Lowering the Confederate Flag - and Wally World

[JimL]

Well, what you had stated was "Lincoln campaigned and won the Presidency on a platform of ending slavery in 1860." So, the fact that he ran on stopping the expansion of slavery is not the same as running on ending slavery, because he was still of a mind to allow the Southern States to continue holding slaves as long as slavery did not expand beyond those states. He was trying to find a compromise - not end slavery entirely.l

Thank you for your kind reply.

Lincoln was trying to find a peaceful compromise which would eventually bring an end to slavery. The South though was having none of that, and so began the war with the attack on fort Sumter. The point though is that the war was over the souths right to continue slavery and the Confederate flag was created at that time as sybolic of what the south stood for and was fighting for.

[Cow Poke]

Lincoln was trying to find a peaceful compromise which would eventually bring an end to slavery.

No sir, he was trying to find a peaceful compromise to preserve the Union. Up to the 1860 election, he thought that meant allowing the South to retain slavery, as long as they didn't expand it into the US Territory. You were factually wrong, and you can't admit it, Mr. JimL.

[Cerebrum123]

No. He's lying about being offended. He's clearly trying to score a cheap rhetorical point, not actually expressing an emotion that he genuinely feels.

Actually, that would still fit in as the kind of people who are "looking to be offended". There are at least two types. Those who are lying about being offended for various reasons. Those who get offended over very tiny things, yet go places where they know such offense will happen. Some people are possibly a mixture of those. Mickiel comes to mind. It didn't matter how innocuous something was, or even if he was asked in advance if it would be okay, he got offended by nearly everything. Seriously, I tried asking him to clarify certain beliefs, but wanted to do so in another thread. This way we didn't derail the one that was currently going. I got labeled as the "most disrespectful person on TWeb" for putting his name in the thread title.

There isn't much more that can be said. You can have the last word.

[Cow Poke]

Actually, that would still fit in as the kind of people who are "looking to be offended". There are at least two types. Those who are lying about being offended for various reasons. Those who get offended over very tiny things, yet go places where they know such offense will happen. Some people are possibly a mixture of those. Mickiel comes to mind. It didn't matter how innocuous something was, or even if he was asked in advance if it would be okay, he got offended by nearly everything. Seriously, I tried asking him to clarify certain beliefs, but wanted to do so in another thread. This way we didn't derail the one that was currently going. I got labeled as the "most disrespectful person on TWeb" for putting his name in the thread title.

There isn't much more that can be said. You can have the last word.

I think often this faux offendedness is just an excuse not to answer the question. If I can be outraged at your question, regardless how reasonable it is, I don't have to answer.

[Rational Gaze]

My citations of Southern leaders confirms that slavery was a major issue for the secession of the Southern states.

Except they don't.

[Cow Poke]

Except they don't.

Yes, they don't.

[Rational Gaze]

Your omitting the details that the Confederacy battle flag is prominently a part of all Confederate Flags except the first national flag.

conflags.gif

[Bill the Cat]

Yes, I think that's it (though, I'd argue that there are plenty of people who attach a negative stigma to it who also have some personal connection).

They have a personal connection to its misuse.

The victors recorded history wrongly. Should we support that false interpretation of it or perhaps try to educate people on what really happened?

No, it wasn't the large part, it was a large part. As much as some people would prefer, you simply cannot separate slavery from the Civil War.

But it must be placed in proper context and it must be reiterated that slavery, in 99% of the cases, was NOT whip to the back of the field negroes by the white massa's. It was not a racist issue if blacks participated in it too, and especially at the high rate they did.

I don't think I disagreed.

You brought CP's thoughts in to which I framed them to my argument.

Did I say that Thompson invented the battle flag?

The debate today is over the battle flag, not the Stainless.

So you agree that regardless of the fact that the creator of the Stainless Banner attached some very negative symbolism to it, there existed men who marched under it who probably would not agree with Thompson's associations. Many of those same men also marched under the Battle Flag. Likewise there marched men under the Nazi flag who probably never associated it with six million dead and world conquest.

Unlikely. They would have to be pretty ignorant of the German Army invading other countries with the purpose of genocide and occupation to just march "For the honor of Germany".

The point I'm trying to convey, Bill, is that the meaning we associate with symbols is largely based on perspective, and time often adds new dimensions to those symbols. Regardless of what Confederate soldiers actually thought they were marching for under the Confederate flags, those flags have taken on nuanced, and sometimes entirely new meaning in the present.

Which is more symptomatic of the present than it is of the flag itself. Would you agree that the cross is now a symbol of abuse?

You keep posting that to things I say that I have supported, and it is beginning to grate on my nerves. Unless you have evidence that changing a symbol to another one isn't just as meaningful, then your eye rolls are evasions.

Yes. I read you the first time.

So, then removing the battle flag from the state capital is a symbolic gesture that does nothing to actually address the problem it is supposed to be addressing.

Is that the same as forcing?

Yes. It is a bit more subtle, but yes. It's goal is forcing a modification of behavior.

I'm certain if you were black, you'd think twice.

That is highly racist.

[Bill the Cat]

The Confederacy didn't have a flag until the war. There was no Confederacy! The forming of the Confederacy was due to the Federal Governments abolition of slavery, so the Flag is representative of of the thirteen states who supported slavery, starting with South Carolina. That is what the war was over, slavery, and the economic benefits thereof. What would you like to argue that the war was about?

NO! SECESSION was over slavery. The WAR was over the North's desire to reunite the US and the South's desire to remain autonomous.

[Bill the Cat]

BTW, Lincoln campaigned and won the Presidency on a platform of ending slavery in 1860. Thats when the South went nuts and decided to secede. The war began a year later when South Carolina attacked fort Sumnter.

Your time frames are off Jim. Lincoln won election on Nov 6, 1860 and wasn't even inaugurated until March 4, 1861. South Carolina seceded 1 month after the election. The war began 1 month after Lincoln's inauguration, not a year later.

The Confederacy and its flag didn't even exist until 1861, the same year as the beginning of the war.

No duh. Before that, they were still under the Stars and Stripes.

[Bill the Cat]

Thats correct CP, the northern states abolished slavery decades earlier

In 1860, New Jersey still had 18 slaves, re-labeled "lifetime apprentices".

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slave08.htm

[shunyadragon]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7712[/ATTACH]

Thank you for noting the details where the Battle flag is on the second and third official flags of the Confederate States of America. Yes, the battle flag is the most prominent symbol of succession, rebellion of the Confederacy, which seceded primarily for the reason of preserving the institution of slavery the principle economic capital of the South. Please note that blue flag with the white star was always flown as a companion of the official battle flag of the Confederacy.

The other flags are local used flags for special purposes, and units of the Confederacy, of which there are many more, and NOT official flags of the Confederacy.

[Bill the Cat]

The other flags are local used flags for special purposes, and units of the Confederacy, of which there are many more, and NOT official flags of the Confederacy.

!!!!!!!!!!!111

[Adrift]

They have a personal connection to its misuse.

If you say so.

The victors recorded history wrongly. Should we support that false interpretation of it or perhaps try to educate people on what really happened?

They didn't necessarily record history wrongly. They recorded history from their perspective.

But it must be placed in proper context and it must be reiterated that slavery, in 99% of the cases, was NOT whip to the back of the field negroes by the white massa's. It was not a racist issue if blacks participated in it too, and especially at the high rate they did.

Just want to make sure I have this right. You believe that because the Confederacy armed blacks to fight in their war, there was absolutely no racial element to the Civil War?

The debate today is over the battle flag, not the Stainless.

I never said otherwise.

Unlikely. They would have to be pretty ignorant of the German Army invading other countries with the purpose of genocide and occupation to just march "For the honor of Germany".

Wow. So you think that all 15 million Germans that fought in WWII under the Nazi flag were in it to kill Jews and take over the world? Seriously?

Which is more symptomatic of the present than it is of the flag itself. Would you agree that the cross is now a symbol of abuse?

Uh...no. I would not now consider the cross a symbol of abuse. I'm a bit taken aback that you do.

You keep posting that to things I say that I have supported, and it is beginning to grate on my nerves. Unless you have evidence that changing a symbol to another one isn't just as meaningful, then your eye rolls are evasions.

I said that, "right or wrong, for 150 years the rebel flag has been associated with hate, and racism." You replied, "No." Then went on to tell me that it has been associated with a number of things including racism, with living in the South, and with being a "Country Boy". I reply with "So, not really 'No', but 'Yes, and...'". In other words, Yes, it's been associated with racism, and also other things, like being from the South or being a "Country Boy". You reply again with, "No. I said what I meant."

Bill, these kinds of goofy nitpicking contradictory statements deserve eyerolls. You're just being obstinate at this point.

So, then removing the battle flag from the state capital is a symbolic gesture that does nothing to actually address the problem it is supposed to be addressing.

Says you.

Yes. It is a bit more subtle, but yes. It's goal is forcing a modification of behavior.

No. No one is forcing anyone to take down flags. If they're ashamed of the racist association with the flag, then that's between them and their conscience.

That is highly racist.

Uh, no. It is not highly racist to assume that a black person would be less likely to approach a Klansman in a hood then he would a person in regular street clothes. That's ridiculous. I would be less likely to approach a Klansman dressed in full Klan uniform, than I would a person in regular street clothes.

Honestly Bill, you're saying some pretty wackadoodle things here. Sounds like you're far too close to this issue, and can't seem to see it from an objective perspective.

[rogue06]

Actually, that would still fit in as the kind of people who are "looking to be offended". There are at least two types. Those who are lying about being offended for various reasons. Those who get offended over very tiny things, yet go places where they know such offense will happen. Some people are possibly a mixture of those. Mickiel comes to mind. It didn't matter how innocuous something was, or even if he was asked in advance if it would be okay, he got offended by nearly everything. Seriously, I tried asking him to clarify certain beliefs, but wanted to do so in another thread. This way we didn't derail the one that was currently going. I got labeled as the "most disrespectful person on TWeb" for putting his name in the thread title.

There isn't much more that can be said. You can have the last word.

What can you say about someone who became absolutely unhinged over the innocuous jest of "your mother wears combat boots"