Rebel Flag Reverence

Hey, born in New Mexico I formed my allegiance to the Union before I moved to Texas as a Fourth Grader. I grew up in a Texas town where Confederate Authorities hanged three dozen men on the flimsiest pretext. An illiterate witness said he has seen their names on a list of conspirators.

I love history and do not dispute that many honorable and good men fought for the Confederate side, but the Confederacy was in its formation and Constitution racist and pro-slavery. I've been accused on Facebook of being ignorant of history because I don't agree with the following:
http://www.rulen.com/myths/

To me it's not history ... just some facts mingled with half-truths and bizarre interpretations.

 

But that's kind of the whole debate, right there. Not whether the battle flag "actually" represents oppression and slavery. Whether someone finds something disgusting enough to say... no longer sell it in their stores... or fire someone for putting it in a tweet... etc. To just say "shut up and let it offend you" is only half of the 1st amendment issue. Because it doesn't make someone free from criticism. Or, in my opinion at least, it shouldn't make one free from criticism.

I'm also having trouble coming up with the losing/defeated sides from major conflicts successfully arguing revisionist reasons for why their side should still be celebrated in 2015. The Kuomintang in Taiwan is kind of obvious, but the U.S. tends to side with them on issues related to trade, defense, and democracy in general, so it's tough to criticize. A lot of modern Russians pretend like they're successors to Cossacks and ****, but it's only for show and reenactments. The Turks are really into Gallipoli, but that's a single event and they actually honor the ANZAC troops as well. There's just not a bunch of 12th generation French nobility saying things like "well if only our heritage was respected, 1789 would have been looked at differently for third estate oppression" or Delhi Sultanate posterity saying "well if our heritage was respected, those darn Sudra nationalists could see that they shouldn't have helped the British turn us into a modern state."

 

Trying to fit the Indian Movement into what I called "defeated sides from major conflicts" kind of pokes holes in the term "major conflicts," as it wasn't much of a fight. As well as major racial/cultural identity issues that Native Americans faced from 1607 through 2015, compared to the Confederacy. You don't see the former Confederate states having 30%+ unemployment or a 12%+ alcohol-related death rate. That's more akin to the aboriginal peoples of Australia and New Zealand than it is to an organized, technologically advanced fighting force with a centralized government. But I guess I could have been clearer.

 

So are you saying that Mexicans/Tejanos who "lost" the Texas Revolution are trying to revise it from a "if only our heritage was protected..." standpoint? Interesting. I'd actually like to read more of that.

I think the Anglos that moved to Texas with the assumption that it would eventually join the USA flatly decried Mexico's antislavery laws. I'd have to find the primary source somewhere, but I know it was in my 7th grade Texas history book.

 

Sorry, had to delete because this is going to turn into a discussion I do not have time for this week. I've already spent too much time on hornfans as it is this past week and this evening. I've only had the self control to delete posts or not respond from a few sports related threads and not continue the discussion on a few sports threads. West mall has pulled me back in and I need to take a break from it and hornfans in general, otherwise I will lose time that needs to be dedicated elsewhere.

 

The West Mall is improving, I agree.

 

It will be interesting to see what they do with all of the Muslim/Islamic symbols, garb, firings, etc when the next Muslim goes on a rampage here in the US.(it is just a matter of time as well)

The extremist idiot who shot up that church in South Carolina was just that. Why does he have to represent white people from the South when idiot Muslims don't have, and great pains are taken to see, to represent all Muslims? Disembowel that guy like they did the worst criminals hanging his parts all over Charlston to send a message to any other dipsh** who would do like he did as a warning. But leave us peaceful, non racist, American citizens out of your now confederate symbols are racist no matter what narrative. It is ********.

I had relatives on both sides of the Civil War. There are things that I don't agree with throughout history and today. History is important no matter what you believe. Teach your children to avoid the mistakes of the past and present.

 

Now people are calling for the Jefferson Memorial to be taken down
and some are calling for our USA Flag to be replaced.
Come to think of it Washington could be replaced as a our POTUS, His memorial taken down and Wash DC renamed.

 

I'm all for learning history and these calls for change, to the extent they engage the history challenged in discussions about Jefferson, the US Flag and even the Confederate Battle Flag are a positive. Jefferson wasn't perfect, but he was amazing and led us towards enlightenment. It would be nice if more of us would engage our critical thinking skills rather than accepting and advancing the "party line" whatever that happens to be. We can learn from the good and the bad. We have to accept that historical figures, almost genetically identical to us, lived in different times and responded reasonably to the teaching, values and circumstance of their times.

 

It will also be interesting to see what they do with the Christian symbols, garb, firings, etc when the next Christian goes on a rampage here in the US. (it is just a matter of time as well)

 

Crockett
" We have to accept that historical figures, almost genetically identical to us, lived in different times and responded reasonably to the teaching, values and circumstance of their times."

This is the most cogent explanation I have read. Thanks, it helped me sort it out.
There are many quotes from Lincoln that today would be called racist( well they should have been called racist then as well) and there are quotes from Lee denouncing slavery. The same Lee whose Army of Northern Virginia flew the hated flag.

 

Regardless if someone is offended by it, it seems to be a free speech issue. I do realize, however, that this administration, largely ignores that pesky document. I am just shocked so many liberals do as well.

It seems we should just stop producing flags altogether based on this logic. Most ironic is WalMart refusing to sale confederate flags all while buying and selling Chinese goods.

 

Really? Who?

For those that infer that racism doesn't exist or that this individual was truly a deranged lone wolf I present 6 black churches being lit on fire across 6 Southern states as evidence that the flag and it's representation to "some" may truly be more than southern tradition.

 

Free speech goes both ways, right? My right to protest the flag is equal to your right to want to fly it. I have every right to point out the facts of what the flag represents just as someone else has a right to deny them. For example, the facts show that SC didn't place the flag on it's capital building until 1964 as a response to the Civil Rights movement and the Feds pushing desegregation. I don't think anyone should be forced by law to stop flying the flag, then again, I also wouldn't give any of my $$ to a State or business who chose to.

WalMart like any corporation plays to it's customers. They've certainly made some internal calculation that those who support the flag will continue to shop there (or don't have another option) and this position will likely help their public perception in states that would have lots of growth opportunity. Then again, I've heard that Bentonville is becoming very metropolis so maybe the Yankees are having an impact there.

 

Husker
Who?
Well Farrakhan for one
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/25/louis-farrakhan-calls-american-flag-come-down-who-/
and some loon at a Calif college has started a petition to replace our flag.

BTW do you have a link showing any of those churches fires were started by racists?

They may have been set on fire by sick racists but I will wait for evidence and proof.

 

It does go both ways. Thanks for proving my point.

WalMart is just succumbing to the blackmail of the federal government just like they did with minimum wage. I could care less as I do not shop there anyway.

 

Seriously? Do you also want evidence that Mosque vandalism in the wake of 9/11 isn't generally from anti-Muslim individuals? Look, I'm not saying "all" but 6 churches in 5 states appears sure looks like a smoking gun. Now, do I think racism on the scale of the Charleston shooter is widespread? Absolutely not. There is a significant undertone of racism across the South though. I experienced it first hand when in the Army from those in the South. A bunkmate form SC told me it's "not right" when a white male dates a black woman in our company. He then went on to tell me that a typical Friday night entertainment was to load up a bunch of white boys in a truck and go "hunting" for a black guy walking down the street to beat up. When I pushed him on whether that was acceptable he said "they do it too...when I see a truck of black guys coming down the street I know to run." That was in 1992.

 

I think 6721in your post you have identified the most important leaders of each cause. Lee was a very bright, resourceful, courageous and honorable man of extraordinary capability. The same descriptors fit Lincoln. Ultimately Lincoln's vision of a united country free of slavery triumphed. He was the rare leader who reflected community values well enough to have a political following, yet had the visionary leadership to uplift those values.

 

Huh? I could see succumbing to their investors but how do you translate that the federal government is forcing them to remove the confederate flag? I'd make the same argument on minimum wage too. They see the winds blowing from unions and the raise in minimum wage was a way to stem the potential of their workers unionizing. Heck, that's the positive side of unions amidst an array of negatives.

 

You agree it is a free speech issue?

 

Absolutely, I wouldn't argue differently. Is anyone legislating the confederate flag from being used that I'm not aware of? Careful not to mix a politicians political views (they get free speech too) with their actions or lack thereof.

 

I don't think anyone would pass a law to ban this form of speech, if that's what you're implying by "free speech issue." Same goes for flag burning.

I think the bigger issue/problem is that the ones who want to fly it, for whatever reason (love of the South, personal heritage, wants to fit in at NASCAR events), seem to think that any and all free speech means free from criticism as well. "Tolerance" in quid pro quo fashion. I'll tolerate your gay marriage rights if you tolerate my Southern heritage. I'll tolerate you watching Rachel Maddow if you tolerate me watching Hannity. I don't think one has an obligation to do both or one or neither.

I think the states and the Feds truly have no ground to stand against the flag in terms of free speech, but individuals and corporations sure do.

 

Hmmm... suppressing people's heritage and history, what could go wrong?

 

Who's suppressing it?

BTW- Not all "heritage and history" should be celebrated. My parents are divorced. Should I celebrate that to my children?

 

Crockett
"The same descriptors fit Lincoln. Ultimately Lincoln's vision of a united country free of slavery triumphed.:

Actually Lincoln never had that particular vision.
Until I stood in the Lincoln memorial and read some of his quotes I did not know how he viewed blacks and slavery. I thought he was the blacks' Savior.
here from a debate with Douglas "
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

-Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)
How benevolent of Abe, " the negro " should not be denied everything
Lincoln thought whites and blacks were physically different which would "forbid the two races from living on terms of social and political equality.
He also said he believed whites were superior.
Don't forget Lincoln was for states who allowed slavery to be able to keep slaves. He often said the war was to preserve the Union.
And he definitely believed is separation
"See our present condition—the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another’s throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. “Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated.”

— Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862, from COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Vol 5, page 371.

I admit I have been shocked to learn all this. I was definitely not taught this is school.

 

History has shown that Lincoln was an opportunist with regards to offering freedom from slavery to all blacks. It was a brilliant political move during a point in time when the Union was giving ground in the war. Whether he did if for noble causes or selfish causes, the result was still the same. It was a seminal moment in US history to be followed by women's suffrage and gay marriage. All were movements to evolve our society in protecting groups that were previously being subjugated.

 

Not yet, but some are starting the process. Obama's political speech masqueraded as an eulogy suggested it as well.

 

When did Lincoln offer freedom from slavery to all blacks?

 

Lincoln supported the 13th amendment in its finished form, but died before it got ratified. If you're arguing that Lincoln wouldn't have been a fan of the 13th amendment, or that he technically didn't "offer" the freedom from slavery, then it's just semantics.

 

Actually, Lincoln was careful to announce the Emancipation Proclamation after a union victory and made preliminary release to his cabinet after the union met Lee's army at Antietam in Maryland and drove it back into Virginia. Of course, it was to free slaves only in area in open rebellion to Union Control. Freedom for all blacks did not come until after Lincoln's death with passage of a Constitutional Amendment.

6721 rightly points out that Lincoln's views on the races, a product of his time, were hardly enlightened by today's standard. But we all should know they were considered so "radical" and anti-slavery that Lincoln's election drove Confederate States to secede from the Union and draft a Constitution protecting the institution of slavery.

For those who insist the Civil War was not about slavery, I recommend the following article, which is scholarly in its presentation of information: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/