Well, not really... but they are taking the civil war flag down today. SC represent represent. http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/07/01/scflag.01/index.html ------------------ no fat chicks
They moved the flag from on top of the capital's dome to right down on the front lawn. It's now on the same land as a monument for Civil War soldiers, so it'll be hard to make a case to get it removed from there. To me as a person who purposely observes a lot more behavior from both whites and blacks than the average white OR black, I think this is a stupid thing to be complaining about. This flag is part of history. You can't teach about the Civil War by just talking about the North and slavery. You also have to discuss the South. The South has a history that cannot be denied. ------------------------------- As a wise man once said - "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." I just think there's a difference between have a flag on a government building and one on the back of a Ford pickup. They are, in most cases being used to symbolize different things. I mean, I'm a southerner.... Well, sorta. I'm a Texan. And, I'm proud to be from the South. I'm not proud of some of the unfortunate history behind the South (ie. slavery, discrimination, hate crimes), but I am glad I'm not from the North. ugh, it's getting late, and I'm starting to lose my ability to concentrate, so I'll end it here.
DREAMer (I too am tired, so be gentile ), As someone from SC (I spent my first 23 years there, short 6 mos. when I chased a girl out to Flagstaff, AZ.), I have to admit that South Carolina is filled, with a majority of racists (of all religions, races, etc.). The ignorance there is one of a sloppy educational system and the fact that SC is a very poor state. SC's history, like many other places, had an economic component based on slavery, which obviously permeated every other factor of life. Since I was a child, I have listened to arguments from my grandmother about 'heritage', etc. etc. I have always been unable to sense what she is trying to convey to me: a notion of 'heritage' that does not smell of slavery and oppression. Others have pointed out that the 'battle jack' was raised during wartime... a time of war brought upon 'us poor Southerners' when 'state rights were being oppressed'. Uhhhh... yeah. Irregardless of any of these, perhaps 'arguable' stances (considering my grandmother and I still, respectfully, disagree), I take this final stance, conceding to the proponent of the flag their idea that the flag conveys 'heritage'... The swastika had a history in the orthodox church long before Nazi Germany commandered it for its own evil uses. Would it be at all sensitive to Jewish survivors to hang the swastika and insist upon its former meaning? I believe the answer, obviously, is of course not (considering that the confederate flag is used by the KKK and various other racist groups, I think we have a parallel). If white South Carolina could ever take a stance other than an adversarial one in its relationship with blacks, I think that they (the whites) would see the flag to be the same way I do... harmful. ------------------ no fat chicks
i totally concur achabe. ------------------ he shakes.. spins baseline.. fades away.. oh.. he buries the dreamshake again! what a move!
Side note: How about that request from animal right's people to change Packers name because it is associated to the meat packing industry, thus, harmful to animals. Oh, my, God! ------------------ humble, but hungry.
Phi: that is a wholly separate issue that I think we all pretty much "butchered" at one point here. As for the confederate flag, I just go with this: How do we as white people (and I'm making an assumption here) determine what is and what isn't offensive to African Americans? We simply cannot so we have to take on faith the concern by African Americans that a government-sanctioned flying of the flag is offensive to them and a symbol of racism. It may be history and it may be important to remember it. On that, I almost always agree. However, more important to remember, perhaps, is the fact that the confederate flag stood for slavery and the oppression of one race over another. As a result, it certainly deserves a place in our history books and museums but not flying above our statehouses. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
Dreamer and what pray tell is so bad about being from the North? Cold as all get out sure but hey there's plenty to love about the north. As well as the south. So get over it. If you have a problem with the north over the south then you are about 140 years late. ------------------ Finally the Frink has come back to Clutch City! dot net.
Frinkster, what's bad about the North? Cold fronts and cold women, for starters. When we start legislating hurt feelings out of life, I'm moving to Australia. This country's caught up in one big sniveling, whining, pity-party, and it's pathetic. I think that black Americans-- assuming they enjoy being taken as a monolithic whole rather than as individuals-- have more important things to worry about than what kind of flag is flying over the capitol of a ****ty backwater state. Hopwood and Prop 209 come to mind. C'mONNNNNN. That's like saying the main motivation of the participants in the Civil War was ending/expanding slavery. I agree 100%. And when the majority of South Carolinians also agree, then the flag should come down. Until then, we all oughta butt out. ------------------ You bring the bullets, I'll bring the wine.
Aw com'on BK... you conservatives pick & choose which morality you want to impose upon the US. Besides, this stance wreaks of cultural relativism. Which noone practices anyway unless they're dealing w/ the 'oh so mysterious' Africa (in which case France builds up one side, the other side (usually the majority) goes on a killing spree, and then France tries to straighten everything back out). in response to Jeff's assertion that the flag symbolized slavery: I assume you're questioning whether or not everyone that fought the war was for or against slavery. War is a tool of diplomacy and its pawns are merely a method to that diplomacy. Symbols used by one side or the other become entrenched in the act. Since the war was fought b/c the South feared Lincoln would later free slaves, I will agree with Jeff that the flag symbolizes slavery. I could care less about Robert E. Lee, an abolitionist, returning home to fight for the South. Also, many people were forced to fight for one side or the other. Life's a b#tch, but those people that fought to save their homes or their own lives were by design (the war machine is pretty trickey, ehh?) fighting for or against slavery. p.s. I'm the first to admit that SC is a '****ty backwater state', but I don't want someone from freakin' Texas reminding me about it. ------------------ The ClutchCity 500. [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited July 05, 2000).]
Kagy, I agree for the most part. However, as white men, there's really not anything in society that could offend us and bring up horrible images of our ancestors being treated as sub-human like the Confederate flag. But it is a sticky issue with state's rights and all. However, I'm sure the money they're losing because of it helped in the decision to take it down. So while they have the right, as you say, to keep flying it until they decide to take it down, businesses and organizations also have the right to boycott and protest the state. I'm just trying to figure out why the Union Jack isn't flying above the nation's capital. Or the Mexican flag flying above the building here at 11th and Congress. I mean, if so many people in this country are obssessed with a country that was in existence for four miserable years, and lost the war, why not hoist the flags of all the other losers from history? ------------------ Just because you're white and play basketball doesn't mean you're a Matt Bullard clone, despite idiotic accusations to the contrary. visit www.swirve.com
"I just think there's a difference between have a flag on a government building and one on the back of a Ford pickup. They are, in most cases being used to symbolize different things." Exactly right, DREAMer! "I mean, if so many people in this country are obssessed with a country that was in existence for four miserable years, and lost the war, why not hoist the flags of all the other losers from history?" Because all of those other countries America defeated still exist. I'm sure that if we had taken over Mexico back in the 1800's, there'd still be a Mexican flag flying over Mexico City to this day. Personally, I agree with BK on this one. And you have to realize, the Confederacy was not Nazi Germany. Blacks, Jews, the disabled, gypsies, and other minorities were not systematically collected and disposed of(keep in mind: I AM NOT justifying slavery). Also, the Confederacy had none of the expansionist ideals that Hitler had. And if you think that the Confederate flag is a pure symbol of racism, I think you might find this interesting: There was a clause in the U.S. Constitution(our own freaking Constitution!?!? How hypocritical does that make the Union look?) that didn't allow Lincoln to free the slaves in the Union. But, he could make them illegal in the South, because they were rebelling states and as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he could free slaves in the South to millitarily weaken the Confederacy. And isn't it also interesting that it did not apply to slaves on that were fighting on the Union's side? Now of course we all know that Lincoln was eventually able to free all of the slaves, but it is interesting to know that they were illegal(according to the United States government) in all of the Southern states first. Now I am not a racist, a redneck, or one of those freaking "good old boys," but if you're going to look at the Confederate flag merely as a symbol of racism, than you should at least look at the United States flag in a similar light. ------------------ WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... next year, at least.
Uh-uh. Not me. I've got enough problems living my own life without having to worry about telling someone else how to live theirs. That is not why the Civil War was fought. The Civil War was fought because the South no longer felt that it had a representative voice in the Union on any issue, including slavery. As with the nullification crisis thirty years earlier, the South (South Carolina in particular) was standing up for its interpretation of statehood. Was the Union a loose coalition of independent states, or was power to be centralized in Washington? The South assuredly did not fear Lincoln would free the slaves. Lincoln did not suggest manumission during his campaign, nor was that one of his goals for the Union in the Civil War. Lincoln believed that secession was illegal and that it was his duty to bring the southern states back in line. He stated repeatedly that he would save the Union "with slavery or without slavery"-- it was not an issue to him initially. To state that his election was a signal to the South that abolition was around the corner is silly. Lincoln did not carry a single Southern state and won the election with only 39% of the vote. It was not abolition that the South feared specifically; rather, it was the apparent impotence of their collective voice in national politics. Source: Two classes at UT under Professor George Forgie. If you are a UT student, I highly recommend his Civil War classes. Unbelievably interesting. ------------------ You bring the bullets, I'll bring the wine.
Once on a road trip across the US, a guy that a friend and I picked up kept confusing Charleston with Charlotte, NC. My friend jokingly yelled at him Charleston, SC damnit! We started the Civil War!. The kid was from Santa Cruz, so I'm not too sure that the joke was well received. I personally blame James Taylor b/c of that damn song 'Carolina'. I'm currently unaware of the other states purposes as to secession. But make no mistake about it, the first state to secede seceded b/c other states were not recognizing their slaveholder rights and Abraham Lincoln's election only furthered the fear that their slaveholder 'rights' would be oppressed. South Carolina's declaration of secession: (note that this is long, but I want nothing taken out of context) [Copied by Justin Sanders from J.A. May & J.R. Faunt, *South Carolina Secedes* (U. of S. Car. Pr, 1960), pp. 76-81.] Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue. And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act. In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do." They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof." Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE. In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States. The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority. If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation. By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken. Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights. We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences. In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof. The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River. The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States. The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety. On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief. We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. Adopted December 24, 1860 [Committee signatures] Should I bold the obvious parts that contradict everything that your professor said? In particular (and I find this amazing b/c I have always been swayed by the argument that Lincoln's opinions on slavery were not strong until 1863, including your argument BK: ) South Carolina obviously had opinions on Abraham Lincoln and slavery: A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. They weren't talking about Dennis Miller joining the MNF club. Amazing. ------------------ The ClutchCity 500. [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited July 05, 2000).]
No, you shouldn't highlight in bold those sections that contradict what I learned from my professor in college, because doing so is like saying that the colonies declared independence from Britain because they didn't like standing armies to be quartered on their property. That's a very small slice of a much bigger picture which the South Carolina legislature set out in its introductory paragraphs. You know, the part where they say "The people of the State of South Carolina... declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union". It is extremely oversimplified to say that the war was fought over slavery. If you'll recall, the original statement that I disagreed with was as follows: "Since the war was fought b/c the South feared Lincoln would later free slaves..." That is not so, for the reasons I have already set out. ------------------ You bring the bullets, I'll bring the wine.
Sorry, I was modifying my post at the same time you were replying. Not to be redundant, but again: Again, South Carolina obviously had opinions concerning Abraham Lincoln and slavery. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. what were those frequent violations BK? The ONLY examples that the Legislature of South Carolina gives are all slavery issues. We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact.We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences. In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof. (editor's note, you'll want to read this) The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River. The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States. The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. There are no secret motives here. South Carolina seceded b/c of one issue - slavery. It was her duty to enumerate any and all issues of concern and she spoke of just one. ------------------ The ClutchCity 500. [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited July 05, 2000).]
i think, for all of my meager understanding of the issue, that the overarching issue in the civil war was the economic livelihood of the southern states. yes, slavery was a part of it, a big part, because ingrained into the agriculture-based society of the South was the large pool of servile labor imported from other continents. and while south carolina and many other states became incensed at the abolitionist-tendency of the North and their impressement of "Northern ideals" on the South, the resentment regarding slavery only masks the real fear that the North would slowly overtake the South in importance with their industry while the South would have to contend economically stripped of their main source of growth, slaves. this is in fact what happened, and states such as south carolina are still recovering from the aftershocks of the Civil War. if the North's economy was based on tobbacco or cotton or sugar (products that thrive in the climates of the South), i'm pretty sure that slavery--or at least the ease of use of slavery--would also present to them positive opportunities for exploitation. why, america was based on capitalism of course. yet---let's take the absolute morality route. whether or not slavery was a major or minor part of the Civil War, the fact stands that it existed, and the fact also stands that the flag which stood on top of the South Carolina Legislature symbolizes the setntiments of a significant portion of this country's choice to fight over their RIGHT to keep slaves (whether it be for economic reasons stated above or for bigotry or for any other reasons). the fact also stands that slavery is wrong, that it goes against the ideals that we NOW hold true, and that, while the memory of it should belong in museums where it can be ruminated upon, any symbol that attaches itself to such connotation should not be representative of any body of government in this country. hitler had reasons for his first attacks because of the constrictive nature of the Versailles Treaty---that still does not justify the swatiska being adorned in Germany's government offices. the confederate flag symbolizes the independence to the Southern States, but independence from what.. and independence to what? that the South can have economic freedom? yes. sure. that's a good thing. so that slavery can persist? now this is up for contention. any symbol like that should not fly over any chambers of deliberation, in my opinion.
Hey BK, I took a small seminar with Forgie too, in 90 I think. Great class, learned quite a bit from it. (I think it was titled, "The Constitutionality of Secession: Readings from 1770-1880" or something like that). Complete coincidence (hadn't read this thread), I was talking about just that class last night with my wife on the way home from fireworks (it was the 4th after all). If I remember, at least from his perceptions in 90, was that Dr. Forgie was pretty clear that politics and economics around one issue, slavery, drove the civil war. I remember he corrected me early in the class when I said I thought "states rights" were just as much about the war as slavery. But he broke it down for me, basically saying just look at the context around it (e.g., adding one state that was for slavery, the politics of adding another state against slavery to balance it out; states only lined up for secession if they had slaves as essential parts of their economies, or maybe to keep piece with their slave holding neighboring states, no other reasons, if I remember). There was no "if", "ands", or "buts" (paraphrasing what he said), the issue that drove secession was slavery, and whether the state had it or not (there was no middle ground-they allowed slaves or they didn’t), this drove the politics and legal maneuvering (going back to the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist papers for the arguments in favor/against secession). If I also remember much of the motives in the North for the war were not so ideal either, as you pointed out. BTW-I think comparing the Dixie Flag to a Swastika is not that unfair. A little maybe, but not that far off. Both symbolize many things to many people (I am sure some good ideas came from Nazi’s, somewhere), but I don't know how you can get away from a key essence of them in which certain groups are dehumanized for something other than their own actions. It is no surprise to me either that they are probably the two favorite symbols of quite a few White Supremacist groups. I don't care if 51% of South Carolinians are in favor of raising the confederate flag over their statehouse (this seems to me government providing some official legitimacy of it), 51% mandate a salute to the Confederate flag each morning before school, 51% of South Carolinians decide dissent speech against their state government is no longer allowed, or 51% of such persons still support “separate but equal”, it would be wrong for our nation to allow such views prevail over the spirit of the nation as a whole. States do not have the right to deny, or symbolize the denying of, inalienable rights from persons no matter what their majority says. The is one of the most fundamental premises of our Constitutional system. [This message has been edited by sir scarvajal (edited July 05, 2000).]
I think comparing the Dixie Flag to a Swastika is not that unfair. A little maybe, but not that far off. Not that far off? C'mon man. Nazis existed to make certain groups of people extinct. Civil War Southerners did not do that to black people. Only the richest of Southerners even owned slaves. On top of that, slaves were expensive. Why would you brutalize something that was such an investment? Why would you buy slaves only to kill them? I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but you can't believe all this Hollywood glamourization that every Southern man owned 10 million slaves and brutalized and/or killed them all. It is no surprise to me either that they are probably the two favorite symbols of quite a few White Supremacist groups. Are you a Christian by any chance? The KKK sure loves the symbol of the cross. (I am sure some good ideas came from Nazi’s, somewhere) The Nazis came up with Deisel fuel, the jet engine, started the Autobahn, and started Volkswagon. Hitler was named Time magazine's "Man of the Year" twice before WWII started. Slavery existed for three years under the Stars and Bars and for hundreds of years under the Stars and Stripes. ------------------ I need a new signature. 302 [This message has been edited by Lynus302 (edited July 06, 2000).]
Come on Lynus, you're understating how horrible slavery was. While it's true that the slave owners in colonial times didn't have concentration camps, I'm guessing that many of the African-Americans would have chosen that over being sent to an unknown land in a ship (many died on the trip over, but that was OK, I guess) and being owned by other people. Nazis aren't that much worse than the slave owners of our past. Sure, most did not own slaves. However, the institution of slavery led to racism on the part of many people. Hell, if we treat them like dogs, they must be dogs, so we're better than they are. The Confederate flag doesn't just represent slavery, it represents racism, lynchings, and the like. ------------------ Just because you're white and play basketball doesn't mean you're a Matt Bullard clone, despite idiotic accusations to the contrary. visit www.swirve.com [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited July 06, 2000).]
