Coupla points; The initial territory gains the Nazis sought were, it was said, to protect German-speaking people from oppression and what we would now call terrorism. But, moreover, Hitler advocated the German need to acquire, not terrirtory, but resources located in the East to fuel it's ability to defend itself. He was both very open and very consistent in depicting his desire to acquire lands to the East for the purpose of defending Germany proper, and in fact spends much of My Struggle bashing WWI German decisions to, as Hitler called it, 'wasted manpower and resoursces on useless attacks on the West, which sought to achieve nothing more than conquest.' Whenever trying to look at any military strategy/rationale of any German leadership, you have to understand that their actions have always been designed to avoid the dangerous position their geographic location naturally leads to; the two front war. This left them extremely vulnerable to takeover, and that was what Hitler's "living room' was designed to gian them; repreive from some of that threat.
Don't get me wrong. I admire the Confederacy for rebelling against what they *felt* were unjust and unreasonable laws. Treasonous, yes. Wrong? I'm not so sure. I absolutely disagree for their reasons for seceding, but their *expression* of outrage was understandable. They felt the government no longer represented them, so they sought to change it. In many ways, it's the most American thing you can do. There's not a chance in hell I would have fought for the Confederacy because I disagreed with them, but I would have understood where they were coming from. Understanding and condoning are two different things. But to deny that slavery was a key issue in the war is just revising history. The entire southern economy was built on slavery.
2 points, and I'll leave it alone: 1. if you were born and raised in the south at that time, you would have fought for the south. your view of things would probably be much different than your view of things over a century later with hindsight in a totally different culture; 2. i never said slavery was not a key issue. but it was not THE issue.
Re: the civil war issue, both sides have done what people always do: Stressed the side of the issue upon which they were in the right, when in fact it is impossible to seperate the issues. The North was right about the evil of slavery, the South was right about a State's right to determine it's policies or leave the Union, which had been guarenteed before any of them joined. But to look at either issue as THE issue of the war, or as seperate from the other is to adopt a ludicrous position. Yes, the states were fighting for their right to decide an issue...and that issue, the only issue which pushed them to that position was slavery. You cannot have one without the other. Yes the North was fighting on the side of morality when it was fighting for freedom of the slaves, but slvery was the issue which was about to seperate the Union, and legally states had that right, so in effect the North was fighting to prevent people from doing what they were supposed to be allowed to do. You cannot argue the slavery cause without addressing the fact that, in fighting for it, they were also fighting against other guarenteed freedoms.
I think at this point, MacBeth, we'd need to crack open the books and provide some references. Not that I think you're actually wrong in what you're saying, just that you're not properly recognizing the expansionist agenda of the Third Reich. But, I won't actually pursue it any further because this whole discussion is a tangent to the original point. I was merely trying to point out that the Nazis are maligned for the Holocaust and invasions of other countries whereas the South is maligned only for protecting the institution of slavery (with not much concern for their part in starting the Civil War, deserved or not, and with the obvious exception of GreenVegan). After all, we're talking about symbolism, not history. I know for my part, as a Frenchman, I resent both the Holocaust and the battlefield embarrasment and ensuing occupation. I don't think many Northerners feel much animosity because Confederate soldiers once marched through their town. And even all of that is pretty tangental to the conversation about the symbolic essence of the Confederate flag -- I'm arguing there's more to be reproachful of in the Nazis than in the Confederates, but that doesn't mean the Confederates didn't do bad things, nor that Southerners now can be completely proud of their heritage and pretend that little slavery blemish didn't exist. It doesn't have much to do with the meaning of the flag.
When I see someone with the C flag in their car, truck, or whatever I think, "possible racist". But mostly I think "insecure". The flag lovers need to grow up and move on (especially Bo and Luke Duke).
JV- To sum up, quickly, it would be impossible for anyone who has studied WWI, read Hitler's writings, etc. as I have to not recognoze the expansionist attitude of the Third Reich. What I was attempting to illustrate, abviously poorly, was that the Third Reicjh, and Hitler in particular, saw expansion as the only viable means to enable their ability to defend themselves. So it's not defense OR expansion, it's that, in their mind, they were one and the same. Look at our original rationale for Iraq, if you want an parallel, or all of Rome's conquests...Whether you see merit in their position, or merely see it as conventional expansionist double talk is an entirely different issue.
MacBeth - I think it's because genocide is worse than slavery. And that the Jewish influence on media and the like has influenced greater awareness about the situation, etc. Timing - It's a symbol of "hatred, death, and slavery"... TO YOU. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. Things exist based on comprehension. GreenVegan - "The United States of America the most traitorous and destructive movement in American history. It broke apart from the British Empire, and was responsible for a war that cost many American lives. So the rich merchantmen could get even more wealthy, often at the expense of the very men who fought the actual battles of the revolution. That's certainly a legacy I would advertise on my pickup truck." Also... "Don't get me wrong. I admire the colonies for rebelling against what they *felt* were unjust and unreasonable laws. Treasonous, yes. Wrong? I'm not so sure." It's all perception my friend. Juan - The South did invade the North. Robert E Lee led one of the most daring and brilliant campaigns in the history of warfare in his invasion of the North and came extremely close to striking a critical blow against Washington D.C. However, his offensive wasstopped at Gettysburg. If the South had the resources of the North, Lee would have crushed them in a matter of weeks.
How do you distunguish the two? The importation/use of African Americans as slaves lead directly to millions of unnatural deaths. Slavery WAS genocide.
Ahhh..Come on! Don't TELL me you never dreamed about having a "Hemi-Orange" 1969 Charger with the Stars and Bars on the hood that played Dixie when ya honked the horn??!
Only if someone like 1980's Catherine Bach was guarenteed to hop in in response to my horny-call. God she was a hottie with a body. Uh....did I get off topic?
Two things: The Union invaded the South first. The Southern invasions of Maryland (resulted in Antietam) in September 1862 and Pennsylvania (Gettysburg) in June/July 1863 were an attempt to draw away Union forces that had penetrated deep into the South. The first Union invasion of the South occured in 1861, at the Battle of Bull Run (Manassas) in Virginia. In fact, the second Union invasion occurred in Febuary 1862, when Grant, then just a unknown drunk, led the invasion into Tennessee that resulted in the reduction of both Forts Henry and Donelson (on the Cumberland River) and gave him the nickname of "Unconditional Surrender Grant" link As for the Battle Flag being a symbol of hatred, I think it has been misused by racists and thus given a bad connotation. I think people need to seriously evaluate why they would get so damned offended over a bit of cloth and stitching. I don't support the flag being part of state flags or hanging over a Capitol building, but for these anti-flag zealots to try to remove it from displays (like the five flags of the different nations that ruled the area in my old hometown of Mobile) is just plain wrong. It is a part of our history, like it or not.
It's easy when a woman looks this good and lends her character's name to a delicious fashion trend among young women.
It's a battle flag dredged up to symbolize the Confederacy which created to defend the states right to enslave people. Comprehend that my friend. Any other representation for that flag is something dreamt up to ignore reality.
Do you remember this speech? Given right after the secession by the Governor of Tennessee? This is only half of it but I'd like for you to point out to me the stuff about tariffs, industrialization, and all the huge issues that led to the Confederacy. If you can't find it in this speech I can post some others. Speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris January 7, 1861 The ninth section of the third article of the Constitution, provides that, on extraordinary occasions, the Governor may convene the General Assembly. Believing the emergency contemplated, to exist at this time I have called you together. In welcoming you to the capitol of the State, I can but regret the gloomy auspices under which we meet. Grave and momentous issues have arisen, which, to an unprecedented degree, agitate the public mind and imperil the perpetuity of the Government. The systematic, wanton, and long continued agitation of the slavery question, with the actual and threatened aggressions of the Northern States and a portion of their people, upon the well-defined constitutional rights of the Southern citizen; the rapid growth and increase, in all the elements of power, of a purely sectional party, whose bond of union is uncompromising hostility to the rights and institutions of the fifteen Southern States, have produced a crisis in the affairs of the country, unparalleled in the history of the past, resulting already in the withdrawal from the Confederacy of one of the sovereignties which composed it, while others are rapidly preparing to move in the same direction. Fully appreciating the imortance of the duties which devolve upon you, fraught, as your action must be, with consequences of the highest possible importance to the people of Tennessee; knowing that, as a great Commonwealth, our own beloved State is alike interested with her sisters, who have resorted, and are preparing to resort, to this fearful alternative, I have called you together for the purpose of calm and dispassionate deliberation, earnestly trusting, as the chosen representatives of a free and enlightened people, that you will, at this critical juncture of our affairs, prove yourselves equal to the occasion which has called for the exercise of your talent and patriotism. A brief review of the history of the past is necessary to a proper understanding of the issues presented for your consideration. Previous to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, each State was a separate and independent Government-a conplete sovereignty within itself --and in the compact of union, each reserved all the rights and powers incident to sovereignty, except such as were expressly delegated by the Constitution to the General Government, or such as were clearly incident, and necessary, to the exercise of some expressly delegated power. The Constitution distinctly recognizes property in slaves--makes it the duty of the States to deliver the fugitive to his owner, but contains no grant of power to the Federal Government to interfere with this species of property, except "the power coupled with the the duty," common to all civil Governments, to protect the rights of property, as well as those of life and liberty, of the citizen, which clearly appears from the exposition given to that instrument by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford. In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Taney said: "Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution." "And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description. The only power conferred, is the power coupled with the duty, of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights." This decision of the highest judicial tribunal, known to our Government, settles the question, beyond the possibility of doubt, that slave property rests upon the same basis, and is entitled to the same protection, as every other description of property; that the General Government has no power to circumscribe or confine it within any given boundary; to determine where it shall, or shall not exist, or in any manner to impair its value. And certainly it will not be contended, in this enlightened age, that any member of the Confederacy can exercise higher powers, in this respect, beyond the limits of its own boundary, than those delegated to the General Government. The States entered the Union upon terms of perfect political equality, each delegating certain powers to the General Government, but neither deterring any power to the other to interfere with its reserved rights or domestic affairs; hence, there is no power on earth which can rightfully determine whether slavery shall or shall not exist within the limits of any State, except the people thereof acting in their highest sovereign capacity. The attempt of the Northern people, through the instrumentality of the Federal Govermuent--their State governments, and emigrant aid societies--to confine this species of property within the limits of the present Southern States--to impair its value by constant agitation and refusal to deliver up the fugitive--to appropriate the whole of the Territories, which are the common property all the people of all the States, to the Southern man who is unwilling to live under a government which, may by law recognize the free negroe as his equal; "and in fine, to put the question where the Northern mind will rest in the belief of its ultimate extinction" is justly regarded by the people of the Southern States as a gross and palpable violation of the spirit and obvious meaning of the compact of Union--an impertinent intermeddling with their domestic affairs, destructive of fraternal feeling, ordinary comity, and well defined rights. As slavery receded from the North, it was followed by the most violent and fanatical opposition. At first the anti-slavery cloud, which now overshadows the nation, was no larger than a man's hand. Most of you can remember, with vivid distinctness, those days of brotlierhood,.when throughout the whole North, the abolitionist was justly regarded as an enemy of his country. Weak, diminutive and contemptible as was this part in the purer days of the Republic, it has now grown to collossal proportions, and its recent rapid strides to power, have given it possession of the.present House of Representatives, and elected one of its leaders to the Presidency of the United States; and in the progress of events, the Senate and Supreme Court must also soon pass into the hands of this party--a party upon whose revolutionary banner is inscribed, "No more slave States, no more slave Territory, no return of the fugitive to his master"--an "irrepressible conflict" between the Free and Slave States; "and whether it, be long or short, peaceful or bloody, the struggle shall go on, until the sun shall not rise upon a master or set upon a slave." Nor is this all; it seeks to appropriate to itself, and to exclude the slaveholder from the territory acquired by the common blood and treasure of all the States. It has, through the instrumentality of Emigrant Aid Societies, under State patronage, flooded the Territories with its minions, armed with Sharp's rifles and bowie knives, seeking thus to accomplish, by intimidation, violence and murder what it could not do by constitutional legislation. It demanded, and from our love of peace and devotion to the Union, unfortunately extorted in 1819-'20, a concession which excluded the South from about half the territory acquired from France. It demanded, and again received, as a peace offering in 1845, all of that part of Texas, North of 36 deg. 30' North latitude, if at any time the interest of the people thereof shall require a division of her territory. It would submit to nothing less than a compromise in 1850, by which it dismembered that State, and remanded to territorial condition a considerable portion of its territory South of 36 30. It excluded, by the same Compromise, the Southern people from California, whose mineral wealth, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate, is not surpassed on earth, by prematurely forcing her into the Union under a Constitution, conceived in fraud by a set of adventurers, in the total absence of any law authorizing the formation of a Constitution, fixing the qualification of voters, regulating the time, place, or manner of electing delegates, or the time or place of the meeting of such Convention. Yet all these irregular and unauthorized proceedings were.sanctified by the fact that the Constitution prohibited slavery, and forever closed the doors of that rich and desirable territory against the Southern people. And while the Southern mind was still burning under a humiliating sense of this wrong, it refused to admit Kansas into the Union upon a Constitution, framed by authority of Congress, and by delegates elected in conforinity to law, upon the ground that slavery was recognized and protected. It claims the constitutional right to abolish slaverv in the District of Columbia, the forts, arsenals, dock-yards and other places ceded to the United States, within the limits of slaveholding States. It proposes a prohibition of the slave trade between the States, thereby crowding the slaves together and preventing their exit South, until they become unprofitable to an extent that will force the owner finally to abandon them in self-defence. It has, by the deliberate Legislative enactments of a large majority of the Northern States, openly and flagrantly nullified that clause of the Constitution which provides that- "No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such labor may be due." This provision of the Constitution has been spurned and trampled under foot by these "higher law " nullifiers. It is utterly powerless for good, since all attempts to enforce the fugitive slave law under it are made a felony in some of these States, a high misdemeanor in others, and punishable in all by heavy fines and imprisonment. The distempered public opinion of these localities having risen above the Constitution and all other law, planting itself upon the anarchical doctrines of the " higher law," with impunity defies the Government, tramples upon our rights, and plunders the Southern citizen. It has, through the Governor of Ohio, as openly nullified that part of the Constitution which provides that-"A person charged in any State.with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from jistice and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime." In discharge of official duty, I had occasion, within the past year, to demand of the Governor of Ohio " a person charged in the State (of Tennessee) with the crime " of slave stealing, who had fled from justice, and was found in the State of Ohio.' The Governor refused to issue his warrant for the arrest and delivery of the fugitive, and in answer to a letter of inquiry which I addressed to him, said: 'The crime of negro stealing not being known to either the common law or the criminal code of Ohio, it is not of that class of crimes contemplated by the Federal Constitution, for the commission of which I am authorized, as the executive of Ohio, to surrender a fugitive from the justice of a sister State, and hence I declined to issue a warrant," &c.; thus deliberately nullifying and setting at defiance the clause of the Constitution above quoted, as well as the act of Congress of February 12th, 1793, and grossly violating the ordinary comity existing between separate and independent nations, much less the comity which should exist between sister States of the same great Confederacy; the correspondence connected with which is herewith transmitted. It has, through the executive authority of other States, denied extradition of murderers and marauders. It obtained its own compromise in the Constitution to continue the importation of slaves, and now sets up a law, higher than the Constitution, to destroy this property imported and sold to us by their fathers. It has caused the murder of owners in pursuit of their fugitive slaves, and shielded the murderers from punishment. It has, upon many occasions, sent its emissaries into the Southerri States to corrupt our slaves; induce them to run off, or excite them to insurrection. It has run off slave property by means of the "underground railroad," amounting in value to millions of dollars, and thus made the tenure by which slaves are held in the border States so precarious as to materially impair their value. It has, by its John Brown and Montgomery raids, invaded sovereign States and murdered peaceable citizens. It has justified and "exalted to the highest honors of admiration, the horrid murders, arsons, and rapine of the John Brown raid, and has canonized the felons as saints and martyrs." It has burned the towns, poisoned the cattle, and conspired with the slaves to depopulate Northern Texas. It has, through certain leaders, proclaimed to the slaves the terrible motto, "Alarm to the sleep, fire to the dwellings, poison to the food and water of slaveholders." It has repudiated and denounced the decision of the Supreme Court. It has assailed our rights as guarantied by the plainest provisions of the Constitution, from the floor of each house of Congress, the pulpit, the hustings, the school-room, their State Legislatures, and through the public press, dividing and disrupting churches, political parties, and civil governments. It has, in the person of the President elect, asserted the equality of the black with the white race. These are some of the wrongs against which we have remonstrat- ed for more than a quarter of a century, hoping, but in vain, for their redress, until some of our sister States, in utter despair of obtaining justice at the hands of these lawless confederates, have resolved to sever the ties which have bound them together, and maintain those rights out of the Union, which have been the object of' constant attack and encroachment within it.
People tend to answer their own question when this argument comes up. "blah blah, why are people so sensitive, blah blah etc." Then they throw in the "Sure, it is misused by racists etc. . ." The flag is used by southern racists, I don't see why it's such a quantum leap in logic to understand where people of color are coming from when they say they don't like the flag. Somebody said it earlier, "you can't tell people what to fell." If people feel nervous and don't trust the meaning of that flag, there is a reason for it. It isn' t being pulled out of a monkey's ass.
For those of you who wondered, a few points on the history of the Civil War. The confederate shelling of Ft. Sumter that kicked off the war was on April 14th, 1861, in response to Union attempts to resupply the fort. remember that south carolina had seceded and considered the Union garrison (who'd be given the opportunity to surrender) to be trespassing. To say the south invaded the north, while technically true, is disingenuous. virtually the entirely of the war was fought on southern soil. Lee took his army north twice, the first time in September 1862, culminating in the battle of Antietam, or Sharpsburg, on September 17th, the bloodiest day in American history. 6,000 killed, more than 17,000 wounded. Casulties at Antietam were more than four times those suffered by American soldiers at Normandy on June 6, 1944. More than twice as many Americans lost their lives on that one day as fell in combat in the war of 1812, Mexican War, and the Spanish-American War combined (stats from James McPherson's book Battle Cry of Freedon). Gettysburg was the following summer, July 1-3. Save a few raids into Ohio by Braxton Bragg, the rest of the war was fought in the south. As for the flag, I think a more apt comparison would be with the german Iron Cross, rather than the swastika. The "Stars and Bars" was a confederate battle flag, not the national flag. It's subsequent adoption as a symbol of both southern pride and racial oppression by some, shouldn't obscure the valor of those who died fighting under it, the overwhelming majority of whom never owned slaves. the swastika on the other hand was always a symbol of racial superiority, and never stood for anything else. That said, i don't think the "Stars and Bars" has any place on a state flag. the back of a pickup truck seems about the right venu...and i grew up with a gun rack on my bedroom wall! black sensitivity about the flag is understandable, but it's not in the same category as the swastika.
It seems kind of weird to argue the legal or constitutional right to enslave is actually a “freedom”. Legalistic protection, yes, but freedom? Analogous to your nazi comparison, it would be like arguing for "freedom" or "right to sovereignty" to commit genocide. BTW many Nazis no doubt fought with valor as well, and like most Southerners who support Dixie most Germans embedded in Nazi culture supported the Nazi. Were there dissenters, yes, but the power of being embedded within a context like that makes most people lose sense of the morality of what they are doing in a more absolute sense. Now should those that fought for those nations/causes be celebrated per se? Certainly not w/o a lot of caveats about ultimately what they were fighting for IMO.
You might be right on that. I just wanted to take this discussion from the revisionist history learned from teachers and textbooks to the actual words of the people involved.
