The Confederate Flag

[angus]

No flags should be banned.

Apart from the Nazi swastika. But that's another topic entirely, I think.

Wrong!   No flags should be banned.

[angus]

i am somewhere to the left of kennedy and even i think it shouldn't be banned.
it's history and revising history to please a group is silly.

it's not a left/right thing.  it's something from the vertical axis.

[angus]

im not selling out my homeland.  i just think the south needs to move forward and leave divisive symbols behind.

if 25%+ of your state's population is offended by the flying of the flag, then by all means, it should be taken down.

now here in nc there are some school districts that are having problems with students wearing confederate flag t-shirts.  im a southerner and i can say ive never had an urge to purchase or wear a shirt displaying the confederate flag.

i can think of reasons why someone would want to wear a confederate flag shirt, unfortunately, i can think of no positive reasons.

Apparently westerners like 'em too.  I see plenty of those battle flags out here.  Anyway, if 25% of the people were offended by a burning flag, should we make an amendment prohibiting it?  Hell, no!  Let folks fly their confederate battle flag high if they want.  I think it's very pretty.  I don't have one, but I have a jamaican flag on the wall in my office.  Srew 'em if they don't like it.

[angus]

I did not know that statesrights.  They're all very pretty flags, for sure.  I do agree that this is a matter for the good people of the state of South Carolina to decide.  It is not for Floridians, californians, New Yorkers, etc., to decide for them.

Most of us, myself included, don't have an appreciation for this issue.  But if you're one of that 12.5% of the population for whom the flag conjures up memories of the Klan you might have a strong feeling about it.  Or if you're one of that 12.5% of the population whose ancestors fought the good fight in the name of liberty, even for the lost cause of states' rights, you might have a strong feeling about it.  I don't think anyone who is neither black nor descendents of southerners really gets it, because for the other 75 percent of us, it's just, "Hey why don't you just take it down?"  But if this is important to you, then fly it high, that's what I say.

"Now, watergate does not bother me.
Does your conscience bother you?"

[angus]

Yes, blacks did fight for the Confederacy. They did so once the South realized it needed everyone it could get. Just like they also worked in your mines, picked your fields, and made your armaments.

Yes, my ancestors were abolitionists and Radical Republicans. And I am proud that they saw the profound stain upon our national conscience, and they worked to right it. I have no shame that they wore wool instead of cotton, pamphletized with a fervor, and were sometimes hanged by pro-slavery mobs. Remember "Bleeding Kansas"? I am proud that we abolished slavery, and were on the right side of history.

It is true that MA became the first state to abolish slavery, around 1781 I think.  I guess the fire-and-brimstone are known for other things besides prohibitionism and witch-burning.  By the way, it is a little mentioned fact that the first victim of the Salem Witch Trials was a black slave named Tichiba.  (as long as we're engaging in this sort of ridiculous historical condescencion).

[angus]

You're nastier than I am.

No, you're more elitist.

No, you come from planters, so you're the real elitist.

Well, you come from uptight moralists trying to save the world from itself.

Well, you have scabies.

Well, you have cooties.

Your scabies have cooties.

Your cooties have scabies.

You can't have your flag.  I am better than you.

You aren't better than I am.  I believe in liberty.

No I believe in liberty.

No I believe in liberty.

(oh, wait, we agree)

            yeah, right.  dream on.

[angus]

It should be removed from all state flags, but each state must take care of that themselves.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but don't you see a contradiction in this statement Fritz?  Look carefully.

[angus]

Perhaps I wasn't very clear.  I believe the Confederate flag *should* be removed from state flags.  However, it is within each states rights to have whatever flag they choose for their state.  I would be in favor of the legislatures of those states voting to remove this divisive emblem from their state flag.  I would not be in favor of the federal government stepping in, and mandating that the Confederate flag must be removed from state flags.

Was that more clear?

got it.  yes that's everyone's position except the massachusetts moralist, as far as I can tell.  

[angus]

I believe that anyone has the right to display whatever flag they want, to use the N-word, and to spout hate.

I also believe that everyone else has the right to mock them for being the tiny people that they are.

outstanding.  that's how I read the first amendment also.

[angus]

Same way out here in California.  Most folks that have CSA decals on the bumper or flags stitched into their black felt five-gallon hats are very patriotic.  Usually they also have old glory within reach as well.  I don't think that's inconsistent.  As far as I can tell, the insurrection against King George III was more illegal, technically, than the SC legislature's vote to secede.  And those two rebellions were started for very much the same reason:  the right of self-determination.

[angus]

Reading the thread I'm a bit confused. Is it allowed to fly the Nazi flag in the US ?

Of course it is.  Germany is the only country I know of which has expressly forbid it.  Netherlands is the only country I know of which has banned the book "Mein Kampf."  Though I'm sure there are others.

My reading of the constitution convinces me that banning of any symbol is illegal in the Republic.  Any constructionist (but not necessarily any activist) justice would recognize this, regardless of how 'liberal' or 'conservative' he or she was socialized.

[angus]

I voted NO, but only because of it as a Free Speech issue. Certainly individuals have the right to wear/have any flag they want.

However, I would say that I disapprove of the (Confederate) flag at State Legislatures. Yes, the state of S.C. can do what it wants, but I think it's wrong. The CS Flag is divisive symbol that only represents part of the population--not only does it offend many blacks, it does not carry any positive meaning for anybody whose ancestors lived either in the North or overseas at the time of the Civil War.

I also find it amusing that people who wear/have CS Flags say it is a symbol of "States Rights", yet most of them would turn around and support a Federal Marriage Amendment that would limit the powers of the states to define marriage.

But the problem is that if a marriage is lawful in one state, all other states would, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, have to recognize it.

nclib,
I had relatives who fought against old glory in world war one.  I imagine many patriotic americans did.  Does that mean the US flag shouldn't fly just because of that?  of course not.  your argument is specious.  

emsworth,
I think that's at the heart of the amendment debate.  why not amend the constitution to make it neat and tidy?  a federal solution to interstate relations.  I think it's a bad idea.  limit rights.  set precedent.  anyway, one of the worst reasons to amend the constitution is to win votes.

[angus]

I believe it was in the long run correct to abolish slavery. The manner in which it was done I disagree with. A slow method over 20-50 years would have had much less of a detrimental effect on the economy of the south.

So, freedom of blacks is less important than the economy of the South?

A lot of the problems the south had was due to the way the slaves were "liberated". A slow freeing would have not flooded the economy of the south w/jobless people. Blacks had quite a few freedoms on the plantation. And I believe racism wouldn't have gotten as vile if it had been a slow process.

values internalized are solid.  enforced values are resented.  nobody knows whether the 13th amendment would have been passed if those legislatures in rebellion weren't required to sign it in order to get back in the club.  or even if would have been necessary, given that slavery was becoming less fashionable around that time.  Hell, even Brazil freed its slaves around 1888.  besides, it's all historical speculation, and racism now exists even in those states whose legislatures emancipated slaves long before the secession, and isn't a pecularly american phenomen anyway.  

[angus]

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave! If you read it you will laugh and see that it was a political ploy to keep Britian and France out of the war. I believe a slow emancipation spread out over 30-50 years would have had less of an economic shock on the Southern economy. To say that all of slavery was "horrific" is a ridiculous statement based on all heart and no fact. To say the Southern Flag is all about racism and hate would be turning a blind eye to all the atrocities committed by the US Government under Old Glory.

That is correct.  I hate to admit this, but the lack of historical understanding among Americans is apalling.  We get made fun of for that and we deserve it.  I usually don't side with those who pick on our public schools, but when I do, it isn't for fun, it is to try to improve them.  The first state to free its slaves was Massachusets in 1780, followed by CT in 1784, NY in 1799, etc.  By around 1820 those states in which the climate wasn't conducive to profit-worthy slavery had forced slaveowners to relinquish their slaves.  Some offered reasonable compensation, others didn't.  The thirteenth amendment freed the remaining slaves.  The emancipation proclamation was a carefully worded document written to ensure that no slaves were actually freed, but in order to get France, England, Prussia, etc., to stop sympathizing with the CSA.  It was sleazy in the sense that Bush's connecting Iraq to the terrorists attacks in 2001 was sleazy, but it seemed to have worked.

[angus]

I am afraid I agree with States Rights... the end to slavery was done in the worst possible way, a gradual emancipation process would have been best, the Emancipation proclamation its self merely freed slaves in the regions which where openly in revolt against the United States Government… however morally slavery should have been ended immediately really… that said looking at it in the long term both morally and economically a more drawn out gradual process of emancipation would probably have been best however with a long war and the re-election of Lincoln over McClellan in 1864 this option was really never available…      

it wasn't politically expedient.  lincoln may have been viewed as a moron by the NYT, the Democrats, and many of his comtemporaries, but he is viewed now largely to have been a shrewd politician.  If he had made noises about freeing slaves in Maryland, DC, Delaware, Kentucky, or Missouri, there would have been political problems.  He may not have been reelected, etc.  By saying, "I won't free slaves in areas which I have some authority, but I'll write a paper saying slaves are free in areas in which I have no authority to enforce that" but doing it a bit more diplomatically with better speechwriters, it guaranteed foreign governments wouldn't send money and troops to aid the CSA, lest they suffer politically in their own nations.  Very shrewd, indeed.

13th-15th amendments combined to creat several million citizens in haste, no doubt.  And it was one of the few instances where new citizens flocked politically to the GOP.  In almost every other instance where the market was flooded with millions of new citizens, the went politically with the democrats.  But we have discussed this in other threads.  Interesting nevertheless, that the GOP was so shrewd politically.  They still are, in many ways.

[angus]

This poll wins the award for 'most lopsided'

there was a 93-3 vote in the senate yesterday on extending a ban on internet tax.  do a poll on that if you want a lopsided poll