Thread: American Civl War is still being fought Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029219
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Even though Robert E Lee surrendered the Army of Virgina, and Jefferson Davis was captured shortly thereafter, the issue of the Confederate Battle Flag shows the war is still being fought.
Ken Burns, who did the PBS documentary on the Civil War makes the point that while formal hostilities were concluded over 150 years ago, as long as minority Americans do not have equal rights, the war is still being fought.
Did you know that in the Southern States most town squares have a monument dedicated to the traitors who lost? What other country will its largest Army base after a traitor, General Benning who convinced Georgia to secede? Then there is the Jefferson Davis highway outside of Richmond Virginia.
Take Kentucky--a border state in the civil war. 75% of the volunteers of Kentucky fought four the Union, yet all the statutes in Kentucky commemorating the Civil War are for Confederatoriate vanquished.
And this is not to say anything of the Seven Black Churches which were burned down-- or the 85 other religious institutions which were torched in the past year (most of them Jewish or Muslim).
Guess which side swears by the second amendment?
If there is one thing the Dylan Roof shooting has begun is a discourse on the state of the American civil war.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
If I were a US citizen, and came from the south - I am neither - having my side - being still described 150 years later as "the traitors who lost" would be sufficient to keep the issue alive, irrespective of all the other issues involved.
If that approach is normal, it isn't only the wicked south that is responsible for keeping it still a live contention.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Gramps,
Is there still racism in the South? Of course. Racism exists all over the place. It is a stain upon our souls that harms the victims and the perpetrators alike. All notions that a group of people can be judged to be inferior to one’s self is a pernicious lie.
Are there monuments in town squares? Yes. Is it all explainable by the notion that we white southerners are still fighting the Civil War? See, discussion of racism above.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Monuments to the losing side in conflicts are hardly unusual. I know in the UK our civil wars are not as recent (I include not just the English civil war, but various conflicts between England and Scotland) as the US civil war. But, you will find monuments at most of the battlefields (regardless of which side won that particular war). The monument to William Wallace is a major attraction in Stirling. There are monuments to Cromwell and other Parliamentarians, and people who revere Charles I as "King and Martyr". Does that mean we're still fighting our civil wars? Of course not.
The exception is when those who associate with one side very publically celebrate victory, apparently deliberately going out of their way to proclaim this to those who associate with the other side. Which is what we still see in Northern Ireland, where one of the big issues relates to flags.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The exception is when those who associate with one side very publically celebrate victory, apparently deliberately going out of their way to proclaim this to those who associate with the other side. Which is what we still see in Northern Ireland, where one of the big issues relates to flags.
This is the key. I am not an American and would not claim any special knowledge but I think it is quite clear in NI - although things are a world away from twenty years ago - is still fighting the civil wars of long ago, even if the violence level has dropped significantly.
I guess the question about in the US is does this parallel apply? Are there still parts refighting these issues? The confederate flag has great symbolism to some, and very little to others. How signifcant its usage is in some states I would hesitate to suggest an answer but maybe Gramps is right. Maybe, much like Northern Ireland, the sides stopped fighting but haven't really made peace?
AFZ
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Having lived in the South for the better part of six decades my experience is that the vast majority of people here could not give a rats ass about the Civil War.
The hype about the war is confined chiefly to:
Old white guys who have elegies of the brave and gallant South - where a small band of gentlemen outfought those Yankees - running through their heads. Even among that set overt racism is pretty low considering the way the South was as they grew up.
Young idiots among the more tattoos than teeth set who have to look down on somebody because their squalid lives can't actually be their fault.
People who have not been to the southeast US and who like to make up shit about the region.
Is there still racism here? Of course. Not proud of it. Is it dying out? I believe and hope so. Again, my experience is the vast majority in the South are not any more racist than anyone anywhere else in the world.
But, a cosmopolitan Nashville or Atlanta where growth is rapid and where people from other parts of the country find themselves quite at home is not nearly as much fun as picturing the South as a bunch of hicks waving the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia and outrunning the Sheriff in a 70's muscle car now is it?
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
But, a cosmopolitan Nashville or Atlanta where growth is rapid and where people from other parts of the country find themselves quite at home is not nearly as much fun as picturing the South as a bunch of hicks waving the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia and outrunning the Sheriff in a 70's muscle car now is it?
And Maybe the South moved on long ago but some don't want to see it that way because they're too fond of their own prejudices...
AFZ
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
People who have not been to the southeast US and who like to make up shit about the region.
Is there still racism here? Of course. Not proud of it. Is it dying out? I believe and hope so. Again, my experience is the vast majority in the South are not any more racist than anyone anywhere else in the world.
I dunno about "the world." I'm from the US north (grew up in the Boston, MA area) and have spent chunks of my working life in the south -- Florida, both Carolinas, and Georgia -- and have to agree that racism persists on all sides of the Mason-Dixon line.
It gets expressed differently in different places, though. In the north, it's generally somewhat more covert (the Boston school bussing disturbances were an important exception; that was terrorism, not just racism). People of color will hear, "The job's been filled, the apartment's been rented, the house is under contract," etc. and the discrimination will be harder to detect and even harder to prove for those who attempt it. In the south, discrimination tends to be somewhat more overt, and it's somewhat more often attached to a palpable acceptance of the notion of white supremacy. Mobile as our population is, though, this ideology can now be found anywhere.
Sincere belief in the supremacy of the so-called "white race" is (so far) somewhat less common in the North than in the South, and in my view, this belief is the core problem. In addition, belief in "white supremacy" leads more often to out-and-out terrorism, which has been a more frequent activity in the South than in the North. (I'm defining "terrorism" as activities aimed at whole groups of people -- church-burning, lynching, the passing of Jim Crow laws, etc., whereas "discrimination" is more apt to target individuals who are members of those groups.)
Until we can start having frank discussions about this white supremacy ideology, and speak frankly about the fact that whites, regardless of where they live, have been terrorizing (not just discriminating against) people of color since the collapse of southern restoration, I suspect that talking about "racism" (which so often leads to comments like, "well, that black woman doesn't hire whites in her store, and isn't THAT racist?") is nearly pointless.
It's really tough to deal with a problem whose very existence we're so loath to admit.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I lived in the Deep South (Mississippi) for 3 years. Actually lived in the only integrated neighborhood in the town. We had some troubles while I was there--a black family near the entrance to the neighborhood had their flower beds torn up one night. A garden club my wife belonged too refused accept a black woman as a member, and my wife and a number of other women immediately resigned. A rural black church was severely vandalized which prompted a number of us to help with the clean up.
Yes, I would say with the continuing influx of Northerners and even foreign immigration the Old South is slowly dying away. That is one reason why Charleston SC has avoided any black riots in the last two incidents--Charleston is very much an equal rights city, its leaders work hard to make sure everyone matters in the civil process. This next general election just may see two or three key Southern States go purple. Texas and Georgia have seen enough immigration from other areas they could go either way. Florida may also go purple.
Still there are pockets of resisters who want to keep things as they were.
Meanwhile, news item: NASCAR has now asked all participants to refrain flying the Confederate Battle Flag. Dale Ernhardt Jr--one of the leading racers in NASCAR (and a Lutheran btw) has said the flag needs to go. The Daytona race is this week. It will be interesting to see how many respect the call to refrain from flying the flag.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
When I was at Sewanee (in Tennessee) 15 years ago, you still saw quite a few flags on dorm room walls, tee shirts, hats, and stickers. In general, it reflected an interesting disconnect in the mind of many young men there. There was a general awareness that the flag could be a pretty provocative symbol, and that if you walked into a black neighborhood waving a flag around, you were asking for a fight. But for some reason (probably the fact that when you are 18 to 22 you don't always think about how your actions affect others,) it wasn't supposed to be provocative when it was on your wall. It was a regional identifier and a nod to your ancestors, not unlike having "Je Me Souviens" on your license plate.
I think that disconnect is starting to fade. There are still probably more boys who grow up hearing about their ancestors fighting for the South than there are boys who grow up hearing about ancestors fighting for the North. That tends to happen at the age when you are romantic about war, and are stupid enough to think that bravery and courage can actually win a war, and that but for one little screw up at Gettysburg (152 year ago today, by the way) the South would have won. And that will probably always happen. But I have seen a lot of my friends from the South get behind the latest push to remove the flag from public life, which tells me that the disconnect is starting to wane. Maybe it is the wisdom that comes from years, or maybe it is a symptom of a changing South.
Gramps: quote:
The Daytona race is this week. It will be interesting to see how many respect the call to refrain from flying the flag.
It may be a race that is run Daytona, but it is no more The Daytona race than a UCLA home game at the Rose Bowl is The Rose Bowl. THE Daytona race happens in February. But that's a matter for the Circus.
My feeling is that you will see a split down the line. Some people are going to be respectful, and some people are going to be resentful and even more visible. Ole Miss (The University of Mississippi, whose teams are called the Rebels) had a tradition of waiving the flag at football games that went back to the 50s or 60s, and they finally had to ban all flags from games before it stopped. Unless you start pulling tickets from anyone flying the flag, you are going to have people flying it out of spite. Gun sales spike every time the President gives a gun control speech, and flag sales have probably spiked in the last two weeks. Spite is a powerful motivator.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I still say that as long as there are people who go on calling those who fought on the confederate side and their leaders 'traitors', it will be no wonder that others fly the confederate flag. Assuming that it's only 'them' who keep the issue alive is as bad as, and rather similar to, the social progressives who assume that as they are 'liberal', it must be that it is only the social traditionalists who are bigots.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Did you know that in the Southern States most town squares have a monument dedicated to the traitors who lost?
It would be more accurate to say they are monuments to the local men who died in a war.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
A good article about the history of the flag:
From Atlantic Magazine
The good thing about the events of this past month or so is that it has made it plain to everybody that the Stars and Bars is the flag of no true American, but instead the banner of traitors.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
"American Civl War is still being fought"
I have been around here long enough to read some daft OP's, but this one makes the top 5 easy.
Even without the spelling error....
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A good article about the history of the flag:
From Atlantic Magazine
The good thing about the events of this past month or so is that it has made it plain to everybody that the Stars and Bars is the flag of no true American, but instead the banner of traitors.
I won't call someone a traitor for defending their home.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Can't let a tragedy go to waste. Banning guns isn't going to happen. Let's whip the social media mob into a frenzy over confederate monuments.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Did you know that in the Southern States most town squares have a monument dedicated to the traitors who lost?
It would be more accurate to say they are monuments to the local men who died in a war.
Here's the trick. This is true- the sentiment of the monument was originally to commemorate the people from a town who died in the war. It is also true that had those local men won the war, other local men would have remained enslaved for some future period of time. And it is very easy for people to remember the first and forget the second.
That happens easily enough. I grew up on family stories about my great great grandfather who left home at 14 to ride with the Texas cavalry in the war, and another ancestor who lost his arm 152 year ago today in Pickett's Charge with the Mississippi infantry. And when those stories were told, it wasn't often mentioned that abolition of slavery was at least part of what was at stake.
What I think we need to be asking is how do we get people to appreciate that their memorial, even if they don't see it that way, is a painful reminder to others. Demanding that all memorials come down right now is one way to do it, but you are going to make a lot of people very angry and less likely to appreciate the valid concerns of others. And of course, there are going to be people who never see the other side's point of view, and at some point you can't accommodate those people.
I don't think anything is impossible in the kingdom of God, but racial reconciliation is one of the really tough ones.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
quote:
Is there still racism here? Of course. Not proud of it. Is it dying out? I believe and hope so.
Good luck with that, it hasn't disappeared anywhere else just yet.
Racism isn't a light switch, but a smoldering fire. Burns longer and hotter than it often appears.
And it isn't over until it effects are truly countered. Inertia affects social and economic issues as well as physical bodies.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
quote:
I won't call someone a traitor for defending their home.
Defending their homes from what, the loss of their right to own other human beings. Bah, humbug. Traitors they were and traitors they remain.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
To be honest, I've spent the majority of my life in the north, and the OP of this thread is the first time I've ever heard those who fought for the South in the (US) Civil War referred to as "traitors." I've heard them called plenty of other things: Confederate soldiers; Johnny Rebs; slavers; rebels; states' righters; Southerners.
I've never heard them called "traitors," and I have a hard time thinking of them that way.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Defending their homes from what, the loss of their right to own other human beings. Bah, humbug. Traitors they were and traitors they remain.
Well, that answers the question and demonstrates what I've just said. That may be a northern rather than a southern sentiment, but it proves the title to thread is true.
Thank you
[ 03. July 2015, 17:44: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I won't call someone a traitor for defending their home.
I'd hesitate likewise. That said, it's well to remember that (A) 7 states seceded from the Union before hostilities started; and (B) the Confederacy fired the first shots at Ft. Sumter, which opened those hostilities.
Both actions strike me as aggressive rather than defensive. Nevertheless, the utter destruction wrought by Sherman's march was certainly calculated to be punitive. The South, despite a few burgeoning metropolitan centers, has never recovered the economic primacy it had pre-war.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
To be honest, I've spent the majority of my life in the north, and the OP of this thread is the first time I've ever heard those who fought for the South in the (US) Civil War referred to as "traitors." I've heard them called plenty of other things: Confederate soldiers; Johnny Rebs; slavers; rebels; states' righters; Southerners.
I've never heard them called "traitors," and I have a hard time thinking of them that way.
I've seen it a lot more in the last few weeks, and certainly at the time of the war they were seen as traitors by those in the North who vocally supported the war.
Do we have a hard time thinking of them as traitors because our country's national holiday celebrates an act of treason? The CSA certainly saw itself as walking in the footsteps of the American Revolution, and put Washington on its seal.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Here's the trick. This is true- the sentiment of the monument was originally to commemorate the people from a town who died in the war.
It still is.
quote:
It is also true that had those local men won the war, other local men would have remained enslaved for some future period of time. And it is very easy for people to remember the first and forget the second.
I think that both are remembered.
quote:
That happens easily enough. I grew up on family stories . . .
I don't know what my ancestors did, if anything, during that war. My mother's family has been in Western North Carolina for a long time. It was sparsely populated at the time and there was tremendous division between Union and secessionist sentiment. My grandfather was a CO in WW1 and was made to work in supply when he was drafted because he didn't want to shoot anyone. I've no way of knowing if he was just carrying on family tradition or he came to that view on his own.
quote:
What I think we need to be asking is how do we get people to appreciate that their memorial, even if they don't see it that way, is a painful reminder to others. Demanding that all memorials come down right now is one way to do it, but you are going to make a lot of people very angry and less likely to appreciate the valid concerns of others. And of course, there are going to be people who never see the other side's point of view, and at some point you can't accommodate those people.
It always comes across as crass and unseemly to begrudge others the mourning of their dead.
quote:
I don't think anything is impossible in the kingdom of God, but racial reconciliation is one of the really tough ones.
Anything can be used as an excuse to divide and anything can be overcome if your priorities are in proper order. It could be race, economic class, language, political intrusion, or anything else.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
quote:
I won't call someone a traitor for defending their home.
Defending their homes from what, the loss of their right to own other human beings. Bah, humbug. Traitors they were and traitors they remain.
That's asinine. The vast majority of those who fought for the south did not own slaves. For a good while those who owned more than 20 were even exempted from service. How convenient for them. As many noted at the time, it was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Grew up for about ten years in the south during my teenage years before I escaped back to the north, and I saw lots of negative stuff, but I remember very few people who seemed to spend much time worrying or caring particularly about the civil war. I remember the racist white boy who loved to flip a quarter and say "Heads the south will rise again. Tails it won't." He always reflipped until he got heads. But he was the only one who seemed to be reliving the civil war in any way. Otherwise yeah there were statues to Lee in town, but honestly he was a great general. He easily deserves them, and I'm saying that as a northerner. (Same delightful boy mentioned earlier greeted me sometimes with, "So are you a Yankee or a damned Yankee? Damned Yankees stay.")
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Do we have a hard time thinking of them as traitors because our country's national holiday celebrates an act of treason? The CSA certainly saw itself as walking in the footsteps of the American Revolution, and put Washington on its seal.
treason
noun
the crime of betraying one's country
rebel
noun
a person who rises in opposition or armed resistance against an established government or ruler
patriot
noun
a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.
The colonists were not traitors or patriots, they were rebels. Argue the rightness of their cause, but the definition of what they are is beyond partisan rhetoric.
The Confederacy were also rebels. They were also not patriotic or loyal. But, odious as was their cause, I do not think them treasonous.
The patriots in those wars were the Loyalists in the first and the Northerners in the second.
Again, this is not about right or wrong, but about definition.
[ 03. July 2015, 18:27: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
Mere Nick, don't be a revisionist. The fundamental issue of the Civil War was the right to own slaves. That's the "states right" that was being argued over. The traitors of the south were defending their right to own other people. If the rich plantation owners sucked in the poor farmers with any other rhetoric, that doesn't change the basic issue.
[ 03. July 2015, 18:32: Message edited by: Nicolemr ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
That's asinine. The vast majority of those who fought for the south did not own slaves.
Must we do this every time?
1. Slavery was in the succession documents of several states.
2. Poor people vote Republican/Tory despite the obvious evidence that this will hurt them. It is the aspiration rather than reality which often motivates.
3. There were Southerners, who fought for the south, who were ant-slavery. So, the fuck, what?
Yes, every war has nuance. But the American Civil War was about slavery. If you fought for the South, regardless your motivation, this was your cause.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
For a good while those who owned more than 20 were even exempted from service. How convenient for them. As many noted at the time, it was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.
Can say that about nearly any war. BTW, how did those rich Southerners get their money?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Was it? I don't think it was just about slaves, honestly, particularly for the south. There were union states that did have slaves (Kentucky for instance.)
[ 03. July 2015, 18:40: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'd hesitate likewise. That said, it's well to remember that (A) 7 states seceded from the Union before hostilities started; and (B) the Confederacy fired the first shots at Ft. Sumter, which opened those hostilities.
Our state was the last to secede and sentiments varied across the different regions of the state. Like most every war, it was the swells with pull who thought it a good idea, not the regular yeoman farmer.
quote:
Both actions strike me as aggressive rather than defensive. Nevertheless, the utter destruction wrought by Sherman's march was certainly calculated to be punitive. The South, despite a few burgeoning metropolitan centers, has never recovered the economic primacy it had pre-war.
Given the flow of where people are moving from and to where in the US, there are plenty who disagree. I also don't know of anyone who would like to go back to living as yeoman farmers and the like as their ancestors typically lived. Compared to how we typically lived way back then, we're pretty much all swells now.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
The idea that the war was about slavery is akin to the notion that Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred for getting a blowjob.
Simplified to the point of absurdity, and also incorrect.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
It is important to understand that while some Northerners were willing or eager to go fight against slavery, this was not universal. Many of the troops on both sides were drafted. Many Union troops hated being involved and some of them blamed the blacks.
Many people see the war as having been fought primarily over the issue of slavery, essentially a war to preserve the wealth and lifestyle of major slave owners. The carnage was frightful: about 2.5% of Americans were actually killed, comparable to the devastation of WWI in western Europe.
It takes a long time for the echoes of such a event to die away.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Is there still racism in the South? Of course. Racism exists all over the place. It is a stain upon our souls that harms the victims and the perpetrators alike.
In my experience, southerners are more willing to talk about race even if that means they say some offensive stuff, while northerners are more like the people in this video, preferring to pretend that race doesn't exist and/or isn't a subject that can be talked about.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Mere Nick, don't be a revisionist. The fundamental issue of the Civil War was the right to own slaves. That's the "states right" that was being argued over. The traitors of the south were defending their right to own other people. If the rich plantation owners sucked in the poor farmers with any other rhetoric, that doesn't change the basic issue.
No, I'm not being a revisionist. You're just calling me one and then repeating the false notion that the swell's reason belonged to everyone else, too. If folks were really all that hip in the first place, there wouldn't have been a draft. Must one also believe that those who participated in the New York City draft riots in 1863 were pro-slavery? I wouldn't think so. The thought of getting a minie ball in the gut would seem sufficient motivation.
I doubt there were many soldiers at the Marne thinking about Franz Ferdinand, too. Especially if there were a draftee.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, Mere Nick, if they were on the Western Front on the Allied side they wouldn't have been thinking of Franz Ferdinand but ...
- If French, that Germany had invaded their sacred homeland (yet again) ...
- If British, that the beastly Hun had invaded neutral Belgium and raped nuns and killed civilians and that wasn't particularly sporting of them ...
- If British Commonwealth - it would depend - Aussies and Canadians might consider they were helping out the Empire and the Motherland ... Indians and others that they were serving the Raj - or a whole range of other things ...
If American, they might be thinking of German atrocities - such as the sinking of the Lusitania - or wondering what they heck was going on and why they were there and how best to get it over with quickly -- or the pay-check (they weren't called 'Doughboys' for nothing) ... or a whole range of other things ...
My guess would be that both the US Civil War and WW1 - as in most conflicts - if you'd asked 5 different guys on each side why they were fighting you might get up to 10 different answers.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Many people see the war as having been fought primarily over the issue of slavery, essentially a war to preserve the wealth and lifestyle of major slave owners. The carnage was frightful: about 2.5% of Americans were actually killed, comparable to the devastation of WWI in western Europe.
It takes a long time for the echoes of such a event to die away. [/QB]
A bit over a fifth of the southern men between 20 and 24 on 1860 died in the war. If there had not been slavery, I doubt there would have ever been a civil war. To say that that is the reason in the mind of the grunts who fought on both sides is about like saying the folks who fought at the Marne had thoughts of Franz Ferdinand dancing in their heads.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, Mere Nick, if they were on the Western Front on the Allied side they wouldn't have been thinking of Franz Ferdinand but ...
- If French, that Germany had invaded their sacred homeland (yet again) ...
- If British, that the beastly Hun had invaded neutral Belgium and raped nuns and killed civilians and that wasn't particularly sporting of them ...
- If British Commonwealth - it would depend - Aussies and Canadians might consider they were helping out the Empire and the Motherland ... Indians and others that they were serving the Raj - or a whole range of other things ...
If American, they might be thinking of German atrocities - such as the sinking of the Lusitania - or wondering what they heck was going on and why they were there and how best to get it over with quickly -- or the pay-check (they weren't called 'Doughboys' for nothing) ... or a whole range of other things ...
My guess would be that both the US Civil War and WW1 - as in most conflicts - if you'd asked 5 different guys on each side why they were fighting you might get up to 10 different answers.
Exactly. Finally some one gets that it is something that can't be painted with a broad brush.
For many in the south, the civil war meant that they were being invaded by federal troops. Until then, the only time they had dealings with the US government was when the mailman came by.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Do we have a hard time thinking of them as traitors because our country's national holiday celebrates an act of treason? The CSA certainly saw itself as walking in the footsteps of the American Revolution, and put Washington on its seal.
treason
noun
the crime of betraying one's country
rebel
noun
a person who rises in opposition or armed resistance against an established government or ruler
patriot
noun
a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.
The colonists were not traitors or patriots, they were rebels. Argue the rightness of their cause, but the definition of what they are is beyond partisan rhetoric.
The Confederacy were also rebels. They were also not patriotic or loyal. But, odious as was their cause, I do not think them treasonous.
The patriots in those wars were the Loyalists in the first and the Northerners in the second.
Again, this is not about right or wrong, but about definition.
I tend to agree with your wording, although I know that a lot of folks in the North in 1861 would not have.
The 14th amendment, article four, makes reference to "insurrection or rebellion" when referring to the war, for what that's worth.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thanks Mere Nick ...
If I were being picky, I'd ask which Battle of the Marne you were referring to - the First in September 1914 or the Second in 1918.
The first involved mostly the French - and some of the British Expeditionary Force - against the invading German army - which means that there were a mix of conscripts (France had universal conscription) and regulars - the BEF was mostly made up of the small British regular army of pre-War days.
If it's the Second then it involved the Americans as well as the French, French Empire and British and British Commonwealth troops - and yes, most of them would have been drafted rather than volunteers - although there were plenty of those too, of course.
But your point is well made - these things aren't reducible to broad-brush generalisations.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
For many in the south, the civil war meant that they were being invaded by federal troops. Until then, the only time they had dealings with the US government was when the mailman came by.
And for many in the South, the civil war meant an end to being a slave. Not everyone was fighting to keep their own slaves. Some people may have fought for reasons totally unrelated to slavery, or just to defend their own slave free homes. But it isn't hard to understand how your feelings towards the war might be different if your great great grandfather was freed because of the civil war.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thanks Mere Nick ...
If I were being picky, I'd ask which Battle of the Marne you were referring to - the First in September 1914 or the Second in 1918.
Either one. They were both bloody messes.
quote:
But your point is well made - these things aren't reducible to broad-brush generalisations.
Thanks. I don't mind if the Brits have any memorials to or statues of Cornwallis, either.
Besides, it isn't any of my business even though I don't have anything for him.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Was it? I don't think it was just about slaves, honestly, particularly for the south. There were union states that did have slaves (Kentucky for instance.)
The Confederate cause wasn't just about slavery. It was also about the related and intertwined cause of white supremacy. The Confederate leadership was pretty clear about this. Ta-Nehisi Coates has done a fairly comprehensive job of compiling various statements by the Confederate elite demonstrating exactly this point.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
That's asinine. The vast majority of those who fought for the south did not own slaves. For a good while those who owned more than 20 were even exempted from service. How convenient for them. As many noted at the time, it was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.
The motivations of the individual soldiers who fought is usually not a very reliable indicator of what a war is "about". This is especially true in conflicts that involve conscripted troops.
How many troops on either side during the First World War felt truly passionate about the assassination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand or Serbian independence?
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
To be honest, I've spent the majority of my life in the north, and the OP of this thread is the first time I've ever heard those who fought for the South in the (US) Civil War referred to as "traitors." I've heard them called plenty of other things: Confederate soldiers; Johnny Rebs; slavers; rebels; states' righters; Southerners.
I've never heard them called "traitors," and I have a hard time thinking of them that way.
The U.S. Constitution defines treason pretty narrowly. In part this was a reaction to the practice in Colonial times of British officials referring to any sort of political dissent as "treason". At any rate, according to the U.S. Constitution (Art. III, §3):
quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
By just about any reasonable interpretation, this makes at least the Confederate leadership traitors. They indisputably levied war against the United States. Certainly more obviously than those involved in the Burr conspiracy, and I don't know anyone who particularly objects to characterizing that as treason.
In short, if convincing large sections of the military to defect and then wage war against the nation of their prior allegiance doesn't count as "treason", the term has no meaning.
For historical reference, here's an obituary for John C. Breckinridge that ran in the New York Times in 1863:
quote:
If it be true, as is now positively declared, that a loyal bullet has sent this traitor to eternity, every loyal heart will feel satisfaction and will not scruple to express it.
It goes on from there in similar style, with a brief diversion into why the usual rule that "enmity is disarmed before death" doesn't apply to a notorious traitor like Breckenridge. Breckenridge, it should be noted, doesn't even have the "he was fighting for his home" excuse. He was from Kentucky, which never seceded.
Ironically, reports of Breckenridge's death were "greatly exaggerated" and he didn't die until 1875, at which point the Times ran a much more forgiving obituary.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Go and read that Atlantic link again, and read the Confederate leaders' own words. They were certainly fighting for slavery, and said so proudly.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How many troops on either side during the First World War felt truly passionate about the assassination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand or Serbian independence?
Maybe enough to hold a convention in a phone booth.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Go and read that Atlantic link again, and read the Confederate leaders' own words. They were certainly fighting for slavery, and said so proudly.
The historical inquiry is interesting, but might it be easier to just say:
Maybe your ancestors didn't have slavery as a personal motive when they entered the war. But other people's ancestors were slaves before the war, and not slaves afterwords. So do they understand why they see it differently than you do?
This doesn't mean disowning your ancestors. I am proud that my ancestor was present and accounted for at one of the most important moments in American history. I think he was on the wrong side of the fight, but my connection to that monumental day gives me a reason to stick with this country and hope for the best.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I didn't know until I looked it up, that there were any memorials to Cornwallis - but apparently there's one in India where he died in 1805 and one in St Paul's Cathedral. He served in Ireland and India as well as the Colonies.
He's not a 'big name' here.
As far as monuments to Confederate generals go - I can understand the sensitivities about that but I can't see why there shouldn't be memorials to them - Robert E Lee was probably the best general on either side, for instance.
It's all about context and intention. Nobody has a problem with there being a statue of Cromwell near the Houses of Parliament - apart from some particularly ardent monarchist types, perhaps.
Putting a statue of him in Drogheda or Wexford, though, would be pretty insensitive ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
And there's a well known statue of Abraham Lincoln in Manchester of course ...
And there's even a statue of George Washington in Trafalgar Square, just outside the National Gallery.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And there's a well known statue of Abraham Lincoln in Manchester of course ...
And there's even a statue of George Washington in Trafalgar Square, just outside the National Gallery.
That's very surprising.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The motivations of the individual soldiers who fought is usually not a very reliable indicator of what a war is "about". This is especially true in conflicts that involve conscripted troops.
Very true. But the motivations of those individual soldiers may be highly relevant to the erection of memorials and monuments, especially local ones, or to the stories they tell their children, which become at least part of a collective memory. They will inform how the war is remembered.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The South, despite a few burgeoning metropolitan centers, has never recovered the economic primacy it had pre-war.
Good point. Symbols mean different things to different people. Looking back with rose-tinted vision to the Golden Age, the time when's own homeplace was strong and significant, seems like a pretty widespread human temptation. The tide of history ebbs and flows, and when it has ebbed, people still remember the flood.
The other widespread human temptation is for those in the seat of government power to look down on those in the rest of the country, and for this to be resented. There's always the suspicion that the national government is being run in the interests of the capital city. Laws that reflect a consensus in the capital rather than a consensus right here are always going to be unpopular wherever "right here" may be. Seems to me that one of the meanings of the Confederate flag is a two-fingered salute to the federal government. And the more they try to ban it, the stronger will be the sentiment.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... At any rate, according to the U.S. Constitution (Art. III, §3):
quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
By just about any reasonable interpretation, this makes at least the Confederate leadership traitors. They indisputably levied war against the United States. ...
Are you convinced by that? I appreciate that at the time, the northern side would have claimed it was 'the United States' and the confederates were waging war against it. But, if some of the states wage war against other of the states, on what convincing argument, other than vi victus (i.e. we won) of course, can either side claim it is 'the United States' and the other lot aren't?
Again, the fact that anyone is still arguing that from the heart now, demonstrates to an outsider like me that 'the American Civil War is still being fought'.
Incidentally, if true, it would be odd for Manchester to have a public statue of Abraham Lincoln. From the C18 until the mid C20, Manchester's prosperity was built on cotton, a lot of which was imported from the southern states of North America. I'm fairly sure the supply was badly disrupted by a northern blockade.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Have you not heard of the cotton strikes in Manchester where mill workers refused to handle cotton from Southern US plantations until slavery was abolished?
As for it being true whether Manchester has a statue of Abraham Lincoln, if I can believe the evidence of my own eyes - then, yes it does. If you don't believe me, Google it.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Again, the fact that anyone is still arguing that from the heart now, demonstrates to an outsider like me that 'the American Civil War is still being fought'.
Hot damn. Maybe I can get some combat pay.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, if true, it would be odd for Manchester to have a public statue of Abraham Lincoln. From the C18 until the mid C20, Manchester's prosperity was built on cotton, a lot of which was imported from the southern states of North America. I'm fairly sure the supply was badly disrupted by a northern blockade.
The statue apparently commemorates the fact that the inhabitants of Manchester passed a resolution of support for the Union and communicated it to Lincoln, even as cotton supplies were running low and Westminster was considering stepping in to mediate the conflict. Lincoln appreciated the pinch the workers were in, and sent a note of thanks, calling their support in face of their personal interests an act of Christian heroism.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
The "War of the States" was and still is being fought and the basic issue is NOT slavery but "state's rights". This goes back to the founding fathers and is now being waged in the battle against big government.
Expect to see this played out in the upcoming presidential race. Without the issue of slavery I hope the outcome won't be secession.
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on
:
If anyone is in doubt about the fact slavery was the cause of secession of southern states, please do the following.
1. Visit the Civil War Trust website
2. Press ctrl+F
3. type 'slave'
4. select 'highlight all'
5. read.
It was about the right to own another human being and trade his or her suffering for your pleasure.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Debated this a while offline when I couldn't debate it online. Basically I accept completely that for the leaders it was about slavery, white supremacy, and general economic interest. I meant that I think many of the grunts in grey really felt the northerners were aggressors and that they had to defend their rights to have rights etc. I'm sure many of the grunts had slavery/white supremacist reasons too, but I think it was less clear cut since they didn't have the money to own plantations in the first place. Probably many of them didn't have slaves. Of course many of the reasons they fought were false reasons given to encourage them to fight.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
The Yankees,including Lincoln, were white supremacists as well. The only question was what racial superiority entitled to or demanded of the white man. It's interesting to note that abolitionis gained widespread support after Northerners and Europeans found other people to exploit without the unsavory institution of slavery. Immigrant children being mangled in Northern factories wasn't near as unsavory. After all, they didn't own those factory workers. Might have cared about them more if they did.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
So that makes it all ok then, does it Beeswax Altar?
As it happens factory reforms and working hours reforms were well under way from around the 1840s - which was way too late but at least they were brought into play.
In fairness, the fledgling USA banned US vessels from engaging in the slave trade from the 1790s onwards - so they stopped importing new slaves - but carried on, of course, with those they already had.
Russia also abolished slavery in the 18th century but didn't emancipate the serfs until the 1860s, I think.
I seem to recollect that that poor benighted country to the south of you, Beeswax, from which your ancestors won their 'freedom' by rebelling against the government and annexing a vast swathe of territory also abolished slavery relatively early on - 1810 or so.
When did Texas follow suit?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I'm saying it is hypocritical to profit off of slavery for hundreds of years and then self righteously condemn others for the practice after finding others to exploit. When did Britain give up it's empire? Russia and Mexico upon abolishing slavery became egalitarian societies with liberty and justice for all.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
To be honest, I've spent the majority of my life in the north, and the OP of this thread is the first time I've ever heard those who fought for the South in the (US) Civil War referred to as "traitors." I've heard them called plenty of other things: Confederate soldiers; Johnny Rebs; slavers; rebels; states' righters; Southerners.
I've never heard them called "traitors," and I have a hard time thinking of them that way.
The U.S. Constitution defines treason pretty narrowly. In part this was a reaction to the practice in Colonial times of British officials referring to any sort of political dissent as "treason". At any rate, according to the U.S. Constitution (Art. III, §3):
quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
By just about any reasonable interpretation, this makes at least the Confederate leadership traitors. They indisputably levied war against the United States. Certainly more obviously than those involved in the Burr conspiracy, and I don't know anyone who particularly objects to characterizing that as treason.
In short, if convincing large sections of the military to defect and then wage war against the nation of their prior allegiance doesn't count as "treason", the term has no meaning.
I find that definition of treason a bit odd; it seems to suggest that any country which declares war against the US is likewise guilty of treason. Wouldn't one have to be an actual citizen of the US to commit treason?
And I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that the Confederacy seceded and formed, effectively creating a new nation (or attempting to, anyway), prior to firing on Ft. Sumter. In that case, how is it different from Spain or Russia declaring war on the US?
I do take the point that the Confederate combatants were originally US citizens, and US citizens who undertake to bring down the US government can certainly be labeled traitors. How are they traitors if they are (self-declared) citizens of some other entity?
I wonder, because where I live, there's currently a movement calling itself sovereign citizenry which looks essentially similar.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I was thinking that the odd thing about the U.S. Constitution's definition is it implies the authors were themselves traitors.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I'm all for an independent Vermont. Kirkpatrick Sale is one of my favorite lefties. Let's face it, we all hate each other. Why can't we just work out a better arrangement and leave each other alone? In a few years, we will all be much happier.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Just the opposite. If the states gave up the fiction that they are seperate entities, the country would function better.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
No, it wouldn't. Because once again, we all hate each other. Now, at this point, the best thing for confederate flag flyers and all other social conservatives to do is throw their support completely behind Bernie Sanders.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Laws that reflect a consensus in the capital rather than a consensus right here are always going to be unpopular wherever "right here" may be. Seems to me that one of the meanings of the Confederate flag is a two-fingered salute to the federal government.
Well, yes. Hatred and defiance towards the American government has always been associated with the various emblems of the Confederacy. That was more or less the whole point of the Confederacy. It's also why its emblems have been adopted so readily by various white supremacist groups over the years, most of whom resented federal enforcement of racially egalitarian laws.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And the more they try to ban it, the stronger will be the sentiment.
At the moment the federal government (if that's who you mean by "they") isn't really trying to ban the Confederate battle flag. What's happening at the moment is various fans of the Confederate flag (and, by extension, the Confederacy) are being embarrassed by the racist associations inherent in the banner and the renewed scrutiny those associations are now being given.
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The U.S. Constitution defines treason pretty narrowly. In part this was a reaction to the practice in Colonial times of British officials referring to any sort of political dissent as "treason". At any rate, according to the U.S. Constitution (Art. III, §3):
quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
By just about any reasonable interpretation, this makes at least the Confederate leadership traitors. They indisputably levied war against the United States. Certainly more obviously than those involved in the Burr conspiracy, and I don't know anyone who particularly objects to characterizing that as treason.
In short, if convincing large sections of the military to defect and then wage war against the nation of their prior allegiance doesn't count as "treason", the term has no meaning.
I find that definition of treason a bit odd; it seems to suggest that any country which declares war against the US is likewise guilty of treason. Wouldn't one have to be an actual citizen of the US to commit treason?
That's always been the understanding of that particular Constitutional clause, despite the lack of explicit language to that effect. I'm not aware of anyone who is unambiguously a foreign citizen being prosecuted for treason by the United States. Of course, that may be because the U.S. rarely prosecutes anyone for treason at all. Most acts that count as treasonous usually violate other, more easily prosecuted U.S. laws.
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
And I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that the Confederacy seceded and formed, effectively creating a new nation (or attempting to, anyway), prior to firing on Ft. Sumter. In that case, how is it different from Spain or Russia declaring war on the US?
I do take the point that the Confederate combatants were originally US citizens, and US citizens who undertake to bring down the US government can certainly be labeled traitors. How are they traitors if they are (self-declared) citizens of some other entity?
I wonder, because where I live, there's currently a movement calling itself sovereign citizenry which looks essentially similar.
The position of the U.S. government is that states cannot unilaterally secede, ergo the Confederacy wasn't so much a nation as a treasonous conspiracy by Americans, many of whom had previously explicitly sworn allegiance to the United States when holding various government posts. The sovereign citizen movement is the individual version of this. The basic idea is that if you yell out "Not A Citizen" loud enough, American law no longer applies to you. This usually ends badly for those trying this stunt in an American court.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was thinking that the odd thing about the U.S. Constitution's definition is it implies the authors were themselves traitors.
They were certainly under no illusions about what would happen to them if their rebellion failed. Of course they won, so the usual rules of politesse apply.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The sovereign citizen movement is the individual version of this. The basic idea is that if you yell out "Not A Citizen" loud enough, American law no longer applies to you. This usually ends badly for those trying this stunt in an American court.
Especially if the flag in the courtroom has gold fringe.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Technically speaking the American colonists who fought against the British were treasonists looking from the side of the Red Coats--especially if those Yankees were shooting in ambush as your formation was trying to march down a road (There is an old joke about this).
One paragraph that did not make it into the American Declaration of Independence follows:
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
- See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery#sthash.MBr8eIys.dpuf
It was dropped because convention delegates from the South were not willing to admit they had been doing something wrong (BTW, the paragraph was written by Thomas Jefferson, a slaveowner himself.) But event the Nothern Delegates did not like it because they were still making huge profits off the slave trade.
There is a distinction between General Benning who deliberately pushed the state of Georgia to secede from the United States. And General Robert E. Lee, who resigned his commission in the Unites States Army to join the Army of Northern Virginia to fight for his home state. Lee was a rebel, but he did not push his state to secede. Once it did, he felt obliged to fight for the Virginians.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
A distinction, in my eyes, that is as significant as one of them having brown hair and the other blonde.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
It was dropped because convention delegates from the South were not willing to admit they had been doing something wrong (BTW, the paragraph was written by Thomas Jefferson, a slaveowner himself.) But event the Northern Delegates did not like it because they were still making huge profits off the slave trade.
It wasn't just self-interest. It was because the Declaration of Independence was a list of grievances against the King, and "he's forcing us to import and purchase slaves" is a complaint that wouldn't pass the laugh test.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
We effectively dismantled our empire in the 1950s and '60s, Beeswax. When are you goimg to give up yours?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... The position of the U.S. government is that states cannot unilaterally secede, ergo the Confederacy wasn't so much a nation as a treasonous conspiracy by Americans,...
Even I, as a foreigner, know that's nonsense.
A key issue the war was being fought about - the key issue if you're trying to avoid admitting the war was about the right to own slaves - was whether states could secede or not. One can argue that the result of the Civil War means that it has since been clear that states cannot secede. Presumably, therefore, they also cannot be kicked out. It's rather difficult to argue that this was clear before the Civil War - and particularly not in a state that was founded on the belief that the thirteen colonies had been entitled to secede from their allegiance to George III.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I personally would be happy to give Texas back to Mexico. We would of course submit an invoice for all the infrastructure added to the property over its sojourn with us.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I personally would be happy to give Texas back to Mexico. We would of course submit an invoice for all the infrastructure added to the property over its sojourn with us.
Texas was a republic before a state. Many Texans would be happy to be so again. California is a different story. You can give California back to Mexico.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm all for an independent Vermont. Kirkpatrick Sale is one of my favorite lefties. Let's face it, we all hate each other. Why can't we just work out a better arrangement and leave each other alone? In a few years, we will all be much happier.
Isn't hate itself a crime in California and New York now?
While I agree with you, I'd hate for you to be accused of inducing others to commit crimes.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We effectively dismantled our empire in the 1950s and '60s, Beeswax. When are you goimg to give up yours?
Well...it would be hard for the United States to maintain an empire if it had split into two different nations. Let's assume the U.S. has an empire. I note that the British position on empire is similar to the British position on slavery. After having an empire for a few hundred years but no longer being able to maintain said empire, the British suddenly decide empires are a bad thing. What you really mean by empire is that the U.S. has more influence than the UK and that's just not right. Personally, I'm inclined to stay out of international disputes that don't involve us. A great Southerner warned us about that.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Why did the South vote solidly Democratic for nearly 100 years? Why was there subsequently an abrupt turnaround in the mid 1960s, albeit with an occasional Southern state or two or three voting Democratic? What happened in the mid 1960s?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
we all hate each other.
No claim on expertise here but I do not think this is exactly true. Though it is rather amusing to see that the most vehement "states' rights" advocated come from states that are essentially on welfare. I.E. their budget is paid in significant part by taxes on people in other states.
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Why did the South vote solidly Democratic for nearly 100 years?
Because Lincoln was a Republican.
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Why was there subsequently an abrupt turnaround in the mid 1960s, albeit with an occasional Southern state or two or three voting Democratic? What happened in the mid 1960s?
Civil Rights.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Yeah...the Democratic horror at the Republican use of the Southern strategy is similar to the British aversion to slavery and empire. It was just fine when Wilson, Roosevelt, and Truman did it. But, Nixon was the bad guy.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Regardless of who used it, it existed and apparently still exists. What does that tell us?
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Truman took the first steps toward integration - admittedly small steps. I think FDR used Eleanor to express views on racial equality that he did not dare to state. Both Roosevelt and Truman recognized that they needed the "solid South" politically. I don't give them moral credit for this.
Nixon, on the other hand, adopted a morally depraved
policy designed to appeal (covertly at best) to racial bigotry.
I'll grant that there has been progress in the South. However, I would need a lot more evidence that the Civil War is finally over for the vast majority of Southerners. I do find some of the moves toward removal of Confederate battle flags encouraging.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Nixon did far more for integration than Truman or Kennedy for that matter. Amazing how African-Americans came north and still live in segregated neighborhoods. These descendants of union soldiers just keep moving and passing ordinances. Apparently, black people don't like doing yard work. I'd never heard that growing up in Texas.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Funny that you fail to mention Johnson, without whom Nixon might not have had as much to work with.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Aren't you continuing to digress, B.W.?
I understand the topic to be attitudes in the South, not politicians who exploit those attitudes.
[ 07. July 2015, 04:32: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Those attitudes aren't unique to the south.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I don't think that anyone here has said that they are.
I posed a question about the drastic shift in Southern voting patterns. I received one answer. Do you dispute it?
Admittedly, the shift began some 50 years ago, and there appear to be some small cracks in the GOP's "solid South". Is this sufficient to conclude that the Civil War is finally over?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
How did the South vote in 1976?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
New England's voting pattern has also changed dramatically over the past few decades. So, I guess the answer is no. Then again, the South and New England have opposed each other since colonial times.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Good point regarding the 1976 election.
However, the Democrats had the ideal candidate: a Southern white, with a distinguished military background, and a born-again Baptist Sunday School teacher in a segregated church.
He faced the man who pardoned Nixon, and had a habit of falling down steps in public. I'm surprised he won any state other than Michigan, my home state. He represented the city where I was raised.
Alert: Possible boring rambling follows.
He campaigned for Congress out of a house trailer, and I don't think any of his supporters (my parents included) would have imagined he would one day be President. He was a humble, genuine, soft-spoken man with whom we occasionally chatted during coffee hour at church. My father briefly dated Betty, something that I think generated both pride and jealousy in my mother.
Several years ago Betty was in Grand Rapids for some kind of speech, after which my gutsy mother approached Betty and pointed to my father (well in the background) asking her if she remembered that man. According to my mother, Betty answered, "Yes, I do. Where have all the years gone?"
[ 07. July 2015, 06:04: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Prior to Lyndon Johnson, the Democrats were the party of states rights. They were the main party to move to secede from the Union, so after the civil war they continued to beat the drum for civil rights.
Then several things began to happen while Johnson was in power. The Democrats decided to grow their base. They realized a coalition of minorities could give them the White House. A number of all white delegations to national conventions we challenged and defeated When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act he turned to one of his aids and said the domocrats have lost the South for the next 40 years.
Meanwhile, the Republicans saw an opportunity to gain a following in the South. White Dixicrats had become disillusioned with the Democrats and decided to vote Republican.
The next general election, though, stands to be a great election. Many of the states in the deep south may just vote democrat this year.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
... I'll grant that there has been progress in the South. However, I would need a lot more evidence that the Civil War is finally over for the vast majority of Southerners. I do find some of the moves toward removal of Confederate battle flags encouraging.
The point I've been trying to get across is that a very large proportion of what has been said on this thread is strong evidence that the Civil War is not finally over for a great many Northerners. Because you won, and because you believe that you occupied, and to this day still occupy, the moral high ground, you can't see this. But as a foreigner from outside this particular spat, it's very visible.
If you want the South to move on, the Southern mindset isn't the only one that will need to change.
Incidentally, who is/was the candidate who campaigned from a caravan, who is/was Betty and what were Eleanor Roosevelt's views on racial equality? It wouldn't fit the picture of her that is normally presented if she was actually rather prejudiced when it came to race.
[ 07. July 2015, 08:08: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Sorry. I should have provided full names. I was describing President Gerald Ford and his wife, Betty.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Here is a brief summary of Eleanor Roosevelt's record on race relations.
I've never heard her described as racially prejudiced.
Furthermore, I think that, outside of the South, the Civil War has long, long been a non-issue. The South was allowed to establish and maintain state sponsored segregation while the rest of the nation sat idly by.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I think that there is a pretty strong basis for non-Southerners to "believe" that "Northerners" occupied the "moral high ground" in the Civil War.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Here's an attempt to elevate the South to the moral high ground in the Civil War.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I think that there is a pretty strong basis for non-Southerners to "believe" that "Northerners" occupied the "moral high ground" in the Civil War.
"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." Abraham Lincoln
That is the extent of their "moral high ground".
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Right. Someone is not perfect, therefore they are not better. Is this your argument?
And one quote defines a life?
If you read biographies of Lincoln, you see both an evolving attitude and statements of political necessity.
At the end of the day, you see a man who ended slavery vs. men who would keep it.
So, yeah, moral high ground.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here is a brief summary of Eleanor Roosevelt's record on race relations.
I've never heard her described as racially prejudiced.
Furthermore, I think that, outside of the South, the Civil War has long, long been a non-issue. The South was allowed to establish and maintain state sponsored segregation while the rest of the nation sat idly by.
Eleanor wasn't president was she. You might want to actually engage with what Enoch said. You think the rest of the union had a problem with race based segregation? Ever heard of Gen. Phillip "Little Phil" Sheridan? He was one of Grants most able lieutenants in the Civil War. After the war, Grant sent him west to address Native-American uprisings. Guess how he did it? Once the slaves were free and began migrating north, the government managed to segregate them all the same. White supremacy was accepted as fact. The ever so enlightened British Empire had a whole taxonomy of races. All very scientific they claimed.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Right. Someone is not perfect, therefore they are not better. Is this your argument?
And one quote defines a life?
If you read biographies of Lincoln, you see both an evolving attitude and statements of political necessity.
At the end of the day, you see a man who ended slavery vs. men who would keep it.
So, yeah, moral high ground.
Sure, ending slavery was politically expedient and Lincoln's supporters had a never-ending supply of Irish immigrants to exploit. This included drafting them into the Union Army because they didn't want to fight their own war. Lincoln originally planned on relocating all the slaves but couldn't find a place his supporters wouldn't eventually want. Look at what he actually said in that quote. Lincoln was primarily concerned with seeing that slavery didn't spread to other new states. He wanted to preserve the political power of his party and use it to continue to exploit the South economically. If abolition was what Lincoln wanted, he could have pursued other options.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
And what is your point, BA?
The concept of equality is a slowly evolving one. A concept which has yet to mature fully.
The North were hardly paragons of equality, but still better than the South. In regards to black people. All y'all were fucked up to the natives.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It's interesting to note that abolitionis gained widespread support after Northerners and Europeans found other people to exploit without the unsavory institution of slavery. Immigrant children being mangled in Northern factories wasn't near as unsavory. After all, they didn't own those factory workers. Might have cared about them more if they did.
I have read versions of this thinly-veiled defense of slavery before, arguing that slaves in the South were treated better than factory workers in the North.
Genuine question: Is there any record of Northern factory workers moving to the South and becoming slaves in order to receive this better treatment?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
In parallel to Canada's failure to reconcile ourselves to the treatment of native people, about which we have had a Truth and Reconcilation Commission**, I'm seeing American problems as being part of a failure to reconcile itself to its horrible history. I may be channelling my growing understanding of Canada's racist past into your's, but I don't think unfairly.
The USA hasn't apologized to African-Americans for the institution of slavery, or the great harm it and racism created across generations. The ongoing violence between the races seems to me to be an outgrowth out of that unreconciled history.
Reconciliation is difficult because it involves not just listening to the painful history of the other group you mistreated, but also requires validating it and being willing to bend over backwards to change. It looks like it takes generations: it has to change hearts and minds and the careful and careless teaching by parental and community influence. Inclusiveness and empathy are imperative, not optional. So it's not okay to say this flag or monument means what I mean it to mean, in Alice Through the Looking Glass fashion. Rid public space of things that confirm the mistreatment - is this too much to ask?
**taking children forcibly from their parents, preventing them from speaking their languages and extinguishing their culture and family ties by placing them in residential school
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And what is your point, BA?
The concept of equality is a slowly evolving one. A concept which has yet to mature fully.
The North were hardly paragons of equality, but still better than the South. In regards to black people. All y'all were fucked up to the natives.
Yeah, the Northerners were nicer to the few black people who actually lived in the North. To the Irish who immigrated by the thousands, not so much. My in laws from the upper midwest harbor few prejudices against African-Americans. Hmongs on the other hand...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
BA,
I am the last person to say I think that racism is OK.
I think that it still exists in every country I've ever been to or heard of is not a good thing.
[ 07. July 2015, 18:28: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So it's not okay to say this flag or monument means what I mean it to mean...
Unless you mean that it's racist....then it is perfectly okay to say this flag or monument means what I mean it to mean...
Is that what you mean?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
The ongoing violence between the races seems to me to be an outgrowth out of that unreconciled history.
Of the thousands of African-Americans lost to homicide every year, do you realize how few of them are killed by white people? I believe it's around 7%. Keep in mind that statistic includes Latinos. Latino gangs often compete with African-American gangs. So, African-Americans killed by Anglos makes up probably less than one percent of the overall homicide rate. Of those, how many of them are actually about race? There is no ongoing race war in the United States.
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Rid public space of things that confirm the mistreatment - is this too much to ask?
I've never displayed the confederate flag on anything other than my Dukes of Hazard lunchbox back in the early 80's. Not sure I even knew what it was then. If the confederate flag ceased to fly over any government property anywhere, I wouldn't have noticed nor cared. Since the confederate flag has become an issue, I've been tempted to start displaying the flag and play Sweet Home Alabama on a loop. So, in my opinion, the answer is yes...at this moment in time...it most certainly is too much to ask.
Now, the South Carolina Senate voted overwhelmingly to remove the flag. Gov. Haley supports removing the flag. If the people of South Carolina reelect them, then they did the right thing. However, if any of the politicians voting to remove the confederate flag believe that will be enough, they are fools. They either have to fight the way the NRA fights or go about removing from the public space anything positive about any historical figure associated with the confederacy.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I've never displayed the confederate flag on anything other than my Dukes of Hazard lunchbox back in the early 80's. Not sure I even knew what it was then. If the confederate flag ceased to fly over any government property anywhere, I wouldn't have noticed nor cared. Since the confederate flag has become an issue, I've been tempted to start displaying the flag and play Sweet Home Alabama on a loop. So, in my opinion, the answer is yes...at this moment in time...it most certainly is too much to ask.
I keep thinking this thread must be a not-entirely-successful parody.
Personally I have the urge to break out that Betsy Ross flag I made in elementary school and start drafting articles of secession.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I've never displayed the confederate flag on anything other than my Dukes of Hazard lunchbox back in the early 80's. Not sure I even knew what it was then. If the confederate flag ceased to fly over any government property anywhere, I wouldn't have noticed nor cared. Since the confederate flag has become an issue, I've been tempted to start displaying the flag and play Sweet Home Alabama on a loop.
Why? Not solidarity with Dylan Roof, presumably. You say you wouldn't have cared if it ceased to fly over government property, but now you care enough (almost) to fly it yourself. If you're so indifferent to the flag itself, why exactly are you so exercised about people trying to have it removed?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
The ongoing violence between the races seems to me to be an outgrowth out of that unreconciled history.
Of the thousands of African-Americans lost to homicide every year, do you realize how few of them are killed by white people? I believe it's around 7%. Keep in mind that statistic includes Latinos. Latino gangs often compete with African-American gangs. So, African-Americans killed by Anglos makes up probably less than one percent of the overall homicide rate. Of those, how many of them are actually about race? There is no ongoing race war in the United States.
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Rid public space of things that confirm the mistreatment - is this too much to ask?
I've never displayed the confederate flag on anything other than my Dukes of Hazard lunchbox back in the early 80's. Not sure I even knew what it was then. If the confederate flag ceased to fly over any government property anywhere, I wouldn't have noticed nor cared. Since the confederate flag has become an issue, I've been tempted to start displaying the flag and play Sweet Home Alabama on a loop. So, in my opinion, the answer is yes...at this moment in time...it most certainly is too much to ask.
Now, the South Carolina Senate voted overwhelmingly to remove the flag. Gov. Haley supports removing the flag. If the people of South Carolina reelect them, then they did the right thing. However, if any of the politicians voting to remove the confederate flag believe that will be enough, they are fools. They either have to fight the way the NRA fights or go about removing from the public space anything positive about any historical figure associated with the confederacy.
This response makes my point very clearly, though I don't think you get it. If you don't understand the perspective of the 'other' you have taken no steps toward reconciliation.
The proportion of who kills or otherwise does violence today has nothing to do with reconciling history of mistreatment. In fact, the mistreatment from the past - the sins of the father are unto how many generations? - has been implicated in causing today's social problems, with considerable merit, in the parallel I'm drawing with Canada's aboriginal peoples.
My understanding of the flag issue is that the slave-descended population takes great offence to it. Offence alone is insufficient to warrant taken the flags down. That is mere political correctness. But because it has come to symbolize that whites dominated blacks and is taken as representative of the history of slavery and current approval of non-acceptance of black people, then it is more than a simple free speech or historical icon. It represents approval of the history including enslavement of black people. I think it will come to symbolize, if it hasn't already, that a person displaying it is racist against black people.
It is not just about removing the physical object is it? It's the meaning of the removal in the context of reconciliation of your racial issues and very difficult history. Or maybe reconciliation isn't understood or wanted?
The talk in Canada is of 'cultural genocide', when the children were taken from parents. Should the talk in your America be of another form of genocide towards black people?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Beeswax Altar might find playing Lotte Lenya's Alabama Song to be more interesting than Sweet Home Alabama.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Of the thousands of African-Americans lost to homicide every year, do you realize how few of them are killed by white people?
Yeah...
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Perhaps when the racism towards the native inhabitants is sorted out and reparation made, then racism might - possibly - begin to end.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I've never displayed the confederate flag on anything other than my Dukes of Hazard lunchbox back in the early 80's. Not sure I even knew what it was then. If the confederate flag ceased to fly over any government property anywhere, I wouldn't have noticed nor cared. Since the confederate flag has become an issue, I've been tempted to start displaying the flag and play Sweet Home Alabama on a loop.
Why? Not solidarity with Dylan Roof, presumably. You say you wouldn't have cared if it ceased to fly over government property, but now you care enough (almost) to fly it yourself. If you're so indifferent to the flag itself, why exactly are you so exercised about people trying to have it removed?
Makes sense to me, though I've no idea who or what Dylan Roof is.
I may be completely misunderstanding Beeswax Altar, but it strikes me as an entirely understandable (to excuse my language) 'S*d the lot of them. I'm not having those b*****rs telling me what to do', reaction.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Enoch - Dylann Roof, with two 'nn's for some reason - was the lad who shot those people in the church in Charleston.
I can understand Beeswax Altar's reaction and viewpoint - 'Those buggers aren't going to tell me what flag I should or shouldn't fly ...'
It's an understandable reaction and, dare I say it, very 'American' ...
What worries me about the current heat and steam about the Confederate flag and statues/monuments of Southern Generals and so on ... is that by clamping down on these things - removing them from the public sphere - the 'liberals' or the 'North' or whoever it is - the Feds ? - who want to clamp down on these things - run the risk of drawing more attention to them and legitimising them.
Heck, I don't have any problem at all with there being statues of Robert E Lee and so on - why shouldn't there be?
And the Confederate dead should be commemorated as much as the Union dead or the dead from any conflict.
There's an old church in York (there are many old churches in York ...) which was damaged in a German air raid in WW2 has been turned into some kind of 'peace centre' type of thing and which has links to Coventry Cathedral's peace initiatives. I'm told that among other memorials - such as to the 100 or so citizens of York who died in the bombing, there's a memorial to the 5 Luftwaffe pilots who died when their aircraft was shot down during the raid.
My gut feeling is that any reaction against Confederate insignia, memorials and whatever else will only provoke an equal and opposite reaction.
I think we can accept that the South was treated pretty shittily both during and after the Civil War - General Grant laid waste to wide swathes of land during his advance into Southern territory.
To acknowledge that isn't to justify slavery nor exonerate the South for its endemic racist at that time.
Tit for tat 'Damn Yankee' bollocks doesn't redress the balance either. 'We treated our slaves better than you treated your Irish migrants ...' and all that malarkey.
It worries me the way these debates seem to become so easily polarised - one side demonising the other and all balance and nuance being lost in the shrillness.
Sadly, that seems to be the way political and social debate seems to be going in the US. It might be the same elsewhere but I dunno - it seems a lot more strident over there at the moment and has been for some time ...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
It is my belief that things: words, symbols, history, all have the meaning we bring to them. It is the meaning we bring to things that gives those things power. The Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia (the one everyone calls the confederate flag) has a lot of meaning for a lot of people.
For many people I know the flag evokes the bravery and the chivalry of the Old South. The South that in their hearts fought bravely and whose generals regularly outsmarted Yankee generals.
For many others the flag evokes slavery, oppression, Jim Crow and deliberate and continuous resistance to civil rights. It is an ongoing threat and reminder that racism is alive and well in the United States.
The truth is that flag carries both meanings writ large.
I have read a lot about the causes of the Civil War. A number of historians attribute the war to states unhappiness with federal power. A number of historians attribute the war to a desire to continue slavery. The exact cause seems to be elusive. First, war is wrong. Second, war to keep slavery is wrong. Third, if you do not know exactly why a war is being fought - why is the war being fought?
Whatever the cause 620,000 soldiers died in the Civil War. Let that number soak in. That is 504 soldiers per day of the war. 2.5% of the US population lost their lives to that war. If 2.5% of our population were to die in a war today, it would be roughly 7,000,000 soldiers. Newer research suggests that the number of soldiers who died in the war was upwards of 850,000.
I am more than willing to bet for every soldier who died nobly, there were lots of others who would rather have lived out their lives with their families and friends. And yet we continue to think of this war as noble.
Why is the battle flag flying over Charleston South Carolina today? The official reason is to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the start of the Civil War. There is a lot of reason to tie the flag flying again to the emergence of the Civil Rights movement and Strom Thurmond who openly campaigned on keeping segregation.
So, should the flag be banned? No. We have freedom of expression and I for one am awfully glad we do. This is an entirely different question than that of a government flying the flag.
Should the flag fly as an official government statement? That is what the government of South Carolina is doing; making an official government statement by flying the flag. The centennial of starting the war was over 54 years ago. It is still a little early to fly it for the bicentennial. Flying it now is a bit like not taking down Christmas lights until August.
Even if the original purpose was to honor the start of the Civil War, that meaning seems to have gone by the way. It seems hard to miss that the continued flying of the flag symbolizes in part a dedication to resistance to civil rights. This is an - interesting - message for a state with an African American population of 28%.
Even without the racist undercurrents of the flag. We ought to ask ourselves why we as a people in the South continue to glamorize a war that killed between 620,000 and 850,000 people.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Of the thousands of African-Americans lost to homicide every year, do you realize how few of them are killed by white people?
Yeah...
#whitelivesmatter
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Thanks for that Gamaliel. Although I've heard all about the dreadful shootings in Charleston, I don't think I've heard the gunman named.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thanks for that Gamaliel. Although I've heard all about the dreadful shootings in Charleston, I don't think I've heard the gunman named.
You've heard "all about" the shootings, but you haven't heard the name of the gunman or anything about his celebration of the Confederate battle flag? (He was mentioned in the OP, in fact - just before your first post on this thread, as it happens.)
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
Regarding the meaning of the confederate battle flag: Originally posted by Tartof
quote:
For many people I know the flag evokes the bravery and the chivalry of the Old South. The South that in their hearts fought bravely and whose generals regularly outsmarted Yankee generals.
For many others the flag evokes slavery, oppression, Jim Crow and deliberate and continuous resistance to civil rights. It is an ongoing threat and reminder that racism is alive and well in the United States.
The truth is that flag carries both meanings writ large.
The other meaning is about where the flag is posted. On ground level it makes the statements quoted above but when posted atop a government building it is a declaration that "we are in charge here". Consider what would be the effect should ISIL manage to post their black flag atop a government building. So it is not just what it is but where it is.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
... There is no ongoing race war in the United States. ...
Please. The war on drugs is a race war. Check out the DoJ report on policing in Ferguson for more race war. And let's not forget the racial disparity in death sentences in the USA.
eek! code!
[ 08. July 2015, 13:11: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Whatever your star-bars flag's significance in recalling a positive heritage and history for some people, it also historically represents an era of slavery and oppression, and it has been appropriated as a symbol of hate by other groups. Not true? Find me a significant proportion of black people who agree with you.
As for the Irish, they had to have a bloody war to get rid of the British. Nothing helpful there if we want a model for reconciliation.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I have read a lot about the causes of the Civil War. A number of historians attribute the war to states unhappiness with federal power. A number of historians attribute the war to a desire to continue slavery. The exact cause seems to be elusive. First, war is wrong. Second, war to keep slavery is wrong. Third, if you do not know exactly why a war is being fought - why is the war being fought?
I'm not sure there are any serious historians nowadays who considered the secession and resulting war was not directly involved with the desire to keep and expand slavery. The seceding states were quite explicit about it being slavery and their unhappiness with federal power was that it wasn't being used sufficiently to return runaway slaves from the free states despite the Fugitive Slave Act though they also feared in the long run that slavery would be abolished as it had already been done in many countries and in the short run that it would not be allowed in new territories and new states. The Confederate constitution is very similar to the US Constitution except with more recognition of individual state freedom except on one point, slavery; no confederate state could ban slavery completely.
Browse through the documents if you wish
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
... There is no ongoing race war in the United States. ...
Please. The war on drugs is a race war. Check out the DoJ report on policing in Ferguson for more race war. And let's not forget the racial disparity in death sentences in the USA.
eek! code!
I'll tell that to the dozen white people in my small town I personally know who have been to prison and are on felony probation for nonviolent drug crimes.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
... There is no ongoing race war in the United States. ...
Please. The war on drugs is a race war. Check out the DoJ report on policing in Ferguson for more race war. And let's not forget the racial disparity in death sentences in the USA.
eek! code!
Also the War on Poverty. Now I think on it, most of the Major US Gov Initiatives, largely underfunded and incompletely implemented and hence dismal failures, could really have been labeled "white efforts to solve the African-American Problem." We stopped short of gas showers, though.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
We stopped short of gas showers, though.
Well, at least Planned Parenthood is alive and kickin'!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
... There is no ongoing race war in the United States. ...
Please. The war on drugs is a race war. Check out the DoJ report on policing in Ferguson for more race war. And let's not forget the racial disparity in death sentences in the USA.
eek! code!
I'll tell that to the dozen white people in my small town I personally know who have been to prison and are on felony probation for nonviolent drug crimes.
Ah, the old "one example disproves a trend" fallacy. I forget the Latin for that.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Oh...I bet I could go to the next small town over and find a dozen or so white people on probation or who have done time for nonviolent drug crimes too. Matter of fact, I bet that would be true for most towns such as mine. Besides, I missed where actual evidence of a race war was presented. Probably because there isn't any.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Race war is a bit hyperbolic IMO. However, black people are more targeted by the police, treated worse and receive harsher sentences than white people.
Call it a war call it harassment, call it prejudice. But calling to non-existent is to be be willfully blind.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Point of information, Dave W, I never mentioned Dylann Roof in the Original Post. I did not mention him because there was a thread already dealing with him.
I am lamenting that the civil war still continues in different guises. The flag issue is a small part of it; but other issues also remain. I am reading a book by Bryan Stephenson called Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption It depicts how the American Justice System is waited against the poor and minorities (Example: If you are arrested for a capital punishment offence and you do not have the capital, you will get the punishment.)
The recent spate of police shooting black youth also suggest how the war continues.
Sometimes you can hear the conservatives complain liberals are in a culture war. If you listen to the complaint, you can still hear echos of the civil war.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
It occurs to me that basically, people are insisting on flying the flag of a separatist movement.
That in itself is good evidence the Civil War is still being fought.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Point of information, Dave W, I never mentioned Dylann Roof in the Original Post. I did not mention him because there was a thread already dealing with him.
You most certainly did mention him - you realize we can still see the original post, right?
The last line is:
quote:
If there is one thing the Dylan Roof shooting has begun is a discourse on the state of the American civil war.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I can't find the original article, but it has been argued that the South never clearly accepted that it had lost the war because Lincoln died. His successor Jackson was a southerner and went easy on the defeated South. If Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis had gone to prison camp to break rock for ten years or so (instead of retiring in honor to sip mint juleps on porches) it might've sunk in better. They were never prosecuted and labeled as the traitors they were, and this was a fatal error.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I'm not going to argue that reconstruction worked, but the idea that we should have sent more people to prison camps goes against everything I have ever learned about effective reconciliation.
When Union troops were standing at the outskirts of Atlanta, the mayor sent a letter to General Sherman, begging him to spare the city. Sherman sent a letter in response, in which he stated that war is a horrible thing, and that pulling your punches will only prolong the suffering. But he also said something that might seem a little surprising in the context. Sherman wrote,
quote:
But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.
These guys appreciated that the folks on the other side were their countrymen, and wanted them to be their countrymen again.
I think that the work of reconciliation over the Civil War and the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow has a long way to go. I also suspect we would have a lot further to go had we conducted more hangings at the end of the war.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I can't find the original article, but it has been argued that the South never clearly accepted that it had lost the war because Lincoln died. His successor Jackson was a southerner and went easy on the defeated South.
<pedant>Lincoln was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee. Andrew Jackson was someone else entirely (also from Tennessee), and was President from 1829 -1837.</pedant>
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I can't find the original article, but it has been argued that the South never clearly accepted that it had lost the war because Lincoln died. His successor Jackson was a southerner
It wasn't Jackson but Andrew Johnson.
[code]
[ 09. July 2015, 19:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I can't find the original article, but it has been argued that the South never clearly accepted that it had lost the war because Lincoln died. His successor Jackson was a southerner and went easy on the defeated South. If Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis had gone to prison camp to break rock for ten years or so (instead of retiring in honor to sip mint juleps on porches) it might've sunk in better. They were never prosecuted and labeled as the traitors they were, and this was a fatal error.
I think you mean Andrew Johnson. He tends to end up near the bottom of those "best presidents" lists with Warren Harding, James Buchanan, and (recently) George W. Bush.
The question of which Confederate officers and/or officials to punish was taken up by Gary Brecher. He eschews going after the top men, which is likely to create martyrs of men mostly past their "sell by" dates in terms of effectiveness.
quote:
None of these men, or even more effective postwar irregulars/bandits like the James Brothers, ever represented a real threat to the Union victory. That threat came from ex-Confederate officers who were cold-blooded and intelligent enough to bide their time, take advantage of the North’s ridiculous leniency, and form quasi-legal organizations to negate every gain for which those 300,000 soldiers died. These were the men who needed to hang in April 1865.
The men he picks out as most worthy of the noose were Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the Ku Klux Klan) and Wade Hampton III (founder of the very similar by less well-known Red Shirts). Both men were fairly vicious during the war, even by the standards of nineteenth century warfare, so their execution would have been well justified based on their Civil War activities, not just what we know they later went on to do, though anyone paying attention might have figured out their likely trajectory.
quote:
And it would not have been difficult to identify the Confederate leaders most likely to organize treasonous groups like the Red Shirts and KKK. Both were led by civilians who rose quickly through the ranks, ending up as Lt. Generals — the only two men to follow that trajectory in the whole huge Confederate army. Both these leaders, Forrest and Hampton, were notable for their efficiency and extreme brutality throughout the war. Both were relatively young. Both were unrepentant racists and secessionists. For all these reasons, they were all obvious candidates for the top spots on a gallows list.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Sorry, typo.
I don't necessarily advocate hanging, which then leads to martyrdom. (The federal authorities were careful to keep the bodies of Lincoln's murderers under wraps for some years; John Wilkes Booth's sister eventually got his corpse back to put into the family tomb.)
But some good hard time in jail would keep them from being reverenced like saints.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
It is my understanding that Johnson was basically following the Reconstruction Plan that Lincoln had promoted before his death. Which would have granted complete amnesty to all Southerners except to certain political leaders.
As it turned out, Lee was granted amnesty after applying for it. Davis was imprisoned for two years. People wanted to charge him with treason, but it was felt that the charges could not be prosecuted. He was released on a $100,000 bond and fled to Canada
Later in life he returned to the United States. He was actually re-elected to the US Senate, but that body refused to seat him. I believe he ended up becoming the president of an insurance company.
Robert E Lee became the president of Washington University. It is now known as Washington and Lee University.
Most Americans learned that the Civil War ended with the surrender of Lee and the capture of Davis. I admit I always thought of it this way, but further research shows that it was more drawn out. Here is the timeline:
Contents [hide]
1 Surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia (April 9)
2 Surrender of General St. John Richardson Liddell's troops (April 9)
3 Union Capture of Columbus, Georgia (Easter Sunday, April 16)
4 Disbanding of Mosby's Raiders (April 21)
5 Surrender of General Joseph E. Johnston and his various armies (April 26)
6 Surrender of the Confederate departments of Alabama, Mississippi and East Louisiana regiments (May 4)
7 Surrender of the Confederate District of the Gulf (May 5)
8 Andrew Johnson's May 9 declaration (May 9)
9 Capture of President Davis (May 10)
10 Surrender of the Confederate Department of Florida and South Georgia (May 10)
11 Surrender of the Northern Sub-District of Arkansas (May 11)
12 Surrender of Confederate forces of North Georgia (May 12)
13 Disbandment after the Battle at Palmito Ranch (May 13)
14 Surrender of Kirby Smith (May 26)
15 Surrender of Cherokee chief Stand Watie (June 23)
16 Surrender of CSS Shenandoah (November 6)
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But some good hard time in jail would keep them from being reverenced like saints.
Hmmm, didn't appear to have that effect on some people's views of the occupants of Her Majesty's Prison Maze....
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
It is my understanding that Johnson was basically following the Reconstruction Plan that Lincoln had promoted before his death. Which would have granted complete amnesty to all Southerners except to certain political leaders.
Not really. Johnson's Reconstruction differed from Lincoln's (which was still being formed when he was assassinated) in a number of areas, most significantly on the question of (male) black suffrage.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Race war is a bit hyperbolic IMO. However, black people are more targeted by the police, treated worse and receive harsher sentences than white people.
Call it a war call it harassment, call it prejudice. But calling to non-existent is to be be willfully blind.
All of which can be explained by the fact that black people commit crimes at a far higher rate than their percentage of the population. Areas with higher crime have a higher police presence. A higher police presence means or run ins with the police. As encounters with the police increase, the chance of encountering a cop (of any race) willing to use excessive force. You can claim that police should police high crime areas less but then that would just lead to the claim that police aren't doing their job. We are seeing that play out in Baltimore now.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
All of which can be explained by the fact that black people commit crimes at a far higher rate than their percentage of the population.
This is a popular idea, but doesn't seem to be true. To take an example most recently in the media, the town of Ferguson, MO has a fairly typical crime rate for a U.S. city and yet ended up with an average of $321 in fines and 3 warrants per household. This is not something you get from ordinary policing. This is predatory enforcement.
You get a similar trend when it comes to drug crime. Virtually every study of drug use by Americans shows that black and white Americans use drugs at virtually the same rate, yet those serving drug convictions (particularly non-violent drug convictions, which allow greater discretionary latitude to police and prosecutors) are disproportionately African American.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is a popular idea, but doesn't seem to be true.
Truth? What matter cold, stark truth? Much better to lie under the warmth of a blanket rhetoric, curled next to the fire of ignorance.
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Was it? I don't think it was just about slaves, honestly, particularly for the south. There were union states that did have slaves (Kentucky for instance.)
Also New York and Massachusetts
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Tangent Alert
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is a popular idea, but doesn't seem to be true. To take an example most recently in the media, the town of Ferguson, MO has a fairly typical crime rate for a U.S. city and yet ended up with an average of $321 in fines and 3 warrants per household. This is not something you get from ordinary policing. This is predatory enforcement. ...
I accept that this has nothing to do with the Civil War, but there was a programme on R4 (a BBC wireless channel) recently about Ferguson. The person making had visited it. He alleged, with fairly persuasive evidence, that Ferguson and some neighbouring local authorities had no proper tax base. So they were relying on predatory fining as their main source of income.
If that's true, it's very bad. It's a serious and inexcusable breach of trust on the public. But as I said, I accept it has little bearing on the subject of this thread.
End of Tangent
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
There is really very little difference between Lincoln's plan and Johnson's plan. Lincoln's plan was called the Lincoln Louisiana Plan which would have quietly allowed readmission into the Union. It was called the Louisiana Plan primarily because when Lincoln first suggested it, Louisiana took him at his word and elected representatives and senators for the US Congress. Congress, though, refused to allow them because hostilities were still taking place.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Was it? I don't think it was just about slaves, honestly, particularly for the south. There were union states that did have slaves (Kentucky for instance.)
Also New York and Massachusetts
Not at the time of the Civil War. New York abolished the practice in 1827, though a small number of slaves show up in the 1830 and 1840 censuses. Massachusetts has the interesting distinction of being the only one of the 13 original states that had effectively banned slavery by the time the Constitution was adopted. This came about as the result of a series of court cases during the Revolutionary War that held that perpetual servitude was not compatible with the (then newly adopted) Massachusetts state constitution.
Interestingly one slave shows up in Massachusetts during the census of 1830 (the only time an enslaved person is listed in Massachusetts during a U.S. Census). This may be due to a visitor from another state where slavery was still legal at the time. "Right of transit with property" was one of the grievances set out in one of the various Declarations of the Causes of Secession.
At any rate, the break point for secession seems to be an enslavement rate of somewhere between 20% and 25%. The four border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware) were the states where slavery was still legal in 1860 that did not join the Confederate rebellion. All of them had enslavement rates of less than 20% of their overall population. Arkansas and Tennessee had the lowest enslavement rates of the secessionist states, both at about 25% of total population. So somewhere between a 20% and 25% enslavement rate is where the Slave Power gained enough influence to be the determining factor in a state's political calculus.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I see that someone already beat me to the punch about New York and Massachusetts.
Turns out that when the movie 12 Years a Slave came out, I found out through a family source that my family had owned slaves in Connecticut at one time. Not sure when that ended. These were actually indentured servants. Connecticut officially emancipated slaves in 1848.
My mother's grandmother's side of the family, the Bradshaws, were in Georgia during the Civil War. I am betting they also owned slaves and even fought on the confederate side.
Thing of it is, the term "States Rights" was synonymous with owning slaves when the states started to withdraw from the Union. It still is a code word for the subjugation of minorities in the United States. You saw that in the 1960's during the civil rights movement. You see it dealing with illegal immigration and path to citizenship of South Americans (I somewhat understand how illegal immigration from the Middle EASt and Africa are impacting European countries as well). And you see it in the reaction of several conservative states to the latest Supreme Court ruling concerning equal marriage (Not wanting to make this a dead horse issue).
Many people resist change, but 150 years later, you would think some issues would be settled by now.
Question: what is the role of the church, as a change agent, in regard to this continuing civil/culture war?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The American church, alas! has an ugly history here. You can easily find reams of sermons, preached from pulpits across the South, assuring congregations that black people were made by God to be slaves. Entire denominations (that's why they're the -Southern- Baptists) split off, and after the war became bastions for white people. The black people had to go and start their own African Methodist or African Episcopal churches. We were definitely not followers of Christ.
That the church has been to some extent at the front of the Civil Rights movement is hopeful. (IMO the conservative Christianity's opposition to gay marriage shows that the church hasn't learned much in the past two centuries; they've found yet another hill to die on that will totally be left behind by history.)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Clearly, with your racist flags and monuments etc, you need something like a museum for disgraced scuptures.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The American church, alas! has an ugly history here. You can easily find reams of sermons, preached from pulpits across the South, assuring congregations that black people were made by God to be slaves. Entire denominations (that's why they're the -Southern- Baptists) split off, and after the war became bastions for white people. The black people had to go and start their own African Methodist or African Episcopal churches. We were definitely not followers of Christ.
Debatable. The actions of southern slaveholders seem pretty much in line with the historical mainstream of other "followers of Christ".
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
That the church has been to some extent at the front of the Civil Rights movement is hopeful. (IMO the conservative Christianity's opposition to gay marriage shows that the church hasn't learned much in the past two centuries; they've found yet another hill to die on that will totally be left behind by history.)
This seems more like public relations than anything else. "The Church" (which is a nice generic term) likes to selectively remember the parts of it that supported the Civil Rights Movement and forget about the parts that opposed it or were indifferent. In other words, it likes to believe that "the Church" was represented by Martin Luther King, Jr. when he wrote his Letter From Birmingham Jail, but not by the much more widely respected (at the time) clergymen who wrote the Call for Unity to which he was responding.
If history follows its usual arc, I'm sure that in thirty or so years we'll be hearing about how a carefully handpicked set of examples show how "the Church" led the way on gay rights.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
no prophet's flag is set so..., comments that can be read as attempts to start 45th parallel wars are not welcome here.
Everyone else, neither will any comments responding in kind. You have been warned.
/hosting
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Oh, I agree, Croesus. In a generation the gay-rights movement will be one of the ornaments of Christian social development, no question.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
The flag is not going to be flying on the South Carolina capitol grounds after today.
If I take anything away from Representative Horne's speech, it is that reconciliation is going to come from talking about today. It's fun to play armchair historian and wonder how it might have been different if we did x, y, or z. But it is probably more important to listen to the people around us. Does it matter why the war happened, or if the Confederates were traitors or merely rebels? It's a fun debate, but it matters far less than the fact that having the flag fly over state grounds makes good people feel like lesser citizens.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
This is why Christians can't have nice things:
KKK's profession of faith
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
South Carolina has just proved it is easier to take down a piece of cloth which in and of itself is harmless than it is for the United States to limit access to a 9mm Glock which has the purpose is to kill or maim.
I am a gun owner who believes that the United States can do better to limit access to such a weapon. I do not want to ban firearms, just to control access to them by unbalanced people.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
One week ago:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Even though Robert E Lee surrendered the Army of Virgina, and Jefferson Davis was captured shortly thereafter, the issue of the Confederate Battle Flag shows the war is still being fought.
Yesterday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
South Carolina has just proved it is easier to take down a piece of cloth which in and of itself is harmless than it is for the United States to limit access to a 9mm Glock which has the purpose is to kill or maim.
Wait, what did we just spend the last week and 156 posts (plus a spin-off Styx thread) discussing?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The issue of the Original Post was not about the Confederate Flag. It is about the continuing divide Americans are experiencing when it comes to respecting the rights of all people. I have said throughout this thread that the war is continuing whenever the majority wants to subjugate the minority. I gave a number of examples of how this happens.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
It just seems to me that when you look at South Carolina taking the flag down and say "well it's not really such a big deal to take down a harmless piece of cloth" you are disrespecting the people who have been working for years against serious opposition to get that thing down. Especially since the major hurdle was getting people to see that, for many people in the state, it wasn't just a piece of cloth or a historical relic, but a constant and continuous slap in the face. If it was easy, it would have happened a long time ago. So let's take a breath, give them a "way to go, folks," and then press on.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
South Carolina has just proved it is easier to take down a piece of cloth which in and of itself is harmless than it is for the United States to limit access to a 9mm Glock which has the purpose is to kill or maim.
I am a gun owner who believes that the United States can do better to limit access to such a weapon. I do not want to ban firearms, just to control access to them by unbalanced people.
That's really not a good comparison. What we see in South Carolina is the managers of state owned property deciding to take down a flag. If you want to fly a particular flag on your property and walk around with a gun, go for it.
Last summer whilst in NYC for the primary purpose of seeing some baseball games, I walked out of the SE corner of Central Park and saw a Saudi flag in front of a particular hotel. Even though I was deeply offended to see such a vile flag, I remembered it was not my property. I showed them! Within just a few minutes I was in a pub drinking a beer in protest.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
When a crowd of people waiving Saudi flags get in your face and tell you that you had better not try to enroll in a public school or you might not survive the night, you can talk about being offended by flags.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
When a crowd of people waiving Saudi flags get in your face and tell you that you had better not try to enroll in a public school or you might not survive the night, you can talk about being offended by flags.
Democrats haven't used the confederate flag in that manner for at least two generations.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Oh sure, they wanted to hurt you grandpa for being black, but that was a long time ago. Now get over it, so I can go back to being pissed off about my great great great great grandpa fighting on the losing side of a war.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
When a crowd of people waiving Saudi flags get in your face and tell you that you had better not try to enroll in a public school or you might not survive the night, you can talk about being offended by flags.
Only the actual ones who have had flags waved in their face and being told crap have any business having a problem with a flag? If that's the way you see things, fine, but it sounds like a load of crap to me.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
There is a war going on in America, but it isn't being waged by southern redneck confederate sympathizers. It is being waged in Amari Brown's neighborhood, by his own neighbors.
If his murder fit a little different narrative maybe people would give a shit.
Sadly for him it sounds like his own father doesn't even give a shit.
I'm sure his mother is comforted knowing that the flag has been taken down in South Carolina.
Now if we could just toughen up those weak Chicago gun laws, the ones Amari's father was just arrested on in April, then we would really be on our way...
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I'm sure his mother is comforted knowing that the flag has been taken down in South Carolina.
I bet she's not mad about it...
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
When a crowd of people waiving Saudi flags get in your face and tell you that you had better not try to enroll in a public school or you might not survive the night, you can talk about being offended by flags.
Only the actual ones who have had flags waved in their face and being told crap have any business having a problem with a flag? If that's the way you see things, fine, but it sounds like a load of crap to me.
At least there are more than 0 people alive who have ever had that experience with the confederate flag.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
When a crowd of people waiving Saudi flags get in your face and tell you that you had better not try to enroll in a public school or you might not survive the night, you can talk about being offended by flags.
Only the actual ones who have had flags waved in their face and being told crap have any business having a problem with a flag? If that's the way you see things, fine, but it sounds like a load of crap to me.
At least there are more than 0 people alive who have ever had that experience with the confederate flag.
My wife and daughters can all drive a car to a pub and be honest about their beliefs with others while having a cold brew and a BLT before going to vote and I don't even have to go with them.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I'm sure his mother is comforted knowing that the flag has been taken down in South Carolina.
I bet she's not mad about it...
Which is, of course, the only measure of her credibility on the issue.
I'm sure she is mad, furious even, that far away and long dead white politicians ratified the second amendment and outlawed certain drugs leading directly to her son's tragic death.
It's a race war, don't you know...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Like I said I think War is OTT.
But how would you describe the systematic oppression of a group of people based on their perceived race?
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But how would you describe the systematic oppression of a group of people based on their perceived race?
As a ubiquitous stain on the human condition present in all places and at all times, to which the United States has not been immune, but against which it has certainly been a miraculous exception in the long span of human history. Especially considering the blink of time represented by 239 years.
Not to say that America is exceptional though!
That would be racist.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But how would you describe the systematic oppression of a group of people based on their perceived race?
As a ubiquitous stain on the human condition present in all places and at all times, to which the United States has not been immune, but against which it has certainly been a miraculous exception in the long span of human history.
Could you re-phrase, please?
I think I get the part where "The US has not been immune to the stain of systematic oppression..."; you can be "immune to" something (though usually not to a stain, but that's not the worst of mixed metaphors.)
But the next part sounds like you're saying "The US has been a miraculous exception against the stain of systematic oppression..." What does it mean to be an "exception against" something?
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My wife and daughters can all drive a car to a pub and be honest about their beliefs with others while having a cold brew and a BLT before going to vote and I don't even have to go with them.
Show me one anti 20th amendment or title IX rally where someone is flying a Saudi flag. Just one.
You can't. Because it has never happened.
Show me one state where a governor or legislature erected the Saudi flag over the state capitol before refusing to allow women to register for classes or register to vote. Just one.
You can't. Because it has never happened.
Ask me if I can show you one anti civil rights act rally where people are waving the confederate flag.
I can show you many of them.
Ask me if I can show you one state where a governor or legislature erected a confederate flag over the state capitol before refusing to allow blacks to register for classes or register to vote.
I can show you many of them.
The comparison is laughable.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
19th amendment rather. I don't suppose anyone has ever protested moving inauguration day to January.
(Got my mnemonic screwed up- 19th amendment passed in 1920.)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But how would you describe the systematic oppression of a group of people based on their perceived race?
As a ubiquitous stain on the human condition present in all places and at all times, to which the United States has not been immune, but against which it has certainly been a miraculous exception in the long span of human history. Especially considering the blink of time represented by 239 years.
Not to say that America is exceptional though!
That would be racist.
Not really sure what you are saying. It appears you might be trying to reference slavery in North America. But that number is 242 years. (1619 to 1865) And if you want to talk about Jim Crow, redlining, segregation, you have to go at least until 1968. That is if you just want to deal with laws. So we are up to 349 years. And really, you have to go to 2015 and counting. Not only are black people still not treated equally, the effect of all those years of institutionalised racism and then more covert racism, needs to be addressed.
Oh, blink of an eye? Why limit yourself to human history? Even better. Hey slaves, you should not have had no complaints. Compared to the age of the universe, your being torn from your family, locked in chains, beaten and enslaved didn't even happen.
How about we flip that perspective? 88% of the history of Europeans in North America involves the subjugation of other peoples. Damn. Slow. Blink.
And that weird comment at the end. American isn't a race. And I do not let Anyone else off the hook when it comes to the poor treatment of others. But this thread is about America.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The comparison is laughable.
MN was describing a situation that is, that exists now. All of your examples are what never was.
Comparisons between what is and what never was are often laughable.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
OK, we hit the point in this thread where someone is denying that actual historical events, of which there are still quite a few living survivors, actually happened. I could spend my weekend googling images of the Square in Oxford in September 1962, but I have a life.
Next time you complain about Iran denying actual historical events, I'll be rolling my eyes.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I could spend my weekend googling images of the Square in Oxford in September 1962, but I have a life.
Some of us live for such challenges.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Show me one anti 20th amendment or title IX rally where someone is flying a Saudi flag. Just one.
You can't. Because it has never happened.
In Saudi Arabia the quran is the constitution and anti-female discrimination is a national pastime.
quote:
Show me one state where a governor or legislature erected the Saudi flag over the state capitol before refusing to allow women to register for classes or register to vote. Just one.
You can't. Because it has never happened.
Women vote in Saudi Arabia? Does anyone?
quote:
Ask me if I can show you one anti civil rights act rally where people are waving the confederate flag.
I can show you many of them.
What civil rights are there in Saudi Arabia?
quote:
The comparison is laughable.
Yeah, sure.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The comparison is laughable.
MN was describing a situation that is, that exists now. All of your examples are what never was.
Comparisons between what is and what never was are often laughable.
It happened, alright. Consistency should demand something along the lines of if taking down confederate flags is a good thing then burning Saudi flags is groovy.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Boy, your unwillingness to admit that maybe we should just listen to how black people feel about generations of shitty treatment is remarkable.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Boy, your unwillingness to admit that maybe we should just listen to how black people feel about generations of shitty treatment is remarkable.
Unfortunately it is common enough to not be remarkable at all.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Just finished the book I cited earlier in this thread. Just Mercy.
Bryan Stephenson, the author makes some very interesting points
He says there are four institutions in American history that shape our approach to race and justice.
The first one is slavery
Then there is the reign of terror which lasted from 1865 to WWII
Includes the KKK, lynching, police harassment, bombings,
Also convict leasing--where the states would convict blacks of petty crimes and then lease them to businesses. Actually happened throughout the US
Jim Crow laws--legalized segregation. The American Apartheid area.
When my wife and lived in Mississippi we found vestiges of this. We wanted to look at a house when we were looking for something to buy. The realtor kept avoiding the house. We asked about it. He told us we would not be interested because a black family lived there. My brother in law was black. We were quite offended by this.
Racial profiling is also a vestige of the Jim Crow era.
And then there is mass incarceration. Want to guess the percentage of minorities incarcerated in the US? Approximately 60% of those jailed are the minority. 34% of those in prison are white. The war on drugs targeted mostly black communities. If convicted of a crime most states refuse a black person's right t o vote
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
No, most states refuse a convicted felon the right to vote regardless of race. The idea that large numbers of African-Americans are in prison for using drugs while white tokers go unpunished is nonsense. Even if all inmates serving time for nonviolent drug offenses were released it wouldn't make a dent in the prison population. Proponents of prison reform claimed otherwise until actually doing research. But, who cares if pesky facts contradict your narrative?
Hands up, don't shoot
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The idea that large numbers of African-Americans are in prison for using drugs while white tokers go unpunished is nonsense. Even if all inmates serving time for nonviolent drug offenses were released it wouldn't make a dent in the prison population. Proponents of prison reform claimed otherwise until actually doing research.
I seem to recall hearing a similar assertion recently - do you have a reference for this?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Show me one anti 20th amendment or title IX rally where someone is flying a Saudi flag. Just one.
You can't. Because it has never happened.
In Saudi Arabia the quran is the constitution and anti-female discrimination is a national pastime.
quote:
Show me one state where a governor or legislature erected the Saudi flag over the state capitol before refusing to allow women to register for classes or register to vote. Just one.
You can't. Because it has never happened.
Women vote in Saudi Arabia? Does anyone?
Did I miss something where Saudi Arabia was admitted to the Union, got a governor, legislature and state capitol, or became subject to the American Constitution or American civil rights laws?
I doubt anyone would deny what happens in Saudi Arabia. But what does that have to do with the American Civil War or its after-effects here? Or with what Og has said?
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
The point he is trying to make is that there are countries out there with awful human rights records, but he isn't out demanding that they take down the flags of those regimes at the Plaza hotel and Rockefeller Plaza.
What he's not asking is, why is it that black people do have a stronger reaction to the confederate flag than he does to the Saudi flag.
There are a few possibilities. Maybe black people are just too thinly skinned, and should be more like MN.
Maybe this is the NAACP just trying to troll the South.
Or maybe there is a third possibility, which is that the way MN feels when he sees the flag of Saudi Arabia or North Korea is fundamentally different from the way that some black people feel when they see a confederate flag.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Or maybe the Confederate flag is an issue for the USA to deal with, and therefore its citizens are the ones having the discussion and making the decision. Let the Saudis deal with the Saudi flag and / or their society.
Flying the Saudi flag anywhere in the USA does not imply sovereignty. Flying the Confederate flag does, and a whole lot more too.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Or maybe the Confederate flag is an issue for the USA to deal with, and therefore its citizens are the ones having the discussion and making the decision.
What makes this thread read like a parody to me are the number of people from outside the US (much less outside a particular state where the Confederate flag is flying) who are both dictating the meaning of the symbol and demanding that the citizens remove it.
But, hey, at least I don't think I've seen anyone on the Ship calling for displaying it to be made a hate crime.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Boy, your unwillingness to admit that maybe we should just listen to how black people feel about generations of shitty treatment is remarkable.
This has to be a joke, right?
We have been "listening" to it for at least my entire lifetime.
What is remarkable is the unwillingness of many to admit that in recent decades a majority of the shitty treatment is self inflicted.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Boy, your unwillingness to admit that maybe we should just listen to how black people feel about generations of shitty treatment is remarkable.
This has to be a joke, right?
We have been "listening" to it for at least my entire lifetime.
What is remarkable is the unwillingness of many to admit that in recent decades a majority of the shitty treatment is self inflicted.
That's delusional.
Posted by Matrix (# 3452) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Boy, your unwillingness to admit that maybe we should just listen to how black people feel about generations of shitty treatment is remarkable.
This has to be a joke, right?
We have been "listening" to it for at least my entire lifetime.
What is remarkable is the unwillingness of many to admit that in recent decades a majority of the shitty treatment is self inflicted.
That's delusional.
Wilfully so perhaps...
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Boy, your unwillingness to admit that maybe we should just listen to how black people feel about generations of shitty treatment is remarkable.
Of course we should listen. I don't see how you could conclude otherwise.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Or maybe the Confederate flag is an issue for the USA to deal with, and therefore its citizens are the ones having the discussion and making the decision. Let the Saudis deal with the Saudi flag and / or their society.
Flying the Saudi flag anywhere in the USA does not imply sovereignty. Flying the Confederate flag does, and a whole lot more too.
There's no reason for the confederate flag to imply sovereignty if it isn't flown on capitol grounds. However, like the Saudi flag, it can be seen as a sign of oppression by folks.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There's no reason for the confederate flag to imply sovereignty if it isn't flown on capitol grounds.
Hmmm, born of a succession movement, incorporated into state flags as a defiance to the federal government. Nope, can't see any sovereignty issues there.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
However, like the Saudi flag, it can be seen as a sign of oppression by folks.
Yes. But so too could the U.S. flag. And the UK flag. But that is not what they were created for.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Of course we should listen. I don't see how you could conclude otherwise.
Becsuse your words don't seem to indicate you are. Not in my reading and apparently not in Og's either.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hmmm, born of a succession movement, incorporated into state flags as a defiance to the federal government. Nope, can't see any sovereignty issues there.
There isn't, as long as they are not flown on capitols.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
However, like the Saudi flag, it can be seen as a sign of oppression by folks.
Yes. But so too could the U.S. flag. And the UK flag. But that is not what they were created for.
It's what the Saudi flag was created for.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Of course we should listen. I don't see how you could conclude otherwise.
Becsuse your words don't seem to indicate you are. Not in my reading and apparently not in Og's either.
I don't think such flags should fly at capitols. Only the flags of the current governments should fly there. I don't mind if they fly at memorials to the slaughtered.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
This reminds me of the union flag (union jack) being known as the butcher's apron by various radicals and republicans, e.g. Irish, a phrase that still brings a chill over me.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The point he is trying to make is that there are countries out there with awful human rights records, but he isn't out demanding that they take down the flags of those regimes at the Plaza hotel and Rockefeller Plaza.
Actually, I saw it at the Fairmont as I strolled out of the se corner of Central Park. I suspect it is private property so they can fly what they want. However, I doubt they would be as willing to fly the battle flag next to the flag of oppression they were actually flying.
quote:
Or maybe there is a third possibility, which is that the way MN feels when he sees the flag of Saudi Arabia or North Korea is fundamentally different from the way that some black people feel when they see a confederate flag.
What I'm looking for is consistency from our national leaders who will express their distaste for the confederate battle flag yet bow to the king of Saudi Arabia or even hold his hand.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It's what the Saudi flag was created for.
OK, you could argue that. Does this mean you are in sympathy with Shiites and moderate Sunnis?
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't mind if they fly at memorials to the slaughtered.
So, not at Fredericksburg, Bull Run, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, any of these places or these places? Looking at this list, the casualties seem relatively equal in most. So where were the slaughters?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
However, I doubt they would be as willing to fly the battle flag next to the flag of oppression they were actually flying.
Might, possibly be because one is the a current flag of state?
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Or maybe there is a third possibility, which is that the way MN feels when he sees the flag of Saudi Arabia or North Korea is fundamentally different from the way that some black people feel when they see a confederate flag.
What I'm looking for is consistency from our national leaders who will express their distaste for the confederate battle flag yet bow to the king of Saudi Arabia or even hold his hand.
Oh, I agree, our governments are woefully inconsistent in their addressing of human rights issues. So, I assume you take issue with their ignoring Darfur, general dealings with Israel and the like?
[ 13. July 2015, 19:01: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It's what the Saudi flag was created for.
OK, you could argue that. Does this mean you are in sympathy with Shiites and moderate Sunnis?
My sympathy is with the idea of not messing with other people or their stuff and people being able to be honest with one another.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't mind if they fly at memorials to the slaughtered.
So, not at Fredericksburg, Bull Run, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, any of these places or these places? Looking at this list, the casualties seem relatively equal in most. So where were the slaughters?
You gave a list of slaughters then asked where the slaughters were.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
You gave a list of slaughters then asked where the slaughters were.
OK, slaughter does mean the killing of large numbers of people. But it is often used to indicate a one-sided affair. But the Confederate battle flag has a lot more connotation than just that. So a memorial to the fallen should, IMO, not include it. Not saying make it illegal on private grounds, but ban it from any public.
Oh, how are you on Nazi flags at WWII battlefields?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't think such flags should fly at capitols. Only the flags of the current governments should fly there. I don't mind if they fly at memorials to the slaughtered.
Don't public buildings in the US fly an assortment of other flags as well as the national one? - State and civic flags, flags associated with twinning agreements, flags associated with special days in the year, distinguished visitors and causes that the state or local authority wants to support etc?
And don't hotels fly all sorts of flags?
After all, Wells Cathedral flies what looks like the Scottish flag but that's because it is dedicated to St Andrew.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, slaughter does mean the killing of large numbers of people. But it is often used to indicate a one-sided affair. But the Confederate battle flag has a lot more connotation than just that. So a memorial to the fallen should, IMO, not include it. Not saying make it illegal on private grounds, but ban it from any public.
The confederate battle flag may be historically inaccurate for many of the dead since they used a variety of flags. I'd consult historians to see what actual flag the memorialized troops of the area marched under.
quote:
Oh, how are you on Nazi flags at WWII battlefields?
I'd have the descendants and family of the dead soldiers decide if and how they want to memorialize their dead.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Don't public buildings in the US fly an assortment of other flags as well as the national one? - State and civic flags, flags associated with twinning agreements, flags associated with special days in the year, distinguished visitors and causes that the state or local authority wants to support etc?
I believe that each state decides that.
quote:
And don't hotels fly all sorts of flags?
Well, the Fairmont in NYC was flying a Saudi flag. Maybe a bunch of Saudi swells were visiting. I don't know if it is always flown but it was there when I walked by. I checked earlier today on the hotel's website and it sure looks like you can still buy a drink there.
quote:
After all, Wells Cathedral flies what looks like the Scottish flag but that's because it is dedicated to St Andrew.
Is there something in history that associates Andrew with that flag, maybe how he was killed, or something?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Don't public buildings in the US fly an assortment of other flags as well as the national one? - State and civic flags, flags associated with twinning agreements, flags associated with special days in the year, distinguished visitors and causes that the state or local authority wants to support etc?
I believe that each state decides that.
Federal buildings will only fly the national flag. I've rarely seen any flags flying from a state building except the national flag and the state flag. The only exceptions I can think of are an occasional historical flag or a school flag at a public school. A county or municipal building may also fly the county or city/town flag, if there is one.
Mileage somewhere like NYC or LA may differ.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Federal buildings will only fly the national flag. I've rarely seen any flags flying from a state building except the national flag and the state flag. The only exceptions I can think of are an occasional historical flag or a school flag at a public school. A county or municipal building may also fly the county or city/town flag, if there is one.
Mileage somewhere like NYC or LA may differ.
Yep. I looked up the information about how to fly flags at the state house in Raleigh and all that is discussed is the federal and state flags.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Well, the Fairmont in NYC was flying a Saudi flag. Maybe a bunch of Saudi swells were visiting. I don't know if it is always flown but it was there when I walked by. I checked earlier today on the hotel's website and it sure looks like you can still buy a drink there.
I'd guess the New YOrk consulate of Saudi Arabia has its offices in the hotel. Hence the flag.
John
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Well, the Fairmont in NYC was flying a Saudi flag. Maybe a bunch of Saudi swells were visiting. I don't know if it is always flown but it was there when I walked by. I checked earlier today on the hotel's website and it sure looks like you can still buy a drink there.
I'd guess the New YOrk consulate of Saudi Arabia has its offices in the hotel. Hence the flag.
John
I've looked it up and the consulate is in another building.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I suspect they were flying the flag to welcome a visiting Saudi dignitary.
C'mon - like or not (and I don't) the Saudis are big buddies of the USA.
I'm sure at any one time in New York, Washington, London, Paris, Tokyo, Sydney or anywhere else one could see flags flying from countries that one might disapprove of.
Heck, the US is hardly an exemplar in terms of the company it has kept over the years - Pinochet, Marcos, all manner of crack-pot Latin American fascist dictators ...
The same applies to the UK and to Western nations in general.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Canadian hotels often fly the flags of countries from which they draw their guests. Normally, one sees US and UK flags, but sometimes, French, Japanese, Chinese, or Australian. The only approval signified is not that of their governments, but the hope that paying customers will feel welcome.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
Didn't Harry Truman in 1947 have the Israeli flag put on his NYC hotel to signal his endorsement of the new state of Israel?
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
I used to work for a company that was a contractor to various navies around the world. They would fly the flags of Canada and the visiting customer-of-the-week. It went over quite well with the military men in the client delegations.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
Didn't Harry Truman in 1947 have the Israeli flag put on his NYC hotel to signal his endorsement of the new state of Israel?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Yes, hotels do this all the time. They also have their own flags. Marriott hotels often fly their Marriott flag.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Once more with feeling: the rebel rag is not a gracious-heritage-grits-'n'-gravy-nostalgic-Southern-charm-coconut-cake flag. It is a big middle finger directed right at the United States of America. Displaying that flag is explicitly saying that the USA should be divided in half, and one half should have slavery. That was the whole fucking point of the Civil War - no more UNITED States, and some men, women and children created unequal.
The Saudi flag - or the DPRK's, or the PRC's, or any other civil rights hellhole's flag is just not comparable. The USA is not at war with Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis are not trying to cause a split in the USA.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
No use, SM. It is a red herring.
The Saudi flag is a current national flag. It might have a whole mess of issues, but they are not the same.
Just another smoke screen for not having a real argument else wise.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Displaying that flag is explicitly saying that the USA should be divided in half, and one half should have slavery. That was the whole fucking point of the Civil War - no more UNITED States, and some men, women and children created unequal.
No, it is not "explicitly" saying that, at least not necessarily. It is certainly fair to infer that, but that is not necessarily what people who display it are trying to communicate.
I saw a truck just this morning with two bumper stickers—one said "Native" with a Confederate flag, while other said "God Bless America" and showed an American flag. In my experience, many who sport Confederate flags consider themselves very loyal and patriotic Americans. Yes, cognitive dissonance may be going on, but they would say they love their country but protest the government.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Which is to say they are traitors. Flying the flag of those who fought against the country.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Yes, cognitive dissonance may be going on, but they would say they love their country but protest the government.
Protesting one's own government is a longstanding American tradition, I'll grant you that. But it seems to me that the flying of those two flags side-by-side claims that the America of which the flag-flier claims to be "native" is the "real" America (and the one to which s/he is loyal), in much the same way that some white Anglo-Saxon Americans dismiss people of color, people with accents, and people with non-Anglo-Saxon surnames as "not real Americans."
government allegedly of the people by the people, though, is tantamount to saying "not, however, of or by this person."
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Sorry -- very slow computer this a.m. prevented my editing out the beginning of a related but different thought in previous post.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... It is certainly fair to infer that, but that is not necessarily what people who display it are trying to communicate. ... Yes, cognitive dissonance may be going on, but they would say they love their country but protest the government.
The current popularity of that flag dates from the civil rights era. That was when the federal government was saying black people have the right to vote and go to school just like anyone else. The response in the South was to raise that flag again. It's pretty clear what they were "protesting" about. It's not cognitive dissonance, it's a dog whistle, and they know exactly what it means. They just know not to say it in polite company.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Once more with feeling: the rebel rag is not a gracious-heritage-grits-'n'-gravy-nostalgic-Southern-charm-coconut-cake flag.
Illustrated version of alternate interpretation here.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... It is certainly fair to infer that, but that is not necessarily what people who display it are trying to communicate. ... Yes, cognitive dissonance may be going on, but they would say they love their country but protest the government.
The current popularity of that flag dates from the civil rights era. That was when the federal government was saying black people have the right to vote and go to school just like anyone else. The response in the South was to raise that flag again. It's pretty clear what they were "protesting" about. It's not cognitive dissonance, it's a dog whistle, and they know exactly what it means. They just know not to say it in polite company.
You know what it means to you when you see it but you don't know what it means to a particular person who is flying it. That pretty much sums up why I fly no flag and have no bumper stickers.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
So what you are saying, Mere Nick, is that they might not be racist, but simply ignorant and stupid?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So what you are saying, Mere Nick, is that they might not be racist, but simply ignorant and stupid?
All that can be known by seeing someone flying a flag is that they are flying a flag.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
eta: If you want to know why they are flying a flag you'd probably need to ask.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
How many conclusions can there be?
They don't care what it means or they don't know.
If they don't know, they are ignorant at the very least.
I would argue stupid as well, given the level of controversy.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How many conclusions can there be?
How many people can there be?
quote:
They don't care what it means or they don't know. If they don't know, they are ignorant at the very least.
They probably know what it means to them. They probably don't care what you think.
quote:
I would argue stupid as well, given the level of controversy.
Argue all you want to. Have fun.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
All that can be known by seeing someone flying a flag is that they are flying a flag.
eta: If you want to know why they are flying a flag you'd probably need to ask.
This level of semiotic humpty-dumptyism seems obtuse to the point that it can only be deliberate. The whole point of flags is that they are symbolic representations. Someone may claim they're flying this flag to indicate their support of the Kingdom of Norway but the rest of us don't have to take that absurdity at face value.
Despite your assertion that the symbolism of flags is impenetrable, other people don't seem to have any difficulty in distinguishing between different flags. How did they manage to do that, do you suppose? Who can tell which flag means "North Korea" while another means "South Korea"? A truly impenetrable mystery! And what's with all those red octagons on street corners? Sure, someone may have intended them to mean something when they put them there, but who can really know without hunting them down and asking them?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sure, someone may have intended them to mean something when they put them there, but who can really know without hunting them down and asking them?
Exactly. What I'm seeing here on the SOF is people saying what a symbol means to them and figuring that MUST be what it means to everyone else. If simply maintaining a smug condescension is insufficient to someone and they also want understanding, then I would recommend asking the one using the symbol what they mean.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And what's with all those red octagons on street corners? Sure, someone may have intended them to mean something when they put them there, but who can really know without hunting them down and asking them?
Exactly. What I'm seeing here on the SOF is people saying what a symbol means to them and figuring that MUST be what it means to everyone else. If simply maintaining a smug condescension is insufficient to someone and they also want understanding, then I would recommend asking the one using the symbol what they mean.
I'm hoping you don't actually operate a motor vehicle. Or that your claimed bafflement about the allegedly arbitrary meaning of stop signs is a pretense.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm hoping you don't actually operate a motor vehicle. Or that your claimed bafflement about the allegedly arbitrary meaning of stop signs is a pretense.
That's not a good analogy. When one is seeking a drivers license one will be tested on what a red octagonal sign with the big word "STOP" on it means in the minds of the ones who hang the sign at an intersection. If I came to your house and you had it hanging on your den wall then, no, I wouldn't know what it means without you telling me. Until then, about the most I could assume is that you think it looks cool on your wall for some reason.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm hoping you don't actually operate a motor vehicle. Or that your claimed bafflement about the allegedly arbitrary meaning of stop signs is a pretense.
That's not a good analogy. When one is seeking a drivers license one will be tested on what a red octagonal sign with the big word "STOP" on it means in the minds of the ones who hang the sign at an intersection.
It's a valid analogy if you're arguing, as you have, that there's no way to know the meaning of symbols without interrogating their users. How can you be certain that the person who installed the stop sign on the corner of 4th and Elm really wants motor vehicles to stop at that intersection? Maybe whoever put it up was just expressing their love of octagons! And even if the stop sign at 4th and Elm really does mean "stop", you can't extrapolate to think that whoever put up another stop sign three blocks down at 7th and Elm means the same thing. I mean sure, the stop sign has a history and well-recognized meaning, but there's no way to know what it means to the particular person who put it up.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If I came to your house and you had it hanging on your den wall then, no, I wouldn't know what it means without you telling me.
Yes, something like this would be an impenetrable conundrum. It's not at an intersection or anywhere one could use a motor vehicle. I wonder what in the world is being communicated here?
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Are you really desperate enough to argue what I'm hearing here ? That the existence of a symbol whose meaning everyone understands disproves the possibility of a symbol that means different things to different people ?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Are you really desperate enough to argue what I'm hearing here ? That the existence of a symbol whose meaning everyone understands disproves the possibility of a symbol that means different things to different people ?
No, just that that meaning is so horrendous that to imply any other meaning could outweigh it is ridiculous. Like flying this and saying you only do it to remind you of your father's patriotic service.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Are you really desperate enough to argue what I'm hearing here? That the existence of a symbol whose meaning everyone understands disproves the possibility of a symbol that means different things to different people?
Something a little more basic. Mere Nick denies that it's possible for "a symbol whose meaning everyone understands" to exist. I'm pointing out a fairly obvious example to the contrary.
While there may be some ambiguity about certain symbols, there are definite limits to that ambiguity. This sign does not mean "free coffee". This is not the flag of Norway. And this flag lacks any non-racist interpretation.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's a valid analogy if you're arguing that there's no way to know the meaning of symbols without interrogating their users.
How can you be certain that the person who installed the stop sign on the corner of 4th and Elm really wants motor vehicles to stop at that intersection?
Because in the traffic rules issued to us by the same ones who hang the sign they tell us what the sign means.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While there may be some ambiguity about certain symbols, there are definite limits to that ambiguity...
.. this flag lacks any non-racist interpretation.
Seems to me that it is the white hood in that picture that is the unambiguous symbol of racism.
You are deliberately showing this picture in order to associate the two symbols. Which action gives the lie to your assertion. If what you are saying were true, it wouldn't make any difference whether the man wears a white sheet or not.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Mere Nick denies that it's possible for "a symbol whose meaning everyone understands" to exist.
No I don't. Quite the opposite. There are some symbols that everyone understands the same. There are some symbols that people understand differently.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While there may be some ambiguity about certain symbols, there are definite limits to that ambiguity...
.. this flag lacks any non-racist interpretation.
Seems to me that it is the white hood in that picture that is the unambiguous symbol of racism.
You are deliberately showing this picture in order to associate the two symbols. Which action gives the lie to your assertion. If what you are saying were true, it wouldn't make any difference whether the man wears a white sheet or not.
Best wishes,
Russ
Well, we could look at HK Edgerton of my town and realize it means different things to these two men.
That's the things about flags. They usually don't come with instructions telling us what they mean like, say, a stop sign.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
And there are women who support FGM and there were Jewish Nazis. One outlier does not make a point.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While there may be some ambiguity about certain symbols, there are definite limits to that ambiguity...
.. this flag lacks any non-racist interpretation.
Seems to me that it is the white hood in that picture that is the unambiguous symbol of racism.
Hardly unambiguous! Maybe he's just a bedsheet fetishist. Or a burn victim who needs to wear loose-fitting clothes and is self-conscious about his facial scarring. There's no real way to know without asking him, right?
Besides, even if the hooded gentleman is a member of the Ku Klux Klan, they'll tell you themselves that they're not racist. It's about heritage, not hate. As Mere Nick points out, just because you draw conclusions about the meaning of a pointy hood and robe doesn't mean the Klansman inside agrees with them. And that means it can mean anything at all!
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You are deliberately showing this picture in order to associate the two symbols. Which action gives the lie to your assertion. If what you are saying were true, it wouldn't make any difference whether the man wears a white sheet or not.
Yes I am doing it deliberately. Because if, as Mere Nick asserts, it's impossible to know why the man in the photo is wearing a white robe with a pointed hood without asking him, it really shouldn't affect his argument and the juxtaposition should be unobjectionable. I'll take the subsequent squawking from the both of you as just so much special pleading along the lines of "my preferred symbol of white supremacy is unobjectionable and meaningless, so how dare you put it next to that guy's symbol of white supremacy".
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"my preferred symbol of white supremacy is unobjectionable and meaningless, so how dare you put it next to that guy's symbol of white supremacy".
Come to my home and show me my symbols of white supremacy.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Which is to say they are traitors. Flying the flag of those who fought against the country.
I fly the flags of other countries, including flags of countries the U.S. has been at war with—or declared independence from—and historical flags at my house all the time. It hardly means I am a traitor or owe allegiance to any other country.
And before anyone asks, I would never fly a Confederate flag, my UDC forebears notwithstanding. I am well aware of what the flag rightfully means to most people, including me, and I would never want to be associated with that or offend anyone by flying it.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The current popularity of that flag dates from the civil rights era. That was when the federal government was saying black people have the right to vote and go to school just like anyone else. The response in the South was to raise that flag again. It's pretty clear what they were "protesting" about. It's not cognitive dissonance, it's a dog whistle, and they know exactly what it means. They just know not to say it in polite company.
I know quite well the history of the current popularity, having witnesses much of it first-hand. For many people, it is a dog-whistle. But I know people for whom it is indeed cognitive dissonance—including the handful of African Americans I have known of who sometimes fly a Confederate flag. Weird but true.
My beef with the post above was the word "explicitly"—that people who are flying the Confederate flag are "explicitly" saying that the country can be divided and one-half should have slavery. "Explicitly" means that it what they unequivocally intend to say, which may or may not be true. As I said, it certainly may be fair to draw the conclusion that is what they think, but that doesn't mean that's what they intended to say.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So what you are saying, Mere Nick, is that they might not be racist, but simply ignorant and stupid?
Insensitive and self-centered (as in "you can' tell me what this flag means to me") are other options.
And they still might be racists, too. That doesn't automatically mean that racism is their motive for displaying the flag.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I fly the flags of other countries, including flags of countries the U.S. has been at war with—or declared independence from—and historical flags at my house all the time.
What do you get out of doing that, Nick? Are you a flag collector, or something? Is that just how you like to look at them?
quote:
And before anyone asks, I would never fly a Confederate flag, my UDC forebears notwithstanding. I am well aware of what the flag rightfully means to most people, including me, and I would never want to be associated with that or offend anyone by flying it.
If you are east of Mayberry, I take it you live here in NC. Do you actually see the cbf very often where you live? We live in Asheville and I might see it 3 or 4 times a year, if that much, usually flown from a vehicle.
quote:
But I know people for whom it is indeed cognitive dissonance—including the handful of African Americans I have known of who sometimes fly a Confederate flag. Weird but true.
If I hear that someone is standing somewhere holding the flag around here, it's a pretty safe bet it is HK Edgerton, former president of the Asheville chapter of the NAACP. I don't really get it, but it's his time and his flag.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Maybe he's just a bedsheet fetishist. Or a burn victim who needs to wear loose-fitting clothes and is self-conscious about his facial scarring. There's no real way to know without asking him, right?
Those are possibilities unrelated to the conventional meaning of the symbol. Other possibilities are that he is deliberately intending that meaning ironically or satirically. Or with some notion of "reclaiming" the symbol to re-associate it with some meaning less obnoxious.
Seems to me technically quite correct to say that we don't know without asking him. But reasonable to take as an initial working hypothesis the most obvious interpretation, that he intends to assert the conventional white-supremacy meaning of the symbol. Pending further information...
quote:
Besides, even if the hooded gentleman is a member of the Ku Klux Klan, they'll tell you themselves that it's about heritage, not hate.
That would explain why he's been photographed waving a Confederate flag - it's a symbol of southern heritage.
If he'd worn a Confederate grey uniform to wave the flag, I'd take him instead for some sort of historical re-enactor. A history buff, or perhaps just an actor paid by the local tourist board to encourage visitors to come to a historic location by playing up the history.
quote:
the juxtaposition should be unobjectionable.
I'm not objecting to him dressing in bed sheets or waving a symbol of his southern heritage.
My objection is only to the arrogance of those who think that their perceived meaning of the symbol is the "correct" meaning and that those "ignorant" of that "fact" need to be "educated" to think as they do. Symbols can and do mean different things to different people.
If you want to suggest that it might be prudent for public bodies to refrain from displaying symbols which have wildly different meanings to different people without giving a clear explanation of what the body concerned means by that symbol, then that sounds a reasonable suggestion. If it can be done without encouraging the arrogance of the self-appointed symbol-interpreters...
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Maybe he's just a bedsheet fetishist. Or a burn victim who needs to wear loose-fitting clothes and is self-conscious about his facial scarring. There's no real way to know without asking him, right?
Those are possibilities unrelated to the conventional meaning of the symbol. Other possibilities are that he is deliberately intending that meaning ironically or satirically. Or with some notion of "reclaiming" the symbol to re-associate it with some meaning less obnoxious.
Seems to me technically quite correct to say that we don't know without asking him. But reasonable to take as an initial working hypothesis the most obvious interpretation, that he intends to assert the conventional white-supremacy meaning of the symbol. Pending further information...
<snip>
My objection is only to the arrogance of those who think that their perceived meaning of the symbol is the "correct" meaning and that those "ignorant" of that "fact" need to be "educated" to think as they do. Symbols can and do mean different things to different people.
If you want to suggest that it might be prudent for public bodies to refrain from displaying symbols which have wildly different meanings to different people without giving a clear explanation of what the body concerned means by that symbol, then that sounds a reasonable suggestion. If it can be done without encouraging the arrogance of the self-appointed symbol-interpreters...
How arrogant! Asserting that there is a single "conventional white-supremacy meaning" of the Klan hood and robes. What happened to objecting to "the arrogance of those who think that their perceived meaning of the symbol is the 'correct' meaning"? Your objection seems very selective.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Besides, even if the hooded gentleman is a member of the Ku Klux Klan, they'll tell you themselves that it's about heritage, not hate.
If he'd worn a Confederate grey uniform to wave the flag, I'd take him instead for some sort of historical re-enactor. A history buff, or perhaps just an actor paid by the local tourist board to encourage visitors to come to a historic location by playing up the history.
This seems like it could go equally well for anyone in Klan robes, a noted historical organization whose earliest members were primarily the same guys wearing Confederate grey uniforms just a few years before and who considered themselves to be continuing the same fight on a new front.
Seriously, why doesn't the Klan get the same whitewash (if you'll pardon the term) as the Confederacy?
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Alternatively, ask yourself this:
It's Halloween, and you're attending a costume party. You've procrastinated, though, and when you turn up at your local rental-costume place, here's all they have left:
1. Klan getup
2. Confederate solder getup
3. Nazi soldier getup
Question 1: why have these all been left unrented?
Question 2: Which do you choose, and why?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
It's getting increasingly difficult as a foreigner to follow this thread, in ways which, to me, are confirming what I said earlier, that if the American Civil War is still being fought, it's the successors of the northern states that are as guilty of that as the southern ones.
If, for example, it's being argued that there would be something controversial about as person turning up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Confederate soldier, is that really true? And if so wouldn't it be equally controversial to turn up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Northern one? If not, why not? And if there is still perceived to be a difference, why? Does that perhaps represent an unacknowledged self-righteousness or triumphalism that still infects the winning side?
It would not be controversial here to dress up as a Royalist or a Parliamentary soldier. Re-enactment enthusiasts do it all the time. Admittedly, that's longer ago. But there's a country house near Newbury which has a complete set of Parliamentary uniforms hanging round the walls of its Great Hall which - except for a short period in the C20 when they were stolen - have been hanging there since 1649. The owner didn't even take them down when Charles II came visiting. There was a strong element among the aristocracy and gentry that had accepted the Restoration who thought it was a good idea to remind monarchs from time to time to be careful for their cervical vertebrae.
It's actually quite shocking, as a foreigner, to read people 150 years after your Civil War ended, still describing the losing side as rebels, and bemoaning the fact that the defeated generals weren't strung up as traitors.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seriously, why doesn't the Klan get the same whitewash (if you'll pardon the term) as the Confederacy?
Because they are not really the same thing. Overlap, sure. Same thing, no.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If, for example, it's being argued that there would be something controversial about as person turning up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Confederate soldier, is that really true? And if so wouldn't it be equally controversial to turn up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Northern one? If not, why not? And if there is still perceived to be a difference, why? Does that perhaps represent an unacknowledged self-righteousness or triumphalism that still infects the winning side?
It would not be controversial here to dress up as a Royalist or a Parliamentary soldier.
There is, of course, a more recent, real world example of someone turning up at a British costume party in the wrong uniform. It seemed pretty controversial at the time.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seriously, why doesn't the Klan get the same whitewash (if you'll pardon the term) as the Confederacy?
Because they are not really the same thing. Overlap, sure. Same thing, no.
Given that both had as their end goal the establishment of a white supremacist police state, the similarities seem a lot more pronounced than the differences.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seriously, why doesn't the Klan get the same whitewash (if you'll pardon the term) as the Confederacy?
Because they are not really the same thing. Overlap, sure. Same thing, no.
Given that both had as their end goal the establishment of a white supremacist police state, the similarities seem a lot more pronounced than the differences.
Your given is not a given for all and probably not even most. For many in the confederacy, the reason they showed up is because the union army was coming.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seriously, why doesn't the Klan get the same whitewash (if you'll pardon the term) as the Confederacy?
Because they are not really the same thing. Overlap, sure. Same thing, no.
Given that both had as their end goal the establishment of a white supremacist police state, the similarities seem a lot more pronounced than the differences.
Your given is not a given for all and probably not even most. For many in the confederacy, the reason they showed up is because the union army was coming.
According to the 1860 census, about 40% of the population of the Confederacy "showed up" (curious phrase for belonging to a putative nation) because they were enslaved. I'm not sure you can get to a majority with those numbers. You'd need to stipulate support levels above 80% of the free population to get to a majority. Of course, if an enslaved person only counts as three-fifths, the math works out differently.
At any rate, goals of "the Confederacy" don't necessarily encompass the individual goals of all its constituent members (citizen or otherwise). Using that standard, we could just as easily argue that the American Revolution was fought in order for William Baker* to impress his sweetheart back in Connecticut and to give Irving Wilton* a chance to get out of his small farming town.
--------------------
*Fictional individuals invented for a bit of narrative color, though they doubtless had many real life analogs.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There is, of course, a more recent, real world example of someone turning up at a British costume party in the wrong uniform. It seemed pretty controversial at the time.
Sort of fair comment, except that it has no bearing on the point I keep trying to get this thread to stop ducking.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Enoch:
Sorry, but you really have to pay attention to the history. Civil War history in popular culture has a bit of a blind spot for events post-1863, except perhaps Sherman's March to the Sea. The recent Lincoln movie was a refreshing change in that regard.
The Civil War in 1864 reached the stage of (a) total war against civilians (Sherman's March to the Sea) and (b) an outright race war. After the Emancipation Proclamation the Union Army began the enlist African-Americans as soldiers. The Confederacy reacted by proclaiming that captured black Union soliders would be tried as rebellious slaves and sentenced to death, as would their (white) officers. Then came the Fort Pillow massacre where the Confederate Army massacred black Union troops. The previous POW exchange system broke down over the position of black troops, and the last vestige of "controlled" warfare was gone.
At the end of the war came Reconstruction. Until the 1870's most former Confederate states had progressive Republican governments, but by 1896 all southern states had been won by "Redeemer" Democrats who instituted segregation. North Carolina was the last to go down this route.
The Redeemers are the old, conservative segregationist Southern Democrats we think in popular culture depictions of the Segregated South. They were in power until the late 1960's.
Along the way, the US Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was struck down in 1886 by the Supreme Court. It was in many ways substantially similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ended legal segregation.
So yes, the controversies generated during the Civil War still causing active civil protest within living memory.
And I think it rather unfair to compare the English Civil War and its aftermath to the violent and lethal racial politics of the US 1861-1970.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If, for example, it's being argued that there would be something controversial about as person turning up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Confederate soldier, is that really true? And if so wouldn't it be equally controversial to turn up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Northern one? If not, why not? And if there is still perceived to be a difference, why? Does that perhaps represent an unacknowledged self-righteousness or triumphalism that still infects the winning side?
It would not be controversial here to dress up as a Royalist or a Parliamentary soldier.
There is, of course, a more recent, real world example of someone turning up at a British costume party in the wrong uniform. It seemed pretty controversial at the time.
Turning up a fancy dress party in Drogheda as Oliver Cromwell might be considered bad taste... And we're just past the date when chaps with orange sashes like to get het up about King Billy and the battle of the Boyne - I think it might be controversial to turn up dressed as King Billy on yer white horse or with your House of Orange supporting colours in the wrong part of Belfast. When people keep alive a prejudice by harking back to a historical conflict, so long as the group who are being targeted are still around, it can stay controversial and a live wire to touch for a good long time. The Americans aren't even close to the keeping a civil war grudge going since 1690 that some British communities manage. There racism is the juice which stops it become just another bit of history, and here anti-catholicism is the juice which has kept it going.
Also there are still people who get upset about the 1745 - try turning up at a Culloden memorial dressed as a Red Coat. There was someone who did and it didn't go down well. Butcher Cumberland is still a bit controversial in some quarters. It may be on the wane, but it's a lot older than Gettysburg.
[ 16. July 2015, 23:52: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... For many in the confederacy, the reason they showed up is because the union army was coming.
Which came as a total surprise, having nothing to do with anything that the Confederacy had done. Naturally they rushed to defend their property, human or otherwise.
And by the way, I do think it was awful that the Union army destroyed people's homes, and I certainly understand why those people would be very bitter for a very long time. But that's what happens when the you pick a fight you can't win: you get your ass kicked. And it's nothing compared to what was inflicted on generations of slaves. Karma.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I fly the flags of other countries, including flags of countries the U.S. has been at war with—or declared independence from—and historical flags at my house all the time.
What do you get out of doing that, Nick? Are you a flag collector, or something? Is that just how you like to look at them?
Like Sheldon Cooper, my hobby is vexillology. I've studied and collected flags as long as I can remember. I have many books and many flags, and I always have one flying. I do get a kick out of switching them out regularly (France has been up this week for Bastille Day), and hearing that parents and kids who walk by enjoy trying to identify them.
quote:
quote:
And before anyone asks, I would never fly a Confederate flag, my UDC forebears notwithstanding. I am well aware of what the flag rightfully means to most people, including me, and I would never want to be associated with that or offend anyone by flying it.
If you are east of Mayberry, I take it you live here in NC. Do you actually see the cbf very often where you live? We live in Asheville and I might see it 3 or 4 times a year, if that much, usually flown from a vehicle.
Yep, I'm in NC, in the Raleigh area. I'd guess I see an actual Confederate battle fflag maybe 5 or 6 times a year, usually somewhere rural. I rarely see one in town.
quote:
quote:
But I know people for whom it is indeed cognitive dissonance—including the handful of African Americans I have known of who sometimes fly a Confederate flag. Weird but true.
If I hear that someone is standing somewhere holding the flag around here, it's a pretty safe bet it is HK Edgerton, former president of the Asheville chapter of the NAACP. I don't really get it, but it's his time and his flag.
Yes, I'm familiar with him, and he is one of the people of whom I was thinking.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's getting increasingly difficult as a foreigner to follow this thread, in ways which, to me, are confirming what I said earlier, that if the American Civil War is still being fought, it's the successors of the northern states that are as guilty of that as the southern ones.
If, for example, it's being argued that there would be something controversial about as person turning up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Confederate soldier, is that really true?
Yes, it is true. If you want to do some reading, let me suggest you google "Kappa Alpha Order" and "Old South." KA Order is a college fraternity founded at Washington & Lee University when it was Washington College and Robert E. Lee was college president. "Southern tradition" runs deep in KA, including an annual formal dance called "Old South"—traditionally complete with Confederate uniforms and hoop skirts. (Here is what The Wiki has on KA, as a place to start.) The fraternity leadership actually banned use of the Confederate flag at fraternity events or on fraternity property some years ago.
If you really want a good read on how the Civil War and the Confederacy live on in various ways in the South today, I strongly recommend Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War by Tony Horwitz.
[ 17. July 2015, 02:02: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... For many in the confederacy, the reason they showed up is because the union army was coming.
Which came as a total surprise, having nothing to do with anything that the Confederacy had done. Naturally they rushed to defend their property, human or otherwise.
And by the way, I do think it was awful that the Union army destroyed people's homes, and I certainly understand why those people would be very bitter for a very long time. But that's what happens when the you pick a fight you can't win: you get your ass kicked. And it's nothing compared to what was inflicted on generations of slaves. Karma.
Being a North Carolinian, I'd encourage you to learn and understand when and why North Carolina finally seceded and why sentiment varied among the different regions of the state.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think the difference, Louise, other than perhaps in Nor'n' Ir'n', is that nobody is expecting any throw-back to 1690, 1715 or 1745 style violence to kick-off anytime soon, whereas in the US - at least on the online-osophere - I get the impression that there are people - on both sides of the North/South divide - who are almost itching for it all to start all over again ...
As Enoch says, it's pretty shocking to here 'northerners' stating that the Southern Generals should all have been hung -- just as it's shocking to hear Southern types saying, 'You just try to come down here and take our guns ...'
Some of the things I've seen Texans post online, for instance, have made my blood run cold ... but at the same time the kind of belligerance and almost racist-in-reverse attitudes I've seen some 'northern' types post is equally startling.
None of it bodes well from what I can see.
Emotionalism of any kind isn't the right basis for any policies or positions - and that's the issue I have with the SNP, for instance, as much as, in some ways, I welcome their opposition to the Tory government over here.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
... And by the way, I do think it was awful that the Union army destroyed people's homes, and I certainly understand why those people would be very bitter for a very long time. But that's what happens when the you pick a fight you can't win: you get your ass kicked. And it's nothing compared to what was inflicted on generations of slaves. Karma.
This sounds just the same as the characteristic Northern Irish assumption. Depending on who you are, there's no such thing as a good Prod or Taig.
And yes, perhaps our boys sometimes go a bit too far. But that's different. They're our boys. So that's all right. They were provoked.
Them on the other hand, though, they are utterly and totally beyond the pale (and yes, I do know the derivation of that expression). Everything they do is wrong. Allowing them any slack is compromising with Belial.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that if a society builds all its wealth and power by violence and exploitation, there will be a bill to pay. And this is true not just for the American South, but for nations around the world and throughout history.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that if a society builds all its wealth and power by violence and exploitation, there will be a bill to pay. And this is true not just for the American South, but for nations around the world and throughout history.
That observation has been made before.
quote:
Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
here's all they have left:
1. Klan getup
2. Confederate solder getup
3. Nazi soldier getup
Question 1: why have these all been left unrented?
Question 2: Which do you choose, and why?
Dressing up is sort of temporarily taking on something of someone else's identity.
I know very little about the Klan. The little I know suggests that there's not much there to like - nothing I would want to identify with. Why would anyone ? No surprise that nobody else wants this costume. But maybe I'm wrong...
Confederate uniform, on the other hand, has positive connotations. The whole Gone With The Wind thing - chivalry, manners, gentility, style, mint juleps and verandas and formal dancing and ladies and gentlemen being ladylike and gentlemanly. It's a romantic image.
The fact that with hindsight we know the Confederacy was doomed only heightens the tragic romance of it. As I understand it, they lost the war in part because their generals believed that wars were won by courage and honour and heroism and self-belief (rather than by using every advantage and taking every opportunity to kill the enemy more efficiently than he can kill you).
It's like the Confederacy was the last gasp of the pre-modern world.
I don't want to live (and fight and die) in a premodern world where many are slaves and serfs and peasants under the arbitrary power of an aristocracy. But dressing up to spend an evening recalling the best elements of such a world doesn't seem to me a bad thing.
The Nazis seem to me an in-between case. More evil and less romantic than the Confederacy, but still some scope for imagining oneself as a character one can in some way identify with - perhaps a villain from a WW2 spy story, a worthy opponent for the hero, someone ruthless and efficient but in his own way honourable.
Isn't that what actors say about playing a villain ? That you have to find the way that the character justifies to himself the evil that he does, play him as a human being rather than a demon-figure. Whilst not excusing his evil..
Best wishes,
Russ
Russ
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... For many in the confederacy, the reason they showed up is because the union army was coming.
Which came as a total surprise, having nothing to do with anything that the Confederacy had done. Naturally they rushed to defend their property, human or otherwise.
And by the way, I do think it was awful that the Union army destroyed people's homes, and I certainly understand why those people would be very bitter for a very long time. But that's what happens when the you pick a fight you can't win: you get your ass kicked. And it's nothing compared to what was inflicted on generations of slaves. Karma.
Being a North Carolinian, I'd encourage you to learn and understand when and why North Carolina finally seceded and why sentiment varied among the different regions of the state.
And being a resident of Upper Canada (Ontario), I would point you to the example of escaped slaves in Upper Canada pre-1861. After the revised Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Upper Canada became the destination of choice for escaped slaves. 30,000 settled in Upper Canada before the Civil War.
70% returned to the US after the war to participate in Reconstruction. Thousands were part of the 33,000 British North Americans who enlisted in the Union Army.
I'll see your local history, Mere Nick, and raise you mine.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Being a North Carolinian, I'd encourage you to learn and understand when and why North Carolina finally seceded and why sentiment varied among the different regions of the state.
And being a resident of Upper Canada (Ontario), I would point you to the example of escaped slaves in Upper Canada pre-1861... .
I'll see your local history, Mere Nick, and raise you mine.
Is it a contest to see whose history trumps whose? Your local history, while certainly relevant to larger issues of slavery and the Civil War, doesn't really seem relevant to the history Mere Nick is referring to—why one particular Southern state was slow to secede and was not of one mind in terms of supporting the Confederacy.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
No, Nick was citing his example as the "you're down here" argument, which I rebutted with the group who were on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Nick was trying to play down the slavery issue in the Civil War (again) and I called him on it.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The fact that with hindsight we know the Confederacy was doomed only heightens the tragic romance of it. As I understand it, they lost the war in part because their generals believed that wars were won by courage and honour and heroism and self-belief (rather than by using every advantage and taking every opportunity to kill the enemy more efficiently than he can kill you).
Just how did you come to this understanding, if I might ask? (I think you're coming perilously close to calling the Confederate generals morons.)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
No, Nick was citing his example as the "you're down here" argument, which I rebutted with the group who were on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Nick was trying to play down the slavery issue in the Civil War (again) and I called him on it.
Knowing the history he's referring to, I don't think you rebutted it all, nor do I think you called him out on trying to downplay the slavery issue because I don't think that's what he was doing. The reality that the Civil War was about preserving slavery and the reality that not at all who fought for the Confederacy personally benefited from slavery or were personally motivated by a desire to preserve slavery are not mutually exclusive realities. Neither are the realities that a state seceded and that sometimes substantial segments of the citizenry of that state continued to support the Union.
[ 18. July 2015, 02:59: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, as in any civil war the dividing lines are never clear cut. I only read recently that whereas Tennessee provided the most men per-capita of any State for the Confederate forces - an astonishing 100,000 I think - there were nevertheless a considerable number of 'Southern Unionists' there who fought on the Unionist side and the State was contested territory for much of the conflict ... not that my internal time-line of the progress and geography of the Civil War is particularly accurate I don't imagine ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Different causes and issues, but in a similar way during the English Civil War - or the Wars of the Three Kingdoms or whatever you wish to call them - the British Civil Wars of the 17th century - not everyone on the Parliamentarian side wanted to oust the King. Indeed, this certainly wasn't a 'war aim' at the outset - one of the Parliamentarian rallying cries was 'King and Parliament'.
I bet no-one on either side at Edgehill in 1642 could foresee the execution of Charles I in 1649 - nor would even have welcomed the prospect if they could.
There are attempts to mollify and excuse the level and style of Southern slavery - a bloke I came across online only yesterday (elsewhere, not here) was arguing that Southern plantation owners were motivated by 'love and care' rather than abuse - and because they were God-fearing they tended to treat their slaves well ... but he did acknowledge that slavery was wrong for all that ...
I don't think it 'does' to portray all Southerners as rapacious, sadistic bastards who'd go out and thrash their slaves before settling down to their evening meal or setting off for church each Sunday ...
That doesn't let them off the hook - but neither does it undermine Mere Nick's point that slavery wasn't the only issue. It became the predominant issue as the war progressed, but there were a whole range of other elements too.
If you'd been able to interview a cross-section of Parliamentarian or Royalist troops in the Civil Wars here you'd have probably heard a range of often conflicting reasons as to why they supported one side or the other - and plenty of them swapped sides too - several times in fact - depending on which way the wind was blowing.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That doesn't let them off the hook - but neither does it undermine Mere Nick's point that slavery wasn't the only issue. It became the predominant issue as the war progressed, but there were a whole range of other elements too.
I think it's more accurate to say that slavery was always the predominant issue for the decision-makers, especially in the states that were earliest to secede. (For states that were late to secede, the practicalities of trying to remain part of the Union while being surrounded by Confederate states also became a major issue, which is the history Mere Nick is referencing for NC.) The desire to preserve slavery on one side and the desire to preserve the Union on the other side are unquestionably what led to secession and to the war.
But you and Mere Nick are right that just because it was the predominant issue on the state level doesn't mean it was necessariliy the predominant issue on an individual level, nor does it mean that the people of the state were necessarily of one mind.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid: No, Nick was citing his example as the "you're down here" argument, which I rebutted with the group who were on the opposite end of the spectrum.
For North Carolina, especially the lower class folks who had repeatedly turned down earlier efforts at secession, it was "you're down here" after Ft. Sumter and Lincoln's demand we supply him with troops.
quote:
Nick was trying to play down the slavery issue in the Civil War (again) and I called him on it.
Again? I've not done it the first time. Someone isn't playing down slavery, imo, until they try to show me that there would have been a civil war even if not one slave ever walked upon North America.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, as in any civil war the dividing lines are never clear cut. I only read recently that whereas Tennessee provided the most men per-capita of any State for the Confederate forces - an astonishing 100,000 I think - there were nevertheless a considerable number of 'Southern Unionists' there who fought on the Unionist side and the State was contested territory for much of the conflict ... not that my internal time-line of the progress and geography of the Civil War is particularly accurate I don't imagine ...
Often times the dividing line cut across kitchen tables and through congregations. The appalachian area of east TN and WNC was pretty much a mess of confederates, dissidents (those who didn't want to fight for either side and deserters), unionists and folks who were simply looking for an opportunity to settle scores with long time local enemies.
The Battle of Asheville didn't have casualties. The bloodiest event of the war that I'm aware of was the Shelton Laurel Massacre.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Why is it surprising, Mere Nick?
I must admit, I wasn't expecting it to be in Trafalgar Square but I'm not surprised that there's a statue of Washington in London somewhere. I think there are also memorials - but not statues - to him in whatever part of the country his ancestors originated from - I'm sure I could find out if I looked it up.
Ex-pat British people I know who live and work in the US chuckle when they've told me how earnest New Yorkers etc have tenatively broached the subject of the War of Independence (Revolutionary War) as if they're expecting us all to be smarting about it after all these years ...
They think it's rather sweet that they are so concerned ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Whoops - that reply about the statue of Washington was from a while back ...
On the bloodiest event of the war - I take it you are referring to the bloodiest event of the War in North Carolina not more widely...
The Lawrence or Quantrill Massacre was a lot bloodier than the one you've described ... and the casualties at Shiloh and some of the other set-piece battles were immense on both sides.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whoops - that reply about the statue of Washington was from a while back ...
On the bloodiest event of the war - I take it you are referring to the bloodiest event of the War in North Carolina not more widely...
The Lawrence or Quantrill Massacre was a lot bloodier than the one you've described ... and the casualties at Shiloh and some of the other set-piece battles were immense on both sides.
Yes, that's right. I'm talking about the bloodiest civil war event in Western North Carolina that I'm aware of, not the entire war.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Someone isn't playing down slavery, imo, until they try to show me that there would have been a civil war even if not one slave ever walked upon North America.
IMO, someone is downplaying slavery when they suggest it was only the politicians and/or rich who cared about that and the common folk were only about defending their land.
That households and congregations were split demonstrates that people were not just defending their homes but that they were discussing the reasons why.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Households are always split in civil wars. There are also people who change sides and others like the Clubmen of the English Civil War who wanted to stay out of it and who sought to fend off rapaciousness from both sides. In Glamorgan there was the so-called Peaceable Army which sought to be neutral.
I don't think it downplays the seriousness of slavery to suggest that not all the Confederates saw it as THE issue. That said, there are right-wing apologists for it but I don't think that's what Mere Nick is up to. I don't like that kind of polarisation.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
The fact that with hindsight we know the Confederacy was doomed only heightens the tragic romance of it. As I understand it, they lost the war in part because their generals believed that wars were won by courage and honour and heroism and self-belief (rather than by using every advantage and taking every opportunity to kill the enemy more efficiently than he can kill you).
At several points in the war, the Confederates might have won a stalemate.
The battle of Fort Stevens, Gettysburg were near things. Before Grant, the Union Generals were often looking to avoid defeat rather than seek victory.
It is true that in the latter part of the war, the greater resources of the Union, men, manufacturing and control of the water made it unlikely the Confederacy would prevail. But it took a long time to get there.
As for the notion of noble actions that lost the war, that pretty much was severely corrupted around the time of Bleeding Kansas.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
I suspect if the Confederacy had gotten the support of some of the European powers, they might have been able to force a stalemate. I know many in Britain had mixed feelings (and then there was the Trent affair) especially for some who weren't sure whether the war would end slavery (the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation did convince one of my relatives into opposing the UK intervening in any way on the South's side, and, I suspect he wasn't alone).
The Confederacy did what they could. I've been reading a bit about Patrick Neeson Lynch, Catholic Bishop of Charleston, who was sent to Europe in an attempt to persuade the Catholic powers to support the Confederacy. I don't think they tried sending any Episcopal prelate to Britain to try the same (though Bishop Leonidas Polk of Louisiana became a Confederate General and was killed in 1864). James Mason who they did send does seem to have been a Virginian Episcopalian.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There was certainly some sympathy in the UK towards the Confederate cause and considerable numbers of troops were sent to Canada to bolster its defences 'just in case' ...
That said, popular feeling was very much against slavery and 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' had been a best-seller ... and I've already mentioned the principled stance taken by Manchester millworkers and others against the importation of Southern cotton.
It's hard to get a complete handle on British attitudes at that time ... there seems to have been a degree of 'romantic' sympathy with the South on account of its 'chivalry' and dash ... but by the same token slavery as an institution was universally deplored by that time.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Households are always split in civil wars.
I'm sure that's true. But it seems to me that civil wars vary in how strongly the two sides are aligned with different regions of the country.
To the extent that the US civil war was North vs South, I'd expect there to be fewer split households. And more difficulty in reconciliation afterwards, because people will always have an identification with their home locality.
To the extent that there was no underlying reason why any county of England should be more strongly for Parliament than for the King, I'd expect more split households, but easier reconciliation because there's no inherent reason why later generations should grow up with a sympathy for one side rather than the other.
I know that reality is complicated, and both wars fall somewhere on a spectrum rather than at the extremes.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That said, popular feeling was very much against slavery and 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' had been a best-seller ... and I've already mentioned the principled stance taken by Manchester millworkers and others against the importation of Southern cotton.
It's hard to get a complete handle on British attitudes at that time ... there seems to have been a degree of 'romantic' sympathy with the South on account of its 'chivalry' and dash ... but by the same token slavery as an institution was universally deplored by that time.
However until the Emancipation Proclamation it wasn't clear that the United States government was that against slavery (though the Confederacy was certainly for it) as it was to preserve the Union (in other words even if the North won would the slaves be freed). The announcement that there would be a proclamation freeing all slaves in rebel states unless fighting was ended by January 1, 1863 was on September 22, 1862. The Manchester millworker's vote of solidarity came on the eve of the actual proclamation and as a direct result.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
However until the Emancipation Proclamation it wasn't clear that the United States government was that against slavery
I was going to to links to the various pre-war fights on the issue, but it belatedly dawned that your statement did not make sense. If one party is cares about an issue and the other doesn't, there is rarely a fight.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There was certainly some sympathy in the UK towards the Confederate cause and considerable numbers of troops were sent to Canada to bolster its defences 'just in case' ...
That said, popular feeling was very much against slavery and 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' had been a best-seller ... and I've already mentioned the principled stance taken by Manchester millworkers and others against the importation of Southern cotton.
It's hard to get a complete handle on British attitudes at that time ... there seems to have been a degree of 'romantic' sympathy with the South on account of its 'chivalry' and dash ... but by the same token slavery as an institution was universally deplored by that time.
I suspect also quite a lot of people might have felt unsympathetic towards one part of a state trying to force another part to continue to belong to it when they clearly didn't want to - irrespective of the reasons why they didn't want to.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Indeed - if the EU ever becomes a club that no-one's allowed to leave, you can bet there will be people up in arms about it...
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
However until the Emancipation Proclamation it wasn't clear that the United States government was that against slavery
I was going to to links to the various pre-war fights on the issue, but it belatedly dawned that your statement did not make sense. If one party is cares about an issue and the other doesn't, there is rarely a fight.
I think at least some of what Net Spinster is referring to is this well-known Lincoln quote, taken from a letter to newspaper Horace Greely:
quote:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
link
Lincoln's views, and the Union cause as a whole, were more complex than "free the slaves!", just as the South's reasons for war were more complex than "preserve slavery!". While it is certainly true that slavery was a major issue in the war, it was not the only issue - reducing the conflict to that simple binary does a disservice to understanding the war.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
However until the Emancipation Proclamation it wasn't clear that the United States government was that against slavery
I was going to to links to the various pre-war fights on the issue, but it belatedly dawned that your statement did not make sense. If one party is cares about an issue and the other doesn't, there is rarely a fight.
A party may not care about the key issue but care deeply about a dependent issue. The key issue in the war was slavery and it was to preserve and expand slavery that caused the initial southern states to leave. Their perception was that the United States was heading towards abolition (correct but probably not in the near future for the current slave states if they had remained in the Union). The remaining United States reasons for going to war was more mixed but certainly included opposition to this secession (which only happened because of a desire to maintain slavery).
The UK and France were affected by the US embargo of the Confederacy (the cotton mills and shippers in Britain). They were deeply offended by the Trent affair when a US Naval ship seized Confederate emissaries off a British merchant ship (they were eventually released). There was the perception that it was hypocritical of the US to hold that the 13 original colonies leaving English control was legal and just but then to prevent their own states from leaving the Union. On the other hand it was clear that the Confederacy left to maintain slavery and many in both countries were by now deeply opposed to slavery. However the Union still had slavery (the border states, Washington, D.C.). It wasn't until April 16, 1862, a year after the start of the war, that slavery was abolished in D.C. (and this was by compensation so took some time to take effect).
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
For North Carolina, especially the lower class folks who had repeatedly turned down earlier efforts at secession, it was "you're down here" after Ft. Sumter and Lincoln's demand we supply him with troops.
I'm not following the logic here. Federal troops could be found all over the southern states pretty much from the Revolution onward. What was it about the Confederacy's decision to open fire on federal troops that suddenly made North Carolinians realize "they're down here"? And how exactly does "you're down here" apply to the attempted invasion of Pennsylvania? That seems pretty far from "down here".
Also, I'm not sure why this particular instance of an American president exercising his constitutional authority as commander in chief was so objectionable. North Carolina didn't seem to mind when asked to contribute troops to the War of 1812 or the Mexican War. Nor did it mind terribly using its troops to put down rebellions in other states, since they'd contributed a number of militia units to suppress the Nat Turner rebellion in 1831. Of course, Nat Turner's rebellion had a somewhat different complexion than the Confederate revolt.
At any rate, could you expand on why the Confederate decision to start shooting at federal troops and the U.S. president exercising his constitutional authority were considered adequate grounds for treason by North Carolina?
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Often times the dividing line cut across kitchen tables and through congregations. The appalachian area of east TN and WNC was pretty much a mess of confederates, dissidents (those who didn't want to fight for either side and deserters), unionists and folks who were simply looking for an opportunity to settle scores with long time local enemies.
The fact that some used the general background of war as a cover for settling old scores doesn't really change the motives of the Confederacy or make the Confederacy "about" settling those old scores.
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
I suspect if the Confederacy had gotten the support of some of the European powers, they might have been able to force a stalemate.
I'm dubious about this. It was always a Confederate strategy to use their agricultural output (mostly cotton) to buy industrial goods they couldn't produce themselves from friendly European powers, but this was a futile strategy in the absence of the ability to break the Union blockade. In order for European support to make a difference there would have to be enough support for a major European power to break the blockade themselves, starting a naval war with the United States, or supply the Confederacy with sufficient naval vessels that they could break the blockade on their own. I don't see that level of support from any major European power as realistic.
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Lincoln's views, and the Union cause as a whole, were more complex than "free the slaves!", just as the South's reasons for war were more complex than "preserve slavery!". While it is certainly true that slavery was a major issue in the war, it was not the only issue - reducing the conflict to that simple binary does a disservice to understanding the war.
Yes and no. Yes the Union's view on its goals for the war were fairly complex and evolved as the war progressed, but no, the Confederacy always saw the war a struggle to preserve slavery and white supremacy. Trying to evade, avoid, or conceal this fact is what "does a disservice to understanding the war". Attempt to cast the Confederate cause as being about something other than slavery and white supremacy has been a century-long project that started pretty much as soon as the war ended and in a lot of ways the U.S. is still dealing with the fallout of this deception today.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
... There was the perception that it was hypocritical of the US to hold that the 13 original colonies leaving English control was legal and just but then to prevent their own states from leaving the Union. ...
Viz my point above.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Lincoln's views, and the Union cause as a whole, were more complex than "free the slaves!", just as the South's reasons for war were more complex than "preserve slavery!". While it is certainly true that slavery was a major issue in the war, it was not the only issue - reducing the conflict to that simple binary does a disservice to understanding the war.
Yes and no. Yes the Union's view on its goals for the war were fairly complex and evolved as the war progressed, but no, the Confederacy always saw the war a struggle to preserve slavery and white supremacy. Trying to evade, avoid, or conceal this fact is what "does a disservice to understanding the war". Attempt to cast the Confederate cause as being about something other than slavery and white supremacy has been a century-long project that started pretty much as soon as the war ended and in a lot of ways the U.S. is still dealing with the fallout of this deception today.
I don't think anyone is disputing (I'm certainly not) that for many Confederate leaders, and for many of their followers, slavery/white supremacy was a major reason to go to war - but it wasn't the only cause. This isn't an "either or"; rather, it's a "both and".
Individual Confederate soldiers had a spectrum of reasons they fought, from preserving slavery and their own supremacy to blacks, to simply defending home and hearth from pillage and destruction by troops from the North (cf. Gen. Sherman's march through Georgia), and everything in between. On the Union side, there were soldiers who weren't pro-abolition; the Draft Riots of 1863 saw free blacks attacked because, in addition to other reasons, they were seen as competition for jobs by poor whites.
Again, with feeling - trying to reduce the conflict to a simple binary about slavery is simply incorrect. The roots of Southern discontent with, and eventual rebellion against, the Union go back long before the election of Lincoln (who, as mentioned previously, was not particularly committed to ending slavery in any case). The Nullification Crisis of 1832-33 was an early "trial run" for South Carolinian defiance of the Federal government - nearly thirty years before the Civil War, and having only the most tenuous connection with the institution of slavery itself. One could argue that the seeds of conflict stretch back even further, to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1788-89.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Good point.
In stead of the usual one, "why did the south fight?", let me ask the obverse of the same simple question. Why did the north fight? Why didn't they just let the states that wanted to secede, go?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I don't think anyone is disputing (I'm certainly not) that for many Confederate leaders, and for many of their followers, slavery/white supremacy was a major reason to go to war - but it wasn't the only cause. This isn't an "either or"; rather, it's a "both and".
Other than the related cause of white supremacy, the preservation of slavery seems to be the only cassus belli mentioned in any official Confederate document I'm familiar with. (There are a couple that mention Lincoln's 'tyranny', but since seven of the states that would form the Confederacy seceded before Lincoln even took office, this seems spurious at best.) You have a few citations you were thinking of?
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Individual Confederate soldiers had a spectrum of reasons they fought, from preserving slavery and their own supremacy to blacks, to simply defending home and hearth from pillage and destruction by troops from the North (cf. Gen. Sherman's march through Georgia), and everything in between.
As I pointed out earlier we don't usually examine the motives of individual soldiers to determine why wars are fought. How many American soldiers had truly strong feelings about Kuwaiti independence before August 1990? How many had even heard of Kuwait before then?
Usually when people start drilling down to the individual motives of those far from the reins of power it's either a broad-based sociological study or an attempt to obscure an obvious yet inconvenient truth.
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The roots of Southern discontent with, and eventual rebellion against, the Union go back long before the election of Lincoln (who, as mentioned previously, was not particularly committed to ending slavery in any case). The Nullification Crisis of 1832-33 was an early "trial run" for South Carolinian defiance of the Federal government - nearly thirty years before the Civil War, and having only the most tenuous connection with the institution of slavery itself. One could argue that the seeds of conflict stretch back even further, to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1788-89.
One could try to pass off the attempted secession of the Confederacy as a continuation of earlier crises, or one could simply take them at their word when they claim that "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world" and similar other phrased from the various Declarations of the Causes of Secession. Interestingly several of these declarations actually come out against nullification, calling out several free states for passing laws impeding the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
Why is it so hard to take the Confederate government at its word?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Good point.
In stead of the usual one, "why did the south fight?", let me ask the obverse of the same simple question. Why did the north fight? Why didn't they just let the states that wanted to secede, go?
Most likely because the Confederate government decided to start shooting at them. Most nations regard the artillery bombardment of their troops to be an act of war.
This seems to be one of the biggest differences between Lincoln and his Confederate counterparts. Although he was very aware of the importance of symbolism, Lincoln did not make large policy errors to get rid of purely symbolic irritants (like a small federal garrison flying the stars and stripes at Fort Sumter).
[ 20. July 2015, 17:04: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
For North Carolina, especially the lower class folks who had repeatedly turned down earlier efforts at secession, it was "you're down here" after Ft. Sumter and Lincoln's demand we supply him with troops.
I'm not following the logic here. Federal troops could be found all over the southern states pretty much from the Revolution onward. What was it about the Confederacy's decision to open fire on federal troops that suddenly made North Carolinians realize "they're down here"? And how exactly does "you're down here" apply to the attempted invasion of Pennsylvania? That seems pretty far from "down here".
Lincoln demanded we supply troops to help put down the rebellion. We weren't allowed to sit it out so we were the last state to finally secede and join up with all the surrounding states. The question about Pennsylvania is completely irrelevant to the discussion about when and why we seceded since that wouldn't be for a another couple of years.
quote:
Also, I'm not sure why this particular instance of an American president exercising his constitutional authority as commander in chief was so objectionable. North Carolina didn't seem to mind when asked to contribute troops to the War of 1812 or the Mexican War. Nor did it mind terribly using its troops to put down rebellions in other states, since they'd contributed a number of militia units to suppress the Nat Turner rebellion in 1831. Of course, Nat Turner's rebellion had a somewhat different complexion than the Confederate revolt.
The Mexican War and the War of 1812 were not wars against other US states. Nat Turner's rebellion was probably not seen as a potentially massive war that would bring severe hardship to NC.
quote:
At any rate, could you expand on why the Confederate decision to start shooting at federal troops and the U.S. president exercising his constitutional authority were considered adequate grounds for treason by North Carolina?
If Lincoln had not insisted that we take part in his dispute with the former members of the union then it is less likely we would have seceded.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Often times the dividing line cut across kitchen tables and through congregations. The appalachian area of east TN and WNC was pretty much a mess of confederates, dissidents (those who didn't want to fight for either side and deserters), unionists and folks who were simply looking for an opportunity to settle scores with long time local enemies.
The fact that some used the general background of war as a cover for settling old scores doesn't really change the motives of the Confederacy or make the Confederacy "about" settling those old scores.
Of course not, but it would also depend on the state, region, and sometimes valley, too.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
I take back my earlier statement about the Civil War not being totally about slavery.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I take back my earlier statement about the Civil War not being totally about slavery.
OK. So. I am massively confused here Tortuf.
I clicked your link and whilst simplistic, the views illustrated are nothing new to this discussion.
I looked up Prager U and its founder and became even more confused.*
As you appear to be straight-forward I really do not understand the posting of this link.
*Dennis Prager is a conservative, American radio host who is prone to Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh-esque crazy talk.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
LB,
While he is probably simplistic, I think he has more truth than not in his presentation. As far as him being radical conservative, it doesn't matter to me what other views he holds and I am neither commenting on them, nor approving or disapproving them.
I found myself being persuaded I was wrong about something - gained from that and the other discussion here - and fessing up that I was wrong.
For me, it is a part of humility to not need to be right and not hiding the fact that I am wrong.
If you take something more from my post it was not intended.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
LB,
While he is probably simplistic, I think he has more truth than not in his presentation. As far as him being radical conservative, it doesn't matter to me what other views he holds and I am neither commenting on them, nor approving or disapproving them.
I've no idea where Colonel Ty Seidule, the presenter, stands politically. I am just suspicious of the website, not necessarily this man and his presentation.
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I found myself being persuaded I was wrong about something - gained from that and the other discussion here - and fessing up that I was wrong.
For me, it is a part of humility to not need to be right and not hiding the fact that I am wrong.
And because of this, you are a better person than I.
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
If you take something more from my post it was not intended.
I was not sure what to make of the source of the linked video. Apologies for casting aspersions.
Right is right, even if the right say it. It is just hard to admit for me.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Apologies for casting aspersions.
I am a little too prosaic to have read aspersions into your post. You asked for an explanation. I like you enough to respond, so I did.
I'll try to be more exciting next week.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
A person willing to challenge their own perception is a rare creature. I shall cherish this encounter.
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'll try to be more exciting next week.
I shall hold you to this. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0