Mississippi Supreme Court Mistakenly Flies Confederate Flag

DC Loser

February 8, 2013 at 7:09 pm

I’m not so sure it’s a mistake.

al-Ameda

February 8, 2013 at 7:14 pm

Mistake? Let’s see:

Obama second term presidency … {check}
Renewed effort to strengthen assault weapon regulation … {check}
Need to raise Confederate Flag in Mississippi … (check}

I see cause and effect there, I do not see a mistake.

Tony W

February 8, 2013 at 7:18 pm

If that was a mistake, I’d say the civil service exam in Mississippi might need some revisions.

Timothy Watson

February 8, 2013 at 7:20 pm

The South shall rise again?

al-Ameda

February 8, 2013 at 7:31 pm

@Timothy Watson:

The South shall rise again?

This time we could avoid a messy conflagration by just letting Mississippi and the others leave.

PogueMahone

February 8, 2013 at 7:59 pm

Mississippi Supreme Court “Mistakenly” Flies Confederate Flag.

FTFY

Bennett

February 8, 2013 at 8:13 pm

Like when I was in college at Alabama and the Kappa Alphas would hold their “Old South” parade through campus dressed in Confederate uniforms. They made sure to walk by the black frats and would later issue an “apology” that people were “offended”.

Gromitt Gunn

February 8, 2013 at 8:19 pm

@PogueMahone: I think the “Cavuto mark” would be more appropriate here.

i.e. “Mississippi Supreme Court Mistakenly Flies Confederate Flag?”

Tyrell

February 8, 2013 at 9:35 pm

I am sure that for “one brief shining moment” that some people had fond reminiscences about a time long ago, of honor and chivalry, of bravery and certainly there were some misty eyes that day.
Southern born, Southern raised, Southern pride!

Anderson

February 8, 2013 at 9:45 pm

Doug, it looks like your post quotes someone citing Cottonmouth, but no link to that post.

anjin-san

February 8, 2013 at 10:08 pm

honor

Yep. Takes a lot of honor to hold other human beings in bondage.

Tyrell

February 8, 2013 at 10:23 pm

I am referring here to honor on the battlefields of this country. Gettysburg, Manassas, Vicksburg, Shiloh, Chancellorsville, and others: the roll call of honor and gallantry. Pickett’s Charge: one of the greatest and most spectacular moments in military history.

MarkedMan

February 8, 2013 at 11:01 pm

While there may have individual honor on the battlefield, the bottom line is that the Southern states committed treason and directly killed or indirectly caused the deaths of millions so they could keep other humans as slaves. And before anyone starts with the “States Rights” BS, read the declarations of independence as written by the Confederate congresses that wrote them for each state. They leave little doubt that this was about slavery. Your “misty eyes” seem to clouding your vision.

anjin-san

February 9, 2013 at 2:47 am

Gettysburg, Manassas, Vicksburg, Shiloh, Chancellorsville, and others:

Rivers of blood spilled to defend slavery. And you think there is some nostalgic glow attached to this?

Have you ever seen combat?

Timothy Watson

February 9, 2013 at 3:06 am

@Tyrell: Shorter Tyrell: “WHITE POWER!!1!”

Timothy Watson

February 9, 2013 at 3:07 am

@Tyrell:

Pickett’s Charge: one of the greatest and most spectacular ~~moments~~ failures in military history.

FTFY

Spartacus

February 9, 2013 at 4:01 am

@Tyrell:

I am referring here to honor on the battlefields of this country.

I’m truly not trying to be controversial, but you seem to be saying that the mere act of fighting and dying on the battlefield for a cause a person believes in is, all by itself, honorable.

Do I understand you correctly?

OzarkHillbilly

February 9, 2013 at 7:31 am

@Tyrell:

Southern born, Southern raised, Southern pride!

Southern born, Southern raised, Southern pride, Southern stupidity….

FTFY.

Anderson

February 9, 2013 at 8:02 am

“Pickett’s Charge: one of the greatest and most spectacular moments in military history.”

Like the charge of the Light Brigade? I am not a pacifist; I read military history for entertainment; and I am a Mississippian.

Have you BEEN to the battlefield? I’ve stood by the marker for “the high-water mark of the Confederacy” and looked over the field they had to cross, against massed rifle and cannon fire. There was nothing military about it; it was human sacrifice. You might as well rejoice in the first day of the Somme. Lee was a fool to order it.

DC Loser

February 9, 2013 at 10:55 am

I was just at Gettysburg and walked the battlefield, specifically the path of Pickett’s charge from the Virginia monument to the ‘High Water Mark of the Confederacy” monument. I remarked at the time that this must have been what it was like at the Somme. They didn’t charge, they walked the open field into the union volleys. It was pure suicide. Nothing honorable about that.

Gold Star for Robot Boy

February 9, 2013 at 10:59 am

“Pickett’s Charge: one of the greatest and most spectacular moments in military history.”

Hmm. Fredricksburg, and the repeated charges at Marye’s Heights, was the Union’s version of Gettysburg. But I’m not prepared to let Burnside off the hook for THAT.

James in LA

February 9, 2013 at 11:14 am

@Tyrell: The south LOST. Deal.

Va Flagger

February 9, 2013 at 11:14 am

I am always taken aback by the hate and ignorance on display in these kinds of threads. The Confederate Battle Flag was the flag of the Confederate Soldier, who was fighting to defend hearth and home, not some rich man’s right to own other humans.

Anyone who takes even a CURSORY look at what was happening in North America in 1861 knows for fact that although the institution of slavery (which was legal under the U.S. Flag for 80+ years, BTW) although a factor, was certainly not the cause of the war and absolutely NOT what the Confederate soldier fought to protect.

I am the PROUD Great-Great Grandaughter of 4 Confederate Veterans and will fiercely defend their honor and integrity against those who have been brainwashed into believing the propaganda now taught in revisionist history books.

God bless the Confederate Soldier, and the flag he fought and died under. OH…and God bless Mississippi! 🙂

wayne

February 9, 2013 at 11:26 am

@anjin-san: Just like most of the posters on this page that are so ignorant of Southern, and even U.S. history, that they can only think of slavery whenever the subject of (take your pick: The South, Secession, or Confederate symbols) comes up, it only demonstrates the success of government education in dumbing down the citizenry on the greatest crime perpetrated in the ongoing destruction of what was established as a Republic in a voluntary union. Most of the brainwashed commentators here don’t know that slavery in America began in Massachusetts. They don’t know how Africans were involved in the trade, or what would happen to those that had been captured in wars, but were not “trade worthy” and thus of no benefit to their captors (they were murdered). They don’t know that Confederate leaders like Jefferson Davis knew, and spoke of, the eventual end of slavery. They don’t know that slavery was explicitly rejected by Lincoln and the North in their invasion of the new Southern nation. They don’t understand that race relations in the South were openly and deliberately poisoned, first by the war itself, and secondly by the actions taken during the military occupation (during “Deconstruction”) that basically threw mllions of former slaves out on the street, so to speak, without ANY preparation or training that would prepare them for the transition to freedom. The don’t know their level of suffering as a result. I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that the problem of slavery was a complex issue that could not be solved easily and that the worst way to deal with the problem was through violent revolution and war. Let this be a plea to any readers of good will to actually study the history of slavery and the roots of conflict between the Southern people and those that settled the New England area that persist to this day. Political Correctness is an evil that must be fought and defeated if liberty is to be preserved, for anyone, in this land today.

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 11:51 am

@Tony W: @Va Flagger:

Susan, how could slavery even be a factor in the War for Southern Independence? There were Union states with slaves during the war (and after, until December 1865). In 1863, West Virginia entered the Union as a slave state. If slavery were an issue in the war, how could this occur? Maybe Yankees would say the war was because the South had too much slavery. Were the Yankees really saying ‘a little slavery is just fine, but the South has too much’? There is no real way slavery was a factor. The war was caused by a hatred of all things Southern. No more, no less.

Tony, civil service exams HAVE been revised … to increase ‘diversity’.

Va Flagger

February 9, 2013 at 12:16 pm

@Greg Fannin: @Greg Fannin: I hear ya, Greg. All factual. The “Great Emancipator” only decided to “make it” a war about slavery when he found himself losing a very unpopular war and needed something to rally the citizenry, who were beginning to lose patience with his illegal invasion of the South.

His Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, as it was only applicable in states over which he had not sovereignty. Slavery remained legal and continued in the North.

Sadly, truth and fact has given way to politically correct hogwash, as we see displayed in the comments here.

Gen. Patrick Cleburne was very prophetic when he remarked… “Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.”

Eddie Inman

February 9, 2013 at 12:39 pm

All of you expressing views that the Confederacy was for preservation of slavery should learn a little about the Corwin Amendment, the original 13th amendment. Passed 34 to 3 in the US Senate, sans the Senators of the seceded States. Heartily endorsed by Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural speech. Slavery would have been preserved merely by remaing part of the US. —

March 2, 1861
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

36th Congress 2nd Session

March 4, 1861
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution which amendment, however, I have not seen has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

Abraham Lincoln – 1st inaugural speech

Timothy Watson

February 9, 2013 at 1:00 pm

@Va Flagger:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

– Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 1:06 pm

@Timothy Watson:

“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a 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 the favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.” — Abraham Lincoln, 21 August 21 1858.

Socraticsilence

February 9, 2013 at 1:12 pm

To all that claim that the preservation on slavery was not the primary factor in southern rebellion I ask you to read the various declarations of secession and state constitutions. Slavery was not initially the driving factor for the Union initially for the The same can not be said of the south. This is not to say that the common soldier was without valor only to say he shared the valor of the common Taliban- men fighting what some would construe as an unjust invasion but fighting under the banner of a greater evil.

Timothy Watson

February 9, 2013 at 1:25 pm

@Greg Fannin: And what the fuck does that have to do as to why the South seceded?

Kirk D. Lyons

February 9, 2013 at 1:25 pm

The canton of the Mississippi state flag is the Confederate Battle flag – so big deal and don’thave a cow!

Steven L. Taylor

February 9, 2013 at 1:28 pm

@Va Flagger:

The Confederate Battle Flag was the flag of the Confederate Soldier, who was fighting to defend hearth and home, not some rich man’s right to own other humans.

Read the Cornerstone speech and get back to me.

And certainly I will grant that one cannot know why any individual soldier fought. but we have to evaluate military conflicts in terms of the political motivations that drove them from the highest levels.

I have no doubt that many Germans fought under the Nazi flag for “hearth and home” or any other number of reasons. That does not mean we are obligated to honor their symbols.

Steven L. Taylor

February 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm

@Va Flagger:

The Confederate Battle Flag was the flag of the Confederate Soldier

Also: one had to take into account that the Confederate Battle Flag became, in the 1950s, the symbol of southern resistance to desegregation. This fact severely undercuts the notion that the flag is just being displayed to honor the fallen dead.

Al

February 9, 2013 at 1:43 pm

Man, things get a little weird around here when a story gets a link from Stormfront.

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 1:54 pm

@Socraticsilence:
The preservation of the Constitution was the primary factor in Southern secession, not the preservation of slavery. Believe it or not, slavery was constitutional way back then. The North had decided it no longer had to obey the Constitution and this was intolerable for the South. It makes no difference whether the issue was slavery or free speech or gun control. The South had decided if the North refused to obey the constitution, the South would no longer be part of the Union.

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 1:56 pm

@Al:

Sure, Al. White people show up to counter the Anti-White people.

Steven L. Taylor

February 9, 2013 at 2:05 pm

@Greg Fannin: There was never a constitutional right to hold slaves. The constitution largely dodges the issue (and indeed the framers refused to use the word in the passage that clearly acknowledge its existence: the 3/5th compromise, the ref in Article IV, and the ref to the slave trade).

To pretend like this was just southerners fighting for a constitutional right akin to the right to free speech is a remarkable interpretation, to say the least.

Steven L. Taylor

February 9, 2013 at 2:06 pm

@Greg Fannin:

Sure, Al. White people show up to counter the Anti-White people.

A telling statement.

Because criticizing the confederacy and having trouble with its glorification is being “Anti-White people.”

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 2:06 pm

@Steven L. Taylor:

The Confederate Battle Flag is not and was not ‘the symbol of southern resistance to desegregation’. Once again, Northerners misinterpret things they don’t understand. Our battle flag is the symbol of southern resistance to tyranny. Desegregation just happened to be the form of tyranny they were protesting back then. Yes, forced desegregation is and was tyranny. Putting groups of people together who don’t want to be together is tyranny. You’ll read into this what you want, but people spent thousands of dollars to move to ‘safe areas’ where they felt comfortable, only to see their government intentionally destroy this. That is tyranny.

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 2:13 pm

@Steven L. Taylor:

Steven, it is very telling. More and more white people are assessing their heritage and not just believing everything Anti-Whites tell them. Of course, this is very bad news for the Anti-Whites. People becoming educated and no longer ashamed of being White? What horror!

al-Ameda

February 9, 2013 at 2:14 pm

The Confederate Flag was the symbol of protection of Southern institutions – one of which was Slavery. Why do Southerners resist that? We know that inn the absence of Slavery there would have been no Civil War, period.

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 2:26 pm

@al-Ameda:
Well, Mr. al-Ameda, it’s our flag, not yours … and you don’t get to decide what it symbolises. Furthermore, I don’t think you understand what a ‘civil war’ is. The War for Southern Independence was simply an invasion by a tyrannical outside force. The U.S. has a history of using this tyrannical force, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Were these ‘civil wars’? Who’s the next victim? Iran?

If you’re saying slavery was unique to the South, then yes, I resist that. The North had slaves, too. If your indoctrination centre neglected to teach you what a ‘civil war’ is and where slavery existed, they should refund your money

Steven L. Taylor

February 9, 2013 at 2:38 pm

@Greg Fannin:

The preservation of the Constitution was the primary factor in Southern secession, not the preservation of slavery.

The utter nonsense of this assertion just hit me: if that was, in fact, the goal of secession then the constitution of the CSA would have been the US Constitution applied to the confederate states. Instead, they attempted to establish a rather different system that amplified the states.

Steven L. Taylor

February 9, 2013 at 2:39 pm

(Indeed, this underscores one of the weirdest disjunctures in the thinking of many neo-confederates: the combination of defense of rebellion against the constitutional order while at the same time arguing that all they wanted was defense of the US constitution. It makes zero logical sense).

Steven L. Taylor

February 9, 2013 at 2:41 pm

@Greg Fannin:

People becoming educated and no longer ashamed of being White?

So, defending the confederacy equals “no longer ashamed of being White”? Explain that one to us.

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 2:43 pm

@Steven L. Taylor:

What do you suppose the Confederacy’s Constitution was modeled after?

You’re confusing Constitutional Order with Constitutional Disorder, and when you do that, yes, it will make zero logical sense.

Anderson

February 9, 2013 at 2:48 pm

Nut attack! First two grafs of the MS secession proclamation:

“In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

End of debate. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Steven L. Taylor

February 9, 2013 at 2:52 pm

@Greg Fannin: The fundamental relationship between the states under the union and the CSA were different, making them different constitutional structures regardless of any other similarities.

Steven L. Taylor

February 9, 2013 at 2:53 pm

@Anderson: Come now! They were just defending themselves against tyranny! Because what else screams “lover of liberty” than the expansion of slavery into the west?

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 3:03 pm

@Steven L. Taylor:

From your egalitarian point-of-view, I understand what you are saying.

Nothing screams ‘lover of liberty’ like denying Africans free migration, denying Africans the right to hold public office, outlawing miscegenation, et cetera?

anjin-san

February 9, 2013 at 3:46 pm

@ wayne

If you want to tell yourself you are the only one who reads history, by all means, go for it. It can only serve to enhance your reputation for not being very bright.

The most recent reading I have done on the civil war is “The Killer Angles” by Michael Shaara. Highly recommended.

Va Flagger

February 9, 2013 at 3:57 pm

Seriously? We have to put away the Confederate Battle Flag because it has been used by “bad people”? I think not. That is, unless you folks want to put away the U.S. Flag and the Christian cross, because I have certainly seen these carried and used by the same groups.

And for those of you intent on “proving” your COMPLETELY FALSE claim that the Confederate soldier fought for slavery by providing quotes…how about a few from the “Great Emancipator” himself?

“It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
~ Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, Monday, March 4, 1861.

“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.”
~ Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862.

The facts are all there for the non-prejudiced to read and discover, but I doubt anyone who would compare the Confederate States of America to Hitler’s Germany has any hope of ever grasping anything but the hate they carry in their hearts.

At no time did the Confederacy murder 6 million people because of their race.

Again, Africans were brought to this country, enslaved, and kept that way under U,S. law for 86 years under the U.S. Flag, and yet OUR flag MUST be associated with slavery?

Nut attack? Typical of someone losing an argument. Forget the facts and start name calling.

End of debate? Do not pass Go? Do not collect $200?
Not as long as I have breath.

anjin-san

February 9, 2013 at 4:07 pm

and you don’t get to decide what it symbolises.

Sure he does. Or is thought control part of your charming agenda?

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 4:16 pm

@anjin-san:

#1 It’s not your heritage, so you don’t get to decide, and
#2 Anti-thought control is part of my charming agenda

Rafer Janders

February 9, 2013 at 4:35 pm

@Va Flagger:

Seriously? We have to put away the Confederate Battle Flag because it has been used by “bad people”? I think not.

Seriously? I have to stop displaying the swastika because it was used by Nazis? I think not.

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 4:39 pm

@Rafer Janders:

Rafer, you can still display your swastika. Some people in the U.S. still display the U.S. flag and its seen more murder and mayhem than the swastika ever did.

matt bernius

February 9, 2013 at 5:12 pm

@Va Flagger:

At no time did the Confederacy murder 6 million people because of their race.

Ok… so:

Murdering people based on race = bad…
Fighting to preserve the right to enslave people based on race (an estimated 4 million people at the time of the Civil War) = ok?
Fighting to deny people certain rights based on their race some 100 years later = ok?

I think I’m missing some logic here..

matt bernius

February 9, 2013 at 5:15 pm

@Steven L. Taylor:

(Indeed, this underscores one of the weirdest disjunctures in the thinking of many neo-confederates: the combination of defense of rebellion against the constitutional order while at the same time arguing that all they wanted was defense of the US constitution. It makes zero logical sense).

Additionally it touches on a second point worth noting — if one takes this line of thinking, it suggests that the US Constitution is anything *but* a prefect document and that it needed to be radically changed/modernized at the time of the forming of the confederacy.

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 5:20 pm

@matt bernius:

Yes, you are missing logic.

matt bernius

February 9, 2013 at 5:24 pm

@Greg Fannin:

#1 It’s not your heritage, so you don’t get to decide

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how symbols function and develop.

Beyond that, I find your making that proclamation a little ironic given you were the one who broght brought up “Anti-White people” and the idea that Whites should “not just [believe] everything Anti-Whites tell them”

That flag is a part of the heritage of “Anti-Whites” who trace their history through the south. And, therefore, according to your logic, it’s their heritage given right to decide what that flag means.

Though I expect that you probably have a counter argument to remove that right from them.

matt bernius

February 9, 2013 at 5:31 pm

@Va Flagger:

Again, Africans were brought to this country, enslaved, and kept that way under U,S. law for 86 years under the U.S. Flag, and yet OUR flag MUST be associated with slavery?

You’re entirely correct. A lot of terrible things have been done under the US Flag. Slavery, Genocide of Native People, etc.

However, what this argument fails to take into account is that reparations were also made under that same flag. And a war was fought and won under that flag which started a long and still ongoing process of making amends.

On the other hand, the Confederate Flag was first raised in defense of slavery. And then, after it fell, it became a marker of resistance to integration. It hasn’t been the banner of making amends. It’s been a focal point for movements that have taken up all forms of resistance against integration and extension of rights.

If you have example of the Confederate Flag being used to unite people across regions, races and creeds, I’d be interested. As far as I can tell, the only way the Confederate Flag does that is in the revulsion it, and its defenders, create in the rest of us.

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 5:35 pm

@matt bernius:

No misunderstanding … we develop the symbol, we determine the meaning. Does an artist not get to decide what their painting means? People will give their mindless interpretations, but they are just that … mindless interpretations.

If ‘that flag is a part of the heritage of “Anti-Whites”‘, why is it that Anti-Whites protest it so much?

Steven L. Taylor

February 9, 2013 at 5:48 pm

@Greg Fannin:

we develop the symbol, we determine the meaning

I must congratulate you on your longevity. Further, persons of your age usually stink at using technology, so congrats there as well.

(And btw, art works almost exactly opposite of what you describe)

anjin-san

February 9, 2013 at 6:03 pm

@ Greg Fannin

No misunderstanding … we develop the symbol, we determine the meaning.

Ah, so then you agree that the hammer & sickle flag of the Soviet Union is a shining beacon of hope for working people everywhere?

I see.

anjin-san

February 9, 2013 at 6:06 pm

Does an artist not get to decide what their painting means?

I think Bob Dylan addressed this question as well as anyone ever has – he was talking about music, but the concept applies across the arts.

BTW, he said you don’t know what you are talking about, in case you are not familiar with that particular interview.

Anderson

February 9, 2013 at 6:09 pm

So I quote MS on why they seceded, and that’s supposed to be refuted by Lincoln’s saying (correctly) the war wasn’t intended to end slavery?

It’s tough to argue with people who don’t understand argument.

Southern leaders committed treason to defend slavery. The US fought to defeat the traitors after the latter attacked a US fort. The war was ” about slavery” because the South made it about slavery.

What next, white supremacists? Holocaust denial?

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 6:14 pm

@matt bernius:

Oh, sure. Reparations. That would fix everything. Everything’s fine and dandy now.

It is indeed a tired argument about ‘defence of slavery’, when the Union had slaves before, during, after the War. They also allowed newly-created West Virginia to enter Union at the height of the ‘Holy War’ as a slave state. Why? Because it wasn’t about slavery. The most important thing to Yankees is money … always has been, always will be (… and when they say it’s not about the money, you can bet your bottom dollar it IS about the money). They couldn’t stand to lose the revenue generated by the prosperous South, so they invaded. When it became obvious they needed a better cause, slavery was convenient … the South had a lot of slaves, the North had a lot less. The North was extremely fearful that Europe would join the Confederate cause. Lincoln was able to concoct and fabricate a story to try to reframe it as a struggle to end slavery, freezing the Europeans out of the conflict.

Slavery was dying a natural death throughout the New World. It was expensive. No wars were needed to end it. You had to feed a slave. You had to shelter a slave, You had to care for a sick slave. When a slave ran away or died, there was lost equity. In the North, if an African could find work, he was not guaranteed a place to stay, food to eat, nor someone to care for him if he were ill. If they got injured, they’d be tossed on the scrap heap and the next man in line would take his place. No one cared for these workers because no one had a vested interest in them. Disposable workers, that’s what the North wanted. They were the equivalent of today’s rental cars … no one checks the fluids because ‘Hey! It’s not my problem!’.

These Africans were ‘freemen’ in the North, but were they ‘free’ to move wherever they wanted? No. Were they ‘free’ to live wherever they wanted? No. Were they ‘free’ to hold elected office? No. Were they ‘free’ to marry a White person? No. Were they ‘free’ to testify against a White person? No. A strange concept of ‘free’.

wr

February 9, 2013 at 6:25 pm

@Greg Fannin: “Does an artist not get to decide what their painting means? People will give their mindless interpretations, but they are just that … mindless interpretations.”

So now we see you know as little about art and criticism theory as you do about history…

wr

February 9, 2013 at 6:29 pm

@Greg Fannin: “These Africans were ‘freemen’ in the North, but were they ‘free’ to move wherever they wanted? No. Were they ‘free’ to live wherever they wanted? No. Were they ‘free’ to hold elected office? No. Were they ‘free’ to marry a White person? No. Were they ‘free’ to testify against a White person? No. A strange concept of ‘free’. ”

Well, strange or not, they were certainly free compared to their brethren in the South who were chattel property.

Please don’t start claiming that slavery was a benevolent institution that was much better for the slaves than free life in Africa or in the northern US. We’ve heard these sick rationalizations before, and they’re not going to convince anyone who isn’t already an apology for the most loathesome practice in American history.

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 7:01 pm

@anjin-san:

I know he’s very popular in some circles, but I’ve never really cared for what Mr. Dylan had to say.

@Anderson:

I’m curious what treason Southern leaders committed by attacking a former U.S. fort on Confederate territory that the Union was in the process of resupplying, which is an act of war.

Holocaust denial? Gee, I dunno. There are certainly lots of lies and fabrications in history books. I’ve met a few Hutus from Rwanda who tell me how bad the Holocaust was, but I’ve met a few Tutsis who say the Hutus exaggerate and are liars. I’m not denying that a conflict took place … the Hutus say millions were killed, the Tutsis say it was only a few hundred thousand … but who do you believe?

@anjin-san:

Regardless of what I think of the Soviet Union, I don’t decide what their flag means … they do!

@Steven L. Taylor:
In your world, that’s the way art works. I’m aware of several pompous professors who try to tell you what an artist meant by their work. I’ll take the artist’s opinion over the professor’s opinion any day.

I attribute my longevity to excellent genes. My Y-chromosome has seen battles in Ireland against the British, battles in colonial America against the British, and battles in the War for Southern Independence against the Yankees. The Confederate flag is my flag. My third and fourth great-grandfathers gave me their Y-chromosome and their flag. They are a part of me.

@wr:
Chattel slave vs. Disposable servant. Now there’s a great choice … either way, they’re not truly free. The slaves weren’t free in Africa … they were slaves there, too. Slavery has a much longer history in Africa than in the New World … in fact, it continues to this day. So, yes, they had a better life as a slave in the U.S. than as a slave in Africa. Their ancestors have faired better as well. Their standard of living is much higher here than anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa. But don’t dwell entirely on Africa, because not all slaves were from Africa … and not all Africans in the South were slaves, some were even slaveholders.

Spartacus

February 9, 2013 at 7:59 pm

@Greg Fannin:

@matt bernius:

Oh, sure. Reparations. That would fix everything. Everything’s fine and dandy now.

Do you recall seeing any of the early commercials for Microsoft’s search engine, Bing? They were really funny and this comment of yours in response to Matt Bernius reminds me of those commercials.

VA Flagger had compared the evils under the Confederate flag to some of the evils committed under the U.S. flag and Matt responded by pointing out that, unlike the Confederate flag, the U.S. flag has also symbolized attempts to repair some of those evils. He gave reparations as an example of the U.S.’ attempt to repair some of those evils. You then read the word “reparations” and like someone with serious dementia, you rattle off on a completely irrelevant word salad that, in your “brain,” proves Matt wrong, but to all the rest of us only shows how that little man inside your head is all tired and huffing and puffing from just trying to not get overwhelmed by the fluorescent lights.

Greg Fannin

February 9, 2013 at 8:06 pm

@Spartacus:

Oh, well, as long as they tried to make reparations. We’ll all sleep better tonight! Argumentum ad hominem becomes you!

anjin-san

February 9, 2013 at 8:30 pm

Oh, well, as long as they tried to make reparations.

Well, choosing between reparations and the klan, I will go with reparations. How about you?

aFloridian

February 9, 2013 at 8:49 pm

I will always keep the flag of my ancestors tucked away safely. They were as great a group of Patriots as those in 1776. Too bad a symbol, whose own history was controversial enough, got co-opted by modern hate groups. I didn’t bother reading what any of you said, because I really don’t care what you all think about this. Unless you are an unashamed Southerner you will never understand. My black fiance doesn’t care for the flag, naturally, but that will never change the fact that I elevate it above almost all other symbols. It represents the region I love and call home – all its goodness and all its wickedness.

MarkedMan

February 9, 2013 at 9:24 pm

@aFloridian: You know, I gotta respect that, even though I’ll never share, or want to share, that perspective. And it brings up an interesting discussion on symbols, although with the klan showing up here I’ll doubt we’ll be able to have it. So here’s two, non connected points that I think are interesting…

The first was something I read about a black guy who went to someones house to look at a used pickup only to find it had the Confederate flag painted on the tailgate. The white seller and his buddys were a little sheepish and he muttered that, of course, the prospective buyer could paint the truck a different color if he wanted. “No way. Leave that flag on there. Me and my buddies think it is very cool.” So he bought the truck and drove it around like that, drawing odd stares wherever he went. But his point was that the only way to change the status of a symbol was to co-opt it into another usage. He felt if he could get blacks across the country to adopt the confederate flag, wear it on their clothing, stencil it on their cars, etc. it would lose its meaning in about five years, tops.

The second concerns co-opting symbols the other way. I live in Shanghai for the moment and after I hit “Post Comment” on this I’m going to close my computer, get up and go across the street for breakfast. As I cross over the new courtyard in front of the coffee shop I’ll walk over a half dozen swastikas done in marble on the ground. Because I live in the Jing An buddhist temple area and there are dozens of these scattered around the neighborhood, mostly new. The swastika was, and is, a buddhist symbol for centuries before the filthy nazis ruined it in the western world. I don’t know if that means anything but it is interesting to think about…

anjin-san

February 9, 2013 at 9:25 pm

@ Greg Fannin

I don’t get to decide what a piece of art means, the artist does. I don’t get to decide what a flag represents, only those who live under it (or their great, great grandkids) do.

You are just not very big on thinking, are you? Your comments reflect it.

BWT, neither the Soviet Union or the confederacy exist today. So any claims to lay ownership to their flags is rather specious.

My Y-chromosome has seen battles

Ah, so you are a badass because your ancestors fought? Have you ever seen combat? Tell me something, how old are you? There is something rather pathetic about a man over 30 who glorifies war…

Va Flagger

February 9, 2013 at 10:10 pm

Marked Man, the Southern states did not commit treason: http://youtu.be/7qfX0uXDktY. There were about 700,000 deaths from the War Between the States. An appalling number, true, but hardly millions. There were no declarations of independence written by Confederate congresses for each state. Neither the Confederacy nor its Congress existed when the states began to secede. Only four states issued Declarations of Causes for Secession, although all of them issued Ordinances of Secession (the legislative document severing political ties to the federal government). The six states of the first “wave” of secession seceded, in part, because of slavery — but even Mississippi’s Declaration of Causes (which states “Our position is thoroughly identified with slavery”) list many other reasons for seceding. This is because throughout the years of sectionalism, the states of the north had used slavery as an excuse for victimizing the Southern states in a variety of ways. The states of the upper South seceded later, after the federal government was going to require them to militarily invade the seceded states.

Va Flagger

February 9, 2013 at 10:10 pm

Very simply, the northern states under the auspices of the federal government invaded the South because the north realized it could not make it as a nation on its own. Read Lincoln’s call for volunteers to invade the South. Not a syllable about slaves, slavery or emancipating anyone. The war was well underway before slavery was tacked on as a reason for the fight….

Real life, real history, is more complicated than the version our dumbed down schools teach.

Praise GOD

February 10, 2013 at 12:36 am

It’s good to see that the south is preparing to rise again. Even if it was an “accident” it sends a clear message to the north that their confiscatory ways must be curtailed.

Billy Bearden

February 10, 2013 at 1:23 am

OK, any references to Nazi/Hitler/Germany/Swastikas when discussing the Confederacy violates Godwin’s Law, and is a stupid argument

Billy Bearden

February 10, 2013 at 1:31 am

Way up in this thread was the quotes from CSA VP Alexander Stephens. Since when is the VP of anything the official spox for the nation/corporation/business/organization??? Do we spell spud “POTATOE” ? No, but Dan Quayle does. Do we pay more in taxes to ‘prove’ our patriotism? No, but Joe Biden seems to think we should…

N Dollins

February 10, 2013 at 2:14 am

Ok, so if the South went to war to preserve slavery, explain to me why 41 of my poor, dirt farmer ancestors VOLUNTEERED to fight against the Union, when none of them ever owned a single slave? My Confederate flags (yes, folks, there was more than just the one you all want to vilify!) will continue to fly as long as there is breath in my body in honor of my ancestors. Offended by that? Get over it. God bless Mississippi!

N Dollins

February 10, 2013 at 2:27 am

BTW, since the subject of reparations was brought up, when is the U.S. planning on paying reparations to the Native Americans for the kind and gentle way they were treated by the U.S. government, including former slaves who served in the U.S. military? Seems they would have first dibs, before the slaves, who ended up in this country because of the greed of their own kind over in Africa, unlike the Native Americans who were here first.

Timothy Watson

February 10, 2013 at 3:35 am

I swear to God, Sherman should have burned the entire South to the ground after reading these comments.

(And this comes from a person whose ancestors fought on both sides on the conflict, as well as some who owned slaves.)

al-Ameda

February 10, 2013 at 8:38 am

Lincoln made a big mistake when he acted to preserve the Union.

After the Civil War the South descended into about 100 years of segregation and apartheid, makes me wonder why we bothered with Civil War if we were going to end up in roughly the same place for another century or so.

sam

February 10, 2013 at 8:42 am

@N Dollins:

explain to me why 41 of my poor, dirt farmer ancestors VOLUNTEERED to fight against the Union, when none of them ever owned a single slave?

Because, sir, the greatest political achievement of the Southern slave-owning aristocracy was its success in convincing dirt poor Southern whites that slavery was in their interests.

al-Ameda

February 10, 2013 at 8:48 am

@Greg Fannin:

@al-Ameda:
Well, Mr. al-Ameda, it’s our flag, not yours … and you don’t get to decide what it symbolises.

Of course I get to decide, any/every person decides for his/ her self what a flag or some other icon symbolizes. Once a symbol is in the public domain all bets are off.

Let’s say for example that Hitler and his Nazi leadership cadre decided the Swastika symbolized a German’s love of the German homeland.

Do you really believe that most non-Germans have come to think that the Swastika symbolizes anything other than the Nazi war machine and annihilation of Jews? That’s what I believe, yet according to you, I don’t get to decide what that symbol means to me.

Va Flagger

February 10, 2013 at 10:24 am

@Timothy Watson: Thank you for making my point regarding the hate on display in these posts and showing us how folks who come across intelligent discourse and facts that dispel their long held and convenient myths sometimes behave.

It is sad to learn that the blood of those you show such hate and contempt for actually flows through your veins.

I cannot scoff at the dishonor you show your ancestors. It deserves only pity and shame.

rudderpedals

February 10, 2013 at 11:35 am

American ancestor worshipers and race warriors are bound for the same fate as their Japanese and German fellow travelers 70 years ago. At the core weak and unhealthy monocultures. That way lies incest, madness and extinction.

Steven L. Taylor

February 10, 2013 at 12:17 pm

@Va Flagger: One of the many problems with your line of reasoning is that you continually assert that any moral failings on the part of your opponents simply means that you do not have to deal with the problems of your positions whatsoever (such as the discussion above about the conditions of blacks in the North in 1850s, or the fact that Lincoln was not a 100% anti-slave crusader at all times and in all ways and utterances.

Yes, history is complicated (as is politics and as are individuals and their motivations). However, it boils down to this:

1. If the Southern states pre-Civil War had gotten their way, chattel slavery would have continued well into the future in the existing US states and would have expanded into the west as the country expanded.

and

2. The ultimate result of the Civil War was the end of slavery and that end only emerged because the north won the war.

You are not directly dealing with these two incontrovertible facts.

Billy Bearden

February 10, 2013 at 1:33 pm

@Stephen Taylor,

Corwin Amendment.
South refused to stay in the Union and ratify this.

Emancipation Proclamation.
South refused to lay down arms and return to the Union by Jan 1st 1863

Obviously the issue was a little bit more than ‘slavery’ But so what. What if the ONLY reason for both secession and the war was ‘slavery’ That was life in 1860. Tuff noogies.Lame attempts to overlay 21st century values on 19th century civilizations are illogical and pointless.

What was lost at Appomattox haunts us to this very day – States Rights.

Billy Bearden

February 10, 2013 at 1:40 pm

Sad the same folks who whine about slavery 150 years ago in America do not offer the same wails about slavery today.

Yeah, a few slaves (black/mulatto/white/chinese/irish/etc..) were beaten or seperated, but thier offspring are far better off today than anywhere else in this world, but the same cannot be said for the 100,000,000 dead from abortions…

Steven L. Taylor

February 10, 2013 at 1:40 pm

@Billy Bearden:

States Rights.

Indeed. The right of states to maintain legal chattel slavery.

I find it impossible to take all this righteous indignation over the rights of geographical units when the most fundamental issue in the conversation is the issue if the individual liberty, in the most fundamental sense of the word, of human beings.

Steven L. Taylor

February 10, 2013 at 1:51 pm

@Billy Bearden:

Obviously the issue was a little bit more than ‘slavery’ But so what.

I never said otherwise.

But as @I noted in response to another commenter above:

Yes, history is complicated (as is politics and as are individuals and their motivations). However, it boils down to this:

1. If the Southern states pre-Civil War had gotten their way, chattel slavery would have continued well into the future in the existing US states and would have expanded into the west as the country expanded.

and

2. The ultimate result of the Civil War was the end of slavery and that end only emerged because the north won the war.

You are not directly dealing with these two incontrovertible facts.

Further, your Corwin amendment argument doesn’t accomplish what you think it does because it underscores that any attempt to placate the South was thought to require guarantees concerning slavery.

Really: I don’t understand the need to try and downplay slavery just so you and your can fly a flag.

wr

February 10, 2013 at 2:11 pm

@Greg Fannin: “Chattel slave vs. Disposable servant. Now there’s a great choice …”

Okay, let’s say you have a choice between a minimum wage job as a Walmart greeter and an existence as a slave, in which you can be beaten or murdered at your owner’s whim, your wife can be raped, your children sold and sent far away.

Which are you going to choose? Be sure to show your work.

wr

February 10, 2013 at 2:16 pm

@N Dollins: “Ok, so if the South went to war to preserve slavery, explain to me why 41 of my poor, dirt farmer ancestors VOLUNTEERED to fight against the Union, when none of them ever owned a single slave? ”

Short answer: Because they were stupid.

Longer answer: Because the ruling classes convinced the poor dirt farmers they exploited and kept in poverty that their interests were the same. It’s the same way they convince you today that your enemies are poor Mexicans looking for work and not the multinational corporations that have slashed payscales to transfer their weath to the executives and shareholders — as long as you’re gullible enough to buy it, they can make you do anything.

wr

February 10, 2013 at 2:21 pm

@Billy Bearden: “What if the ONLY reason for both secession and the war was ‘slavery’ That was life in 1860. Tuff noogies.Lame attempts to overlay 21st century values on 19th century civilizations are illogical and pointless.”

Well, it’s patently obvious that these were also 19th century values, since hundreds of thousands of American soldiers died to end the moral horror that was slavery. 19th century values in just about every part of the civilized world — except the American South.

al-Ameda

February 10, 2013 at 2:55 pm

@Billy Bearden:

What was lost at Appomattox haunts us to this very day – States Rights.

And by inference, “The South” has only itself to blame.

al-Ameda

February 10, 2013 at 3:03 pm

@Billy Bearden:

Sad the same folks who whine about slavery 150 years ago in America do not offer the same wails about slavery today.
Yeah, a few slaves (black/mulatto/white/chinese/irish/etc..) were beaten or seperated, but thier offspring are far better off today than anywhere else in this world, but the same cannot be said for the 100,000,000 dead from abortions…

Gee, I have no idea why any one would think that racism still exists, do you? The Civil War ended about 147 years ago and slaves were freed. Racism was ended back then. Sure we had about 100 years of segregation, apartheid and Jim Crow Laws, but really Blacks had it better than, well, just about anywhere else in the world.

Gustopher

February 10, 2013 at 3:38 pm

I believe the esteemed Phil Ochs described Mississippi and their pride quite well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvcNZ-KOEcg

If there was justice in the world, the slave owners would have been strung up from the trees, the estates and wealth generated from the labor of slaves redistributed to the victims. Allowing the shave-holders to keep the wealth and continue to be the policy-setting aristocracy was one of the stupidest things Lincoln did.

Surreal American

February 10, 2013 at 4:48 pm

@Gustopher:

“Mississippi Goddam” by Nina Simone also summed up that state more than adequately. However I guess neoconfederates today deny she had the right to interpret anything south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Tyrell

February 10, 2013 at 5:18 pm

@Timothy Watson: If it had not been for that Sherman coming through here and tearing everything up, the South might have just won. He wasn’t fair.

wr

February 10, 2013 at 6:25 pm

@Tyrell: “If it had not been for that Sherman coming through here and tearing everything up, the South might have just won. He wasn’t fair. ”

Yes, because fairness above all else is prized in war.

Moosebreath

February 11, 2013 at 3:07 pm

@Tyrell:

“If it had not been for that Sherman coming through here and tearing everything up, the South might have just won.”

Umm, no. Sherman’s March to the Sea was in the November and December, 1864. By that time, the Seige of Petersberg had been in effect for months, and Lee could not break it without abandoning Richmond, the Shenandoah Valley campaign was over, with Early unable to mount an effective force, and Lincoln was reelected.

Charles

February 13, 2013 at 2:53 am

Ok I understand that the meaning has been twisted by racial groups and respect people enough to not complain about their views on the Confederate Battle Flag but one thing that does bother me is this. When the slaves were being brought over on ships what flag was flying on those ships, The Stars and Stripes, when our government issued bounties on the extermination of Native Americans what flag was that under, again The Stars and Stripes and if you ask me those are much worse than the the arguement that the Confederate Battle Flag stands for slavery which I think is a crock. The Confederate Battle Flag was never flown, as far as i know, when the attempted erradication of a people was supported by the government. Oh and for the argument that the Battleflag is flown in meetings for racial groups so is the Stars and Stripes so im failing to see how one is racist and the other is not.