ADVERTISEMENT

Confederate Flags and all that jazz

kescwi

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 16, 2005
6,593
3,549
113
Mt. Pleasant SC
So what does the board think, is a flag, a fleur de lis or a statue, road, monument... named Lee a stain on America? Should all be done away with?

Keep it up and at some point you will need to get rid of the Stars and Stripes and that is not hyperbole, is there really much moral difference between slavery and what is considered genocide vis the American Indian? As I told my wife tonight, if that ever happens, changing the American flag, we will experience a dark period similar to Germany when theirs was changed.

History is always there, always lurking behind us, getting rid of a flag does nothing but try and run away from it, and to me, it insults AA just as much because like it or not its their history as well, and they have beaten it. Now its just become about alienating one side from the other. .
 
  • Like
Reactions: beardownboiler
Pretty much agree. I remember taking a brief hiatus from the military in the 90's, was back at school taking a Cultural Anthropology class, and one of the lectures was about groups going around attempting to deny or call into question the holocaust. Pretending something did not happen, take place, or the removal from reminders of it serves no purpose IMO.

As for the flag itself, I know/knew plenty of AA that had no issues with it. It seems many southerners liked the flag because it showed where they were from, and represented their heritage/home. Many of them liked it because the saw it as their middle finger response to many northeners(especially the NE), that view the south pretty negatively in terms of intelligence and lack of culture etc.

As for my personal view on it, it can be summed up by that meme going around social media. Picture of the General Lee flag, marked worth words that say "Congratulations, the media told you to suddenly care about this flag, you did."

I tend to find today's culture of if a group finds something offensive, it needs to be removed quite strange. One, toughen up just a tad. Two, at the end of the day, we will have nothing left if one removes everything that a group finds offensive.

"Keep it up and at some point you will need to get rid of the Stars and Stripes and that is not hyperbole, is there really much moral difference between slavery and what is considered genocide vis the American Indian? As I told my wife tonight, if that ever happens, changing the American flag, we will experience a dark period similar to Germany when theirs was changed."

I think this part of your post is interesting. This equates the General Lee with slavery. I am not sure this is entirely correct. Sure I have had classes and read books that believed the Civil War was about slavery. Also have had lectures(from African Americans nonetheless) that stated the Civil War really had nothing much to do with slavery.
 
So what does the board think, is a flag, a fleur de lis or a statue, road, monument... named Lee a stain on America? Should all be done away with?

Keep it up and at some point you will need to get rid of the Stars and Stripes and that is not hyperbole, is there really much moral difference between slavery and what is considered genocide vis the American Indian? As I told my wife tonight, if that ever happens, changing the American flag, we will experience a dark period similar to Germany when theirs was changed.

History is always there, always lurking behind us, getting rid of a flag does nothing but try and run away from it, and to me, it insults AA just as much because like it or not its their history as well, and they have beaten it. Now its just become about alienating one side from the other. .

I find the flag rather disgusting, but it also serves as a divisional symbol on public grounds, and should be removed. We have so much that divides us as a nation & civilization, and while this is low-hanging fruit, it's time to move on. History is a big place, and some symbols should be left behind.
 
The flag had no place on statehouse grounds. I would rather states like Mississippi and Georgia retain the symbol in their state flags than see it fly on public property. Have it in museums next to the original 13 colony flags, the Jack, the 48-star flags, etc., where it belongs. It's history. Let it be history.

It would be similarly inappropriate to fly the Nazi flag on German public lands, but equally inappropriate to ignore that period in history entirely.

(By law, that ends the thread, right?)
 
I find the flag rather disgusting, but it also serves as a divisional symbol on public grounds, and should be removed. We have so much that divides us as a nation & civilization, and while this is low-hanging fruit, it's time to move on. History is a big place, and some symbols should be left behind.

There is no doubt disgusting groups and people have used that flag as a symbol but on May 10th when I see that flag next to grave stones they are not there to honor former klansmen but veterans who fought for the south and are put there by family members.

History isn't that far away, interestingly, the WWII generation that is quickly disappearing, those born and raised in the south, would have more than likely had contact with veterans of the civil war, widows... in their childhood. May have even had relatives they knew well, there may be some still alive today but I do think their departure has created a distance from that time that has allowed this, taking down the flag, to be a less controversial issue than it was 20 years ago.

Again I don't argue it has been used by some extremely vulgar people, but I don't think it was the flag that made them vulgar.
 
The flag had no place on statehouse grounds. I would rather states like Mississippi and Georgia retain the symbol in their state flags than see it fly on public property. Have it in museums next to the original 13 colony flags, the Jack, the 48-star flags, etc., where it belongs. It's history. Let it be history.

It would be similarly inappropriate to fly the Nazi flag on German public lands, but equally inappropriate to ignore that period in history entirely.

(By law, that ends the thread, right?)

I don't see the Swastika as the same, but if you haven't seen it "Unknown Soldier" is a pretty interesting look at how some Germans reacted to an exhibit questioning the Wehrmachts role in the holocaust and I do see a similarity in the "family" histories that can develop.

As far as leaving it in a museum, as I understand it a week or so ago all confederate flags were removed at Ft. Sumter and I would consider that a museum.
 
Last I heard/read they were removed and the people that mange or run Ft Sumter were deciding what to do with them. Pretty much agree with the premise in this thread, no need to fly them on public/govt grounds but I find it ridiculous that they are not part of or displayed in the museum.
 
Were they removed or simply taken down? I don't see a need to fly them on public grounds.

I used removed because while they were flying they were also a display. However Sumter gets to my point of where do you stop. Who paid to build Sumter and why was it there, along with Moultrie and the other forts? The USA, north and south paid for them and they were to protect Charleston harbor and a big part of what they were protecting was trade and commerce and the vast majority of those goods being exported, cotton, indigo, rice... were produced by slave labor. Should any US flags prior to 1861, be taken down as well?
 
So what does the board think, is a flag, a fleur de lis or a statue, road, monument... named Lee a stain on America? Should all be done away with?

Keep it up and at some point you will need to get rid of the Stars and Stripes and that is not hyperbole, is there really much moral difference between slavery and what is considered genocide vis the American Indian? As I told my wife tonight, if that ever happens, changing the American flag, we will experience a dark period similar to Germany when theirs was changed.

History is always there, always lurking behind us, getting rid of a flag does nothing but try and run away from it, and to me, it insults AA just as much because like it or not its their history as well, and they have beaten it. Now its just become about alienating one side from the other. .

First off, i think we should allow the most relevant confederate battle flag, and the last one flown to be flown wherever folks want it on public property:

white_flag.jpg


Second, no it's not insulting to AA's that we stop flying on public governmental grounds the flag flown in battle by folks who were, whether intentionally or not, fighting for the right to enslave us.

It's been 150 years since the South lost that war...there are literally dozens of other ways one can celebrate Southern heritage and tradition without flying that flag on governmental grounds.

Third, the Confederate Army is long gone...so flying the flag from governmental grounds of 150 year old defeated, defunct treasonous army serves what purpose exactly?
Who else does that? We arent the only nation to have had a civil war in the history of mankind. Who else continues to fly the battle flag of a defeated civil war army 150 years later on government grounds?
 
Has anyone ever researched the stance of the north regarding slavea during the civil war? The north or union had 5 states with legal slavery during the civil war. The emancipation proclamation, which was shot down during the first iteration, was more of a military strategy than abolitionist movement, since lincoln wasnt a true abolitionist. Lincoln didnt believe that blacks deserved the same rights as the whites, and thought sending freed slaves to colonies would solve many problems.

Oh, and the confederate flag wasnt the flag of the south, it was simply the battle flag of a few specific regiments, such as northern virginia.

One could also write that the civil war was also the last time states had true rights before the feds completely gained control, but that's another topic.

What does that all matter, the victors write the history books.

There is also a movent to get rid of the stats and bars already, led by some very extreme and offensive black activists.
 
First off, i think we should allow the most relevant confederate battle flag, and the last one flown to be flown wherever folks want it on public property:

white_flag.jpg


Second, no it's not insulting to AA's that we stop flying on public governmental grounds the flag flown in battle by folks who were, whether intentionally or not, fighting for the right to enslave us.

It's been 150 years since the South lost that war...there are literally dozens of other ways one can celebrate Southern heritage and tradition without flying that flag on governmental grounds.

Third, the Confederate Army is long gone...so flying the flag from governmental grounds of 150 year old defeated, defunct treasonous army serves what purpose exactly?
Who else does that? We arent the only nation to have had a civil war in the history of mankind. Who else continues to fly the battle flag of a defeated civil war army 150 years later on government grounds?

That South Carolinias wanted it removed is fine and I don't have a problem with its removal, my issue is where does it stop because taking down the flag at the capital hasn't stopped this. Will it end when every monument is leveled, every school, street... named after a CSA general renamed...

Where does it end? That's my question. And let's say everything CSA is removed what good does it do?

One of my favorite places when I lived on Sullivan's Island was standing at the waters edge looking over the harbor with Moultrie behind me, Sumter, James Island and Charleston in front of me. History, good and bad sprawling before me, but what is missing there is a key piece and that is some sort of monument to the dark past of that Island which is where almost half of all AA have an ancestor enter. I imagine it's federal land and one could easily be erected but I guess that would be troubling for some so rather than rock the boat there is not so much as a plaque.

Ignoring it, keeping it out of sight because it's uncomfortable is a shame IMHO because seeing monuments, symbols of the good and the bad doesn't create a longing to return to those times but rather can and should serve as a reminder that we humans have at times a terrible attraction to evil.
 
Well, history is written by the victors. I haven't seen old American flags flying many places, certainly not statehouse grounds. I see no utility in celebrating - as was said - a treasonous army.
 
Sure I have had classes and read books that believed the Civil War was about slavery. Also have had lectures(from African Americans nonetheless) that stated the Civil War really had nothing much to do with slavery.

What I was taught in high school, what I was taught in college, and what I've come to believe through my own reading and thinking are three different things.

In high school, it seemed like the greater emphasis was on slavery as the precipitating cause of the Civil War.
In college, the conversation was only about states' rights.

Over time, though, I have come to believe that the truth - as with most things - is somewhere in the middle. The South split because of states' rights issues and the war began, at least, over that issue. Yet by the end of the war, slavery was absolutely a big part of why both sides were fighting. By that time, Lincoln had emancipated the slaves, which put the slavery issue front and center.
 
Last I heard/read they were removed and the people that mange or run Ft Sumter were deciding what to do with them. Pretty much agree with the premise in this thread, no need to fly them on public/govt grounds but I find it ridiculous that they are not part of or displayed in the museum.

I agree. I have a friend whose comment about the whole fiasco was simply, "The flag belongs in a museum, not above the statehouse."

I asked my Dad, who lives in Charleston, about the issue. He brought up an angle that I had not considered before. For many in the South, the flag is more than a symbol of the CSA - it is a memorial to the thousands of their citizens who died in the war. I still don't know if that changes my mind, but it's interesting.
 
What I was taught in high school, what I was taught in college, and what I've come to believe through my own reading and thinking are three different things.

In high school, it seemed like the greater emphasis was on slavery as the precipitating cause of the Civil War.
In college, the conversation was only about states' rights.

Over time, though, I have come to believe that the truth - as with most things - is somewhere in the middle. The South split because of states' rights issues and the war began, at least, over that issue. Yet by the end of the war, slavery was absolutely a big part of why both sides were fighting. By that time, Lincoln had emancipated the slaves, which put the slavery issue front and center.

Read the declaration of the cause of secession by four of the states, or the address given by one of the leaders of the confederacy at separation. It was absolutely about slavery, the declarations make that absolutely clear...the fear that Lincoln would take away slavery in the South.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
(South Carolina)

This one talks about property rights, but it's pretty clearly the property right to hold slaves.

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html
(Texas)

"The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States."

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
(Georgia)

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation."

There are more, but these are a sampling. The North fought the war not to initially stop slavery, but to keep the union together. The South seceded to protect slavery.
 
Has anyone ever researched the stance of the north regarding slavea during the civil war? The north or union had 5 states with legal slavery during the civil war. The emancipation proclamation, which was shot down during the first iteration, was more of a military strategy than abolitionist movement, since lincoln wasnt a true abolitionist. Lincoln didnt believe that blacks deserved the same rights as the whites, and thought sending freed slaves to colonies would solve many problems.

Oh, and the confederate flag wasnt the flag of the south, it was simply the battle flag of a few specific regiments, such as northern virginia.

One could also write that the civil war was also the last time states had true rights before the feds completely gained control, but that's another topic.

What does that all matter, the victors write the history books.

There is also a movent to get rid of the stats and bars already, led by some very extreme and offensive black activists.

You are mixing the motivation of the North with the South. No the North was not initially hotfire to kill slavery, they only wanted to contain it. Didn't matter because the South absolutely believed the North wanted to get rid of slavery, and that is why they seceded, not because of "state's rights" unless it was the "state right to own slaves" in which case, yeah sure it was about state's rights.
If there were another issue besides slavery, one would think it would have been mentioned in one of the many speeches or the declarations for the causes of secession.
 
So what does the board think, is a flag, a fleur de lis or a statue, road, monument... named Lee a stain on America? Should all be done away with?

Keep it up and at some point you will need to get rid of the Stars and Stripes and that is not hyperbole, is there really much moral difference between slavery and what is considered genocide vis the American Indian? As I told my wife tonight, if that ever happens, changing the American flag, we will experience a dark period similar to Germany when theirs was changed.

History is always there, always lurking behind us, getting rid of a flag does nothing but try and run away from it, and to me, it insults AA just as much because like it or not its their history as well, and they have beaten it. Now its just become about alienating one side from the other. .

My opinion on the flag itself stems from the time that it re-emerged onto the scene, which happened during the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's. The flag had been down for nearly 100 years at that point and suddenly it comes back during during the move for equal rights? I think that in itself is more of a statement that it represents the South's heritage of racial inequality more so than it does in honoring the fallen soldiers of the Civil War.

One of the more interesting or notable quotes that came from taking the flag down last week came from a woman who felt that she had been slapped in the face when the crowd started chanting, "USA! USA! USA!" What does that say about this whole event, and the mindset of those who didn't want to see it come down?

As for me, I had no problem with it coming down from the capitol grounds. It was long past due IMO. As someone once said, you're either with us, or against us.
 
Didn't matter because the South absolutely believed the North wanted to get rid of slavery, and that is why they seceded, not because of "state's rights" unless it was the "state right to own slaves" in which case, yeah sure it was about state's rights.

I think you nailed it: sure, it was about "state's rights"... state's rights to own slaves. Slavery was critical to the economy of the south, not to the economy of the north. The northern slaveowners largely used them as hands. Southern slave owners needed them to make their plantations viable. It was basic capitalism. Free labor is better than paid labor.

I think we've strayed towards teach "state's rights" because that's a more pleasant discussion, but I agree that the desire to continue to own slaves was the primary reason for the secession, not the ideological desire to decouple from a centralized government, though the latter probably had a little bit to do with it. Economics, not ideals, IMO.
 
I agree. I have a friend whose comment about the whole fiasco was simply, "The flag belongs in a museum, not above the statehouse."

I asked my Dad, who lives in Charleston, about the issue. He brought up an angle that I had not considered before. For many in the South, the flag is more than a symbol of the CSA - it is a memorial to the thousands of their citizens who died in the war. I still don't know if that changes my mind, but it's interesting.

I agree with your father, you don't have to live down here long, particularly if you get the trust of and interact with the older locals, to see it. It's a complex issue, not one simply about slavery and the civil war it also includes reconstruction and the later part of the 19th century, but the biggest issue is family.

This state was punished and kept poor post war, multiple generations lived in those big homes south of broad, and smaller ones all over the sate and the south because they couldn't afford anything else. Inside those homes and others all over SC and the south, stories of an idyllic past, glory on the battlefield... a revisionist history of the horror of slavery was being transmitted to younger generations, with the last of those passing on in great numbers over the past 20 years.

I don't have a problem with the flag coming down at the state house, the timing was right and the old south is now truly dying away, my concern is the calls for other "symbols" to be done away with and where it ends.
 
You are mixing the motivation of the North with the South. No the North was not initially hotfire to kill slavery, they only wanted to contain it. Didn't matter because the South absolutely believed the North wanted to get rid of slavery, and that is why they seceded, not because of "state's rights" unless it was the "state right to own slaves" in which case, yeah sure it was about state's rights.
If there were another issue besides slavery, one would think it would have been mentioned in one of the many speeches or the declarations for the causes of secession.

Yes, for the south it was about slavery and nothing else. I'll also add the softened up history that the fight over slavery in western states was about keeping some sort of voting balance is a crock as well, it was about the south wishing to create new markets for selling other humans IMHO.
 
My opinion on the flag itself stems from the time that it re-emerged onto the scene, which happened during the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's. The flag had been down for nearly 100 years at that point and suddenly it comes back during during the move for equal rights? I think that in itself is more of a statement that it represents the South's heritage of racial inequality more so than it does in honoring the fallen soldiers of the Civil War.

One of the more interesting or notable quotes that came from taking the flag down last week came from a woman who felt that she had been slapped in the face when the crowd started chanting, "USA! USA! USA!" What does that say about this whole event, and the mindset of those who didn't want to see it come down?

As for me, I had no problem with it coming down from the capitol grounds. It was long past due IMO. As someone once said, you're either with us, or against us.

It was 100 that the flag had been down and that was why it went back up, to commemorate the centennial. I agree though it was sized on as showing southern racism, and it probably was a middle finger to the civil rights movement by Strom, but that doesn't mean everyone saw the flag the same way.
 
Many people fought for the south that were against slavery but did not want to see a federal government impose its will on their lives. That said, a majority of states were fighting to keep slavery, simple as that.

Either way, most of these states weren't fighting under the confederate flag. The actual flag of the confederacy looked more like the stars and bars we are used to, with fewer stars and bars.
 
Lost in all of this is that Charleston, and along with the flag at the statehouse the one at The Citadel was protected as well and has also come down, in the span of 3/4 months had the Walter Scott shooting and AME massacre yet there has been no racial unrest, no mass angry protests or riots, just a coming together of a community.

So as backwards as the rest of the country views this area over a flag maybe it should take the time to ask how Charleston with its dark, troubling and ugly history has been able to hand so well these past few months.
 
So as backwards as the rest of the country views this area over a flag maybe it should take the time to ask how Charleston with its dark, troubling and ugly history has been able to hand so well these past few months.

The way those folks handled the AME massacre was in spite of their feelings on the flag. I would bet most of them were in favor of it coming down, even though they prayed for the killer and their loved ones.
 
The way those folks handled the AME massacre was in spite of their feelings on the flag. I would bet most of them were in favor of it coming down, even though they prayed for the killer and their loved ones.

I disagree, that flag doesn't mean to them, nor do the other symbols, what most think it means, it was about family not bigotry for the majority and as I've said, now that the last connections to that time have moved on, SC said it was time to move on from that controversy. The reaction to AME was genuine, as was Walter Scott. Race is an issue here like it is everywhere, and more complex in my experience than most places, but these people get a bad rap have handled themselves admirably these past few months.
 
I think there is too much discussion surrounding a bunch of a racist losers.

The traitors lost.

People aren't property - the cornerstone of the South.

I don't care that your great-grandpappy was a soldier.

He is a racist loser.

Playing the slippery slope card is silly. Defending white supremacy is worse - the only meaning of the flag.

For the Lost Causers...here is the Cornerstone Speech which solidified the flag with GMM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech#The_.27Cornerstone.27
 
Last edited:
I think there is too much discussion surrounding a bunch of a racist losers.

The traitors lost.

People aren't property - the cornerstone of the South.

I don't care that your great-grandpappy was a soldier.

He is a racist loser.

Playing the slippery slope card is silly. Defending white supremacy is worse - the only meaning of the flag.

For the Lost Causers...here is the Cornerstone Speech which solidified the flag with GMM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech#The_.27Cornerstone.27


Again, there were a lot of people that fought for the south that were against slavery, it's not as black and white as you make it.

Also, the flag in question never represented the confederate states, the modified stars and bars did.
 
Again, there were a lot of people that fought for the south that were against slavery, it's not as black and white as you make it.

Also, the flag in question never represented the confederate states, the modified stars and bars did.

1. What difference does it make what a 19th century foot soldier is or isn't for? They just go where they are told, and they buy into whatever propaganda gets them to put on a gray uniform (or a blue one for that matter). The people in charge are who matter, and for them it was very much literally a black and white matter.

2. What is your point about the stars and bars, other than that folks in the South today don't even know their own history and are clustered around the wrong flag?
 
Well, different meanings for the flag for different people, different people see different reasons for cause of the war, have their own opinion, etc.. Anyway, interestingly enough, soldiers from the confederacy are considered Veterans.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/0...ers-are-american-veterans-by-act-of-congress/

Different people have different beliefs about whether we landed on the moon, or a whole host of issues. There's zero evidence of any reason for the Civil War other than slavery, just like there's zero evidence we didn't land on the moon...and conversely there's ton of evidence for both slavery and landing on the moon.
 
Different people have different beliefs about whether we landed on the moon, or a whole host of issues. There's zero evidence of any reason for the Civil War other than slavery, just like there's zero evidence we didn't land on the moon...and conversely there's ton of evidence for both slavery and landing on the moon.


Here, do some reading.

http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

There was much, much more to the civil war than slavery. And like it states in this article, Lincoln had never intended to end slavery until he needed the financial backing of the abolitionists to continue the war effort.
 
Here, do some reading.

http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

There was much, much more to the civil war than slavery. And like it states in this article, Lincoln had never intended to end slavery until he needed the financial backing of the abolitionists to continue the war effort.

Got any reading that isn't crap?

I've given you historical sources...the actual documents from the actual states that seceded.
You've given a web page from "Marotta Wealth Management."


Here again, here's all five in one place:
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

The word tariff literally does not show up one time in any of them.

How about from Yale? I mean it's no Marotta Wealth Management, I'll give you that.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

As for the idea that the Civil War was about tariffs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...e-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html

"High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816."

And please for the last time stop talking about Lincoln. Why the North fought the war has NOTHING to do with why the South seceded. Lincoln could have fought the war because a vampire told him to do so, it would still have nothing to do with the reasons why the South seceded.
 
Again, there were a lot of people that fought for the south that were against slavery, it's not as black and white as you make it.

Also, the flag in question never represented the confederate states, the modified stars and bars did.

Confederate flag is the generic word used to describe all of them. The Citidel flag is a confederate naval jack and I was wrong, it has not come down, their board of visitors voted for it to be removed but it is protected by the heritage act and it does not appear Columbia will address it, so apparently it is still in the chapel.

It would get confusing to state each time or make a distinction as to what flag is being discussed, and is the battle flag worse than the naval jack, are both worse than the the stars and bars?
 
Here, do some reading.

http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

There was much, much more to the civil war than slavery. And like it states in this article, Lincoln had never intended to end slavery until he needed the financial backing of the abolitionists to continue the war effort.

Your point that the north didn't go to war over slavery I agree with and that there were slave states in the Union shows that better than anything but for the south all arguments, states rights, legislative power, economic... come back to one thing, slavery. They wanted states rights to protect slavery, they needed power in DC to protect slavery and their economy was dominated by slavery.

However, it's revisionist history to make the north out as entering the war to free African Americans.
 
I think there is too much discussion surrounding a bunch of a racist losers.

The traitors lost.

People aren't property - the cornerstone of the South.

I don't care that your great-grandpappy was a soldier.

He is a racist loser.

Playing the slippery slope card is silly. Defending white supremacy is worse - the only meaning of the flag.

For the Lost Causers...here is the Cornerstone Speech which solidified the flag with GMM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech#The_.27Cornerstone.27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech#The_.27Cornerstone.27

This has absolutely nothing to do with Lost Cause. My question is, how does far this go?

Slippery slope? Check out Stone Mountain, Yale petition to rename Calhoun College, schools named Lee, monuments everywhere...and I recently read where the Democratic Party in Connecticut is considering removing the names of Jefferson and Jackson from a dinner they hold.

So where does it end and if you get rid of all images and symbols of the CSA then what?
 
This has absolutely nothing to do with Lost Cause. My question is, how does far this go?

Slippery slope? Check out Stone Mountain, Yale petition to rename Calhoun College, schools named Lee, monuments everywhere...and I recently read where the Democratic Party in Connecticut is considering removing the names of Jefferson and Jackson from a dinner they hold.

So where does it end and if you get rid of all images and symbols of the CSA then what?
Maybe half of Mt Rushmore might have to be torn down, both Washington and Jefferson were slave owners!
 
Maybe half of Mt Rushmore might have to be torn down, both Washington and Jefferson were slave owners!

Yep, where do you stop? Anyone who owned slaves? Was a racist?

The Stars and Stripes, minus a few stars, flew over slavery and laws of the USA protected slavery far longer than any confederate flag or government.

Ultimately what good does it all do, what purpose does it serve other than to further drive wedges between people?
 
Yep, where do you stop? Anyone who owned slaves? Was a racist?

The Stars and Stripes, minus a few stars, flew over slavery and laws of the USA protected slavery far longer than any confederate flag or government.

Ultimately what good does it all do, what purpose does it serve other than to further drive wedges between people?

1. I'm a little confused how flying the confederate flag on government property, or naming say a public school after the founder of the Klan (two separate high schools named after Nathan Forrest) or similar things are not driving wedges between people, but asking them to be removed is.

2. I'm a little confused how you get from these type of things to anyone who was a racist. It's not remotely difficult to draw a line at "don't name schools after the guy who started the Klan, or confederate generals" or don't name a national park after those folks or don't honor a treasonous secessionist army that fought in a war about slavery (on the wrong side). That line in no way has to include "everyone who ever owned slaves" or was "a racist."
 
More troubling than the continued use of the slippery slope fallacy in this thread is the argument that somehow the confederate flag does not symbolize oppression/slavery to a large group of people, including both whites and blacks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purdue97
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT