Gov. Haley to call for removal of Confederate flag from Capitol grounds [W:154]

ChezC3 said:

Not to them! That is the point. It was never, is never, never gonna be ever the right of one group of people in a completely geographically different location to have the right to determine what goes on in another geographic area. That's the whole "self determination" thing. The United States was never intended to be a monolithic blob. It was a Union of sovereign states. United in defense and trade but sovereign to rule over themselves as they see fit. That was what the content of the Corwin Amendment read, that Lincoln signed. And because the abolition of slavery and Jim Crow is to be considered a good thing doesn't mean that unintended consequences which brought about severe repercussions didn't develop as a result of the way their abolition came about.

Click to expand...

The national government should not exist in any form if it cannot protect the rights outlined in the Constitution for ALL of its citizens. And the states were simply NOT "sovereign to rule over themselves as they see fit." They were bound by that Constitution, including the laws passed by Congress and upheld by the courts. That part just wasn't then and isn't now optional.

Let me ask you, and I'm bordering on defending that which I'm not defending (the systematic oppression of blacks) but let me ask you, what was keeping blacks in the South in the 60's when all this was going on? Why not some grand migration north? There was some and that resulted in the ghettoization of blacks here in the north, not really an ideal situation either I'd say, but apparently a better one than that down South by comparison.

Click to expand...

I don't know and can't see how it's relevant. The answer to systemic, state sponsored oppression isn't to ask those oppressed to move, it's to end the f'ing oppression and defend the rights of all citizens, not those with the right skin color.

I understand that, I think my position on this has been explained in the preceding entries of this post.

Click to expand...

OK, fair enough. I'm glad we've been able to keep this civil. No offense intended in case you read any of it that way. eace

The fact that the removal of the flag remains such a big issue in SC--something the legislature is reluctant to vote on--instead of a quick no-brainer, proves that SC is still vehemently racist.

nota bene said:

I think the decision should be South Carolinians'.

Click to expand...

Really? SO what if some outsider goes there and burns it down. Will SC arrest him/her and put it back up?

solletica said:

The fact that the removal of the flag remains such a big issue in SC--something the legislature is reluctant to vote on--instead of a quick no-brainer, proves that SC is still vehemently racist.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

It just means that the people of South Carolina follow the rule of law.

Do you contend that someone who follows the rule of law instead of flouting law in favor of a knee-jerk reaction is racists?

Mycroft said:

Nonsense.

It just means that the people of South Carolina follow the rule of law.

Click to expand...

And it means that SC is racist, since the pols in the legislature would vote tomorrow to remove it if they knew their constituents would be A-OK w/it.

The only reason the SC legislature would stall for a long time is if they felt their constituents might object (and potentially vote them out).

SC could get major (but well-deserved) egg on its face.

The fact that the SC legislature doesn't appear all too eager to schedule a quick vote to remove the confederate flag implies that voters in the pols' districts probably oppose it.

What the rest of the country should do is pressure the SC legislature non-stop via mainstream media/social media bullying to vote on its removal.

Then when the vote is taken, the SC legislature, pressured by their racist constituents, will oppose removal, and SC will become a national pariah overnight--all businesses will leave, tourism will be hit hard, athletes will choose not play for SC universities, . . .

solletica said:

SC could get major (but well-deserved) egg on its face.

The fact that the SC legislature doesn't appear all too eager to schedule a quick vote to remove the confederate flag implies that voters in the pols' districts probably oppose it.

What the rest of the country should do is pressure the SC legislature non-stop via mainstream media/social media bullying to vote on its removal.

Then when the vote is taken, the SC legislature, pressured by their racist constituents, will oppose removal, and SC will become a national pariah overnight--all businesses will leave, tourism will be hit hard, athletes will choose not play for SC universities, . . .

Click to expand...

You have a fevered imagination.

HowardBThiname said:

My analogy was spot on.

Click to expand...

Sure it is. The Southern states were annexed by the Confederacy, the Confederate army invaded forcibly Southern states that were annexed.

Gimme a break. The US has become the biggest celebrator of rebellious losers around. We no longer value those who create and make jobs, instead, we degrade them and pander to those who would leech off the system.

The Left has turned into the McCarthiests of the 21 Century.

Click to expand...

Pure unhinged rhetoric, a total jettisoning of reason while blasting off on out of bounds tangents.

HowardBThiname said:

the South did not secede based on the fact that they wanted to keep slaves.

Click to expand...

Gimmesometruth said:

I'll go ahead and repost this since it seems to have slipped past without understanding...

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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.

Click to expand...

HowardBThiname said:

.....Your quotation comes from a VP of the Confederacy......
Your quote comes from one very wealthy man. That man was not indicative of the common Southerner.

Click to expand...

We call this "moving the goal posts". You started with "The South" (re:The Confederacy) and moved the posts to "the common Southerner". Let us try to stick to the subject of if the maintaining of slavery was the prime objective of the Confederacy. Of this, there is no doubt, as I showed it was the "cornerstone" of the Confederate govt, and more broadly the cornerstone of the Antebellum economy.

You might not realize it - but you're doing nothing but creating more racism by acting like an entire region was racist and owned slaves. Perhaps you want a race war - but I don't.

Click to expand...

The entire region was involved in maintaining a racist slave system, where Blacks were viewed as inferior, rationalizing the racism. We had a war against this racist slave system, the problem is that large numbers of the progeny of the losers have not accepted the errors of their ancestors. Mr Roof was trying to create your race war, he is a son of the South.

Gimmesometruth said:

The entire region was involved in maintaining a racist slave system, where Blacks were viewed as inferior, rationalizing the racism. We had a war against this racist slave system, the problem is that large numbers of the progeny of the losers have not accepted the errors of their ancestors. Mr Roof was trying to create your race war, he is a son of the South.

Click to expand...

That might be the most errant description I've heard to date. The "entire region" was defending its homeland.

solletica said:

And it means that SC is racist, since the pols in the legislature would vote tomorrow to remove it if they knew their constituents would be A-OK w/it.

The only reason the SC legislature would stall for a long time is if they felt their constituents might object (and potentially vote them out).

Click to expand...

The ultimate race card being played right here...right now...by you.

This whole line of logic you are presenting is saying, in effect, "I don't like that flag. You should take it down. If you won't take it down, you are racists."

And you present, as your justification, a contention that they are not voting immediately to do something that you want them to do. Never mind that they might simply be taking their time so they can find out what their actual constituents want them to do...instead of jumping to do what some person who, I presume, doesn't even LIVE in SC wants them to do.

I suggest you go mind your own business and let the people of SC do what they want in their own time frame. And take your race card with you.

HowardBThiname said:

That might be the most errant description I've heard to date. The "entire region" was defending its homeland.

Click to expand...

If "homeland" (fatherland or any other jingoism) is representing the Confederacy, the entire region under discussion, its government...well there you are.

Otherwise, you still are attempting to move the goalposts of the discussion.

solletica said:

SC could get major (but well-deserved) egg on its face.

The fact that the SC legislature doesn't appear all too eager to schedule a quick vote to remove the confederate flag implies that voters in the pols' districts probably oppose it.

What the rest of the country should do is pressure the SC legislature non-stop via mainstream media/social media bullying to vote on its removal.

Then when the vote is taken, the SC legislature, pressured by their racist constituents, will oppose removal, and SC will become a national pariah overnight--all businesses will leave, tourism will be hit hard, athletes will choose not play for SC universities, . . .

Click to expand...

What people...from all OVER the country...from the President on down...should do is mind their own damned business...instead of pressuring others to do what you think they ought to do...and threatening them with a label of being racist.

Have you no shame with your unabashed use of the race card?

Gimmesometruth said:

If "homeland" (fatherland or any other jingoism) is representing the Confederacy, the entire region under discussion, its government...well there you are.

Otherwise, you still are attempting to move the goalposts of the discussion.

Click to expand...

You're the one moving the goalposts. This thread is about whether or not the thread should be removed from the State buildings. You've launched a campaign of hatred against those who honor the flag, and I've shown you where you are wrong.

HowardBThiname said:

You're the one moving the goalposts. This thread is about whether or not the thread should be removed from the State buildings. You've launched a campaign of hatred against those who honor the flag, and I've shown you where you are wrong.

Click to expand...

The discussion between you and I was on the history of the flag, what it represents....which is the basis for its removal. The fact that your argument has been avoiding a defense of your earlier point of what the Southern govt was fighting for by moving the goal posts of the subject is nothing more than an admission of your arguments defeat, which I accept.

HowardBThiname said:

When you quote something - you need to put quotation marks around it and you need to source the citation. Your quotation comes from a VP of the Confederacy and in that speech he said a great many other things - many about unfair trade and finances.

You've posted that quote a number of times now - each time incorrectly. No one denies there were racists in the Confederacy - heck - until a few years before - Northerners still owned slaves. Northerners also owned indentured servants at the same time who were no more than slaves - they just had a time limit on their servitude. As pointed out by others - the US Flag flew over slavery for nearly a century.

Your quote comes from one very wealthy man. That man was not indicative of the common Southerner.

You might not realize it - but you're doing nothing but creating more racism by acting like an entire region was racist and owned slaves. Perhaps you want a race war - but I don't.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that is a completely whitewashed version of history. Correct, a small minority owned slaves, but the entire region bought into the idea of white supremacy and state enforced oppression of blacks, rich and poor whites, and we know that because they elected proudly and defiantly racist leaders who maintained that system for nearly a century after slavery was abolished. If the majority of whites didn't approve, they'd have voted the racist bastards out, but that didn't happen.

And they had to buy into the idea of white supremacy to tolerate living in a region defined by slavery, its economy, social structure, etc. and predicated on the notion that whites were superior to blacks and therefore properly had complete dominion over them. As low as a white man could get, he was still superior in the eyes of the law to any black.

That's part of the bigger problem with the whole flag thing - the apologists don't want to even admit that the area was just dominated by whites who believed, in their hearts, that blacks were inherently inferior and so lived without protest under an effectively apartheid regime post civil war, through the 1960s. So we're asked to celebrate "Southern Heritage" without even acknowledging that for blacks, that "heritage" meant slavery OR second class status imposed by force by the STATE. Which is why an unapologetic white supremacists like Johnson was selected to be #2 in the new country. It just was NOT because his views on race were out of the mainstream, it was because they represented the views of the new confederacy.

JasperL said:

I'm sorry but that is a completely whitewashed version of history. Correct, a small minority owned slaves, but the entire region bought into the idea of white supremacy and state enforced oppression of blacks, rich and poor whites, and we know that because they elected proudly and defiantly racist leaders who maintained that system for nearly a century after slavery was abolished. If the majority of whites didn't approve, they'd have voted the racist bastards out, but that didn't happen.

Click to expand...

You're forgetting the history of that era. Even Lincoln did not view blacks as equal to whites. Have you read his letter to Horace Greeley? He states that he would be happy for not even one slave to be freed if only he could keep the country together.

The North had no moral high ground. Only the revisionist history spins it that way.

And they had to buy into the idea of white supremacy to tolerate living in a region defined by slavery, its economy, social structure, etc. and predicated on the notion that whites were superior to blacks and therefore properly had complete dominion over them. As low as a white man could get, he was still superior in the eyes of the law to any black.

Click to expand...

Hogwash. I just heard a similar comment about people who judge the poor blacks in Detroit - saying they must like to live in poverty and violence or they would get out. Do you have any idea how poorly that argument is?

That's part of the bigger problem with the whole flag thing - the apologists don't want to even admit that the area was just dominated by whites who believed, in their hearts, that blacks were inherently inferior and so lived without protest under an effectively apartheid regime post civil war, through the 1960s. So we're asked to celebrate "Southern Heritage" without even acknowledging that for blacks, that "heritage" meant slavery OR second class status imposed by force by the STATE. Which is why an unapologetic white supremacists like Johnson was selected to be #2 in the new country. It just was NOT because his views on race were out of the mainstream, it was because they represented the views of the new confederacy.

Click to expand...

A little reading of history might benefit you.

HowardBThiname said:

You're forgetting the history of that era. Even Lincoln did not view blacks as equal to whites. Have you read his letter to Horace Greeley? He states that he would be happy for not even one slave to be freed if only he could keep the country together.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was persuasive until someone put that quote into its proper context.

And the problem with you pointing out Lincoln's quote is ultimately his highest Constitutional duty was to preserve the Union - that's the first priority, especially given the unfortunate fact that slavery was blessed by the Constitution at that time. So what you're pointing to is an abolitionist saying that no matter his personal views, his duty is to preserve the union at all costs. So you're trying to turn Lincoln's principled stand to do his duty despite his own hope that all men should be free everywhere into the moral equivalent of white supremacists fighting to keep blacks enslaved for perpetuity.

The North had no moral high ground. Only the revisionist history spins it that way.

Click to expand...

So the South in 1960 under Jim Crow held the same moral ground as those fighting for equal rights for blacks? I disagree!

Hogwash. I just heard a similar comment about people who judge the poor blacks in Detroit - saying they must like to live in poverty and violence or they would get out. Do you have any idea how poorly that argument is?

Click to expand...

Read the men in their own words. I posted a link to make it easy. You can read the Texas secession too. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html#Texas

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.
...
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

Click to expand...

Can't express it any better than they did at that time, in their own words. How else to interpret "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."

And as they must do, they interpreted (corrupted) their religion so they could square a cruel system of slavery and oppression with the message of the New Testament.

A little reading of history might benefit you.

Click to expand...

LOL. I'm quoting men from that era making my case for me. All you've done is say, nuh uhhh!!

anybody get the feeling the liberal whining on this issue is only the beginning. next they will go after Thomas Jefferson's statue in the capital. wait and see. it's these meaningless issues that change NOTHING that so consume these people's minds. fascinating actually

JoeTrumps said:

anybody get the feeling the liberal whining on this issue is only the beginning. next they will go after Thomas Jefferson's statue in the capital. wait and see. it's these meaningless issues that change NOTHING that so consume these people's minds. fascinating actually

Click to expand...

Fascinating isn't really the word I would use.

Pathetic describes them better.

JoeTrumps said:

anybody get the feeling the liberal whining on this issue is only the beginning. next they will go after Thomas Jefferson's statue in the capital. wait and see. it's these meaningless issues that change NOTHING that so consume these people's minds. fascinating actually

Click to expand...

Well, good point, we could be debating Benghazi!

Mycroft said:

Fascinating isn't really the word I would use.

Pathetic describes them better.

Click to expand...

LOL. What's more pathetic - us liberals debating a meaningless topic or you guys participating in what you tell us is a meaningless topic. Tough call.... :lamo

JasperL said:

Yeah, that was persuasive until someone put that quote into its proper context.

Click to expand...

The proper context is that Lincoln didn't care one whit about the slaves - he just wanted to keep the union together.

And the problem with you pointing out Lincoln's quote is ultimately his highest Constitutional duty was to preserve the Union - that's the first priority, especially given the unfortunate fact that slavery was blessed by the Constitution at that time. So what you're pointing to is an abolitionist saying that no matter his personal views, his duty is to preserve the union at all costs. So you're trying to turn Lincoln's principled stand to do his duty despite his own hope that all men should be free everywhere into the moral equivalent of white supremacists fighting to keep blacks enslaved for perpetuity.

Click to expand...

Lincoln thought slavery should not exist, but he did not view blacks as equal to whites. If he could have kept the union together and not freed one slave - he would have been a happy camper.

Can't express it any better than they did at that time, in their own words. How else to interpret "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."

And as they must do, they interpreted (corrupted) their religion so they could square a cruel system of slavery and oppression with the message of the New Testament.



LOL. I'm quoting men from that era making my case for me. All you've done is say, nuh uhhh!!

Click to expand...

Those quotes do not back up your assessment that if the average Southerner stayed living in the South that they must have supported racism. I pointed out to you how silly that claim is by citing the Detroit equivalent.

People can't up and move on a whim, especially poor people. If they have a little bit of land - that's they way they make their living.

What did you expect them to do? Leave everything they owned and become beggars in the streets in the North?

I'm really curious to see how you defend that claim because from where I sit - it's ludicrous.

JasperL said:

LOL. What's more pathetic - us liberals debating a meaningless topic or you guys participating in what you tell us is a meaningless topic. Tough call.... :lamo

Click to expand...

Maybe that's a tough call for you...since you prefer to debate a meaningless topic...but for me, telling you it's meaningless is an attempt to get you to understand just how pathetic you are being. I see that as a good thing.