Today is a sad day...

[ahartman]

Nice touch with the photos! Who can forget those crazy Duke boys?

Back on topic...

Don't forget we live in a democracy. Those same people in your state parliment who voted to remove the Confederate flag are the people YOU elected. They are there to do YOUR will. Come election time, you have to make a choice.

Is the flag a big enough issue for you & your fellow constituents to vote someone out of office? If it is, vote someone in who will repeal the recent law.

Don't tell me your vote doesn't count or that we don't have a system that works. If it doesn't work, it's because people give up on it.

People are fickle - today's hot topic will be tomorrow's $100 Jeopardy answer.

[Joel]

It has been only within the past 5 to 10 years that the NAACP has been raising such a stink over the display of the confederate flag. But what do you expect from a racist organization that wants to do away with anything 'white'.

I think this is how most southerns feel about the confederate flag:
"Note: It is necessary to disclaim any connection of these flags to neo-nazis, red-necks, skin-heads and the like. These groups have adopted this flag and desecrated it by their acts. They have no right to use this flag - it is a flag of honor, designed by the confederacy as a banner representing state's rights and still revered by the South. In fact, under attack, it still flies over the South Carolina capitol building. The South denies any relation to these hate groups and denies them the right to use the flags of the confederacy for any purpose. The crimes committed by these groups under the stolen banner of the conderacy only exacerbate the lies which link the seccesion to slavery interests when, from a Southerner's view, the cause was state's rights."

Joel

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 07 July 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 07 July 2000).]

[paulcs]

KVH, I'm not a student of 19th Century American history, and a lot of this stuff is a little fuzzy in my mind, but I'd like to take a shot at your question to Chuck.

Some of the most infamous defenders of States' Rights have been also the some of the most infamous defenders of policies many regard as racist in the extreme. The most notable, arguably, was Sen. John Calhoun, a voracious avocate of States' Rights, slavery, and secession. He used States' Rights as a pretext to defend slavery, and, as Secretary of State during the Tyler administration, played the key role in Texas's admission to the Union as a slave owning state.

I believe his actions and statements, as Senator from South Carolina, Vice President, and while in the Cabinet, and those of his like-minded collegues in the Senate and the House, inextricably linked the two concepts together in the minds of many Americans. This is John Calhoun on the Clay Amendment of 1850:

"There is a question of vital importance to the Southern section, in reference to which the views and feelings of the two sections are as opposite and hostile as they can possibly be. I refer to the relation between the two races in the Southern section, which constitutes a vital portion of her social organization. Every portion of the North entertains views and feelings more or less hostile to it. Those most opposed and hostile regard it as a sin, and consider themselves under the most sacred obligation to use every effort to destroy it.

"Indeed, to the extent that they conceive that they have power, they regard themselves as implicated in the sin, and responsible for not suppressing it by the use of all and every means. Those less opposed and hostile regard it as a crime--an offense against humanity, as they call it and, altho not so fanatical, feel themselves bound to use all efforts to effect the same object; while those who are least opposed and hostile regard it as a blot and a stain on the character of what they call the "nation," and feel themselves accordingly bound to give it no countenance or support. On the contrary, the Southern section regards the relation as one which can not be destroyed without subjecting the two races to the greatest calamity, and the section to poverty, desolation, and wretchedness; and accordingly they feel bound by every consideration of interest and safety to defend it.

"Unless something decisive is done, I again ask, What is to stop this agitation before the great and final object at which it aims--the abolition of slavery in the States--is consummated? Is it, then, not certain that if something is not done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession? Indeed, as events are now moving, it will not require the South to secede in order to dissolve the Union. Agitation will of itself effect it, of which its past history furnishes abundant proof--as I shall next proceed to show.

"It is a great mistake to suppose that disunion can be effected by a single blow. The cords which bind these States together in one common Union are far too numerous and powerful for that. Disunion must be the work of time. It is only through a long process, and successively, that the cords can be snapped until the whole fabric falls asunder. Already the agitation of the slavery question has snapped some of the most important, and has greatly weakened all the others."

He claims that abolition by itself isn't enough to cause "disunion," but that the "agitation of the slavery question" was playing a major role in breaking the links between the states. If memory serves me correctly, and it frequently doesn't, Sen. Calhoun's home state of South Carolina was the first to secede.

I firmly believe that the two concepts were inextricably linked by Southern politicians during the period before secession and to deny it is to deny history itself.

This linkage, I believe, was further reinforced again by Southern political figures in the fifties and sixties who used States' Rights in their a defense of segregationist policies. The Brown v. Board Ed., Topeka, KS, decision was anathema to many of the most vocal States' Rights avocates/pro-segregationists, and the link was once again reinforced in many people's minds.

Now I know the doctrine of States' Rights has been used in opposition to issues unrelated to race: abortion rights, women's rights, gay rights, environmental protection regulations, etc. But still, I think the trauma of the Civil War and events leading to it, the Civil Rights Movement and the response to related legislation and court rulings, and, again, the statements made by contemporary Southern leadership are responsible for this linkage in the minds of many Americans.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[paulcs]

Let me emphasize again that the Confederate flag serves a symbol of the collective heritage of all US citizens. Whether it symbolizes a regional pride, an ideological position with regards to States' Rights vs. Federalism, or a source of national shame and disgrace.

From my perspective, and many others in the Northeast, the antagonism towards the Confederate flag is nothing new. It is, in fact, very old. Many of us were raised to believe it a very bad thing. For the sake of arguement, I will leave issues of race aside. I was raised and educated to believe the secession *itself* was an evil act, that it was an act of treason and sedition, and the single greatest threat to the United States in its history.

I was also raised and educated to believe that the good guys won.

I believe that the antagonism many Northerners feel towards the flag is often subconscious: a historical memory if you will. It's funny how often I've heard discussions of the Confederate provoke comments about Jefferson Davis Boulevard in Virginia. This inevitably leads to someone commenting scornfully and rhetorically, "who won?" I realize this is a overly simplistic response, but visceral reactions often are.

Anger about the Confederate flag is nothing new. It's been around as long as I can remember. I suspect what is new is that it has spilled over into the South itself, opposition is being voiced, and actions of protest are being taken. However, the NAACP have no monopoly on antagonism towards the flag.

In summary, I'd like to say that, intellectually, I can separate States' Rights *as a ideological construct* from slavery and racism, that I personally think it a dubious principle, and that I believe the highest of crimes were committed in its name.

For those of you outside of the United States or unfamilar with the topic, the Confederate flag was removed from the top of the State Building and, shortly afterwards, raised on a flag pole nearby.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[This message has been edited by paulcs (edited 08 July 2000).]

[cjolley]

Two things I'd like to make clear;
1) I am a Southerner. My family is from the south and I was born in, and live in the south.
2) I don't equate states rights with racism.
3) George Wallace was talking about federal interference in his states official racist policies. Separate But Equal and Whites Only type laws are clearly unconstitutional. If the federal government can't enforce that, we might as well not have a constitution.

KvH - Please read some of my earlier posts on this thread.

chuck

[HollyBerri]

the lies which link the seccesion to slavery interests when, from a Southerner's view, the cause was state's rights.

All right, I can accept that... but what "state's rights" are we talking about, exactly??? I distrust the generalization of that term, to be frank.

Not fighting, it's a legit question.

----------------------------
Holly

[This message has been edited by HollyBerri (edited 07 July 2000).]

[paulcs]

The principle is each state has the right to "interpose the sovereignty of a state against the encroachment upon the reserved power of the state."

"Nullification" is the priniciple that each state has the right to declare null and void any law it declares unconstitutional.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[This message has been edited by paulcs (edited 07 July 2000).]

[Joel]

Got the following from here:

http://www.indixie.com/indixie/Articles/Flag~Flap.htm


"I cannot understand how the Confederate Flag has gotten it's racist reputation. It has only been the last 5 or 10 years that it has been so, ever since this insipid political correctness nonsense has swept the country. Using the same arguments that the PC crowd uses to claim that the Confederate Flag is racist, I can lay the same claim to the AMERICAN Flag. Slavery was an institution in this country since day one....for at least 200 years before the Confederacy was ever thought of...and for 100 years under the AMERICAN flag.

The AMERICAN flag flew from the masts of the New England (YANKEE) slave ships that brought the Africans to American by the thousands. Not one African was imported to America under a Confederate Flag. The Confederate Constitution banned slave trading (following the first step to end slavery that England used 30 years before)- the US Constitution protected slavery for an additional 3 years AFTER the Civil War.

General U.S. Grant went to battle under the AMERICAN flag and was a slave owner until he was forced to free them in 1868...3 years AFTER the Civil War.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all the slaves...only those slaves in the parts of the South...slavery continued in the border states and parts of Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Louisiana for 3 years after the Civil War under the AMERICAN Flag.

It is well documented that Abraham Lincoln was as racist as they came. On August 14, 1862, during a meeting with prominent free blacks in Washington, Lincoln is quoted to say " ...but in this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours." The purpose of the meeting was to find a place (another country) to export all the blacks to after the war, because "ours (race) suffers from your presence."

And last , but not least, AMERICAN Flags and Christian Crosses out number Confederate Flags 100 to 1 in any photos I have seen of KKK Rallies and White Supremacist gatherings....so if you want to be offended by something, be offended by something offensive."

Joel

[DentyCracker]

I'm just a silly Kaffir from Jamaica, so I'm not used to racial prejudice. In fact I've only had one real experience with it firsthand (at LaRonde in Canada, July 1992). It was enough to make me decide I would never live in a country where I was in the racial minority, as the incident aroused very ugly primal violent feelings in me and I could see where I may end up in a Colin Ferguson type situation with repeated exposure to that environment. That being said, I see the confederate flag as a symbol of racism (rightly or wrongly). Also although slavery was a small part it was a part and it will be seen as a bigger part by those whose ancestors were slaves (again rightly or wrongly) My gut says I don't want to see confederate flags at all, but I do believe that it should be up to the state to do as it wishes (a vote by the constituents or something). Also for such an emotional topic things have remained remarkably level around here.

PS There is always a group that can be more familiar/contemptuous of you than others, so the ni**er is allowed to call a ni**er a ni**er but a non ni**er is not. No big thing.
My close friends can f*ck with me in ways that I would almost kill others for

[KvHagedorn]

Joel,

Sadly, in this country, the winner of an argument is now determined by who screeches and howls the loudest, not by who presents the most compelling case. Thus the intelligent few will always be wrong. That is, unless we yell and scream like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Jesse Jackson chanting at a hate rally against classes teaching of our European history and culture at Berkley:

Hi Ho, Hi Ho, Western Civilization has got to go!

And this guy, who proudly admits to having spit in white people's food out of pure hatred, actually wanted to be our president!

------------------
Kind Regards,

KvH




[This message has been edited by KvHagedorn (edited 07 July 2000).]

[Joel]

"It was enough to make me decide I would never live in a country where I was in the racial minority, as the incident aroused very ugly primal violent feelings in me and I could see where I may end up in a Colin Ferguson type situation with repeated exposure to that environment."

Yeah blame something else for your actions and short comings and not accept personal responsibility for what you do. To me Colin Ferguson was a racist to the extreme.

"That being said, I see the confederate flag as a symbol of racism (rightly or wrongly)."

You have that right, but you don't have the right to impose your views on me. And if I want to display the Confederate Flag I should be able too without fear of retribution from the African-American members of soceity. That right is granted to me by the first amendment to the constitution or is that amendment only for racist organizations like the NAACP.

Joel

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 09 July 2000).]

[Joel]

A Brief History of the Confederate Flag

This was copied from the following site.

www.icss.com/usflag/confederate.stars.and.bars.html


<IMG SRC="http://www.icss.com/usflag/historical/stars.bars.gif" BORDER="0"></A>

The First Official Flag of the Confederacy. Although less well known than the "Confederate Battle Flags",the Stars and Bars was used as the official flag of the Confederacy from March 1861 to May of 1863. The pattern and colors of this flag did not distinguish it sharply from the Stars and Stripes of the Union. Consequently, considerable confusion was caused on the battlefield.

The seven stars represent the original Confederate States; South Carolina (December 20, 1860), Mississippi(January 9, 1861), Florida (January 10,1861), Alabama (January 11, 1861), Georgia (January 19, 1861), Louisiana (January 26, 1861), and Texas (February 1, 1861).

<IMG SRC="http://www.icss.com/usflag/historical/confed.battle.gif" BORDER="0"></A>

The Confederate Battle Flag. The best-known Confederate flag, however, was the Battle Flag, the familiar "Southern Cross". It was carried by Confederate troops in the field which were the vast majority of forces under the confederacy.
The Stars represented the 11 states actually in the Confederacy plus Kentucky and Missouri.

<IMG SRC="http://www.icss.com/usflag/historical/confed2.gif" BORDER="0"></A>

The second Official Flag of the Confederacy. On May 1st,1863, a second design was adopted, placing the Battle Flag (also known as the "Southern Cross") as the canton on a white field. This flag was easily mistaken for a white flag of surrender especially when the air was calm and the flag hung limply.

The flag now had 13 stars having been joined officially by four more states, Virginia (April 17, 1861), Arkansas (May 6, 1861), Tennessee (May 7, 1861), North Carolina (May 21, 1861). Efforts to secede failed in Kentucky and Missouri though those states were represented by two of the stars.

<IMG SRC="http://www.icss.com/usflag/historical/confed3.gif" BORDER="0"></A>

The third Official Flag of the Confederacy. On March 4th,1865, a short time before the collapse of the Confederacy, a third pattern was adapted; a broad bar of red was placed on the fly end of the white field.

<IMG SRC="http://www.icss.com/usflag/historical/scross.gif" BORDER="0"></A>

Confederate Navy Jack: Used as a navy jack at sea from 1863 onward. This flag has become the generally recognized symbol of the South.

Joel

[Joel]

<IMG SRC="http://www.rebelstore.com/2sonsovalthumb.jpg" BORDER="0"></A>

Historic Photographic Print from 1863 of two Confederate Soldiers armed and ready to protect their sacred homeland from foreign invaders. 8x10 photographic print ready for framing. Own a historic print in which many folks deny ever happened - Black and White Confederate Soldiers fighting side by side!

<A HREF="http://www.37thtexas.org/html/chboys.html" target=_new>Click here to read the background on these two brave Soldiers courtesy of the 34th Texas Cavalry Regiment.</A>

Joel

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 08 July 2000).]

[KvHagedorn]

paulcs,

I was also raised and educated to believe that the good guys won.

Need we go into this? History is written by the victors, so naturally the good guys always win.. at least in their home territory. My 8th grade American History teacher was a member of Daughters of the Confederacy. She always referred to the "War between the States" rather than the Civil War. Do you think she taught the facts with the same bias as your teacher? It was with a different bias completely

In summary, I'd like to say that, intellectually, I can separate States' Rights *as a ideological construct* from slavery and racism

I wish the whole world was blessed with the kind of intellectual ability shown here in this forum. Unfortunately, they are not.
I think the disgust with which many regard the NAACP stems from the fact that they approach everything from an emotional rather than an intellectual standpoint. They are allowed to do this by the media without criticism. Can you guess why? Can you explain why whites aren't allowed to express emotions in this vein without being labeled racists and hatemongers by this same media? It seems to me that the media is both biased against those whites who wish to hold onto their identity, and that that same media thinks so little of the intellectual capacity of blacks that they let them slide on this point. We here need not go far to find how wrong they are. Holly is black, and makes very sound intellectual arguments in these forums. I have known many other blacks with similar abilities. Why does the black community allow such a stridently emotional institution to seem to speak for them as a whole? Truly, I think many blacks are embarassed by the NAACP, just as many whites are embarassed by the NAAWP. But it is the MEDIA that gives more credence to one than to the other. What we really should do is examine the motives behind the media's bias in all these matters.

Take what you were taught and what is reported to you in the news with a whole mineful of salt. PERCEPTIONS are one thing. FACTS are something else. There is personal bias if not an outright agenda behind everything you are taught and everything you hear in the news. Just remember that.

------------------
Kind Regards,

KvH

[paulcs]

Well, better the "War between the States" than the "War of Yankee Aggression."

I suspect, and forgive me for thinking out loud, that history as written by the victor is being rewritten by the other side. This is due, I think, to a certain apathy on the part of the victor and maybe a feeling that this is all water under the bridge and a shameful episode in a glorious, albeit checkered, past. I believe this dynamic changes somewhat when Northeasterners are confronted with some of the symbols of the Confederacy and the sorriest episode in all US history.

Grant himself admitted to being "sad and depress" while traveling to Appomattox. He claimed:

"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and who had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

Clearly in the South, historical interest in the War between the States is much greater. Issues like regional pride, tradition, glory in defeat, real and imagined wrongs, defiance, romance, defensiveness, etc. all come into play. (And frankly, the South is just a history buff's dream. Historical artifacts all over the place. My interests lie elsewhere, but I sympathize with the fascination Southern history buffs have with this stuff.)

So there you have it. The victor is sad and depressed or pissed-off. The loser is frequently defensive and pissed-off and, for cause, caught up in the romance of it all.

Let me end with this:

"AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

"We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.

"Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty."

As a citizen of the United States, KVH, don't you find this ordinance a bit chilling. I know it gives me the heebie-geebies! It may be the scariest thing I've ever read.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net