Multiple Victims in Charleston SC Church Shooting

[StrangeSox]

pro-state's rights. That's what they've been for the last 150 years and now it's more about principle than politics for people down there.

 

For very specific "states rights," generally speaking, and even then only selectively. Please do not buy into the garbage that anything about the civil war or the ensuing 100 years of apartheid was about a principled stand for "states rights."

 

[caulfield12]

If any history teacher in the US showed those three flags from the post earlier in this thread, there isn't one student in 10,000 who would pick the first one as having anything to do with the South or Confederacy during the Civil War.

 

They would all think it had something to do with the Revolutionary War/13 Colonies...one of the first version's of Betsy Ross' flag, etc.

 

I dare you to come up with a picture OF ANYONE in the South proudly flying that flag today.

 

Unless you go down there and give it to them by hand, it won't happen.

 

Heck, I'd just like to see pictures with Jefferson Davis speaking and that particular flag somewhere in the background.

Edited June 23, 2015 by caulfield12

[Y2HH]

Please explain how the battle flag of the main and most famous army of the Confederacy was ever not associated with the Confederacy.

 

I pretty clearly said it became associated with the confederacy AFTER the war ended, because up until that point the confederacy had an official flag -- and that wasn't it.

[Jenksismyhero]

For very specific "states rights," generally speaking, and even then only selectively. Please do not buy into the garbage that anything about the civil war or the ensuing 100 years of apartheid was about a principled stand for "states rights."

 

No it was quite clearly about racism/slavery, but a part of that too was "you can't tell us what to do." I think ignoring that is equally egregious as claiming the civil war wasn't about slavery.

[Y2HH]

If any history teacher in the US showed those three flags from the post earlier in this thread, there isn't one student in 10,000 who would pick the first one as having anything to do with the South or Confederacy during the Civil War.

 

They would all think it had something to do with the Revolutionary War/13 Colonies...one of the first version's of Betsy Ross' flag, etc.

 

I dare you to come up with a picture OF ANYONE in the South proudly flying that flag today.

 

Unless you go down there and give it to them by hand, it won't happen.

 

And what does this have to do with facts? Are you pointing out that US kids are stupid and/or teachers aren't doing their jobs and actually teaching facts?

 

The flags I posted there were the only official confederate flags, whether students know that or not is irrelevant.

[StrangeSox]

I pretty clearly said it became associated with the confederacy AFTER the war ended, because up until that point the confederacy had an official flag -- and that wasn't it.

 

I know you said that, and it makes no sense whatsoever. The flag in question was the flag of Confederate General Robert E. Lee's Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. It was flown by a Confederate army in battles for the Confederacy and in the name of the Confederacy. It was never not associated with the Confederacy. It was always a symbol of treason in the name of slavery and white supremacy. It has no other history.

[StrangeSox]

but a part of that too was "you can't tell us what to do."

 

No, just no. There are so many primary source documents where the causes are made excruciatingly clear by all sides, and "states rights" never enters in to it (an easy counterpoint is the Confederate constitution itself which forbid member states from ever outlawing slavery). It was because they saw their political power waning if they could not force slavery into new territories (Bloody Kansas) and they wanted to establish a pan-American empire of slavery (see various quotes in the piece I linked earlier this morning).

[Y2HH]

I know you said that, and it makes no sense whatsoever. The flag in question was the flag of Confederate General Robert E. Lee's Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. It was flown by a Confederate army in battles for the Confederacy and in the name of the Confederacy. It was never not associated with the Confederacy. It was always a symbol of treason in the name of slavery and white supremacy. It has no other history.

 

You're playing semantics, so I'll do the same.

 

It makes perfect sense that it wasn't attributed to them until after the war ended because most of the people never would have seen that flag. Opposing military may have, but regular people wouldn't have.

 

You know what confederate flag the regular people of the south would have seen?

 

That's right, Johnny!!! THE ACTUAL OFFICIAL FLAG OF THE CONFEDERACY!

[StrangeSox]

You're playing semantics, so I'll do the same.

 

It makes perfect sense that it wasn't attributed to them until after the war ended because most of the people never would have seen that flag. Opposing military may have, but regular people wouldn't have.

 

You know what confederate flag the regular people of the south would have seen?

 

That's right, Johnny!!! THE ACTUAL OFFICIAL FLAG OF THE CONFEDERACY!

 

There's no semantics game to be played. The flag in question is and always has been associated with the Confederacy. It didn't exist before the Confederacy and was created by Confederates for a Confederate army that enslaved as many free blacks as they could. There is no other benign history from which it was "hijacked." It is not like the swastika. It was never used by other cultures in other places or times for any other reason.

[Y2HH]

There's no semantics game to be played. The flag in question is and always has been associated with the Confederacy. It didn't exist before the Confederacy and was created by Confederates for a Confederate army that enslaved as many free blacks as they could. There is no other benign history from which it was "hijacked." It is not like the swastika. It was never used by other cultures in other places or times for any other reason.

 

That's because you are viewing it in a historical perspective.

 

The reason it's written that it wasn't known as a symbol of the confederacy until AFTER the war, was because at that time, nobody would have seen that battle flag unless they were -- you know -- in battle.

 

So, when you said it made no sense, I'm merely pointing out that it makes perfect sense.

[caulfield12]

You're playing semantics, so I'll do the same.

 

It makes perfect sense that it wasn't attributed to them until after the war ended because most of the people never would have seen that flag. Opposing military may have, but regular people wouldn't have.

 

You know what confederate flag the regular people of the south would have seen?

 

That's right, Johnny!!! THE ACTUAL OFFICIAL FLAG OF THE CONFEDERACY!

 

 

This response neatly sums it up about the flag controversy:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-e-price...kusaolp00000592

 

[Y2HH]

This response neatly sums it up about the flag controversy:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-e-price...kusaolp00000592

 

No, it really doesn't.

 

The only controversy, IMO, is that were talking about a flag now...and what was this conversation actually about?

 

The fact is, the conversation of the victims was derailed by a petty flag that's been flying there for decades...but NOW it's suddenly important.

[caulfield12]

However, the flag received criticism on ideological grounds for its aesthetic resemblance to the U.S. flag, which many Confederates disliked, seeing it as symbolizing of abolitionism and emancipation, which the Confederacy was officially in opposition to. As early as April 1861, a month after the flag's adoption, some were already criticizing the flag, calling it a "servile imitation" and a "detested parody" of the U.S. flag.[16] In January 1862, George William Bagby, writing for the Southern Literary Messenger, wrote that many Confederates disliked the flag. "Every body wants a new Confederate flag," Bagby wrote, also stating that "The present one is universally hated. It resembles the Yankee flag and that is enough to make it unutterably detestable." The editor of the Charleston Mercury expressed a similar view, stating that "It seems to be generally agreed that the 'Stars and Bars' will never do for us. They resemble too closely the dishonored 'Flag of Yankee Doodle' … we imagine that the "Battle Flag" will become the Southern Flag by popular acclaim." In addition, William T. Thompson, the editor of the Savannah-based Daily Morning News also objected to the flag, stating in April 1863 that he was opposed to it "on account of its resemblance to that of the abolition despotism against which we are fighting."[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] In 1863, Thompson would go on to design the flag that would succeed the "Stars and Bars", the "Stainless Banner".[4][5][6][7]

 

wikipedia

[StrangeSox]

That's because you are viewing it in a historical perspective.

 

The reason it's written that it wasn't known as a symbol of the confederacy until AFTER the war, was because at that time, nobody would have seen that battle flag unless they were -- you know -- in battle.

 

So, when you said it made no sense, I'm merely pointing out that it makes perfect sense.

 

First a minor pedantic quibble, civilians who were in the path of the fighting certainly would have seen the flag as well. I'd be surprised if Lee's army's flag wasn't printed in Confederate newspapers celebrating his victory as well.

 

Second, you're now trying to argue a different point. You were earlier trying to claim that this flag was "hijacked" similarly to how the swastika has been perverted into a symbol of hate. Showing that the flag in question was not the most widely known flag of the Confederacy or that it was not the state flag but a battle flag does not establish that, however. The flag is and always has been associated with white supremacy. The symbol didn't exist before, it had no other meaning from which it was hijacked. This would be like arguing that the Waffen SS symbol was "hijacked" because it wasn't the official Nazi flag and wasn't the most well-known symbol during their rise to power. It's wrong at its core and it's not relevant.

 

So, no, your argument still makes no sense. It's a confederate flag, and it's always stood for what the confederacy stood for.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

No, just no. There are so many primary source documents where the causes are made excruciatingly clear by all sides, and "states rights" never enters in to it (an easy counterpoint is the Confederate constitution itself which forbid member states from ever outlawing slavery). It was because they saw their political power waning if they could not force slavery into new territories (Bloody Kansas) and they wanted to establish a pan-American empire of slavery (see various quotes in the piece I linked earlier this morning).

 

But the entire basis for this was they had laws expressly allowing slavery, whereas the north did not, and the federal government (and northern states) wanted them to first stop spreading it into new territories, and second to abolish it in the southern states. The south didn't want to play by the new rules, mostly for economic reasons, but so what. They wanted the freedom to do what they thought was best, which was to continue slavery as their main economic engine. At the heart of that argument is states rights v. federal power, which the south had always argued for in the mid 1800's leading up to the Civil War.

 

edit: to be clear, i'm not refuting at all that the war was about defending slavery first and foremost. I'm just pointing out that part and parcel of that is also the idea that southerners didn't want the north telling them what to do. That was the case before the civil war, after the civil war, and today. Just because you can point to some examples when the south has been inconsistent on that point (e.g., putting in their own constitution that confederate law was the law of the land and they no law could abolish slavery) doesn't make it any less true.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Y2HH]

First a minor pedantic quibble, civilians who were in the path of the fighting certainly would have seen the flag as well. I'd be surprised if Lee's army's flag wasn't printed in Confederate newspapers celebrating his victory as well.

 

Second, you're now trying to argue a different point. You were earlier trying to claim that this flag was "hijacked" similarly to how the swastika has been perverted into a symbol of hate. Showing that the flag in question was not the most widely known flag of the Confederacy or that it was not the state flag but a battle flag does not establish that, however. The flag is and always has been associated with white supremacy. The symbol didn't exist before, it had no other meaning from which it was hijacked. This would be like arguing that the Waffen SS symbol was "hijacked" because it wasn't the official Nazi flag and wasn't the most well-known symbol during their rise to power. It's wrong at its core and it's not relevant.

 

So, no, your argument still makes no sense. It's a confederate flag, and it's always stood for what the confederacy stood for.

 

To clear this up, I wasn't speaking specifically of the confederate flag being hijacked...I was simply pointing out that symbols throughout history, both good and evil, have been and can be hijacked. If Hitler can hijack a good symbol and make it evil, why can't we hijack an evil symbol and make it good?

 

The entire point of my post was that we don't allow the moron minority to dictate what means what to the majority.

 

Only morons care what the confederacy stood for, but a lot of people today do NOT feel that way about that symbol. To them, it represents that a person in their family died, or holds a historic significance of what our country has emerged from. Condemning the past simply means forgetting the past. I don't think we should forget what we've come from. And I also don't think we should have allowed a flag to hijack the discussion away from what this thread was supposed to be about...the victims.

 

It's about a flag now...a flag I don't care about and never have cared about. This was opportunistic, and a LOT of politicians seized the day.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

But the entire basis for this was they had laws expressly allowing slavery, whereas the north did not, and the federal government (and northern states) wanted them to first stop spreading it into new territories, and second to abolish it in the southern states.

 

The radical Republicans who favored abolition were not a powerful coalition in 1861. Hell, even after four years of war and with a Northern-dominated Congress, it still wasn't easy to pass the 13th Amendment. The slave-holding South was no longer such a dominant powerhouse in the federal government, but the federal government was nowhere near abolition and slavery had already been allowed to expand to some territories. When it came to Kansas, the pro-slavery states attempted to rig the game to expand slavery and then quickly turned to violence against anti-slavery forces.

 

The south didn't want to play by the new rules, mostly for economic reasons, but so what. They wanted the freedom to do what they thought was best, which was to continue slavery as their main economic engine. At the heart of that argument is states rights v. federal power, which the south had always argued for in the mid 1800's leading up to the Civil War.

 

They absolutely did not. The southern states pushed hard for fugitive slave laws and the central holding of Dredd Scott which trampled all over states' rights. It wasn't about merely continuing slavery but expanding it and keeping their stranglehold on the federal government.

 

[StrangeSox]

To clear this up, I wasn't speaking specifically of the confederate flag being hijacked...I was simply pointing out that symbols throughout history, both good and evil, have been and can be hijacked. If Hitler can hijack a good symbol and make it evil, why can't we hijack an evil symbol and make it good?

 

The entire point of my post was that we don't allow the moron minority to dictate what means what to the majority.

 

Only morons care what the confederacy stood for, but a lot of people today do NOT feel that way about that symbol. To them, it represents that a person in their family died, or holds a historic significance of what our country has emerged from. Condemning the past simply means forgetting the past. I don't think we should forget what we've come from.

 

The majority has said throughout its existence that the flag stands for white supremacy. It's why South Carolina decided to proudly fly it again during the Civil Rights movement.

 

Pretending that this symbol doesn't have this horrible history or that it can somehow be cleansed of it is forgetting the past and where we've come from.

[Y2HH]

The majority has said throughout its existence that the flag stands for white supremacy. It's why South Carolina decided to proudly fly it again during the Civil Rights movement.

 

Pretending that this symbol doesn't have this horrible history or that it can somehow be cleansed of it is forgetting the past and where we've come from.

 

I've never viewed that flag as a symbol of white supremacy.

 

You know what I attribute it too? The General Lee. The car. Not the actual General.

 

And just because you change somethings meaning over time, doesn't mean you have to forget or stop teaching it's origins.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Y2HH

[bmags]

But the entire basis for this was they had laws expressly allowing slavery, whereas the north did not, and the federal government (and northern states) wanted them to first stop spreading it into new territories, and second to abolish it in the southern states. The south didn't want to play by the new rules, mostly for economic reasons, but so what. They wanted the freedom to do what they thought was best, which was to continue slavery as their main economic engine. At the heart of that argument is states rights v. federal power, which the south had always argued for in the mid 1800's leading up to the Civil War.

 

You really need to read a book like Battle Cry of Freedom. You are all just projecting your own views to the time. This is complete ignorance. States rights was not an argument except to try to gain favor with European powers who also hated slavery.

 

The south continuously used FEDERAL POWER to establish and continue slavery. The Fugitive Slave Act was a FEDERAL act that eliminated NORTHERN STATES RIGHTS. They had no problem with federal power, they had a problem with federal power that affected them, and by 1860 they were so far down the rabbit hole of lunacy that slavery was the single greatest good they had contributed to the world, they couldn't see straight. The change in mindset over slavery in the SOUTH from 1800 to 1830 is astounding. In one generation it went from necessary evil to a gift from God.

[Jenksismyhero]

The radical Republicans who favored abolition were not a powerful coalition in 1861. Hell, even after four years of war and with a Northern-dominated Congress, it still wasn't easy to pass the 13th Amendment. The slave-holding South was no longer such a dominant powerhouse in the federal government, but the federal government was nowhere near abolition and slavery had already been allowed to expand to some territories. When it came to Kansas, the pro-slavery states attempted to rig the game to expand slavery and then quickly turned to violence against anti-slavery forces.

 

They saw the writing on the wall, especially once Lincoln was elected. A lot of that was attempted northern compromise but I don't think anyone truly believed it would last.

 

 

They absolutely did not. The southern states pushed hard for fugitive slave laws and the central holding of Dredd Scott which trampled all over states' rights. It wasn't about merely continuing slavery but expanding it and keeping their stranglehold on the federal government.

 

Again, pointing to a few examples when they were being pro-federalist when it was advantageous for them to do so isn't really persuasive. That's like saying the US isn't about free trade because we have some very specific exclusionary rules on government contracts. There will always be and there has always been inconsistencies in practice and policy.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

They saw the writing on the wall, especially once Lincoln was elected. A lot of that was attempted northern compromise but I don't think anyone truly believed it would last.

 

It wasn't going to last forever, but there was no immediate (meaning within a decade) future wherein slavery would be abolished. The collective value of owned slaves, $3.5B, was the single most valuable asset in the country. The South threw a hissy fit and engaged in treason in the defense of slavery when they didn't win an election. They weren't about the rights of anyone other than slave-owning southern aristocrats.

 

Again, pointing to a few examples when they were being pro-federalist when it was advantageous for them to do so isn't really persuasive. That's like saying the US isn't about free trade because we have some very specific exclusionary rules on government contracts. There will always been inconsistencies in practice and policy.

 

Pointing to pretty major issues directly on the topic of slavery where they betrayed their supposed deep interest in "states rights" really does undercut the notion that they gave two s***s about "states rights." They were pro-federalist when it was advantageous and the whole "states rights" argument didn't even surface until years after the start of the war.

Edited June 23, 2015 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

States rights are just another example of NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

 

Unless it's something I actually want in my neighborhood...so I'm willing to make exceptions if it's advantageous.

[Y2HH]

States rights are just another example of NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

 

Unless it's something I actually want in my neighborhood...so I'm willing to make exceptions if it's advantageous.

 

We agree on something!

[Jenksismyhero]

States rights are just another example of NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

 

Unless it's something I actually want in my neighborhood...so I'm willing to make exceptions if it's advantageous.

 

That's EVERY policy since there are no absolutes.