Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

15 yo SC girl protests ban on Confederate flag

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:08 PM
Original message
15 yo SC girl protests ban on Confederate flag
A 15 year old is protesting against her High School's ban on confederate flags. A former NAACP leader has filed a lawsuit on her behalf claiming the High School is violating her 1st amendment rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060522/ap_on_re_us/confederate_clothing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pocket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. what a couple of loser scumbags
way to sell out your people, gramps
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
83. I'm always amazed how quickly DUers surrender "free speech" (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billybob537 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. The only place a confederate flag belongs
Is in a history book or at a monument to civil war dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefty48197 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Don't forget the KKK rallies. The confederate flag DEFINATELY belongs
at KKK rallies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billybob537 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. I love when they do that
It just screams out " LOOK AT US WE'RE LOSERS!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rufus T. Firefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
27. Or run-down trailer parks.
Hey, they need SOMEONE to look down on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-23-06 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #27
77. How progressive!
Poor people are just soooooo tacky!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rufus T. Firefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. You apparently don't live near one
Festooned with Confederate flags. I do.

You don't know the history of trailer parks. I do.

Don't be glib. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
65. Why?
There are more Klansmen in the mid-West than in the South now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-23-06 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #65
74. And around here, whenever
the four local klansmen rally, there is always a much larger group of the local Sons of Confederate Veterans Organization protesting the klan using their flag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grebrook Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
92. Same people who wave Con flags are the ones who mock blacks
for bringing up slavery frequently. I'm so sick of people never being able to shut up about their heritage, regardless of what it is. I don't care about your ancestors, and while you should honor them, honoring them in the way many southerners do is simply IRRATIONAL. It's obsessive.

We get it, you're proud of your ancestors. But you are NOT your ancestors, so find your own damn personality and shut up about the Civil War and stop dwelling in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. Let's hope our side handles this more gracefully....
... and doesn't send her death threats n crap.

It'd be nice to know there's a difference between our side and their side.

(I'm totally against all displays of national racism, but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of mistreating 15 yo girls)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. " role blacks played in voluntarily supporting the South in the Civil War"
And we have Mary Cheney. Oy Vey!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
57. Like these South Carolina men?
United States Colored Troops of South Carolina
http://www.blackcamisards.com/sc-usct/index.html
(excerpt)
The history of the USCT was brief yet illustrative, with little more than two years of service before the War officially ended. By the time the War ran its course, approximately 160 regiments and 10 batteries of light artillery comprising nearly 200,000 ex-slaves and freedmen had enlisted and served in USCT tactical units.

Of the colored soldiers who joined the Union effort, more than 5,000 were recruited from the state of South Carolina, comprising the enlisted ranks of six infantry regiments ( 21st | 33rd | 34th | 103rd | 104th and 128th ) and one artillery battery ( Battery "G", 2nd Light Artillery Regiment). The 105th Infantry Regiment did not completely formed before the end of the war and was quickly disbanded.

Perhaps no regiment was more symbolic of the participation and contribution of African Americans to the War effort than the 1st South Carolina Colored Infantry, a contingent of slaves from the harsh, back- breaking farms of the coastal Low Country regions of the state. South Carolina was a state that was steeped in the practice of slavery, whose very existence and wherewithal were built on and dependent upon one man's involuntary servitude to another. Indeed, South Carolina, perhaps more so than the other southern states, was synonymous with the slave trade, the plantation system and the inequality of the races. From Columbia to Charleston to Hilton Head, South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union, was the essence of Dixie.

First US Flag Over Charleston raised by USCT troops

http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/cwflags/index.cgi?noframes;read=3302
(excerpt)
"A great ovation was given to Gen. U.S. Grant...the torn, tattered and faded battle flag carried by D. C. Vestal, as color-bearer of Phil Sheridan Post, excited much comment, and its history would not be out of place here. It belonged in 1864 to the Twenty-first Regiment, South Carolina Colored Volunteers, commanded by Col. A. G. Bennett, afterwards of San Jose, and was the first Union flag raised in Charleston after that city's surrender to and occupation by the Union forces. Five color-bearers were shot down while carrying it, and every hole in it was made by a Confederate bullet."

http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/cwflags/index.cgi?noframes;read=3311
(excerpt)
Contact the Charleston Museum on Meeting Street, if they do not have anything, they should be able to direct you in the right direction. ( 843-722-2996)

You are correct on the US flag at the Relic Room, its a fragment of the 2nd US S.C. Regiment (African Descent)
John Bigham of the Relic Room does not have information on the flag of the 21st USCT.

The 21st USCT was made up of the 3rd & 4th (US) South Carolina Regiments (African Descent). The 3rd & 4th never did fully organize so they most likely did not receive a stand of flags until the 21st was organized.

I heard from West Point and the flag is not there nor is it on the list of the 54 USCT flags destroyed in 1920, so it may still be out there in California some place.

Are their battle flags not part of "Southern Heritage" too?

Number of USCT by state (listing southern states and border (neutral) states only for this discussion)

Alabama 4,969
Arkansas 5,526
Florida 1,044
Georgia 3,486
Kentucky 23,703
Louisiana 24,502
Maryland 8,718
Mississippi 17,869
North Carolina 5,035
South Carolina 5,462
Tennessee 20,133
Texas 47
Virginia 5,723

How about flying some of these battle flags as part of a "Southern Heritage" celebration?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. ...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. Ok...I'm a southerner and I JUST DON'T GET IT
The South LOST. Why would someone want to "celebrate" a war they fucking LOST? And why in the name of all that's holy can some idjits just not get it in their heads that the "heritage" they're celebrating is one of economic prosperity through the SLAVE LABOR of others? :eyes: That's NOT something to be proud of fer chrisake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. They are just looking for attention. That's all it is n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. They dont consider it a symbol of slavery
The South does not consider the civil war a battle over slavery. They consider it a "war of northern aggression." And the confederate flag has become a symbol of resistance against the northern states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Did I not mention that I'm a southerner...
and some of us actually know our history. That flag became a big deal again in the 50s and 60s when the civil rights movement took off. That's when they started putting it on state flags down here. They started using it to show their opposition to them "uppity <insert racial slur here>".

It's not about pride...it's about hate pure and simple and anyone who argues different is lying to themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daveskilt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. my biggest problem with the southern swastika is just that
If it wasn't a symbol of racism - why use it as one in the 50's and 60's? you got it absolutely right. I lived in the South long enough to see most people there are the nicest and most decent people you could ever hope to meet. And most of them don't care one way or another about the flag. But if it wasn't a symbol of racial hatred at first it certainly became one in the 50's and 60's and the whole protecting my heritage thing is nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
66. I am Southern, too, but most people nowadays do not
think of it in those terms.

They are not lying to themselves - they really just consider it an example of Southern pride.

Or do you not know anyone like this? If you do not, then get out more.

I, personally, do not understand why people let themselves get so bent out of shape - either way - over a piece of cloth.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StellaBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-23-06 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #66
75. I can see why people get so bent out of shape, but I share your experience
Edited on Tue May-23-06 12:53 AM by StellaBlue
Of course, I'm white... but, to me, growing up, the Rebel battle flag (and that's what it is - it's not the national flag of the Confederacy) just represents the South as a distinct region. It doesn't bother me at all. Unless of course it's being carried by a Klansman. The flag represents many things to many people, though. One of those is, as so perfectly described above, an economic system based on the forced labour and brutal oppression of other human beings.

This debate will never end, IMHO. I think if the only people sporting the flag were like me and Clark2008, there wouldn't be such a problem (I do not wave the Rebel flag, FYI, and I doubt Clark2008 does, either, I'm just sayin'...). Unfortunately, 95% of the people who display this symbol do it to purposefully annoy others, either Yankees of African Americans, as a symbol of the poor, old, white, male, Christian, blah blah... we've been here before. They're SO marginalized, those white men. It *could* have evolved differently. It's unfortunate that there isn't a flag to actually show Southern pride, which could encompass ALL Southern communites. That's what makes the South the South, and why I love it. Wouldn't be the same without Soul Food and the Blues, now, would it? Hmm?

Maybe this would be better



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
35. My husband is a native born Texan
and he has BIG problems with the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia. It was this flag that was adopted by the KKK in their reign of terror. (When my husband got his first driver's license, he wrote "human" for his race, btw.)

I realize that there were a tiny minority of freed blacks in the South that had money-some even had slaves-but by and large, the blacks were repressed in the South, as were the poor whites. This becomes obvious when you look at the draft laws of the time-if you owned more than 20 slaves, you didn't have to go and fight. The arrogant planters stupidly withheld their cotton crop from Britain at the outset of the War, thinking that Britain would have to come to the South's aid. Of course, history proved them wrong. But the same arrogance and distain of working people is echoed in today's Bush Regime-another reason NOT to like seeing the flag of racism, classism, and defeat defended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Can't admit they were wrong. Common problem.
By continuing the fight, they avoid having to admit their error. At great cost in other areas like, well, life, but that don't matter so much to them. The #1 king kahuna big cheese Most Important Thing In The World is that The South Was Not Wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daveskilt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. the south will rise again - the war of northern aggression is not over!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rufus T. Firefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
29. And explain why most people who fly that flag
would say they are extremely patriotic, when that was a flag of insurrection and treason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
54. Yup
Besides, the Confederates were traitors. Plain and simple. Those who faught for the Confederacy were lucky to be able to vote in their generation after the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #54
90. The treason charge is a very complicated one
Some Confederate leaders after the war were indicted for treason. The most famous were Jefferson Davis and Robert Lee.

Neither were ever tried.

Lee was fine with that but Davis had a well financed group of northern lawyers to defend him underwritten by Cornelius Vanderbilt and Horace Greeley and he demanded his trial.

His defense was simple. Since secession was Constitutional, he could hardly e a traitor to his old country, and therefore the invasion and conquest of the Confederacy was an illegal invasion and would the US kindly leave his country and let him get back to rebuilding it.

The Constitution was unclear on the topic. Certainly the original debates in some states on joining the Constitution are plain that they thought they could leave if things didn't work out for them.

So what was the government to do?

They delayed Davis' trial, and delayed it and delayed it.

Eventually he was bailed out of jail until his trial which never hapened though he continued to demand one.

There was no reward for the government in trying Davis and there was plenty of risk. What if the Supreme Court ruled secession was legal? Then what?

Better to just never have the trial.

After a few changes on the Supreme Court a decade or so later the court ruled on a different case that secession was not legal.

Anyway, I have trouble declaring someone guilty of a crime that he was never found guilty of or even tried for even though he demanded a trial to clear his name.

If I was arrested for child molestation, and I demanded my quick trial to clear my name and the DA refused to ever try me, just left me out there the rest of my life, I'd not take kindly to someone on the intenet calling me that well known child molestor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-23-06 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
78. African Americans built the south
There isn't even any white southern heritage to be proud of because all of those plantation homes, the cities, the farm economy, it was all done by African Americans.

Maybe deep down they know that and they're afraid they'll have to admit that, that and losing the war. Not much to brag about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
7. Uniforms
If the school can ban gang colors they can ban confederate symbols. If our schools went to uniforms to avoid all this I'd back it 100%. Focus on learning not clothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJ_Lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. I agree... Some Philly publics went to uniform last...


... year... I thought that was a wonderful decision, one supported by most students and parents... It takes the pressure off the kids a bit and allows them to be themselves, without having to flaunt their parent's economic standing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
8. 'Tis a fine line between...
free speech and hate speech. This is something that's cropped up recently where I live (Lexington, KY) where several black students wanted to wear pieces of traditional African garb to graduation - they secured the legal advice of a lawyer who argued against the bans against confederate flags and such.

On one hand the confederate flag appeals to many as a symbol of cultural heritage and a symbol of regional pride. Of course, on the other it's a symbol of racism and slavery. I happen to think it's the latter, but that's probably because I'm a damn, dirty yankee. I kind of a view it as analogous to the swastika that was the symbol of the Third Reich under Hitler. Of course, apologists will say that's a poor analogy - but I think there's a strong argument to be made that it, too, is just a symbol of heritage.

Even if I were a southern-fried American, or a German, I would like to think that even if it is a symbol of my heritage, it also tends to offend certain people - as such I wouldn't display it. For example, I'm a militant atheist, but it's not as though I go around informing other people that their God is nothing more than a fairy tale - to do so would be rude and offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. "Heritage, Not Hate"
The same caould be said for this:



http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly010912.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rufus T. Firefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
30. Ha!
When I see one that says "Heritage, not Hate," I want to ask why they don't fly the American flag instead, since that's the heritage from 1776-1861 and 1865-now. And if it's not about hate, then how about taking that CSA flag down, seeing as how it's a symbol of hate. Even if you were to accept that the war wasn't about slavery (which it was), then the fact that the KKK took the flag makes it a symbol of hate anyway. Much like the swastika got co-opted by the Nazis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
82. well done!
you have guts that I don't :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
El Fuego Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
94. But it's really about hatred of Southerners, is it not?
This is what is really going on. General Sherman's scotched earth tactics continue to this day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Thats funny!
Kentucky stayed neutral during the Civil War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. I don't really know what we are..
when it comes to region of the country. South-east? South? Mid-West? East? I don't know. It's just kind of a black hole that you never really get to escape from - with horses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. I'm from S.E. KY.
Couldn't ask to be from a finer place!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #32
43. Don't get me wrong
I like KY. I've lived here most of my life. Sometimes it just feels a bit like the Truman Show is all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Truman show is putting it lightly
But thats one of the reasons I love it here! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daveskilt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
28. as an athiest you should wear upside down crucifix's everywhere
waving a confederate flag may be a symbol of someones heritage - but waving it around knowing what a divisive and offensive thing it is to others is symbolic only of being an asshole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
39. There is a simple solution to this
the racist flag that most call the "Confederate Flag" (red background with a blue St. Andrew's cross with white stars) is actually the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia, which was never designated the official flag of the country. When people around here fly the Stars and Bars (Big red stripe, big white stripe, big red stripe, blue canton with stars), I am not offended in the way I am with the BFNV, because the Stars and Bars were never used by the KKK or later racists. I do wonder why in the world they wish to talk about being on a losing side-and that they support the fools that led their ancestors into a war of great heartache and destruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. News to me.
And if most people were as well informed as you are then maybe there wouldn't be such a debate. However, it's not so much what the flag was actually designated to represent as it is what the flag has come to symbolize in modern times. Like politics, reality doesn't count. Perception does. I, like most Americans and most bafoons who fly the damn thing, think it's a symbol of the South during the civil war - period. Of course, that's when the debates start to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. I live in NW Arkansas
there's a memorial to Confederates on the courthouse square in the town where I work. Interestingly enough, they always fly the Stars and Bars. I've even seen it on license plates and in bumper stickers. So awareness of this real Confederate Flag seems to be rather common around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texasleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
13. The french army has confederate jokes
that's who bad they were.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
18. Probably listens to "Prussian Blue"...
...and has a charming image of Hitler on the wall next to her bed;

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,431457,00.jpg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
19. She's "substantially disrupt(ing) the education process".
Edited on Mon May-22-06 05:24 PM by onehandle
Filing the lawsuit, fine.

People marching to the school causes disruption.

She loses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Well if that causes a disruption
Maybe I'll file a lawsuit next time I see Mexican immigrants march down the street with Mexican flags.

People....We live in America. It's a free country. You have freedom of expression.

The Constitution does not ban hate speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. There is a BIG difference between marching down the street and
...walking the hallways of a school. Why is that so hard to understand? You don't have a right to 100% free speech in a school.

You or I may feel a teacher is an asshole. We have the RIGHT to tell same teacher he/she is an asshole.

If a student tells her teacher he/she is an asshole, they go to detention. It's more like an employer-employee relationship than anything else.

Get it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. I'm just saying
If you are going to ban the confederate flag, what's to stop some future government from banning a symbol you support?

Really...this country has a lot of growing up to do on both sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. I have news for you:
Schools ban just about anything they deem disruptive. The supreme court said it's OK. Like 30 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
22. I'm glad when these dummies advertise their
stupidity this way. It makes it easier to know who to avoid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daveskilt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
24. So people with German grandparents should fly swastika flags
and not only that if you go to a school you should make that school fly a swastika to protect your heritage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
31. The first military monument in the Capitol honoring an African-American
soldier is the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. The monument was designed 1914 by Moses Ezekiel, a Jewish Confederate who wanted to correctly portray the "racial makeup" in the Confederate Army. A black Confederate soldier is depicted marching in step with white Confederate soldiers, see picture below.


More pictures of the Confederate Memorial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. Gee, I didn't know African-Americans were treated fairly and as....
...equals by the Confederate army. Thanks for clearing that up.

Or was there another point you were making? Maybe I shouldn't jump the gun and ask: What's your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. No point, just a fact not known by most people. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #36
64. African-Americans weren't treated
fairly and as equals anywhere in America in the 1860's.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #31
44. "Learn your History"
That's what a lot of the bumper stickers down here say. Which is very amusing since the flag they display IS NOT the Confederate flag, but rather a Battle Flag used almost exclusively by Robert E. Lee & his Army of Northern Virginia. The Confederacy had three "National" flags, the first (and longest flying) having three stripes, red-white-red and a blue field with seven stars in a circle (and was the flag properly known as the "Stars & Bars.") The two later flags did have the "Rebel Flag" emblem in the upper quadrant - this was an attempt to promote "National" feeling since MOST units went into battle with their own State battle emblem - usually the left half of the field being the design now thought of as the "Conferate flag" and the right side the State flag.
And it is quite correct that the current Rebel Flag did not become popular, either flying over Capitols or as part of a State flag, until the Civil Rights Movement & then at the instigation of the KKK (they adopted this flag when first formed in Pulaski, TN as it was the flag their first national leader, Nathan Bedford Forrest, fought under.)
Ignorance accomplished!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. Welcome to DU, Deacon from Leesburg.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #31
51. If memory serves,
blacks, and slaves in particular, were only allowed to take up arms in the waning days of the Confederacy; they were promised freedom in exchange for their service. Before that, the only blacks seen around Confederate camps were slaves of men in the army. And there is plenty of historic evidence that when the Union captured a Confederate Army (as they did at Vicksburg) the slaves who had been attending their masters stayed with the Yankees and did not return home with their owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-23-06 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #51
72. Blacks in the Confederacy
is a very interesting and complicated story.

The best book I've seen on the topic is this one

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813915457/sr=8-2/qid=1148359238/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-6895284-1915065?%5Fencoding=UTF8

It is very scholarly (boring) but well researched and I think the best treatment of the issue I've seen. It's worth a read if you're interested in the topic. My local library has it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #72
85. Black Confederate Soldiers is mostly a myth
The idea that a lot of blacks served in the Confederate armies is a myth popular with neo-confederates. A few pro-southern historians have tried to sell the story, but most Civil War historians reject it as making as much sense as Jewish members of the SS.

Here's a nice short rebuttal by a respected historian..
http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/essays/trclark.htm

By the way, all the Confederate soldiers captured by Union troops were white men. If there were "thousands" of black soldiers in the Confederate armies, why were none of them among the approximately 215,000 soldiers captured by the U. S. forces?

The South was running short of soldiers as the war dragged on, however, and some people began to suggest that it would be better to use slaves to fight than to lose. As late as three weeks before the Civil War came to an end, the members of the Confederate congress (and Lee and Davis) were hotly debating the question of whether to start using slaves in the Southern armies.

If, as some folks in the 1990s claim, there were already "thousands" of black troops in the Confederate armies, why were the leaders of the Confederacy still debating about whether or not they should start bringing them in?

The very accurate point made then by opponents of this legislation was, as one Georgia leader stated, "If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Southern newspaper editors blasted the idea as "the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down," a "surrender of the essential and distinctive principle of Southern civilization."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Woodrow - that source you cite is every bit
as one sided and biased as any Neo-Confederate missive.

The issue of Black-Confederates has been incredibly well researched and it is a very complicated story. Much more complicated than the author of your source makes it out to be.

Honestly, as a former teacher and textbook author, I've been interested in this subject and have read as much as I could from both sides. The best and most honest account I've found is the one I've linked to above. It is truly a scholarly work without an axe to grind on either side. The link you provided is advocacy rather than research.

The best research I've read is based on letters from regular people at the time.

One of the things you notice from the letters are an astonishment.

For example, in Burke Davis' book, "To Appomattox," a Virginia private wrote to his family that on the retreat to Appomattox, this private saw a site that astonished him. "A singular site," he called it. He saw a group of wagons on the retreat being guarded by uniformed Confederate African-Americans. Some federal cavalry formed up to attack them and the unit formed a line and drove them off. However a few minutes later the cavalry reformed much reinforced and overran the wagons taking the A-A guard and their officers prisoners without much of a fight.

Does this prove thousands of African-Americans filled the battle lines of the ANV? Absolutely the opposite in my opinion. If that were the case, the letters of the period would have taken little notice of the occurances, but like this one, others express the same astonishment at the sight which to me means it was quite rare.

What it does prove to me though is that the author of your source was not trying to research or present the issue which is a quite complicated one. Rather he was trying to dismiss it even to the point of being blatantly wrong as in the federals found the recently drilling A-A units in Richmond when they took the city, when those units actually joined in the retreat, and that none of the units saw battle which while it wasn't the top of Little Round Top, it was battle none the less.

There are many other similar primary sources from both sides which mention African-American Confederates, and it seems there is a consensus among most researchers today that...

* there were thousands of A-A's who did important non-combat roles and traveled with Confederate armies, the most important being teamster.

* on occasion some would assume a combat role in unusual circumstances like teamsters chasing off a federal cavalry probe, or defending a camp or filling the battle line for an ill or AWOL master

* there are some reports of A-A's in actual Confederate units, but these are few and far between and a rarity for sure, maybe similar to women serving in battle units without permission. The way Confederate units were formed from local communities make this more of a possibility than in most armies.

* there are rare reports of A-A's serving on the fringes of armies as snipers for instance. These come from letters from union soldiers who were surprised that they killed a sniper and found him to be A-A.

Anyway, a very complicated story, made more complicated by advocates on both sides exaggerating their case, which I believe is what the author of your source has done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #87
95. it is a myth
Edited on Wed May-24-06 04:39 PM by WoodrowFan
and you ignored his arguments. If so many blacks fought for the South, why were there none among the POWS? Why did the Confederate Congress have to debate allowing blacks to serve in the Army if they were already there in great numbers? Maybe the author isn't so much biased as he is annoyed by neo-confederate myths..

Here, try this recent book.. Confederate Emancipation : Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves during the Civil War by Bruce Levine. Sorry, but using blacks as teamsters aside, there were only a handful of blacks who fought for the South in the Civil War, no matter what you keep telling yourself.

http://tinyurl.com/mx8ow

From the Washington Post review..

... In the past decade, the neo-Confederate fringe of Civil War enthusiasm (with tentative support from some academic historians) has contended that thousands of African Americans, slave and free, willingly joined the Confederate war effort as soldiers and fought for their "homeland." A quasi-debate over the existence of "black Confederates" has seeped into academic conferences, historical journals and many Web sites. The issue of competing popular memories is driven largely by the desire of current white supremacists to re-legitimize the Confederacy while tacitly rejecting the victories of the modern civil rights movement. What could better buttress the claims of "color-blind conservatism" in our own time than the notion that the slaveholding leaders of the Confederacy were themselves the true emancipators and that many slaves were devoted to the Southern rebellion? George Orwell warned us: Who needs real history when you can control public language and political debate? This book is a scholarly, well-written demolition of the invented tradition of "black Confederates." Levine's intrepid research overwhelms the myth, although it will never kill it as long as such stories reinforce current social needs and political agendas.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #95
98. I ignored his arguments because
they are advocacy rather than arguments.

For instance he claims, I believe incorrectly, that when the federals captured Richmond they found the few battalions of recently trained A-A Confederates in the city. One would assume they would have been taken prisoner.

Then he claims there were no A-A Confederates taken prisoner.

I believe he was wrong and that at least most of the recently trained A-A's joined the rest of the ANV on the retreat to Danville which ended at Appomattox. There are contemporary accounts backing that up still extant which note that they were captured during the retreat.

So why did he say there were no A-A's taken prisoner?

I concluded that his article wasn't researched history, but rather lazy advocacy, so why pay attention to it when there are so many better works of research out there?

The book you just cited was much better and I read it about six months ago. I think it's a pretty accurate account though still not as good as the original one I cited because it spent a lot of time on government policy and editorial thought which doesn't necessarily reflect what is actually happening in the field.

Anyway, I don't think we're far off on our conclusions. We both probably believe that aside from laborers and teamsters and camp followers, A-A's actually fighting in the field for the Confederacy was a very rare anomoly. I compared it to women fighting in the ranks which there are some documented cases of too, but were extremely rare.

I just didn't see any point in the source you cited because it came with a fixed point of view rather than an attempt to answer a question without bias.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nassaupolitics Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
38. Not the confederate flag
Why not use the Stars and Bars to show pride in confederate heritage?
http://www.confederateflags.org/national/FOTCs_b.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Agree totally
this is totally a straw man-if you want to show Southern pride, use a flag that actually symbolized the nation instead of one of its armies.


BTW, welcome to DU! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #38
59. That's not the Confederate flag, &%$# it!
That's the Battle Colors of the Confederate States Armies. It's not a flag of any nation. It's not even a "flag". It's battle colors.

I think people who want to ban this flag have taken entirely the wrong tack: forget slavery, forget racism, forget all that. This is the flag of an army in open, armed revolt against the US Constitution. Moreover, these colors were surrendered by the Confederacy's armies... protocol dictates that you do not fly surrendered colors. So if I had to come up with talking points on the flag, I would say:

1. It's a flag of armed rebellion against the Constitution
2. When colors are surrendered, they can no longer be properly flown

I've actually won over quite a few people from my native Mississippi with those arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #59
69. But the whole point is this: it's a piece of cloth.
It DOESN'T MATTER.

People should worry about more tangible violations of civil rights - such as blatant racism in educational or hiring practices, this loss of reproductive choice women are now facing or the blatant disregard by the federal government of the First, Fourth and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution.

It's a fucking piece of cloth that is not relevant in the face of all the Constitutional violations we Americans face at the hands of the monied elite as represented by the Bush Administration, the Republican Party and the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-23-06 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #38
73. I think the reason originally was
that what the people were showing pride in was their men and how hard they fought. That's why it was a battleflag they displayed.

The Confederacy suffered losses completely out of proportion to any other group of Americans in wartime except for Native Americans.

Before the war there were approx. 1 million adult white males in the eleven Confederate states. About 750,000 of them served in the Confederate armed forces and by the end of the war 250,000 were dead and another 250,000 were wounded.

The Confederates fought until there weren't any men left to fight with.

So is it that surprising that the people would build monuments to the dead, wounded and survivors? or carry the flag around that they fought under?

They felt like they fought bravely against an overwhelming foe, as long as they possibly could, and were still in the right even though they lost.

Since the Confederate regiments formed by county, it was also a special bonding to all the neighbors who fought together under the flag.

My father is in his eighties and still today, he talks about his World War II days as his proudest and most important years. He has a diary which he is constantly updating and researching because he is incredibly proud of his service and doesn't want others to forget it.

The original guys who made the monuments and carried the flags were similar in that they knew the incredible sacrifices they and their neighbors made and didn't want others to forget it. So I don't see it as odd that the veterans and their progeny would wave the battleflag rather than the National Flag. It seems logical to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itzamirakul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #73
80. WOW! And just think...
All that bravery and heroism and great determination to hang on until the last man fell...

just to have the right to keep their states' laws that allowed the rebels to forcibly retain another group of humans enslaved to them.

They REALLY believed in their right to own black men and women and they fought to the death to prove it!

And even today, those confederate supporters resent the loss of "their property", meaning the slaves - even those whose families did not own slaves, resent the loss of property that they HOPED to acquire someday.

The North had its stocks and the South had its slaves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #80
88. Mot of the confederate soldiers just fought
because their states were invaded.

Some of the best Confederate soldiers were against secession itself.

One example would be Jubal Early who was a Virginia lawyer before the war who was elected as a delegate to the Virginia secession convention. He was one of the most vocal voices at the convention against secession.

However, he agreed that states had the right to secede so once the vote was taken, he fought just like everyone else and during the Gettysburg campaign he led one of the nine divisions of Lee's army actually taking the city of York, Pennsylvania (check a map and be surprised). Anyway, he was one of the bitterest warriors who fought right till the end even though he was against secession

As was the Vice-presidency of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens. He led the anti-secession forces at the Georgia secession convention, but lost that vote and was elected VP of the Confederacy.

Though a large chunk of the southern voters were against secession, they almost all thought it legal and constitutional, so once the decision was made to leave, they defended their new country.

It wouldn't have seemed so extraordinary especially to Texans who in less than 30 years lived under Mexican, Texan, US,Confederate and US flags. They joined the US by a popular vote of the voters, and left the US the same way. Why wouldn't they think they had a right to a government of their choosing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota Libra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
40. Former NAACP leader filing the lawsuit on her behalf?? Wow! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #40
67. Probably this guy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
46. So why should I respect her rights...
considering that the Confederacy didn't respect people's rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kahleefornia Donating Member (530 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
47. 15 year olds
I now realize I am old enough to have that condescending view of teenagers. Now, sorry to any teenage DUers who will read this and be offended, BUT...I think until you're about 20 the average human is so clueless, and yet so sure they have figured everything out. I know I was. Sure I was 1,000 times smarter than anyone else, and if only people would listen to me, I could solve all the world's problems.

So, to the 15 year olds out to make a statement to the world, I say - enjoy it. It's definitely less fun when you realize how complicated everything is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #47
89. The old line that
when I was 15 my father was the stupidest man in the world, but then I went off to school, got married, had kids and came home and was surprised to discover how much smarter my old man had gotten since I'd left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marano35 Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
52. Education....
is what is lacking. Many people in the south, which is where I am from believe the bullshit they have been taught about the reason for the civil war. They relate it to states rights and say slavery had nothing to do with it....they do not realize that many of their ancestors who were not much more than slaves before the civil war went to fight for the right of rich white men to own slaves because they were to ignorant to understand what they were doing. I guess nobody wants to admit that they may have come from a long line of stupid and that is the reason that they now work for the minimum amount of pay that can be paid as a result of slavery being abolished by the war. IN FACT most of thier idiot ancestors who fought for the south in the war fought and died so that they could today work for the same fuckers who wanted to work other humans for nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Well lets be fair to history here
The Civil War had more to do with taxes than slavery.

It had nothing to do with civil rights. It was just that the south supported slavery for the same reason the Republicans today support illegal immigration. It fueled the economy. Abolishing slavery was the moral justification for the war. It is easier to convince someone to sacrifice themselves over human rights and oppression rather than money and taxes.

Abraham Lincoln said it very clearly that he didn't care if the future of America included slavery or not. All he cared about was brining the country back together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Revisionism.
The Civil War was undeniably about slavery. Lincoln was neutral on the issue before the South seceded, but by 1863 was firmly against slavery. In fact, there were numerous Northerners who were pushing for reunification without abolition, something Lincoln was firmly against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. That's wrong....
"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."
-Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln is what today's conservatives would call a gigantic "flip-flopper." He would be in favor of slavery if he is talking in Virginia. But if he was talking in Ohio or Indiana or New York, he would be compltely against it. The fact of the matter was that Lincoln did not take a stance on the issue. Even when he made the Emancipation Proclamation, he did nothing absolutely nothing to enforce it from his office or the federal level. Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery. His intention to make the proclamation was to open a wedge to allow the states to abolish it if they wish (which pleased his supporters in the northern states) AND deplete black soldiers in the Confederate army.

All he cared about was bringing the Union back together. And did you know General Grant told Lincoln that if this became a battle against slavery, he will "lay day his sword and join the other side." General Grant owned slaves prior and during the Civil War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. again, that is inaccurate information -- Grant did not own slaves
during the war.

Ulysses Grant

In 1848, Grant married Julia Boggs Dent. Six years later he resigned his Army commission to devote himself to his family, but he would prove to have a poor head for business. His attempt to grow potatoes failed despite the help of two slaves given to Julia by her father. (Grant returned the slaves before the Civil War.) He failed at wood hauling, at bill collecting, at a job as a customhouse clerk, as a real estate agent, and as a harness store clerk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #61
68. I think that's right that
Grant never owned slaves. It was his wife who did.

I read somewhere that after Richmond fell the only legal slave left in the city was Mrs Grant's slave, but I don't know if that was true or legend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. More Revisionism.
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."

-Abe Lincoln April 4, 1864
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Clio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. The Civil War was unquestionably about slavery
Edited on Mon May-22-06 06:56 PM by Ms. Clio
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marano35 Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #53
58. I guess I was not so clear.
I think it was about slavery...or the right of people to the free labor of slavery at least in the South. I think that I am right in the fact that most of the south were dirt shit poor and not slave owners themselves but just as the country was steered into Iraq by the rich they were steered into Civil war by the rich and as usual happily went.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #53
63. The SOUTH admitted it was about slavery. See "articles of secession"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #53
84. Slavery yes, taxes, no.
Of course the Civil War was about slavery,. Pasted below are sections from the various articles of secession issued by the various states that made up the CSA. Six of the states specifically mentioned northern attempts to interfere with slavery as a reason for dissolving the Union. The other Southern states, including Florida, North Carolina and Arkansas pretty much said “we’re outta here” and mentioned the election of Lincoln.


While Lincoln did say he would keep slavery to preserve the Union, this really doesn’t help the neo-confederate’s arguments. The point is not Lincoln’s actions, but those of the 11 CSA states. And when Lincoln tried to prevent disunion, what issue did he use to mollify the South? That’s right, protecting their slaves! Had the war been about taxes or tariffs or what have you, then he would have used those issues. The facts that Lincoln used slavery to reassure the South shows just what the primary issue was in their mind.


Finally, consider the phantom 13th Amendment suggested as a peace measure. The real 13th Amendment (ratified in 1865) of course ends slavery. The 13th Amendment called The Crittenden Compromise, would have protected slavery where it existed and enshrined the right to enslave others. The “compromise” met with southern approval, but was rejected by the Republicans. You also have to consider the CSA constitution, which specifically protected slavery, and the words of CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, who indicated that the war was over white supremacy.


Sorry, but there’s really no doubt here. The South succeeded to protect the “right” to enslave others.


Mississippi



http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm


It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.


It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.


It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.


It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.


It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.


It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.


It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.


It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.



South Carolina


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm


The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.


These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burdening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.


We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.



Georgia


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm


Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable.



The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.


The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.


With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.


The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.



Texas


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm


Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?


The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.


In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.




the following are from.. http://www.americancivilwar.info/pages/ordinances_secession.asp




Alabama



Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, therefore:



And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,




Virginia



The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:






Section 9.4 of the CSA Constitution…



(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.



From the “Cornerstone Speech” delivered by CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, March 21, 1861.



http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html


But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. 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.{emphasis added} 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."




and last but not least, a good Civil War quiz… http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/e/mebuckner/civwarquiz.htm




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
70. The Confed. battle flag takes on different meaning over time.


Here's my take as a transplanted yankee to Savannah, Georgia.

Once the stars and bars was a battle flag and not a flag generally associated with the confederacy.

Then it took on anti-civil rights meaning in the 1950s and 60s.

Now, young people in the South see it as more of symbol of southern culture. The Southern way of life is fun and southerners enjoy it. Southern culture is often portrayed badly by the west and northeast folk. Southerners who enjoy their lifestyle are happy to be as they are.

Of course, there is still a lot of racism and resentment regarding the north in the South, but those are peripheral. I promise you there is just as much racism in Boston as in the South.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aristus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-23-06 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
71. Me to people flying the slavery flag:
YOU LOST! GET OVER IT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-23-06 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
76. It's her right to do so. I do think someone should remind her that the
North won. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
81. IT'S A SYMBOL OF RACISM!
It sends shutters down my back everytime I see one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
86. She's been "protesting" before; her story has appeared in DU....
Edited on Wed May-24-06 10:34 AM by Bridget Burke
I seem to remember the "Southern Legal Resource Center" was raising money for her legal defense. Yup--the story's lower on this page detailing other "heritage" cases. http://spofga.org/flag/2005/oct/slrc.php

Here's part of the Southern Poverty Law Center's article on the SLRC:

Since its incorporation in 1996 by Kirk Lyons ... and two other men, the Southern Legal Resource Center has operated out of a nondescript duplex on a quiet street in Black Mountain, a historically liberal town near Asheville.

The SLRC replaced an earlier Lyons creation in Texas known as CAUSE, short for Canada, Australia, the United States, South Africa and Europe — the parts of the world where Lyons judged white majorities' rights under threat because of rising minority populations.....

From the start, the SLRC was the creation of extremists. The core staff is made up of Lyons and his long-time partner and brother-in-law, Neill Payne, along with the two men's parents-in-law.

Both Lyons and Payne were married on the compound of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations in Idaho. The pastor presiding over their 1990 double wedding was Aryan boss Richard Butler, and their spouses were both daughters of Betty and Charles Tate, who now work at the SLRC. Betty Tate had been an Aryan Nations secretary, while her husband was a Butler aide; the couple's son is in prison for terrorist crimes. Louis Beam, a violently racist former Klan leader, was Lyons' best man at the ceremony.....

Also on the board are North Carolina attorneys Larry Ellis Norman and Carl Barrington Jr., and, supposedly, H.K. Edgerton, a black activist who has defended slavery as a Christianizing influence and also provided Lyons invaluable cover from accusations of racism. Although Lyons has described Edgerton as a board member for years, he is not listed like other members in 2000 and 2001 tax returns. Edgerton's name was added to a directors list on the SLRC Web site only this February.


www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=26

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aiptasia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
91. I hate this state sometimes...
I live in South Carolina...

Aside from the backwards politics from inbred dirt poor rednecks, it's a nice place. Too bad these idiots ruin it for the rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFriedPiper Donating Member (610 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
93. The Flying of the Confederate Battle Flag is a Public Service
It lets us know who:

1. not to vote for

2. not to hire

3. not to ask advice from

4. not to trust

5. not to be friends with


So I say, fly it loud and proud, so the rest of us know to avoid your racist ass.


(your, of course, refers to the flag flyers, not the OP)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. Let's see...
a few things Abe had to say about it.

'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.'

"The fact is that the cannon had been booming and the wounded groaning for almost eighteen months before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. During all that time the Radicals and the Abolitionists had urged him to act at once, storming at him through the press and denouncing him from the public platforms.

"Once a delegation of Chicago ministers appeared at the White House with what they declared was a direct command from Almighty God to free the slaves immediately. Lincoln told them that he imagined that if the Almighty had any advice to offer He would come direct to headquarters with it, instead of sending it around via Chicago."

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or 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 the others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause; and I shall do more whenever I believe doing more will help the cause."

There were four slave owning states in the Union, and Lincoln was afraid of losing them to the South if he revealed his Emancipation Proclamation too early. He was not won over by compassion for the black race by any means. His Emancipation Proclamation was a tool to help him win the war. Period.

And the rebel flag was created because of the similarity to the Union flag. Soldiers on both sides were killing each other. These things are easier to find when you're standing on level ground, and not looking down. Thanks.
quickesst

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. Another little thing...
Edited on Wed May-24-06 05:54 PM by quickesst
Notice the author of the article. I cannot see any good reason for this man to embellish with lies, the role of African Americans in the Civil War, unless he is one of the racist historians cleverly living life as a black man.

Blacks Who Fought For the South

Most historical accounts portray Southern blacks as anxiously awaiting President Abraham Lincoln's "liberty-dispensing troops" marching south in the War Between the States. But there's more to the story; let's look at it.
Black Confederate military units, both as freemen and slaves, fought federal troops. Louisiana free blacks gave their reason for fighting in a letter written to New Orleans' Daily Delta: "The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana. They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-15." As to bravery, one black scolded the commanding general of the state militia, saying, "Pardon me, general, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood."
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest had slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, Forrest said of the black men who served under him, "These boys stayed with me.. - and better Confederates did not live." Articles in "Black Southerners in Gray," edited by Richard Rollins, gives numerous accounts of blacks serving as fighting men or servants in every battle from Gettysburg to Vicksburg.
Professor Ed Smith, director of American Studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam - the war's bloodiest battle. Mr. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. They fought for the same reason they fought in previous wars and wars afterward: "to position themselves. They had to prove they were patriots in the hope the future would be better ... they hoped to be rewarded."
Many knew Lincoln had little love for enslaved blacks and didn't wage war against the South for their benefit. Lincoln made that plain, saying, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." The very words of his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation revealed his deceit and cunning; it freed those slaves held "within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States." It didn't apply to slaves in West Virginia and areas and states not in rebellion. Like Gen. Ulysses Grant's slaves, they had to wait for the 13th Amendment, Grant explained why he didn't free his slaves earlier, saying, "Good help is so hard to come by these days."
Lincoln waged war to "preserve the Union". The 1783 peace agreement with England (Treaty of Paris] left 13 sovereign nations. They came together in 1787, as principals, to create a federal government, as their agent, giving it specific delegated authority -specified in our Constitution. Principals always retain the right to fire their agent. The South acted on that right when it seceded. Its firing on Fort Sumter, federal property, gave Lincoln the pretext needed for the war.
The War Between the States, through force of arms, settled the question of secession, enabling the federal government to run roughshod over states' rights specified by the Constitution's 10th Amendment.
Sons of Confederate Veterans is a group dedicated to giving a truer account of the War Between the States. I'd like to see it erect on Richmond's Monument Avenue a statue of one of the thousands of black Confederate soldiers.


Source: This article appeared in the Washington Times some years back. It was written by Walter Williams, an economics professor at George Mason University, a nationally syndicated columnist, and an African-American.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC