether we present to the world, as I trust we shall, a better government than that to which neighboring States belong. If we do this, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas cannot hesitate long; neither can Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. They will necessarily gravitate to us by an imperious law. We made ample provision in our constitution for the admission of other States; it is more guarded, and wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the same subject, but not too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper. Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do so, our doors are wide enough to receive them, but not until they are ready to assimilate with us in principle.

The process of disintegration in the old Union may be expected to go on with almost absolute certainty if we pursue the right course. We are now the nucleus of a growing power which, if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and high mission, will become the controlling power on this continent. To what extent accessions will go on in the process of time, or where it will end, the future will determine. So far as it concerns States of the old Union, this process will be upon no such principles of reconstruction as now spoken of, but upon reorganization and new assimilation. Such are some of the glimpses of the future as I catch them.

But at first we must necessarily meet with the inconveniences and difficulties and embarrassments incident to all changes of government. These will be felt in our postal affairs and changes in the channel of trade. These inconveniences, it is to be hoped, will be but temporary, and must be borne with patience and forbearance.

As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been. The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln’s inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would feign hope the former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is, keep your armor bright and your powder dry.

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?


As for your struggling against centralism whitewash, the CSA was a largely centralized government as well. Heck, the preamble to its Constitution sought to create a "permanent Federal government" and was largely a word-for-word reproduction of the United States Constitution. There were some additional rights given to the states and more protections for the institution of slavery but beyond that for a government supposedly founded on "states rights," there wasn't much in the way of states rights being guaranteed. For instance, federal officials who lived and worked in a state could be impeached by a 2/3rds vote in a state's legislature. So, for instance, a federal judge could be impeached by a state's legislature. The CSA Constitution also allowed states to issue bills of credit (a power held by the US Congress), tax ships on domestic routes (prohibited under the US Constitution), and make treaties with each other with regards to waterways.

They did lose a few rights they held under the US Constitution though, including the right to determine if aliens could vote, the ability to restrict the rights of traveling slave owners, and the ability to determine taxes between states.

Hell, one of the ironies of the various Declarations of Secession was that many of them blasted states for exercising what could only be referred to as "states rights" for their refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act (which the CSA Constitution required all states to do).

This myth of opposing some tyrannical centralized government is precisely that - a myth created by Lost Causers postbellum to try to justify the unjustifiable war they fought, supported, financed, and backed to keep men like me on plantations as human beasts of burden. Freedom and liberty? Don't make me laugh. The Army of the Confederacy captured free blacks when they made their incursions into Pennsylvania and Maryland and shipped them back south to be sold into slavery. Great guardians of liberty, those guys.  
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12529
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:45 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 47):
If you were they, would you take down those statues?

If they are on public land, I'd be in favor of removing them.

There's a question of how far we take this, though. The guy who started the Stone Mountain monument, Gutzon Borglum, also carved Mount Rushmore. Do we say, "Mount Rushmore was carved by a possible Confederate / KKK sympathizer! We should remove it!", or do we allow it to remain?
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
D L X
Posts: 12637
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:46 pm



Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 56):

Quoting D L X (Reply 47):
If you were they, would you take down those statues?

If they are on public land, I'd be in favor of removing them.

They were.

SO, glad you're finally in favor of it.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 56):
Do we say, "Mount Rushmore was carved by a possible Confederate / KKK sympathizer! We should remove it!", or do we allow it to remain?

Quite a red herring there. I think you know how to distinguish the two. The opposition to Stone Mountain has nothing to do with the artist that sculpted it.

[Edited 2015-07-14 15:50:39]
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Wed Jul 15, 2015 1:52 am

Quoting einsteinboricua (Thread starter):
So now the debate is not whether the flag should be flown on government buildings but where if at all.

It can be flown anywhere on my property  
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
blueflyer
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Wed Jul 15, 2015 5:29 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 38):
Call it an army motivated by 'hatred' if you like - but, as far as I know, the initial motivation of Southern recruits was much more chronic financial need, rather than any sort of 'hatred.' At first, anyway

The best way to answer this is perhaps to split the issue into a Then and Now.

Then, there were indeed many reasons behind the rise of the Confederacy. Nevertheless, the belief that the negro man was inferior (their words) and the desire to maintain slavery remain the key factors.

Each secessionist state issued a proclamation explaining its multiple motives for rising against the North. The most prominent factor they all mention is the threat against the right to own slaves posed by the overwhelming victory of the Republican party in the 1860 elections. Indeed two states specifically mentioned slavery to be their most important issue. The Cornerstone Speech by the first vice-president of the Confederate States, printed in full above, leaves no doubt as to the ruling class' opinion of the value of black men and women.

As you certainly know, it wouldn't be the first or last time in history that the ruling class convinces the lower class to be the foot soldiers of its battle even though they don't share the same ideals. It is quite possible that some infantry members were not motivated by the official "birth causes" of the Confederacy.

Now the Confederate flag was a relic of history until the early 1960s. It became more and more prominent, mostly but not exclusively in the South, as negotiations were being held over what became the 1964 Civil Rights Act ending official segregation and outlawing discrimination. As you may be aware, early attempts to implement the Act in the South sometimes led to violence, blacks were killed for no other reason than exercising their newly-won rights and the army had to be called in to force school desegregation. The perpetrators of these violence and their supporters were flying the Confederate flag.

More recently, Georgia State University conducted a study in 2004 to try and shed light on the support for the Confederate flag.

First, they tested participants for their knowledge of history of the Confederacy by asking them to mention the name of a key general and any two Civil War battles. The study found that support for the Confederate flag is inversely proportional to knowledge of Southern history. Among participants who couldn't answer any of the questions correctly, support for the flag is at 73%, but it is only at 34% for those who answered all three questions correctly.

Next, they asked participants, all white males, about their attitudes towards blacks, such as whether they'd object to one of their children dating someone of a different race. Support for the Confederate flag is at least 20% higher among participants with negative attitudes towards blacks.

In summary, individuals who support the Confederate flag supposedly for its Southern heritage don't seem to know much about Southern history and are more likely to be racists than individuals who do not support the Confederate flag.

Monkey Cage blog

[Edited 2015-07-14 22:58:34]
All Hail King Donald
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8336
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:49 am

Wherever they want as long as it is on private property, not public land, buildings or anything official. Same as an IS, Rainbow or any other flag. The banning of a symbol is not going to change the feeling in the hearts of some people. The important thing is the actions and violence associated with the symbolism and how to stop these rejects from laying their hands on weapons. Amend the second amendment sure that will make a differece, but ban a flag?? What a passive and ultimately meaningless gesture that makes people feel like they have accomplished something, even though they haven't

Racism should be stamped on, but there are better things to be spending time on than a stupid flag that isn't even important for many people.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14574
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:17 am

The next step in the CSA related flag display on government properties or use will be the Mississippi state flag that has the 'star and bars' in the corner of the flag and in large part based on a flag used by the CSA. Florida uses a red x cross some say is connected to the CSA Battle Flag. Other southern state flags have some elements of the CSA battle and other flags.

Some have brought up the Bas-reliefs of CSA 'heros' at Stone Mt., GA and how it is more a symbol of the mid-20th Century revolt by whites in the south to the ending of state sanctioned racism. Destroying it would just create even more backlash from White people and let us ignore the historical context it was done in. If you tear it down, wouldn't you also have to remove all CSA monuments ? Some cities like New Orleans and Memphis are taking action to remove statutes of CSA and KKK related leaders from public parks, in Memphis, relocating back to a private cemetery from a public park the remains of a founder of one of the top KKK groups. Some have suggested destroying Mt. Rushmore's carvings of the faces/heads of 4 Presidents there as offensive to Native Americans and alleged to have been done on sacred ground to the local tribes.

As to the only display of the CSA flag and it's history relegated to museums and textbooks, that has its own issue with pressure on school textbook writers in Texas to rewrite them to see the Civil War as more about aggression supported by Northern business and factory owners and less about slavery. There is also the deeply ingrained racism throughout our country, including outside the 'south' as to housing locations, jobs, social services, law enforcement and educational opportunity.

This is a beginning of a new battle that may take a generation or more to resolve and put it into history.
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6520
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:05 pm

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 61):
The next step in the CSA related flag display on government properties or use will be the Mississippi state flag that has the 'star and bars' in the corner of the flag and in large part based on a flag used by the CSA

IIRC, the correct term is actually southern cross. Stars and Bars actually refers to the first National Flag of the Confederacy that had a more of a Betsy Ross/Stars and Stripes appearance.



FWIW, here's a site that lists the myths & realities regarding the Confederacy (& its flags).
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
Beardown91737
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:56 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:50 am

Free speech is free speech. I don't want to see Confederate flags, but we are too advanced a civilization to make them illegal, or at least I would like to think that

Quoting D L X (Reply 40):
Are you comparing a religious relic to traitors and the Klan?

Apparently I am. Not that I like either traitors or the KKK.

However, that wasn't the purpose. The suggestion of removing a carving from a mountain has a creepy similarity to what the Taliban did. There are a lot of Americans out there that do want to suppress free speech, but we can't allow that.

If, however, the GA legislature votes to remove that monument from public lands, that is their prerogative as the duly elected representatives of the people of Georgia, who are the owners of the monument. That is, provided they don't get blocked by environmentalist wackos.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40):
This is not a free speech issue.

It absolutely is a free speech issue.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 54):
To many people, the subject flag is enraging. Like all symbols, it could mean something terribly bad, or not, and the perception of what it means is in large measure up to the person being asked.

As a US Citizen who is a middle aged white person, I find the Confederate flag annoying, mostly due to its association with racist whites, or maybe the history and heritage of slavery, which is what I was taught on the North Side of Chicago.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 54):
There are many who challenge the ACLU for what they do (usually, when the civil liberties of those whom the challenging person doesn't like are being protected), but you cannot pick and choose when rights are protected, and this must surely include the rights of free speech and unfettered thought.

That's the beginning, middle, and end of this discussion.
135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13398
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:56 am

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 63):
However, that wasn't the purpose. The suggestion of removing a carving from a mountain has a creepy similarity to what the Taliban did. There are a lot of Americans out there that do want to suppress free speech, but we can't allow that.

If, however, the GA legislature votes to remove that monument from public lands, that is their prerogative as the duly elected representatives of the people of Georgia, who are the owners of the monument. That is, provided they don't get blocked by environmentalist wackos.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40):This is not a free speech issue.
It absolutely is a free speech issue.

  


That sums it up very well, and I agree with your reasoning.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8773
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:07 am

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 62):
Stars and Bars actually refers to the first National Flag of the Confederacy that had a more of a Betsy Ross/Stars and Stripes appearance.

Funny thing is, no one seems to know of this flag because GA's old flag looked too confederate so they changed it from this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Flag_of_the_State_of_Georgia_%281956-2001%29.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_State_of_Georgia_%281956-2001%29.svg.png

to a flag that no one really liked that only lasted for a few years, and then to this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Flag_of_Georgia_%28U.S._state%29.svg/800px-Flag_of_Georgia_%28U.S._state%29.svg.png

The new flag is even more confederate than the old flag IMO!
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:18 am

Wearing the confederate flag or having it on private property is a first amendment issue. On public lands, it's not, and for many, it has the same connotations as the swastika, which is why the confederate flag is a symbol for religious hate groups.

Some sense must be applied though. Trying to remove it from the gravestones of confederate soldiers is just douchy.
What the...?
 
D L X
Posts: 12637
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:38 pm

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 64):
Quoting D L X (Reply 40):This is not a free speech issue.
It absolutely is a free speech issue.

  


That sums it up very well, and I agree with your reasoning.

Then you and Beardown should be able to explain it. Exactly how does a sculpture on public lands constitute a free speech issue. Explain who is the private actor whose speech is being denied by the government.

Hint: it is not. This reasoning is unsound.


So, I'll ask you a THIRD time: should they have taken down the statues of Stalin? Of Saddam? I think you're not answering because you cannot reconcile this.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 66):

Wearing the confederate flag or having it on private property is a first amendment issue. On public lands, it's not,

  
This is true. However, as with all free speech, the Chris Rock Theorem applies: just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 63):
Quoting D L X (Reply 40):
Are you comparing a religious relic to traitors and the Klan?

Apparently I am.

Why?

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 63):
If, however, the GA legislature votes to remove that monument from public lands, that is their prerogative as the duly elected representatives of the people of Georgia, who are the owners of the monument. That is, provided they don't get blocked by environmentalist wackos.

I don't think environmentalists are going to be even a remote problem.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13398
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:37 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 67):
Exactly how does a sculpture on public lands constitute a free speech issue.

My contention is that this was not public land when it was created, thought of whatever. Now it is a teachable moment for the younger generations to come. I have not seen it up close, I do not know the scale of it. I do think it is a symbol of free speech. The sponsors had every right to do this at that time, before state ownership. Now it will be a colossal and expensive undertaking to undo this. It would better serve to show what free speech, freedom of thought means. These men had it. What changed that is the state bought it, or it could stand there for a thousand years as symbol of free speech, free thought. We have those rights, and so did these men who created the monument. It was then, it is now a symbol. It can serve as a monument to free speech, free thought, and private ownership rights. It can with very little expense also teach about race hatred, defeat of the army of the Confederacy, never mind the KKK which were trying to defend and continue Slavery, and to rebel against the United States. They lost, the South lost the rebellion. With a clever educational program this will better serve as an example of right and wrong, or should I say wrong and right.

Quoting D L X (Reply 67):
So, I'll ask you a THIRD time: should they have taken down the statues of Stalin? Of Saddam? I think you're not answering because you cannot reconcile this.



If you asked me, I did not see it.


My answer is that was a choice of the people involved with Stalin and Saddam over there. This is taking place in the US. Is this not a state issue about the Mountain now? They own it. The state legislature will rule on the fate of it, not us. I believe this is a state issue only, not for anyone else to decide. I have to wonder why the State did buy this, it sure did not destroy it.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5352
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:53 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 68):
Is this not a state issue about the Mountain now?

It's been a state issue since 1958. That's when the State of Georgia purchased the mountain. You're making it sound like it's a recent purchase. The bas-relief wasn't even finished (or even mostly completed) when Georgia purchased it, which is why Georgia purchased it - at the behest of its governor to finish the carving. The carving was finally completed in 1972, 14 years after it became state property. Now, gee, I wonder what could have driven the government of Georgia to purchase a place like Stone Mountain with its ties to the Klan and its Confederate memorial in in 1958, a mere 2 years after altering their state flag to include the Southern Cross...
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
D L X
Posts: 12637
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:55 pm

There's a lot to unpack here.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 68):
My contention is that this was not public land when it was created, thought of whatever.

It was not. The vast majority of the work was commissioned by the government on government land using taxpayer money.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 68):
I do think it is a symbol of free speech.

It is not. As you can see, there is no private actor that you can point to whose speech has been quelled by a state actor.



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 68):
The sponsors had every right to do this at that time, before state ownership.

As garnetpalmetto said, the original "sponsors" did not make this. The government did.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 68):
Now it will be a colossal and expensive undertaking to undo this.


Did you really just say "it's too hard?" We bring down old buildings and stadiums all the time. A few sticks of dynamite would do the trick.

Besides, "it's too hard" is about the wussiest, most un-American thing I can think of. When do Americans give up and say "it's too hard?" When they're teenagers.
I mean, seriously, when do Americans pass on the opportunity to blow stuff up?

That reason is just mind-boggling.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 68):
It would better serve to show what free speech, freedom of thought means. These men had it. What changed that is the state bought it, or it could stand there for a thousand years as symbol of free speech, free thought. We have those rights, and so did these men who created the monument. It was then, it is now a symbol. It can serve as a monument to free speech, free thought, and private ownership rights. It can with very little expense also teach about race hatred, defeat of the army of the Confederacy, never mind the KKK which were trying to defend and continue Slavery, and to rebel against the United States. They lost, the South lost the rebellion. With a clever educational program this will better serve as an example of right and wrong, or should I say wrong and right.

Come on dude. This is a truly awful answer. This is how we got from the confederate battle flag being reintroduced in the 1940s as a symbol of Jim Crow and opposition to civil rights, to being explained away as just a symbol of southern pride. All with a "clever educational program." A clever educational program in this case that wholly ignores the sculpture's purpose, and substitutes it for "free speech" where there is no free speech issue.
You claim so frequently that you don't want to remove anything that can even loosely be defined as history, but then you jump feet first into whitewashing history to tell a completely different story.

You've really helped me make up my mind. Blow the damned thing up, and put a picture of what used to be there in the textbooks.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 68):
My answer is that was a choice of the people involved with Stalin and Saddam over there.

I didn't ask whose choice it was, but rather was it RIGHT to knock them down. OF COURSE it was right to knock them down. They were symbols of a brutal regime that no longer existed, much like the confederacy. Other countries do not honor their dishonorable past. Why the United States does is absolutely nonsensical.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13398
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:58 am

It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13398
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Sat Jul 18, 2015 4:08 am

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 69):
Now, gee, I wonder what could have driven the government of Georgia to purchase a place like Stone Mountain with its ties to the Klan and its Confederate memorial in in 1958, a mere 2 years after altering their state flag to include the Southern Cross...
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 68):
I have to wonder why the State did buy this, it sure did not destroy it.

I think I posed that same question about the states motives in the purchase.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13398
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Sat Jul 18, 2015 4:24 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 67):
So, I'll ask you a THIRD time: should they have taken down the statues of Stalin? Of Saddam? I think you're not answering because you cannot reconcile this.

I will answer you a second time, it was up to the people over there. You asked, "Should they have taken the statues down?" That was a decision that was not mine to make. I was not there, they were. You should have asked if it was (right) as in morally correct to take the statue down because they were madmen. A poor choice of words in the first place on your part.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
D L X
Posts: 12637
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:34 pm

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 73):
I will answer you a second time, it was up to the people over there. You asked, "Should they have taken the statues down?" That was a decision that was not mine to make. I was not there, they were. You should have asked if it was (right) as in morally correct to take the statue down because they were madmen. A poor choice of words in the first place on your part.

What the heck do you think I was asking you? Fine! Answer it that way. You still haven't.

Your cop outs are tiresome.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 71):
http://www.providencejournal.com/art...e/20150717/OPINION/150719392/13831

I do believe the man has a point.

This one is a much better point. You should understand how the new-confederate brought all these confederate symbols into modern existence and how most of them are klan related.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ekend-in-south-carolina-heres-why/
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13398
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Sun Jul 19, 2015 2:48 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 74):
This one is a much better point. You should understand how the new-confederate brought all these confederate symbols into modern existence and how most of them are klan related.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ekend-in-south-carolina-heres-why/

So the KKK still has dreams of white supremacy, who cares? They are a pathetic hate group, one of many. They will never night ride again as they did in the past.. There will always be haters, racial, religious hatred exists, everywhere in this world. Your advocacy for destroying a symbol of our regretful past changes nothing unfortunately. It is in the books, the symbol is in the books, it will be there forever. Unless of course we have book burnings.   
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:29 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 67):
However, as with all free speech, the Chris Rock Theorem applies: just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Indeed, but I will always defer to the right to free speech for individuals, no matter how onerous the things they say.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 68):
My contention is that this was not public land when it was created, thought of whatever.

Times change and so do sensibilities. Just as slavery was accepted a few hundred years ago, its brutality and inhumanity finally got it abolished. Symbols of the governments who not only accepted that inhumanity and brutality but perpetuated it, have no place in a society which finds slavery and the symbols of its acceptance, abhorrent.

That flag celebrates slavery, among other things, and has no place on public lands or any place publicly funded. Like the swaztika, the repugnance of it needs to be remembered as a lesson for future generations, but that is for school books and documentaries, not as an association to democratic government and rights.

I will support your right to wear a confederate flag or fly one from the roof of your house, but I am 100% behind those who refuse to have their tax funds go to maintain the public display of a symbol of hate.

Surely the south has symbols of pride which can be used for celebration and display.
What the...?
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:39 am

I think it belongs up a Blank Panthers rear. Likewise, the Black Panthers flag belongs up a white supremists rear.

Anyone see these yahoo's ? Good grief.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-outside-capitol-statehouse.html
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
D L X
Posts: 12637
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:44 am

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 77):
I think it belongs up a Blank Panthers rear. Likewise, the Black Panthers flag belongs up a white supremists rear.

Anyone see these yahoo's ? Good grief.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-outside-capitol-statehouse.html

Just so we're all clear here, we're to understand that you're siding with the KKK?

Because you know, 1) the black panther flag (whatever that is) doesn't fly over any government buildings or property, and 2) the black panthers would not be involved in any way at all if not for the KKK marching in SC.

Also, what does "with ties to" the Black Panthers mean? Does it mean that they're part of the same organization? Or does it mean that a few of them know a few of those?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26542
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:23 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
In a museum or a textbook.

Hell, maybe some of the people that fly it will then actually learn about it.

Exactly.

Quoting D L X (Reply 78):
Just so we're all clear here, we're to understand that you're siding with the KKK?

Sounds like it.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:44 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 78):


Just so we're all clear here, we're to understand that you're siding with the KKK?

Because you know, 1) the black panther flag (whatever that is) doesn't fly over any government buildings or property, and 2) the black panthers would not be involved in any way at all if not for the KKK marching in SC.

Also, what does "with ties to" the Black Panthers mean? Does it mean that they're part of the same organization? Or does it mean that a few of them know a few of those?


What bizzare conclusion are you drawing here and where did I say ties to anything? Don't put words in my mouth or try and claim I'm supporting either of these groups. They are equally disturbing. Perhaps you didn't bother to read the article and watch the insanity in the videos with two groups shouting racist slurs at eachother? Just decided you'd make some bizzare conclusion? Trying to develop a narrative? Let me make it more clear. Neither flag belongs anywhere. There. Broke it down for you because apparently calling them yahoo's an saying good grief was insufficient.

Further the Black Panthers didn't need to be there. Let idiots be idiots on their own.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 79):


Sounds like it.


Making things up as you guys go along here? Your conclusion from my post should that I don't like either of the "yahoos". Or did you miss that? Nevermind. The answer is glaringly obvious. See above.

[Edited 2015-07-20 07:17:44]
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
D L X
Posts: 12637
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Mon Jul 20, 2015 5:40 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
They are equally disturbing.

They really aren't.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
Perhaps you didn't bother to read the article and watch the insanity in the videos with two groups shouting racist slurs at eachother?

I did read the article. That's where I found the "with ties to" part that you have rejected. Did YOU read the article?
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:39 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 81):

Racism is racism. It's unfortunate you think some forms should get some sort of pass.

And yeah, I did read the article. I also took the time to read up not just on this article but others as well as review the plethora of material from that day streaming all over the net. The entire situation is disturbing and uncalled for, from both sides.
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
D L X
Posts: 12637
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:49 pm

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 82):
Racism is racism.

YEah... one group went around lynching and terrorizing, while the other group wasn't even present at the event.

But yeah, it's all the same.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 82):

And yeah, I did read the article.

Then why didn't you know what I was talking about when I mentioned something from it?
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:03 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 83):


I'm not playing your game. Got it? Have a nice evening.



[Edited 2015-07-20 17:06:24]
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12570
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:53 pm

Looks pretty good on the beach

http://www.bikini-beach.com/Bikini_Joes_rebel_confederate_flag_bikini_model-l.jpg
 
PhilBy
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:44 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:16 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 83):
YEah... one group went around lynching and terrorizing, while the other group wasn't even present at the event.

Previous history gives no allowance for current racism. "Blacks" can be just as racist as "Whites" and neither is acceptable.

Back on topic...

I have a colleague who claims that he is not a Yank but a Confederate. He does not support slavery, is not racist, but believes that the southern states should have a southern government separate from those yankees up north. It seems that there is a cultural and geographic disconnect between north and south USA.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Topic Author
Posts: 7865
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:54 pm

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 86):
but believes that the southern states should have a southern government separate from those yankees up north.

Very simple. Just follow Bugs Bunny's lead

"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
luckyone
Posts: 2917
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:36 pm

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 86):
I have a colleague who claims that he is not a Yank but a Confederate. He does not support slavery, is not racist, but believes that the southern states should have a southern government separate from those yankees up north. It seems that there is a cultural and geographic disconnect between north and south USA.

Which, as a Southerner, is a sign of many in the South trying to tell themselves that their history is OK and in some cases conveniently rewrite it, and being disinclined to view it rationally.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5839
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:59 am

Quoting luckyone (Reply 88):
Which, as a Southerner, is a sign of many in the South trying to tell themselves that their history is OK and in some cases conveniently rewrite it, and being disinclined to view it rationally.

...just as do the Yankees, in their own way.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
luckyone
Posts: 2917
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:54 pm

Quoting sccutler (Reply 89):
...just as do the Yankees, in their own way.

Which has what to do with the issue of the Confederate Battle Flag? Not much.
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:20 am

Quoting einsteinboricua (Thread starter):
Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Tatooed on your shoulder, I guess...
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12570
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:33 am

 
sccutler
Posts: 5839
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: Confederate Battle Flag: Where Is It OK?

Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:15 pm

Quoting luckyone (Reply 88):
Which, as a Southerner, is a sign of many in the South trying to tell themselves that their history is OK and in some cases conveniently rewrite it, and being disinclined to view it rationally.

...just as do the Yankees, in their own way.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 90):

Quoting sccutler (Reply 89):
...just as do the Yankees, in their own way.

Which has what to do with the issue of the Confederate Battle Flag? Not much.

Practically nothing!
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1337Delta764, Bing [Bot], kd9gy, prebennorholm, TheF15Ace and 31 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos