I've answered the question twice.
Goodness, no, the flag has been controversial for decades in S.C. and that didn't end in 2000. Just as one example, the NAACP still has a boycott on the state and has since at least 2000. And the reason the legislature in S.C. might go ahead and remove the constant source of bickering is because it's been a constant source of bickering for DECADES, and there just is no good reason to keep that relic up on state grounds.
And you said my analogy doesn't work because it's not at the Capitol and can be avoided by those who don't want to see the flag. As you see from the picture if you visit the Capitol, you can't miss the flag.
Furthermore, the actual point of the analogy is decent, considerate people don't intentionally offend those they care about - it's a sign of respect, common courtesy. The flag DOES offend blacks and the reason it does is rational, easily explained. So given that there are plenty of alternative flag designs, why insist on one with such baggage, if you respect the black populaton of your state? I don't know, maybe you can explain.
Two weeks ago this flag thing wasn't an issue with anyone...at least not on the national level. No politicians running for election making statements, no talking heads on TV and certainly nobody here on DP. I don't know for sure, but I don't even think citizens of SC thought this issue was important enough to stand in the heat at the Capitol and chant about it.
No...this is nothing but political opportunism at its worst.
What's his name...that football player is right...this is the wrong way to do this.
I think you're insisting that there is no right or wrong on this issue and I don't agree. I think a decent people, decent elected leaders, do not intentionally offend a great share of their state with the flying of a damn relic of a bygone age.
But there is a gigantic difference between having some view that blacks were inferior, and allowing them their freedom versus founding a country predicated on their perpetual slavery. And what I mean by white supremacy in this context is in the eyes of the law, the state, enforced with guns and prisons for offenders.
You are "explaining" acts that I find morally reprehensible without any comment on whether those acts are or not. Let me put it this way, if you were black and on the receiving end of Jim Crow laws, do you care that they might have been instituted 70 years prior because of heavy handed Yankees during reconstruction? No, because you know in this reality they're morally reprehensible and ought to end, today.
You cannot separate racism from white supremacy. Read the people from that era, the VP of the CSA - he states the inherent inferiority of blacks as a "natural law." Or the Texas declaration. Slavery was necessarily tied directly to the inherent supremacy of the white race over blacks. It's impossible to square any other belief with the constitution or with any coherent notion of morality. How could anyone justify perpetual slavery of a fellow white man who the Constitution declares was granted inalienable rights by God? They couldn't, and so a line was drawn that declared white superiority by natural law, as ordained (literally) by God.
But the reason the Feds imposed themselves on the South does MATTER. Goodness, the system entrenched by law in the South in 1960!! was an absolute mockery to any idea of freedom and liberty that you can articulate. So I'm sorry but I really don't give one **** that the Feds were forcing something on the South that the white power structure did not want. Of course not, but it was immoral and a disgrace to this great country that we allowed such a system to persist for so long.
Of course, but the "encroachment" was to enforce basic civil rights for 1/3 or more of South Carolina CITIZENS, entitled to the same God given rights as their white counterparts but who were for nearly a century systematically denied them by white racists at all levels of the STATE.
I'm saying that right and wrong is based on viewpoint as it regards the flag, its symbolism. Slavery is wrong. What has been done to black people is wrong, I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that your idea of what that flag represents isn't necessarily what they think it represents. The last thing you'll hear out of someone's mouth, a reputable mouth is that the Confederate Flag stands for White Supremacy. You just won't hear it.
I'm not even saying that what you say I disagree with, that the flag is a personal affront, that it is offensive, that it is a provocation, and even a symbol of intimidation to blacks. If I were black I'd no doubt share those sentiments.
Me personally I find the flag to represent an ideal. I find it to represent freedom. Not some white power blacks serve us BS. No. Self determination. The self determination that those Southern states wanted back then were for a continuation of an abomination. Obviously I do not support, condone or perpetuate slavery or any State sponsored discrimination.
Now, you can laugh, scoff even at that but it is really no different then saying Old Glory or the Declaration of Independence represents the same thing on both sides of the issue. Slavery did occur under the Stars and Stripes long before it did the Stars and Bars. All men were said by Jefferson's pen to be created equal but that didn't necessarily apply to blacks, right? But reverence is given to the latter and not the former, why? Propaganda to be succinct. The Civil war wasn't about slavery until it became politically expedient to be about slavery.
The Corwin Amendment passed and signed by Lincoln shows us that the original intent for war wasn't for slavery's abolition but for the preservation of the Union. This is important stuff that can't be discounted simply because it is too uncomfortable to reconcile oneself with.
Exactly which is why I separated the two to begin with. Prisons for offenders of what?
Until this post I was presenting an objective argument. My personal predilections have no bearing as I was presenting the argument from what a Southerners point of view might look like.
If I were black I'd be just as angry with the Yankees as I would with the Southerners to tell you the truth.
I didn't separate racism and white supremacy I separated slavery and white supremacy. As did Lincoln. They did however square slavery with white people. The Irish Slave trade was huge. White slavery in this country actually predates black slavery.
-- to be continued
The war was fought over slavery how else can you look at the Flag that represented these states?
Why is such an offensive flag a hot button topic.
People are trying to put lipstick on a pig. Well it still is a pig.
George W Bush and his allies who pushed unitary executive theory disagree.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored 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 to 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 shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
Since intention is what matters most in your argument.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored 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 to 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 shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
Since intention is what matters most in your argument.
And?
It's very simple, the South went to war to preserve, protect and expand slavery.
The North went to war to save the Union.
It was only midway into the war, the North made it a war about abolishing slavery for good.
Lincoln was very clear in his many speeches before, he knew Constitutionally, he could not end slavery - but he himself, and his GOP platform called for an end to expanding slavery in the territories and new states. The south never gave him a chance, and most states seceeded and had commenced hostilities before he ever stepped into office,
==========Here's something else on that quote:
"At the time, Lincoln was closing in on an end to slavery. He’d met quietly with his Cabinet members and shared with them a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation. He needed to secure the support of the border states before taking action, and he knew the timing of emancipation would be vital. Lincoln was waiting for a Northern victory to set the stage for his announcement, but in the meantime, Greeley’s attack demanded a response.
Lincoln replied in an open letter to Greeley. In the letter, Lincoln emphasized his primary goal: “I would save the Union. … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. … What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union.” In this masterful message, Lincoln reaffirmed his support for abolition without apologizing for the pace of change, while also subtly preparing pro-slavery Union loyalists for the announcement to come."
"I Would Save the Union"
This is the full letter from Lincoln: Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
I understand that.
Then you have the federal govt stopping expansion of slavery into the new territories and States.
The South fought to preserve slavery.
The Civil War, the planks shall we say had been laid in the decades prior to Lincolns election.
And?
It's very simple, the South went to war to preserve, protect and expand slavery.
The North went to war to save the Union.
It was only midway into the war, the North made it a war about abolishing slavery for good.
Lincoln was very clear in his many speeches before, he knew Constitutionally, he could not end slavery - but he himself, and his GOP platform called for an end to expanding slavery in the territories and new states. The south never gave him a chance, and most states seceeded and had commenced hostilities before he ever stepped into office
Lincoln signed the Corwin Amendment allowing new territories and States to make up their minds on their own on the slavery issue.
The South just got tired of Northern interference and said, "We're through with you".
Lincoln signed the Corwin Amendment allowing new territories and States to make up their minds on their own on the slavery issue.
The amendment was prematurely called the thirteenth amendment. Corwin's amendment, as it was then called, was one of three attempts to resolve the secession crisis between Lincoln's election in November 1860 and the firing on Fort Sumter in April 1861. The Crittenden plan and the Washington Peace Convention were unacceptable to Republicans because they yielded too much to the slave interests and rejected the central plank of the Republican platform, which opposed the extension of slavery.
In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin amendment and stated that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This was not a departure from Lincoln's views on slavery at that time. Lincoln followed the Republican platform from the Chicago convention. He believed that the major problem between the North and South was the inability to reach agreement with respect to the expansion of slavery. Lincoln did not believe that he had the power to eliminate slavery where it already existed. However, Southerners feared that a Republican administration would take direct aim at the institution of slavery. By tacitly supporting Corwin's amendment, Lincoln hoped to convince the South that he would not move to abolish slavery and, at the minimum, keep the border states of Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina from seceding.
Actually, President Buchanan signed it since it was passed before Lincoln took office. FYI: Constitutional amendments do not require a Presidential signature to be sent to the states for ratification if they have received sufficient majorities in Congress.
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....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
You're right, I forgot about that
Lincoln said in its regard at his 1st inauguration address
Then you understand that Lincoln signing the Corwin Amendment was OK with the continuation and expansion of slavery based on States self determination.
On March 2, 1861, the United States Senate adopted it, with no changes, on a vote of 24 to 12.[13] Since proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, 132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. The Senators and Representatives from the seven slave states that had already declared their secession from the Union did not vote on the Corwin Amendment.[14] The resolution called for the amendment to be submitted to the state legislatures and to be adopted "when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures".[15] Its supporters believed that the Corwin Amendment had a greater chance of success in the legislatures of the Southern states than would have been the case in state ratifying conventions, since state conventions were being conducted throughout the South at which votes to secede from the Union were successful—just as Congress was considering the Corwin Amendment.
As I mentioned earlier in an post, not sure who i replied to, it was bound to happen and things like this do take time. Finally did. And you are amazed at the public / political reaction?
Stores are also divesting themselves of any stock that has a Confederate Flag -symbol on it.
About time.
I'm saying that right and wrong is based on viewpoint as it regards the flag, its symbolism. Slavery is wrong. What has been done to black people is wrong, I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that your idea of what that flag represents isn't necessarily what they think it represents. The last thing you'll hear out of someone's mouth, a reputable mouth is that the Confederate Flag stands for White Supremacy. You just won't hear it.
I'm not even saying that what you say I disagree with, that the flag is a personal affront, that it is offensive, that it is a provocation, and even a symbol of intimidation to blacks. If I were black I'd no doubt share those sentiments.
Me personally I find the flag to represent an ideal. I find it to represent freedom. Not some white power blacks serve us BS. No. Self determination. The self determination that those Southern states wanted back then were for a continuation of an abomination. Obviously I do not support, condone or perpetuate slavery or any State sponsored discrimination.
Exactly which is why I separated the two to begin with. Prisons for offenders of what?
I didn't separate racism and white supremacy I separated slavery and white supremacy. As did Lincoln. They did however square slavery with white people. The Irish Slave trade was huge. White slavery in this country actually predates black slavery.
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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?