Church Shooting

[Azalin]

Former Governor (and later Senator) Ernest Hollings was a major factor in SC first raising that flag over the State House as part of a celebration of the centennial anniversary of the war.

 

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/democrat-governor-fritz-hollings-first.html

[birdog1960]

I had a conversation (if you could call it that, more like listening to talking points) with a gun control freak today.

 

She was stereotypically offended by anybody that supports the right of self defense and just couldn't understand why us mouth breathing gun nuts wouldn't compromise on the background check thing.

 

i asked her what she would be willing to compromise on. Repealing the NFA? Allowing transfer of fully automatic weapons? Removing the ban on re-importing military surplus?

 

Of course she was against any of those ideas and asked why we would want to do any of that.

 

I tried to explain to her that compromise means both sides get something and both sides give something. Not one side demanding something and the other giving it to them

 

She was confuzzled and mumbled something about how right wingers refuse to listen.

that was your boss right?

[K-9]

Just curious...are retailers refusing to sell any Confederate flag, or just the battle flag of the Army of Tennessee?

I think they are refusing to sell the Confederate Naval Jack.

 

Are the accurate historical origins of the various Confederate flags flown at the time really that important? Bottom line is, regardless of the difference between the first official flag of the Confederacy and the subsequent adoption the Southern Cross in it's final two iterations or the slight differences between the Southern Cross and their Naval Jack, that Southern Cross pattern is universally recognized as the symbol of the South during that era.

 

Question for consideration as I've never really looked into it, but why do you suppose the Confederacy included the two extra stars for Kentucky and Missouri even though they didn't secede and weren't part of the Confederacy?

[Rob's House]

I think they are refusing to sell the Confederate Naval Jack.

 

Are the accurate historical origins of the various Confederate flags flown at the time really that important? Bottom line is, regardless of the difference between the first official flag of the Confederacy and the subsequent adoption the Southern Cross in it's final two iterations or the slight differences between the Southern Cross and their Naval Jack, that Southern Cross pattern is universally recognized as the symbol of the South during that era.

 

Question for consideration as I've never really looked into it, but why do you suppose the Confederacy included the two extra stars for Kentucky and Missouri even though they didn't secede and weren't part of the Confederacy?

The crux of the argument is that the battle flag has been used as a symbol of racism. You're taking it to another level arguing that any symbol of the south is inherently racist, which is a hard case to make.

[birdog1960]

The crux of the argument is that the battle flag has been used as a symbol of racism. You're taking it to another level arguing that any symbol of the south is inherently racist, which is a hard case to make.

this minutia matters only to those that refuse to see the racist implications in any confederate flag. they are rapidly becoming an unimportant and ignored voice. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/south-carolina-nikki-haley-confederate-flag.html?_r=0

 

“To see all of this happening, all of a sudden, it speaks of some fundamental change in the country,” said Kerry L. Haynie, a political scientist at Duke University. “It is surprising in the sense that there have been calls for this for years. But it took this tragedy to spur this type of change.”

 

 

sounds strangely familiar.

Edited June 24, 2015 by birdog1960

[K-9]

The crux of the argument is that the battle flag has been used as a symbol of racism. You're taking it to another level arguing that any symbol of the south is inherently racist, which is a hard case to make.

You have me confused with someone else. I'm merely talking about the legacy of the Southern Cross and it's adoption by the Confederacy as it's symbol, both as its official flag and as a battle flag by its various armies. I haven't mentioned race at all.

 

As I mentioned to Tom, I don't think that legacy is really germane to the issue today. For whatever reason, it has become a polarizing symbol of racism. That renders it's legacy moot in today's climate.

 

But the racial aspects are interesting to me nonetheless. I've known many southern blacks over the years who have waxed poetic over their southern heritage. A guy I know can trace his American ancestry to the early 1600s, for example. Another had relatives who fought both for and against the British. They are quite proud of it. None of them would fly a Southern Cross as an expression of that pride, though. My feeling is that white southerners don't hold the patent on pride in their southern heritage.

[birdog1960]

“Our ancestors were literally fighting to keep human beings as slaves, and to continue the unimaginable acts that occur when someone is held against their will,” said State Senator Paul Thurmond, a Republican, explaining that he would vote to remove the flag. “I am not proud of this heritage,” said Mr. Thurmond, the son of Strom Thurmond, the former governor and United States senator who was a segregationist candidate for president in 1948.

[Rob's House]

this minutia matters only to those that refuse to see the racist implications in any confederate flag. they are rapidly becoming an unimportant and ignored voice. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/south-carolina-nikki-haley-confederate-flag.html?_r=0

 

To see all of this happening, all of a sudden, it speaks of some fundamental change in the country, said Kerry L. Haynie, a political scientist at Duke University. It is surprising in the sense that there have been calls for this for years. But it took this tragedy to spur this type of change.

 

 

sounds strangely familiar.

And on the flip side you see the crowd that sees racist implications in everything related to the confederacy. Despite the ignorance and absurdity of their position they are spared ridicule because they find themselves on the politically correct side of the issue. Edited June 24, 2015 by Rob's House

[K-9]

And on the flip side you see the crowd that sees racist implications in everything related to the confederacy. Despite the ignorance and absurdity of their position they are spared ridicule because they find themselves on the politically correct side of the issue.

Other than the Southern Cross, what else has been argued has racist implications related to the confederacy? That's an honest question, I've only been seeing and reading about the hubbub as it relates to the the confederate flag.

[3rdnlng]

“Our ancestors were literally fighting to keep human beings as slaves, and to continue the unimaginable acts that occur when someone is held against their will,” said State Senator Paul Thurmond, a Republican, explaining that he would vote to remove the flag. “I am not proud of this heritage,” said Mr. Thurmond, the son of Strom Thurmond, the former governor and United States senator who was a segregationist candidate for president in 1948.

Do you have a pertinent point?

[Rob's House]

Other than the Southern Cross, what else has been argued has racist implications related to the confederacy? That's an honest question, I've only been seeing and reading about the hubbub as it relates to the the confederate flag.

The post I quoted spoke to the racism of ANY confederate flag. Tom made an excellent post that explained it better than I would, so I won't rehash it, but to simpletons who prefer the comfort of a Schoolhouse Rock version of history all the confederacy stood for and fought for was slavery, which is inaccurate and quite frankly naive.. And now they're pushing their social agenda from a reasonable (albeit random) position to the brink of absurdity. And over the next decade that absurdity will become the politically correct version of things and once accepted they push again. It's cultural fascism and it's taking us to a place where the truth becomes viewed as offensive when it runs contrary to politically correct fallacies.

 

I know to many it looks like an innocuous movement to racial harmony, but it is the opposite while at the same time acting as a vehicle for something seemingly unrelated.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Rob's House

[Deranged Rhino]

The post I quoted spoke to the racism of ANY confederate flag. Tom made an excellent post that explained it better than I would, so I won't rehash it, but to simpletons who prefer the comfort of a Schoolhouse Rock version of history all the confederacy stood for and fought for was slavery, which is inaccurate and quite frankly naive.. And now they're pushing their social agenda from a reasonable (albeit random) position to the brink of absurdity. And over the next decade that absurdity will become the politically correct version of things and once accepted they push again. It's cultural fascism and it's taking us to a place where the truth becomes viewed as offensive when it runs contrary to politically correct fallacies.

 

I know to many it looks like an innocuous movement to racial harmony, but it is the opposite while at the same time acting as a vehicle for something seemingly unrelated.

 

Slavery was indeed exactly what the confederacy stood for. There is no equivocation about that point.

 

"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."

 

Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy in the "Cornerstone Speech", March 21st 1861.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

[/dev/null]

that was your boss right?

now that was a lame attempt at a response, trying to imply that the gun control freak was my "superior"

 

i assure you that my boss is a very pro gun woman.

 

the chick I was talking to earlier tday was a friend of a coworker who thought the world needed to know her opinion and how it would make the universe a better place

[K-9]

The post I quoted spoke to the racism of ANY confederate flag. Tom made an excellent post that explained it better than I would, so I won't rehash it, but to simpletons who prefer the comfort of a Schoolhouse Rock version of history all the confederacy stood for and fought for was slavery, which is inaccurate and quite frankly naive.. And now they're pushing their social agenda from a reasonable (albeit random) position to the brink of absurdity. And over the next decade that absurdity will become the politically correct version of things and once accepted they push again. It's cultural fascism and it's taking us to a place where the truth becomes viewed as offensive when it runs contrary to politically correct fallacies.

 

I know to many it looks like an innocuous movement to racial harmony, but it is the opposite while at the same time acting as a vehicle for something seemingly unrelated.

When you say ANY confederate flag, what do you mean? The Confederacy had three "official" government flags, the last two of which incorporated the Southern Cross (or battle flag) in its design. The Southern Cross depicted in their Naval Jack, while slightly different, is essentially the same. Regardless, the Southern Cross is universally accepted as the symbol of the Confederacy and has been for 150 some odd years. It is the only southern flag I've seen associated as a symbol of racism.

 

As to what the Civil War was all about, yes, it can be maddening to boil it all down to a single issue. And Tom made very good points about the border states in his earlier post today. But if you haven't read the Letters of Secession submitted by the original seven Confederate states, I urge you to do that. They make it quite clear that it's largely about slavery and early on, too.

 

Were there ancillary issues? Of course. What major events in history can be boiled down so succinctly to one and ONE issue only? But I've come to look at these other issues as spokes on a wheel and the hub is always slavery. Again, their letters of secession seem quite clear in that regard.

 

But again, what does it matter in today's climate? As I asked Tom earlier, if you can convince me that it wasn't "all about slavery", so what? That does nothing to change the narrative that slavery is this country's singular most obvious schit stain on its history and it continues to have major racial overtones as a result. This is what happens as a result of long-tenured, government sanctioned subjugation of an entire race of people. Whether slavery was partly or mostly the cause of the Civil War doesn't impact that reality. Not in the least. It just doesn't matter. Nor will a perfect understanding of its causes have an impact on the racial divide in this country.

 

I submit the Civil War has little to do with the racial divide in this country. And it hasn't for 150 years.

[Rob's House]

 

Slavery was indeed exactly what the confederacy stood for. There is no equivocation about that point.

 

"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."

 

Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy in the "Cornerstone Speech", March 21st 1861.

 

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

It's a little too nuanced to do it justice here, but basically, seceding for a cause (which I acknowledge the primary cause of SC seceding was slavery) is not the same thing as fighting for that cause. We look at it today from a very eracentric (if that's a word) way. At the time the whole concept of the union was completely different from how we view it today. The idea that the union can rightfully march on your land and conquer a sovereign people is a vastly distinct principle. You can discuss the internal philosophical inconsistencies, but it doesn't change the fact that they are to separate philosophies that can be bifurcated, analyzed, and appreciated independent of one another.

[Rob's House]

When you say ANY confederate flag, what do you mean? The Confederacy had three "official" government flags, the last two of which incorporated the Southern Cross (or battle flag) in its design. The Southern Cross depicted in their Naval Jack, while slightly different, is essentially the same. Regardless, the Southern Cross is universally accepted as the symbol of the Confederacy and has been for 150 some odd years. It is the only southern flag I've seen associated as a symbol of racism.

 

As to what the Civil War was all about, yes, it can be maddening to boil it all down to a single issue. And Tom made very good points about the border states in his earlier post today. But if you haven't read the Letters of Secession submitted by the original seven Confederate states, I urge you to do that. They make it quite clear that it's largely about slavery and early on, too.

 

Were there ancillary issues? Of course. What major events in history can be boiled down so succinctly to one and ONE issue only? But I've come to look at these other issues as spokes on a wheel and the hub is always slavery. Again, their letters of secession seem quite clear in that regard.

 

But again, what does it matter in today's climate? As I asked Tom earlier, if you can convince me that it wasn't "all about slavery", so what? That does nothing to change the narrative that slavery is this country's singular most obvious schit stain on its history and it continues to have major racial overtones as a result. This is what happens as a result of long-tenured, government sanctioned subjugation of an entire race of people. Whether slavery was partly or mostly the cause of the Civil War doesn't impact that reality. Not in the least. It just doesn't matter. Nor will a perfect understanding of its causes have an impact on the racial divide in this country.

 

I submit the Civil War has little to do with the racial divide in this country. And it hasn't for 150 years.

I understand. Part of my point with regards to this is slavery wasn't exclusive to the confederacy. It became concentrated there, but that had more to do with circumstance than morality. But more to the point, there's more to it than just slavery.

 

Whereas yankees (who don't get it because they can't relate to it in the same way that white people are said not to be able to relate to the perspective of blacks) may only associate the confederacy and its images with slavery, a lot of southern people relate those images to their ancestry. And just as daily life in the world today is about a lot more than the big political issue of the time, there's a lot more to the history of the antebellum south than slavery.

[K-9]

I understand. Part of my point with regards to this is slavery wasn't exclusive to the confederacy. It became concentrated there, but that had more to do with circumstance than morality. But more to the point, there's more to it than just slavery.

 

Whereas yankees (who don't get it because they can't relate to it in the same way that white people are said not to be able to relate to the perspective of blacks) may only associate the confederacy and its images with slavery, a lot of southern people relate those images to their ancestry. And just as daily life in the world today is about a lot more than the big political issue of the time, there's a lot more to the history of the antebellum south than slavery.

Agreed. There's a heckuva lot more to the history of the south as you say. I tried to convey that in my earlier post relating the story my black friends and their own deeply rich southern heritage of which they are very proud.

 

You make an interesting point about "yankees" and our understanding of the south. My first opinions were formed as a little kid listening to stories told to us by our elderly neighbor whose grandfather fought for the Union in the Civil War. He grew up believing the worst about the South and its intentions. He would argue that the LAST thing the North fought for was slavery. For his grandfather and others the war was about defeating a traitorous nation. He thought it was a slap in the face, after so many had died for the Union, that a vanquished, traitor of an enemy would be allowed to fly the symbol of their country along side that of the US flag at government buildings. To him, it was the same as flying a swastika.

 

Somehow, I don't think the respective history of the North has been as romanticized as that of the South over the years, though. I'm not sure why that is entirely, but I think it had a lot to do with the sheer devastation wrought by the North and Lincoln's mandates after the war.

 

I think we need to be careful when judging historical events through the prism of modern cultural and societal values.

 

I also have a profound appreciation for the concept that history isn't about what happened. It's about the telling of what happened. The vanquished seldom get to write it and that makes it easy for revisionists to attempt to do so.

[boyst]

So, NC is getting rid of the Confederate license plates which honor the daughters of the Confederacy. SC, too. S

Virginia will, also, and it won't be long until we bulldoze the city of Richmond and the Confederate cemetery to build a new Senior Center, Walmart and mosque.

 

But its amazing how we grew up with a whitewashed history lesson on the Civil War. Now the narrative that the flag only means slavery and ignoring states and individual rights - that just goes right in step with the leadership of this country. Knee jerk reaction to appease the masses and further the divide.

[Alaska Darin]

“Our ancestors were literally fighting to keep human beings as slaves, and to continue the unimaginable acts that occur when someone is held against their will,” said State Senator Paul Thurmond, a Republican, explaining that he would vote to remove the flag. “I am not proud of this heritage,” said Mr. Thurmond, the son of Strom Thurmond, the former governor and United States senator who was a segregationist candidate for president in 1948.

Was your "friend's husband" a licensed gun dealer?

[birdog1960]

Was your "friend's husband" a licensed gun dealer?

the anecdote was given to address how and why i would fix loopholes in gunlaws. done.