# Charleston



## vpkozel

I was unaware of this until this evening and am heartbroken over it.

The church plays a hugely important role in the black community and this one is one of the oldest and most storied. 

God bless the 9 victims and may He give comfort to their families.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Agreed. Very sad.



vpkozel said:


> I was unaware of this until this evening and am heartbroken over it.
> 
> The church plays a hugely important role in the black community and this one is one of the oldest and most storied.
> 
> God bless the 9 victims and may He give comfort to their families.


----------



## Chouan

Obama's response to it was, I thought, both considered and thoughtful as well as being counter-inflammatory.


----------



## eagle2250

I am at once terribly saddened and also truly disgusted by the actions of the misguided fool who, in such a cavalier fashion, took the lives of nine innocents! How can a civilized society create and allow such monsters to coexist in our midst?


----------



## 32rollandrock

eagle2250 said:


> I am at once terribly saddened and also truly disgusted by the actions of the misguided fool who, in such a cavalier fashion, took the lives of nine innocents! How can a civilized society create and allow such monsters to coexist in our midst?


One reason, perhaps, is that we are, in truth, a rather intolerant society, much as we would like to believe otherwise. All too often, it's not good enough to simply disagree with someone. Rather, we attack and hurl ugly accusations in an attempt to completely discredit. This occurs on all levels, from the highest government offices to the smallest corner taverns. This occurs on such a daily and routine basis that it should not be surprising that kids grow up thinking that this is completely normal and acceptable. America, much as we don't want to believe it, has always been intolerant. Race has always been pitted against race. Religion has always been pitted against religion. Barely 50 years ago, the notion of a Catholic president or black kids going to the same schools as white kids, or black people marrying white people, was almost unthinkable for many Americans. For all too many, it still is. You can't just flip a switch and say "OK, it's different now." Society doesn't work that way.

And it goes beyond race. Just 20 years ago, it was perfectly acceptable to use homophobic slurs, refuse to hire gay people or rent housing to them. The notion of gay people getting married was considered ridiculous. It has been just 12 years since the Supreme Court ruled that states could not criminalize sex between two people of the same gender, and three justices voted in the minority.

So, we have a long, long way to go. There is something very deeply wrong about this country that cannot be dismissed by saying it's the work of isolated crackpots. Somehow, we, as a society, have helped create these crackpots without even knowing it. Consider this: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/c...ag-not-lowered-half-mast-after-church-n378316

That any state would allow a Confederate flag to fly at its Capitol is, to me, appalling, given what it represents to so many people (and in Mississippi, the Confederate flag is incorporated into the official state flag, a situation that voters have refused to alter). I'm all for free speech. But it is hard to escape the irony. The same Confederate flag that the shooter had on his license plate flies proudly over the state where this massacre occurred. The shooter must be very happy about that.


----------



## vpkozel

This guy wasn't created by America any more than Charles Manson or Jim Jones were. 

I am not going to make this about the Confederate flag and I would appreciate it if others didn't either. 

That has nothing to do with this shooting and to try to make it so if downright offensive to me - not just as a southerner, but as a human being.


----------



## Duvel

I have to side with 3/2 on the appalling choice of this flag on any state's capitol grounds. I lived briefly in Columbia, and the first time I saw that, in my first days in the city, I virtually froze in my tracks and felt my jaw drop. I could not believe it. I have to say that the sight set the tone for the rest of my time in that state. South Carolina has some true weirdness.

People in South Carolina will tell you that it's appropriate because the flag is part of the state's heritage. Would this mean that Germany should display its Nazi flag? And yes, the significance of what both flags represent is equivalent, in my view.


----------



## 32rollandrock

But Manson was from America. So was Jim Jones. So were the kids who shot up Columbine. And the kid who killed all those children at Sandy Hook. And the white supremacists who bombed the the Birmingham church and committed other atrocities in the South during the 1960s, which really wasn't that long ago. The list goes on and on and on and on in a way that it does not in other Western industrialized countries. And so, at some point, it is reasonable to conclude that there is something here that is different elsewhere. We don't want to take ownership of these outliers. Who would? But, on some level, I think that we must.

There is one thing that virtually all of these killers have in common: intolerance. I'm right, you're wrong. I'm righteous, you're not. I'm superior, you're inferior. And that sort of thinking permeates every level of social, political and economic interaction in this nation. It is not a pleasant thing to acknowledge, but it is true.

Thirty-seven percent of the population in Mississippi is black. It's 30 percent in South Carolina. Flags, who knows why, are powerful symbols. Indeed, we pledge allegiance to one. Burn one and you risk getting shot. And so, when states incorporate Confederacy imagery into flags, when a state flies a Confederate flag at its Capitol, it sends a powerful message. It is a message that is deeply offensive to a large percentage of the population that lives in the state in question. But the state does it nonetheless, and for what good reason?

There is no good reason. The only explanation is intolerance. I'm right, you're wrong. What I think matters, what you think does not. I don't care if this offends you because, for whatever reason, it makes me feel good. I don't care how this makes you feel because your feelings aren't important. That's the message that a Confederate flag carries in this day and age. And, while it didn't cause this tragedy, it is, perhaps, in some small way, a symbol of what's wrong with this country.



vpkozel said:


> This guy wasn't created by America any more than Charles Manson or Jim Jones were.
> 
> I am not going to make this about the Confederate flag and I would appreciate it if others didn't either.
> 
> That has nothing to do with this shooting and to try to make it so if downright offensive to me - not just as a southerner, but as a human being.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> But Manson was from America. So was Jim Jones. So were the kids who shot up Columbine. And the kid who killed all those children at Sandy Hook.


And yet none of them had the Confederate flag. Which is why it has nothing to do with this.

Each of those folks was mentally ill in some way. As is, I am betting this guy.

If it was a southern thing then these instances would be more concentrated in the south, but they aren't.

Where he grew up has nothing at all to do with this story, and quite frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for even trying to make the link.

Take your last sentence and change Confederate flag to Koran and tell me what you think of it then.....

If y'all want to make a thread about the flag, then by all means - but this one will not become that.


----------



## SG_67

All this talk of intolerance is a red herring.

This guy, like all others before him, are plane nuts! This is not a sane person folks. It's likely that he suffered from some mental illness. 

Arguments about how we need to be more civil and tolerant of others always apply and not necessarily the motivating factor with this guy. When it's all said and done, I think it will be shown that the guy cracked somewhere down the road. 

Therefore, we all need to refrain from going to our ideological corners in trying to understand what happened.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> All this talk of intolerance is a red herring.
> 
> This guy, like all others before him, are plane nuts! This is not a sane person folks. It's likely that he suffered from some mental illness.
> 
> Arguments about how we need to be more civil and tolerant of others always apply and not necessarily the motivating factor with this guy. When it's all said and done, I think it will be shown that the guy cracked somewhere down the road.
> 
> Therefore, we all need to refrain from going to our* ideological corners* in trying to understand what happened.


A Confederate flag does not connote an ideological corner?

I was pretty sure that this would happen when I raised the subject of the flag. Mirrors are good things, fellas.


----------



## SG_67

I'm not getting in the middle of that flap. 

We, and I say we meaning the country in general, always project more onto such events and try to look for some cosmic rationale. I suppose it's human nature. 

Most of the time these people are just plain nuts. Racism, nationalism and any other -ism is merely a vehicle at that point. Trying to use an event like this as a broader indictment of our current state makes as much sense as using a NASCAR crash as the backdrop for a discussion on passenger car safety.


----------



## eagle2250

SG_67 said:


> I'm not getting in the middle of that flap.
> 
> We, and I say we meaning the country in general, always project more onto such events and try to look for some cosmic rationale. I suppose it's human nature.
> 
> Most of the time these people are just plain nuts. Racism, nationalism and any other -ism is merely a vehicle at that point. Trying to use an event like this as a broader indictment of our current state makes as much sense as using a NASCAR crash as the backdrop for a discussion on passenger car safety.


+1. SG 67 is spot-on with his assessment. The single point that I would add is that we, as a civilized community, should refrain from granting these "nuts" their 15 minutes of fame.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Of course they are nuts. But, it seems to me, that there are entirely too many of them, and this sort of thing keeps happening over and over and over again in ways that doesn't seem to happen in other Western industrialized nations. I'm not, at all, trying to excuse their behavior or put the blame on larger society. As a white guy, I hear racial slurs and inappropriate remarks all the time from other white people. Most white people do, I suspect. I hear racist attitudes from people who should know better--it's a dark, unpleasant truth and undercurrent that flows through all socio-economic levels. Of course, virtually no one would convert these thoughts/beliefs into action. Most people who hold these thoughts don't hate black people per se; instead, they dismiss them as insignificant until they see a reason to do otherwise. "I don't care what color a person is, black, yellow, green or polka dot." I've heard that line so many times from people who insist that they're not racists but never seem to have any black friends, tell racist jokes, treat black people differently in the workplace than white people, etc.

One of the shooter's friends/acquaintances told NYT that the shooter had been saying extremely racial things lately but he didn't say anything to the shooter "because I'm not judgmental." In my opinion, when someone is talking about how they hate people of a different race, then it is not judgmental to call them out. "Hey, that's inappropriate--stop talking like a fool." Really, we should all do that. But people rarely do that. Instead, we let it go. And, in some small way at least, that tolerance for intolerance perpetuates the status quo. In a perfect world, if racism was absolutely socially unacceptable, there would be a lot less of it. But it is socially acceptable.

Agreed, again, that these people are nuts. But even nuts can take some measure of justification when society, even in what may seem like small ways, signals that what they're thinking is OK. Doesn't mean we have to be politically correct. Doesn't mean that we have to psycho-analyze everything we see and hear. What it means is, we should try to look at things from the perspective of others and appreciate those perspectives, even if we don't agree with them. It may not stop nuts from doing what nuts do. But it might just make this world a better place.



SG_67 said:


> I'm not getting in the middle of that flap.
> 
> We, and I say we meaning the country in general, always project more onto such events and try to look for some cosmic rationale. I suppose it's human nature.
> 
> Most of the time these people are just plain nuts. Racism, nationalism and any other -ism is merely a vehicle at that point. Trying to use an event like this as a broader indictment of our current state makes as much sense as using a NASCAR crash as the backdrop for a discussion on passenger car safety.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Of course they are nuts. But, it seems to me, that there are entirely too many of them, and this sort of thing keeps happening over and over and over again in ways that doesn't seem to happen in other Western industrialized nations. I'm not, at all, trying to excuse their behavior or put the blame on larger society. As a white guy, I hear racial slurs and inappropriate remarks all the time from other white people. Most white people do, I suspect. I hear racist attitudes from people who should know better--it's a dark, unpleasant truth and undercurrent that flows through all socio-economic levels. Of course, virtually no one would convert these thoughts/beliefs into action. Most people who hold these thoughts don't hate black people per se; instead, they dismiss them as insignificant until they see a reason to do otherwise. "I don't care what color a person is, black, yellow, green or polka dot." I've heard that line so many times from people who insist that they're not racists but never seem to have any black friends, tell racist jokes, treat black people differently in the workplace than white people, etc.
> 
> One of the shooter's friends/acquaintances told NYT that the shooter had been saying extremely racial things lately but he didn't say anything to the shooter "because I'm not judgmental." In my opinion, when someone is talking about how they hate people of a different race, then it is not judgmental to call them out. "Hey, that's inappropriate--stop talking like a fool." Really, we should all do that. But people rarely do that. Instead, we let it go. And, in some small way at least, that tolerance for intolerance perpetuates the status quo. In a perfect world, if racism was absolutely socially unacceptable, there would be a lot less of it. But it is socially acceptable.
> 
> Agreed, again, that these people are nuts. But even nuts can take some measure of justification when society, even in what may seem like small ways, signals that what they're thinking is OK. Doesn't mean we have to be politically correct. Doesn't mean that we have to psycho-analyze everything we see and hear. What it means is, we should try to look at things from the perspective of others and appreciate those perspectives, even if we don't agree with them. It may not stop nuts from doing what nuts do. But it might just make this world a better place.


Look - I have asked nicely a few times.

Start a new thread about your awesome, super duper, amazing theories or I will simply delete this thread.

This is not about race, the Confederate flag, the Citadel, VMI, the Civil War or any other symbol of the south that you or someone else would like to use. And this isn't the thread for trying to make it so.


----------



## Tiger

I'm assuming the attacks on the Confederacy by many here are tied to the odious practice of slavery that existed in the Confederate States of America. Of course, that odious practice was also completely legal and constitutional in the United States of America during that same time period; in fact, four States that remained in the Union were slave States.

Maybe we should remove the "appalling symbol" of the American flag from State capitols, too...


----------



## Shaver

C'mon vp, just because some are sodden with white liberal guilt is no reason to lose your cool.



vpkozel said:


> Look - I have asked nicely a few times.
> Start a new thread about your awesome, super duper, amazing theories or I will simply delete this thread.
> 
> This is not about race, the Confederate flag, the Citadel, VMI, the Civil War or any other symbol of the south that you or someone else would like to use. And this isn't the thread for trying to make it so.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> C'mon vp, just because some are sodden with white liberal guilt is no reason to lose your cool.


You have no idea how many drafts of that post I totally deleted before settling on that one.

But I kinda like this place and don't want to get kicked off.


----------



## Shaver

I have faith in your ability to express yourself maliciously whilst observing the constraints of forum regulations.



vpkozel said:


> You have no idea how many drafts of that post I totally deleted before settling on that one.
> 
> But I kinda like this place and don't want to get kicked off.


----------



## Duvel

Good points. However, I doubt that the U.S. flag alienates descendants of enslaved southerners quite as much as does the confederate flag. Despite its origins and heritage, the confederate flag has acquired racist connotations over time, especially tied to its rise in the 1950s as a symbol of resistance to federally enforced integration. There is no getting around its historical significance, in that regard. I think it is an outrageous affront to anyone, but especially to black Southerners, that this flag waves proudly on the lawn of the South Carolina capital.



Tiger said:


> I'm assuming the attacks on the Confederacy by many here are tied to the odious practice of slavery that existed in the Confederate States of America. Of course, that odious practice was also completely legal and constitutional in the United States of America during that same time period; in fact, four States that remained in the Union were slave States.
> 
> Maybe we should remove the "appalling symbol" of the American flag from State capitols, too...


----------



## Shaver

Slavery? Ancient history. Irrelevant.


----------



## Duvel

Ha! Yes, well, I suppose so. In the U.S. of A., at least to the vast majority of Amerikens, anything more than 10 years in the past is ancient history. Quite conveniently, our perpetual state of amnesia allows us to repeat Viet Nam over and over again.


----------



## Shaver

Vietnam? Wow! That makes all of my own thread drift pale in comparison. .....



Duvel said:


> Ha! Yes, well, I suppose so. In the U.S. of A., at least to the vast majority of Amerikens, anything more than 10 years in the past is ancient history. Quite conveniently, this ongoing state of amnesia let's us repeat Viet Nam over and over again.


----------



## Tiger

Of course, the other side to "federally enforced integration" is that there's no legitimate constitutional power granted to the federal government to do this. So, one can oppose both Jim Crow _*and *_federal intervention in State matters!


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> I have faith in your ability to express yourself maliciously whilst observing the constraints of forum regulations.


This post is an instant classic!


----------



## Duvel

Look at the crease in those trousers!












Shaver said:


> Vietnam? Wow! That makes all of my own thread drift pale in comparison. .....


----------



## Duvel

Yeah, well, thank God Bobby didn't let that stop him.



Tiger said:


> Of course, the other side to "federally enforced integration" is that there's no legitimate constitutional power granted to the federal government to do this. So, one can oppose both Jim Crow _*and *_federal intervention in State matters!


----------



## SG_67

Duvel said:


> Look at the crease in those trousers!


Charlie don't iron pal!


----------



## 32rollandrock

I never said that it was about the Confederate flag. That was merely an example. One of many. I agree that we should not fixate on it. Notably, I never mentioned the flag in the post you quoted, but that's OK. Let's move on.

The level and tone of discourse in this country is another example of what I'm talking about. I have not been abroad, save for Mexico and Canada, and so I cannot speak with authority save for what I've been able to garner from TV and the Internet and friends who have been abroad. This said, it is my belief that we are much more shrill in this country than in other industrialized Western nations when it comes to talking about stuff. So often, it's an all-or-nothing, scorched-earth approach, with powers that be relying on divide to conquer. One example was the flurry of no-gay-marriage ballot measures that appeared in a ton of states in the early and mid 1990s as a device to get conservative voters to the polls. Those responsible didn't give a hoot about gay marriage, they were using it to frighten people who might otherwise not vote to go to the polls and cast a vote for the "proper" candidate since they were there already. I understand that this is a knock on the right. I'm imagining that there could be, probably are, similar knocks on the left. The point is, we demonize people and beliefs way too much in this country, I think. It doesn't cause, per se, stuff like what happened in Charleston. But it doesn't help.

Again, moving on, I was very much impressed by what relatives of the dead had to say today in court. When I first saw it, I was wondering why the heck are they allowing this at this stage of the proceedings. I still don't know, but that doesn't take away from the enormity and power of what the people who were left behind had to say (sorry if folks have already seen this and I couldn't find a clip that wasn't on the home page that captured what was said): https://www.nytimes.com/



vpkozel said:


> Look - I have asked nicely a few times.
> 
> Start a new thread about your awesome, super duper, amazing theories or I will simply delete this thread.
> 
> This is not about race, the Confederate flag, the Citadel, VMI, the Civil War or any other symbol of the south that you or someone else would like to use. And this isn't the thread for trying to make it so.


----------



## Duvel

Ha ha.



SG_67 said:


> Charlie don't iron pal!


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> The level and tone of discourse in this country is another example of what I'm talking about. I have not been abroad, save for Mexico and Canada, and so I cannot speak with authority save for what I've been able to garner from TV and the Internet and friends who have been abroad. This said, it is my belief that we are much more shrill in this country than in other industrialized Western nations when it comes to talking about stuff. So often, it's an all-or-nothing, scorched-earth approach, with powers that be relying on divide to conquer. One example was the flurry of no-gay-marriage ballot measures that appeared in a ton of states in the early and mid 1990s as a device to get conservative voters to the polls. Those responsible didn't give a hoot about gay marriage, they were using it to frighten people who might otherwise not vote to go to the polls and cast a vote for the "proper" candidate since they were there already. I understand that this is a knock on the right. I'm imagining that there could be, probably are, similar knocks on the left. The point is, we demonize people and beliefs way too much in this country, I think. It doesn't cause, per se, stuff like what happened in Charleston. But it doesn't help.


Yeah - who would ever condone such behavior.....



32rollandrock said:


> It's true that you can't accurately judge a president until decades pass, but no Vegas oddsmaker would take a bet on Dubya being judged well by historians. His personal life is a shambles of drunkenness, dodging Vietnam and using his father's name to try making it in the business world, and he utterly failed at that. He never held a real job in his entire life. He was a war monger who lied and stretched the truth to build support for the invasion, and he ignored warnings that post-invasion Iraq would be a handful. Instead, he did a photo op with the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner and then lied about who put up the banner--it was his staff, not the military personnel who did it, and if Dubya didn't know, then he should have fired the people who lied when he found out that they had lied. Nope. What kind of meglomaniac would fly out to an aircraft carrier for a photo op like that in the first place?


And I have been abroad. Lived in 2 different countries - the UK for 6 months and Czech Republic for 3 years. And let me tell you this - the folks who say that all of Europe thinks badly of America and Americans are full of shite and more than likely the only Europeans that they have spoken to are the ones who have come here to live.

We ain't perfect, but if people think we suck so bad, you might want to get the message out, because we have quite a substantial waiting list of folks who would like to come here.

So, please, spare me the woe is us, I just want to have rational discussion routine.

But, hey - at least you tried to stop making this about race or the Confederate flag. So I got that going for me. Which is nice.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> Yeah - who would ever condone such behavior.....


Once again, utterly, completely, totally lost. Have no idea of what you are trying to say. What, on earth, does a critique of a president have to do with what has happened in Charleston?


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Once again, utterly, completely, totally lost. Have no idea of what you are trying to say. What, on earth, does a critique of a president have to do with what has happened in Charleston?


It has everything to do with the level of intolerance you were referencing as the cause for things like this shooting.


----------



## Tiger

Duvel said:


> Yeah, well, thank God Bobby didn't let that stop him.


You're right - why should the Attorney General of the United States - the chief law enforcement official of the U.S. - care about the fundamental law and structure of the United States? Such irony...

It's this kind of thinking that has led to the destruction of the Constitution. Let's simply violate it, rather than obey it or amend it! Who cares about legality, if we're pursuing a cause we believe in! American Jacobinism is alive and thriving...

Of course, if some kid wants to wear a t-shirt that says "F--- School" and the principal suspends him, we'll have a whole bunch of so-called experts and lawyers screaming (incorrectly) about the kid's "constitutional rights" being violated (hint: they aren't!).

What a screwed-up mess we are...


----------



## vpkozel

Now, let's talk a little about that flag some of you find so offensive.

It was never an official flag of the Confederacy. It was a battle flag. Thus, it was used to honor those who died fighting for the CSA. 

Do you know that it is the only way to honor Confederate dead? US flags are not allowed for that purpose, because they are not considered US soldiers. 

It wasn't until the 30's that the US government paid any pensions to these vets - and by then almost all of them had died.

Our national cemetery was a blatant slap in the face to the South's most famous general and until the 20th century it was forbidden for the families of the few hundred Confederate dead there to do any maintenance on their graves. 

The US flag is not supposed to fly over a cemetery where CSA soldiers are buried - which is why you see so many southern cemeteries without a US flag.

So yeah, that flag might be a symbol of intolerance, but not from the direction that most of you think it does.


----------



## 32rollandrock

"Old times there are not forgotten,
Look away."

It's a flag. A piece of fabric. A symbol that is abhorrent to many, many, many people. And for very good reasons. Let it go. Please, let it go.

I'm going to do my level best to bow out here.



vpkozel said:


> Now, let's talk a little about that flag some of you find so offensive.
> 
> It was never an official flag of the Confederacy. It was a battle flag. Thus, it was used to honor those who died fighting for the CSA.
> 
> Do you know that it is the only way to honor Confederate dead? US flags are not allowed for that purpose, because they are not considered US soldiers.
> 
> It wasn't until the 30's that the US government paid any pensions to these vets - and by then almost all of them had died.
> 
> Our national cemetery was a blatant slap in the face to the South's most famous general and until the 20th century it was forbidden for the families of the few hundred Confederate dead there to do any maintenance on their graves.
> 
> The US flag is not supposed to fly over a cemetery where CSA soldiers are buried - which is why you see so many southern cemeteries without a US flag.
> 
> So yeah, that flag might be a symbol of intolerance, but not from the direction that most of you think it does.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> "Old times there are not forgotten,
> Look away."
> 
> It's a flag. A piece of fabric. A symbol that is abhorrent to many, many, many people. And for very good reasons. Let it go. Please, let it go.
> 
> I'm going to do my level best to bow out here.


I didn't bring it up, Hoss.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> Now, let's talk a little about that flag some of you find so offensive.


Huh? I thought you were stamping your feet a few posts ago about not making this thread about the confederate flag? Or did you mean that nobody should point out that it is as obvious a symbol of racial hatred as the Nazi Swastika and instead use code words for its proponents' shared desire to go back to the good old days when blacks knew their place by calling it a matter of 'heritage'? The Swastika wasn't ONLY about racial hatred, either. But to pretend that it wasn't quite fundamentally about that would be an act of absurd revisionist history. Same with the Confederate flag.


----------



## Duvel

Well, it all certainly touches a nerve, doesn't it.


----------



## eagle2250

RogerP said:


> Huh? I thought you were stamping your feet a few posts ago about not making this thread about the confederate flag? Or did you mean that nobody should point out that it is as obvious a symbol of racial hatred as the Nazi Swastika and instead use code words for its proponents' shared desire to go back to the good old days when blacks knew their place by calling it a matter of 'heritage'? The Swastika wasn't ONLY about racial hatred, either. But to pretend that it wasn't quite fundamentally about that would be an act of absurd revisionist history. Same with the Confederate flag.


+1. Spot-on and very well put!


----------



## SG_67

This thread is a direct reflection on how this event is being reflected on in the news and popular media; it is looked upon as a racially motivated crime.

The act of a psychopath is being broadened to the point where we are discussing the confederate flag, in itself an anachronism that matters only to a handful of people. 

I actually put this guy in the category of other mass shooters like Columbine, Sandy Hook, VA Tech and others. These are isolated incidents perpetrated by mad men. This guy was plain nuts. To broaden the discussion to include the confederate flag, race relations or anything of the sort is a blatant attempt at using this as an opportunity to push an agenda.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
.....and perhaps the fastest, most direct route to becoming a household name. Reading the news this AM, I counted no less than 11 articles droning on about the village idiot perpetrating this obscenity! We are sending all the wrong signals, my friends.


----------



## Duvel

https://www.morbidoptimism.com/politics/confederate-battle-flag-new-nazi-flag/

Regarding the flag, it comes down to this: It has come to mean bad things. I personally think it should be illegal, just as the Nazi flag is in Europe.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I think that it matters to more than a handful of people. And I don't think that talking about these things (plural) is "pushing an agenda." I think that these things are worth talking about and worth thinking about, and not just in the context of this tragedy.

As for becoming a household name, I'm not sure these psychopaths have that as a goal. And, if it is a goal, they've failed. I can't remember the names of any of these killers. I doubt that most people could. And that is, I think we can all agree, a good thing.



SG_67 said:


> This thread is a direct reflection on how this event is being reflected on in the news and popular media; it is looked upon as a racially motivated crime.
> 
> The act of a psychopath is being broadened to the point where we are discussing the confederate flag, in itself an anachronism that matters only to a handful of people.
> 
> I actually put this guy in the category of other mass shooters like Columbine, Sandy Hook, VA Tech and others. These are isolated incidents perpetrated by mad men. This guy was plain nuts. To broaden the discussion to include the confederate flag, race relations or anything of the sort is a blatant attempt at using this as an opportunity to push an agenda.


----------



## Tiger

Duvel said:


> Regarding the flag, it comes down to this: It has come to mean bad things. I personally think it should be illegal, just as the Nazi flag is in Europe.


Illegal on which level - federal? state? county? town? all?

What about historical books, paintings, scholarly journals and papers, et al. that contain Confederate flags (CSA flag? battle flag? others?) - would those be illegal, too? Would anyone in possession of such items be committing a crime, e.g., owning a Mort Kunstler painting of the Battle of Gettysburg? Teachers and professors? Students? Collectors? Families of members of seceded States?

Please let us know - thanks!


----------



## 32rollandrock

As the person who first mentioned the flag, I'm sorry that it has become something of a tangent. This said, I don't think that we should outlaw the flag, or swastikas or, really, any other symbol, no matter how abhorrent. The First Amendment should be sacred (aside from the established prohibitions on yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater). Rather, I think that social norms should dictate when it comes to swastikas, etc. We don't see many folks sporting swastikas these days on their clothing or cars or t-shirts or whatever. When we do, we instantly know, or think we know, what we're dealing with. The same, I think, should apply to the Confederate flag, which I am not equating with the swastika. It should not be flown by the government. If private citizens wish to display it, that is their business, and the rest of the world can judge whether this is a person who simply doesn't care that the symbol is offensive to a large number of people or whether it is something more.



Tiger said:


> Illegal on which level - federal? state? county? town? all?
> 
> What about historical books, paintings, scholarly journals and papers, et al. that contain Confederate flags (CSA flag? battle flag? others?) - would those be illegal, too? Would anyone in possession of such items be committing a crime, e.g., owning a Mort Kunstler painting of the Battle of Gettysburg? Teachers and professors? Students? Collectors? Families of members of seceded States?
> 
> Please let us know - thanks!


----------



## Duvel

If I were in charge, I would make it illegal to be associated with any governmental or even quasi-governmental agency, branch, etc., at all levels, from town to federal.


----------



## Tiger

Duvel said:


> If I were in charge, I would make it illegal to be associated with any governmental or even quasi-governmental agency, branch, etc., at all levels, from town to federal.


Putting aside the fact that there's no single authority with the power to do this (a constitutional amendment could accomplish this, however), are you also saying that you would allow all private associations with CSA flags?


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> I think that it matters to more than a handful of people. And I don't think that talking about these things (plural) is "pushing an agenda." I think that these things are worth talking about and worth thinking about, and not just in the context of this tragedy.
> 
> As for becoming a household name, I'm not sure these psychopaths have that as a goal. And, if it is a goal, they've failed. I can't remember the names of any of these killers. I doubt that most people could. And that is, I think we can all agree, a good thing.


Yes because the South Carolina flag issue has always been front and center of the national dialogue.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Actually, it has had a prominent place in the national dialogue long before this tragedy. The stars-and-bars had been integrated into the state flag until not many years ago, when, as I understand it, something of a compromise was struck. There was a ton of debate on the issue that received much national attention. The stars and bars were eliminated from the flag while the Confederate flag was posted near the Capitol. I'm guessing that there was some sort of cockaminy compromise that has resulted in the flag, perversely, not being put at half-staff given recent events. It takes an act of the South Carolina legislature to lower it even one inch. Something to do with state's rights, I'm guessing. Our friend in Charleston, I'm sure, knows more than me.

Think about that. The Civil War ended 150 years ago. And the South isn't over it.

But, point of fact, the propriety of the Confederate flag has been an issue of national interest long before now. It may not be important to you. But it is important to a lot of other people. If you were black, perhaps you would understand in a way that you do not seem able to understand.



SG_67 said:


> Yes because the South Carolina flag issue has always been front and center of the national dialogue.


----------



## phyrpowr

Duvel said:


> If I were in charge, I would make it illegal to be associated with any governmental or even quasi-governmental agency, branch, etc., at all levels, from town to federal.


"Somebody in charge" _*IS*_ "government". In the anarchy you (apparently) then declare, another "government" will appear: go rent a copy of "Mad Max".


----------



## SG_67

I'm willing to bet that 99.5% of Americans wake up, go to work, go home, have dinner and go to bed without once thinking about what flag is flying above the dome of a given state Capitol. 

Whatever happened to be going through this kid's head, and God only knows, had nothing to do with the Flag. 

In a nation of 350 million people, there are going to be a number who are mentally ill. Within that sliver of the population are those who are mentally ill with violent and/or sociopathic tendencies and within that subset those who act on those tendencies. This was such a case.

Son of Sam claimed his dog talked to him. I don't recall any calls for a national dialogue about pet ownership.


----------



## Duvel

I'm not sure. Do you mind if I can confer with my cabinet on this matter? I'll provide a policy letter at some future point.



Tiger said:


> Putting aside the fact that there's no single authority with the power to do this (a constitutional amendment could accomplish this, however), are you also saying that you would allow all private associations with CSA flags?


----------



## Tiger

Duvel said:


> I'm not sure. Do you mind if I can confer with my cabinet on this matter? I'll provide a policy letter at some future point.


Based on what you're contemplating, you'd only have to discuss it with your KGB/Gestapo equivalent!


----------



## Duvel

Even better! Let's keep things simple, ja?



Tiger said:


> Based on what you're contemplating, you'd only have to discuss it with your KGB/Gestapo equivalent!


----------



## Tiger

Duvel said:


> Even better! Let's keep things simple, ja?


I have a feeling that vpkozel is going to be launching a drone assault somewhere in Iowa in the next few minutes...


----------



## RogerP

It is very much part of the right wing agenda to attempt to sanitize this horrible act as the product of mental illness that had nothing to do with the racial hatred of blacks.

The guy said he wanted to kill black people, accused them of 'raping our women' and taking over 'his' country. And yet the right wing apologists accuse the media of attempting to "portray" this as an act of racism.

He embraced the flags of Rhodesia, Apartheid-era South Africa and the Confederate flag. Hmmm, what do those three have in common, I wonder? Whatever the connection, I'm sure it couldn't possibly have anything to do with racism, right?

Violent racial hatred is exactly what this is. It is born of viewing people of a different colour as lesser humans at best, or less than human at worst. It is no less an act of racism than any of the long history of lynchings, burnings and bombings perpetrated by racists upon black Americans over a period of history both distant and recent.

It is by far one of the ugliest, most obscene and most overt of examples of racism. Others are far more subtle. Like the head-in-the-sand denial that this could possibly have been a racist act when any rational assessment must conclude that it could not possibly have been anything else. And when you have a candidate for the Republican nomination for President describing Mexican immigrants as "rapists" on prime time television, it's not hard to see that sentiments such as these are embraced by a wider spectrum of American society than some would like to believe. Or to admit.

Though I expect the denials of racism to continue. Even as the mountain of compelling evidence to the contrary continues to grow.


----------



## Acct2000

A combination of mental illness inflamed by racism is probably what produced this. 

I worry though, that both "sides" are trying to make points out of this before the victims' families have even had a chance to bury them. 

The right side, particularly the NRA guy who blamed the shootings on the state senator (also a minister) who voted against gun control is especially tone deaf, but I cringe at how the victims' families must feel seeing their tragedy used this way.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Well put. I have seen a media report indicating that photos of the shooter have been found posted on white supremacist websites. Photos of him posing at various places, including--and I don't wish to fan flames here--Confederate monuments and photos of him holding CSA flags. Someone took those photographs. The ones I saw had the tried-and-true dead look in the eyes.

He may not be so alone as we would wish. There is an element in this country, like it or not, that believes in segregation and a bunch of other nutball racist stuff. They are not shooting up churches, but I'm not sure that they're not cheering when it happens.



RogerP said:


> It is very much part of the right wing agenda to attempt to sanitize this horrible act as the product of mental illness that had nothing to do with the racial hatred of blacks.
> 
> The guy said he wanted to kill black people, accused them of 'raping our women' and taking over 'his' country. And yet the right wing apologists accuse the media of attempting to "portray" this as an act of racism.
> 
> He embraced the flags of Rhodesia, Apartheid-era South Africa and the Confederate flag. Hmmm, what do those three have in common, I wonder? Whatever the connection, I'm sure it couldn't possibly have anything to do with racism, right?
> 
> Violent racial hatred is exactly what this is. It is born of viewing people of a different colour as lesser humans at best, or less than human at worst. It is no less an act of racism than any of the long history of lynchings, burnings and bombings perpetrated by racists upon black Americans over a period of history both distant and recent.
> 
> It is by far one of the ugliest, most obscene and most overt of examples of racism. Others are far more subtle. Like the head-in-the-sand denial that this could possibly have been a racist act when any rational assessment must conclude that it could not possibly have been anything else. And when you have a candidate for the Republican nomination for President describing Mexican immigrants as "rapists" on prime time television, it's not hard to see that sentiments such as these are embraced by a wider spectrum of American society than some would like to believe. Or to admit.
> 
> Though I expect the denials of racism to continue. Even as the mountain of compelling evidence to the contrary continues to grow.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I'll take that bet. As I said earlier, 30 percent of the population of South Carolina is black. Thirty-seven percent of the population of Mississippi, which has the stars and bars on its flag, is black. I would wager that 30 percent, at least, of the population of South Carolina thinks negatively about the flag every time they see it; I would wager that 37 percent, at least, of the population of Mississippi does the same each time the state flag is seen.

Really. Start thinking about the world from a perspective outside that of a financially comfortable white person.



SG_67 said:


> I'm willing to bet that 99.5% of Americans wake up, go to work, go home, have dinner and go to bed without once thinking about what flag is flying above the dome of a given state Capitol.
> 
> Whatever happened to be going through this kid's head, and God only knows, had nothing to do with the Flag.
> 
> In a nation of 350 million people, there are going to be a number who are mentally ill. Within that sliver of the population are those who are mentally ill with violent and/or sociopathic tendencies and within that subset those who act on those tendencies. This was such a case.
> 
> Son of Sam claimed his dog talked to him. I don't recall any calls for a national dialogue about pet ownership.


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock said:


> I'll take that bet. As I said earlier, 30 percent of the population of South Carolina is black. Thirty-seven percent of the population of Mississippi, which has the stars and bars on its flag, is black. I would wager that 30 percent, at least, of the population of South Carolina thinks negatively about the flag every time they see it; I would wager that 37 percent, at least, of the population of Mississippi does the same each time the state flag is seen.
> 
> Really. Start thinking about the world from a perspective outside that of a financially comfortable white person.


AS usual, you are posting very reasonable and well thought through posts. As usual you have "the usual suspects" rallying to the support of the other side. A clearly racist attack is the work of a mad person, a psychopath, not a racist. Obviously! That he said racist things is irrelevant. That a flag supported by racists features in his iconography is also irrelevant. Best thing to do is to assume that he was a mad individual, then we need not look any further into causation......


----------



## SG_67

I'm not suggesting that this guy was not motivated by race. I'm simply stating that this guy has some underlying mental illness, be it a complete schizoid break or a personality disorder, that laid the foundation for this act.

There are a lot of people who harbor racial animus. There are many people who are racist, but not all of them commit acts like this. I will go as far as to say that even during the dark days of the civil rights struggle in the south, there were no mass murders of this nature committed in the name of maintaining the racial status quo. If I"m wrong, someone please point it out to me.

There are a couple of things that lead me to believe this:

1) He acted alone and did not appear to be part of an organized effort. This act did not occur in the broader context of a civil rights struggle with that church as it's center. His circle of friends, at least those who have so far been identified, seemed to think that he was a bit unhinged.

2) He allowed one person to escape so that "she could tell the world what happened here" (quotation marks added by me based on news accounts). This is an incredibly odd thing to say that betrays a sense of this act as being more than what it is in the eyes of the shooter.

I'm not in any way suggesting that he is insane in a way that would preclude prosecution. I'm simply stating that this guy is on par with other mass shooters in recent history. The fact that he is white and his victims were black was not a coincidence by any means.

But I do believe that some of the particulars surrounding this crime suggest mental issues which were channeled into racial hatred. With the right impetus perhaps, his rage could have been directed toward women, children, gays, people of another religion or any other group.

I may be wrong but there's just something weird about this that doesn't fit neatly into the category of a hate crime.


----------



## Shaver

The Thibodeux massacre. Residents in certain areas of America have long been fond of murdering non white folk.



SG_67 said:


> I'm not suggesting that this guy was not motivated by race. I'm simply stating that this guy has some underlying mental illness, be it a complete schizoid break or a personality disorder, that laid the foundation for this act.
> 
> There are a lot of people who harbor racial animus. There are many people who are racist, but not all of them commit acts like this. I will go as far as to say that even during the dark days of the civil rights struggle in the south, there were no mass murders of this nature committed in the name of maintaining the racial status quo. If I"m wrong, someone please point it out to me.
> 
> There are a couple of things that lead me to believe this:
> 
> 1) He acted alone and did not appear to be part of an organized effort. This act did not occur in the broader context of a civil rights struggle with that church as it's center. His circle of friends, at least those who have so far been identified, seemed to think that he was a bit unhinged.
> 
> 2) He allowed one person to escape so that "she could tell the world what happened here" (quotation marks added by me based on news accounts). This is an incredibly odd thing to say that betrays a sense of this act as being more than what it is in the eyes of the shooter.
> 
> I'm not in any way suggesting that he is insane in a way that would preclude prosecution. I'm simply stating that this guy is on par with other mass shooters in recent history. The fact that he is white and his victims were black was not a coincidence by any means.
> 
> But I do believe that some of the particulars surrounding this crime suggest mental issues which were channeled into racial hatred. With the right impetus perhaps, his rage could have been directed toward women, children, gays, people of another religion or any other group.
> 
> I may be wrong but there's just something weird about this that doesn't fit neatly into the category of a hate crime.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver, 
I can always count on you for historical reference. You are correct. 

However, I indicated "mass murders of this nature" of which I don't believe your example qualifies except in body count.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Cut to the chase.

You said, essentially, that you would bet that 99.5 percent of the population doesn't give a rip about CSA symbols sanctioned by the state. That's what you said. I said I'll take that bet.

Are we on?



SG_67 said:


> I'm not suggesting that this guy was not motivated by race. I'm simply stating that this guy has some underlying mental illness, be it a complete schizoid break or a personality disorder, that laid the foundation for this act.
> 
> There are a lot of people who harbor racial animus. There are many people who are racist, but not all of them commit acts like this. I will go as far as to say that even during the dark days of the civil rights struggle in the south, there were no mass murders of this nature committed in the name of maintaining the racial status quo. If I"m wrong, someone please point it out to me.
> 
> There are a couple of things that lead me to believe this:
> 
> 1) He acted alone and did not appear to be part of an organized effort. This act did not occur in the broader context of a civil rights struggle with that church as it's center. His circle of friends, at least those who have so far been identified, seemed to think that he was a bit unhinged.
> 
> 2) He allowed one person to escape so that "she could tell the world what happened here" (quotation marks added by me based on news accounts). This is an incredibly odd thing to say that betrays a sense of this act as being more than what it is in the eyes of the shooter.
> 
> I'm not in any way suggesting that he is insane in a way that would preclude prosecution. I'm simply stating that this guy is on par with other mass shooters in recent history. The fact that he is white and his victims were black was not a coincidence by any means.
> 
> But I do believe that some of the particulars surrounding this crime suggest mental issues which were channeled into racial hatred. With the right impetus perhaps, his rage could have been directed toward women, children, gays, people of another religion or any other group.
> 
> I may be wrong but there's just something weird about this that doesn't fit neatly into the category of a hate crime.


----------



## bernoulli

Never read a better description than the one at the Economist on the mass shootings and the gun culture in the US:
"Those who live in America, or visit it, might do best to regard them the way one regards air pollution in China: an endemic local health hazard which, for deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and political reasons, the country is incapable of addressing. This may, however, be a bit unfair. China seems to be making progress on pollution."


----------



## 32rollandrock

Well put.



bernoulli said:


> Never read a better description than the one at the Economist on the mass shootings and the gun culture in the US:
> "Those who live in America, or visit it, might do best to regard them the way one regards air pollution in China: an endemic local health hazard which, for deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and political reasons, the country is incapable of addressing. This may, however, be a bit unfair. China seems to be making progress on pollution."


----------



## Shaver

There must be some subtle nuance which eludes my blunt assessment for these two events seem as much of a muchness to me.



SG_67 said:


> Shaver,
> I can always count on you for historical reference. You are correct.
> 
> However, I indicated "mass murders of this nature" of which I don't believe your example qualifies except in body count.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Cut to the chase.
> 
> You said, essentially, that you would bet that 99.5 percent of the population doesn't give a rip about CSA symbols sanctioned by the state. That's what you said. I said I'll take that bet.
> 
> Are we on?


Sure.....Let's conduct a scientific poll. Ask a random statistically significant sample of Americans to list in sequential order what concerns them the most on a daily basis and I'll bet you the flag issue doesn't even crack the top 20.

Of course, if you mention the topic specifically you might get a different answer. Hence Disraeli's famous saying about "lies, damned lies and statistics".


----------



## 32rollandrock

Actually, we don't have to have a poll. There has already been an election:

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/18/...te-flag-that-includes-confederate-emblem.html

Not surprisingly, the margin was almost identical to the racial breakdown in the state. In South Carolina, the vote was 35-7 in the state Senate in 2000 to pass the compromise that resulted in the Confederate flag being removed from the Capitol itself and being placed at the monument where it now flies. That same year, South Carolina became the last state in the Union to enact a holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. The vote in the House was 82-35. These numbers suggest that your contention that 99.5 percent of the population doesn't care is not correct. It would be nice to hear you say so, but I doubt that we will. Instead, I suspect we'll hear "Well, that was 15 years ago" or "Election results aren't true indicators" or something else other than "You know, I've thought about this and I suppose that if I were black, it would bother me." Which, really, is the truth of the matter.



SG_67 said:


> Sure.....Let's conduct a scientific poll. Ask a random statistically significant sample of Americans to list in sequential order what concerns them the most on a daily basis and I'll bet you the flag issue doesn't even crack the top 20.
> 
> Of course, if you mention the topic specifically you might get a different answer. Hence Disraeli's famous saying about "lies, damned lies and statistics".


----------



## SG_67

^ Issues like what flag flies over the state capitol are inherently racially divisive. Honestly I think both sides like having it as it becomes a rallying point for the respective party loyalists. 

Like I said, take a statistically significant sampling of Americans and ask them to list their top 10 political and/or social concerns (taxes, war, etc.) and I'll bet the flag issues doesn't crack that list. 

States like MS and SC as well as other southern states have far worse problems facing them and should focus their efforts on those. 

Besides, what would the Duke boys drive?


----------



## bernoulli

this! So right...



RogerP said:


> It is very much part of the right wing agenda to attempt to sanitize this horrible act as the product of mental illness that had nothing to do with the racial hatred of blacks.
> 
> The guy said he wanted to kill black people, accused them of 'raping our women' and taking over 'his' country. And yet the right wing apologists accuse the media of attempting to "portray" this as an act of racism.
> 
> He embraced the flags of Rhodesia, Apartheid-era South Africa and the Confederate flag. Hmmm, what do those three have in common, I wonder? Whatever the connection, I'm sure it couldn't possibly have anything to do with racism, right?
> 
> Violent racial hatred is exactly what this is. It is born of viewing people of a different colour as lesser humans at best, or less than human at worst. It is no less an act of racism than any of the long history of lynchings, burnings and bombings perpetrated by racists upon black Americans over a period of history both distant and recent.
> 
> It is by far one of the ugliest, most obscene and most overt of examples of racism. Others are far more subtle. Like the head-in-the-sand denial that this could possibly have been a racist act when any rational assessment must conclude that it could not possibly have been anything else. And when you have a candidate for the Republican nomination for President describing Mexican immigrants as "rapists" on prime time television, it's not hard to see that sentiments such as these are embraced by a wider spectrum of American society than some would like to believe. Or to admit.
> 
> Though I expect the denials of racism to continue. Even as the mountain of compelling evidence to the contrary continues to grow.


----------



## 32rollandrock

You understand, I hope, how incredibly tone deaf and insensitive this entire post is.

In essence, you are, it seems, acknowledging that it is divisive and offensive, but that the people who are offended like it that way. Really?

I am reminded of your recent refusal to read the DOJ report on Ferguson on the grounds that you could knowledgeably discuss the situation without having read the document. And so no one should be surprised by this.



SG_67 said:


> ^ Issues like what flag flies over the state capitol are inherently racially divisive. Honestly I think both sides like having it as it becomes a rallying point for the respective party loyalists.
> 
> Like I said, take a statistically significant sampling of Americans and ask them to list their top 10 political and/or social concerns (taxes, war, etc.) and I'll bet the flag issues doesn't crack that list.
> 
> States like MS and SC as well as other southern states have far worse problems facing them and should focus their efforts on those.
> 
> Besides, what would the Duke boys drive?


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> You understand, I hope, how incredibly tone deaf and insensitive this entire post is.


Please explain. I'd love to hear how insensitive I'm being when some people turn a tragedy into a rant about an anachronistic flag.

Yes, please, enlighten me.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Due apologies, but I have reached the conclusion that you cannot be enlightened on racial matters. In every instance, it seems, there is always a reason why black people are wrong and white people, and/or the powers that be, are right--that's putting it harshly, but so be it. "Anachronistic" is a good way, of many ways, to describe the flag. And yet you defend its existence, or, at least, say that it is not important.

Race hustlers are only as powerful as the ammunition that is handed them. You complain about race hustlers while handing them ammunition. 'Nuff said.



SG_67 said:


> Please explain. I'd love to hear how insensitive I'm being when some people turn a tragedy into a rant about an anachronistic flag.
> 
> Yes, please, enlighten me.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Due apologies, but I have reached the conclusion that you cannot be enlightened on racial matters. In every instance, it seems, there is always a reason why black people are wrong and white people, and/or the powers that be, are right--that's putting it harshly, but so be it. "Anachronistic" is a good way, of many ways, to describe the flag. And yet you defend its existence, or, at least, say that it is not important.
> 
> Race hustlers are only as powerful as the ammunition that is handed them. You complain about race hustlers while handing them ammunition. 'Nuff said.


I'm afraid I don't need enlightenment. Disagreement with you on particular matters is not a qualification for being unenlightened.

Personally I don't defend, nor do I condemn, the existence of the flag that flies above a state capitol of a state of which I am not a resident. That is for the people of SC, GA, MS and any other state that flies it. If enough people vote to remove it, then so be it. They can remove it and have a ritual of destruction over it for all I care. I only care for the US flag.

As for race hustlers, they don't need me for ammo. They don't need anyone for ammo. They are perfectly capable of creating their own from thin air and have been doing so for a generation.


----------



## Shaver

32rollandrock said:


> *Due apologies, but I have reached the conclusion that you cannot be enlightened on racial matters.* In every instance, it seems, there is always a reason why black people are wrong and white people, and/or the powers that be, are right--that's putting it harshly, but so be it. "Anachronistic" is a good way, of many ways, to describe the flag. And yet you defend its existence, or, at least, say that it is not important.
> 
> Race hustlers are only as powerful as the ammunition that is handed them. You complain about race hustlers while handing them ammunition. 'Nuff said.


You presume that our friend SG is white.......?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Please explain. I'd love to hear how insensitive I'm being when some people turn a tragedy into a rant about an anachronistic flag.
> 
> Yes, please, enlighten me.


As an outsider, as it were, it strikes me that a lot is being made of the Confederate flag. It is, of course, an anachronism. It is also a powerful symbol of racism. It was used as such by those racists who opposed the Civil Rights movement in the early 60's. They chose it to symbolise their race hatred. As such a powerful symbol of racial oppression it seems, to me, to be beyond doubt that choosing, consciously, to fly such an odious symbol of oppression to so many people on government buildings is a powerful statement of attitude. It isn't just an anachronistic flag, and condemning the official display of a symbol of race hatred as merely a "rant" strikes me that an important point is being deliberately down-played.
It is akin to the suggestion that Paolo di Caneo's fascist salute was meaningless.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...all-beautiful-game-paolo-di-canio-nazi-salute


----------



## Chouan

Further to my previous post I found this, which I thought said it better than me.
_*" early in the civil rights movement the rebel flag was adopted by segregationists who held on tight to the Jim Crow status quo. Anti-integration college students waved it as they fought the National Guard. South Carolina began flying the flag over the state capitol in 1962, and it stayed until the end of the century. I remember the news when it was finally moved to a nearby Confederate memorial.*__*The flag's racist associations were solidified when it was adopted as a symbol of hatred for minority groups and resistance to government by the KKK and the Aryan Nation. And more recently by Christian fundamentalists who argued that those who want to ban the Confederate flag are committing "cultural genocide" against the South, claiming it would lead to "feeding the Constitution to a shredder."
But while the flag represents a whole spectrum of attitudes and ideals to southern whites, black folks are unified in their perception. It represents slavery and white supremacy, and the fact that it's still displayed a century and a half after the end of the Civil war is proof that racism is still very much with us.
*__*That said, no one who flies the flag can be unaware of its hateful symbolism. No matter how benign the intent, flying it communicates a racist, violent message and is itself a callous, aggressive, even malevolent act."*_


----------



## SG_67

I'm not denying the symbolism of the flag or how it is viewed by any one group. 

What I find odd is that people are calling it for it to be taken down without any of the normal due process in accordance with our democracy. 

Should it be taken down? That's a matter for the people of those states to decide. If enough like minded people get together and pressure their legislatures then it will happen. Democracy is not for the lazy. If people are truly that passionate about it then something will happen. If not, then it will stay where it is despite the occasional rumbling about what it represents. 

What I won't do, however, is chime in from a distance on a matter that is really irrelevant to me. Let those closest to the issue have the say on the flag's fate. Let the issue be brought up and whatever residual demons that are present be exorcised by those most immediately touched by it.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> You presume that our friend SG is white.......?


It depends on my mood and what I choose to identify as on that day....


----------



## 32rollandrock

This sounds good in theory. In practice, it fails.

This is what they tried in Mississippi when they put the question on the ballot. As I said earlier (did you read the link or my synopsis?), the proposal failed in a vote that broke down, coincidentally or not, pretty much on racial lines--30 percent of the population was black and 30 percent of voters voted to remove the stars and bars from the state flag. You say that if enough like-minded people get together and pressure their legislatures, it will happen. That's a rather naive view of how politics and government work. Gun control, a hot button issue to be sure, is an excellent example. Polls consistently show that most Americans favor gun control legislation that doesn't have a ghost of a chance of passing due to the lobbying power of the NRA. Before that, it was Prohibition. Most Americans did not favor Prohibition, which was abundantly evident when it came to pass. It's called a wedge issue, and there are numerous examples in American history. Slavery, arguably, was a wedge issue. Gay marriage was used as a wedge issue in the 1990s. And the CSA flag is, most definitely, a wedge issue. You don't have to look any further than the recent reaction of GOP candidates to the question. They duck and run as if they were inside the church when the mad man opened fire. Not a single one of those scaredy cats has the courage to state, in no uncertain terms, where they stand. Why? Because it's a wedge issue. They know that there is a certain element, particularly in the South, that votes and will come out against them if they state the obvious: It's a racist symbol that is abhorrent to a large number of Americans and it should be removed. Even you admit this when you say you don't deny the symbolism of the flag or how it is viewed "by any one group" (and African Americans are a pretty big group).

Jeb Bush, who removed the flag from the Florida Capitol, won't say where he stands; he merely says that he hopes that South Carolina will do the right thing. When he ran for president, Mitt Romney called for the flag's removal in no uncertain terms, only to have Huckabee take a similar line as yourself: No one outside South Carolina should decide. McCain said much the same thing and later admitted that he had been wrong, that he'd compromised his principles and said it because he didn't want to lose votes. Better late than never, I suppose.

The thing with wedge issues is, once politicians summon the courage and do the right thing, especially over something like this, the issue vanishes. No one today seriously argues that gay people should be treated as second-class citizens. Those who do that are considered, among other things, less than enlightened. But 20 years ago, it was very common for people to argue in favor of discrimination against gays, and politicians who did it scored political points.

Lastly, whether you recognize it or not, those flags in South Carolina and Mississippi affect all Americans, not just people who live in those states. The power of those symbols transcends state borders. They make us less of a country and less of a democracy. What is called for here is leadership, true leadership, not "well, let the voters decide." That's a cop out.



SG_67 said:


> I'm not denying the symbolism of the flag or how it is viewed by any one group.
> 
> What I find odd is that people are calling it for it to be taken down without any of the normal due process in accordance with our democracy.
> 
> Should it be taken down? That's a matter for the people of those states to decide. If enough like minded people get together and pressure their legislatures then it will happen. Democracy is not for the lazy. If people are truly that passionate about it then something will happen. If not, then it will stay where it is despite the occasional rumbling about what it represents.
> 
> What I won't do, however, is chime in from a distance on a matter that is really irrelevant to me. Let those closest to the issue have the say on the flag's fate. Let the issue be brought up and whatever residual demons that are present be exorcised by those most immediately touched by it.


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock said:


> This sounds good in theory. In practice, it fails.
> 
> This is what they tried in Mississippi when they put the question on the ballot. As I said earlier (did you read the link or my synopsis?), the proposal failed in a vote that broke down, coincidentally or not, pretty much on racial lines--30 percent of the population was black and 30 percent of voters voted to remove the stars and bars from the state flag. You say that if enough like-minded people get together and pressure their legislatures, it will happen. That's a rather naive view of how politics and government work. Gun control, a hot button issue to be sure, is an excellent example. Polls consistently show that most Americans favor gun control legislation that doesn't have a ghost of a chance of passing due to the lobbying power of the NRA. Before that, it was Prohibition. Most Americans did not favor Prohibition, which was abundantly evident when it came to pass. It's called a wedge issue, and there are numerous examples in American history. Slavery, arguably, was a wedge issue. Gay marriage was used as a wedge issue in the 1990s. And the CSA flag is, most definitely, a wedge issue. You don't have to look any further than the recent reaction of GOP candidates to the question. They duck and run as if they were inside the church when the mad man opened fire. Not a single one of those scaredy cats has the courage to state, in no uncertain terms, where they stand. Why? Because it's a wedge issue. They know that there is a certain element, particularly in the South, that votes and will come out against them if they state the obvious: It's a racist symbol that is abhorrent to a large number of Americans and it should be removed. Even you admit this when you say you don't deny the symbolism of the flag or how it is viewed "by any one group" (and African Americans are a pretty big group).
> 
> Jeb Bush, who removed the flag from the Florida Capitol, won't say where he stands; he merely says that he hopes that South Carolina will do the right thing. When he was ran for president, Mitt Romney called for the flag's removal in no uncertain terms, only to have Huckabee take a similar line as yourself: No one outside South Carolina should decide. McCain said much the same thing and later admitted that he had been wrong, that he'd compromised his principles and said it because he didn't want to lose votes. Better late than never, I suppose.
> 
> The thing with wedge issues is, once politicians summon the courage and do the right thing, especially over something like this, the issue vanishes. No one today seriously argues that gay people should be treated as second-class citizens. Those who do that are considered, among other things, less than enlightened. But 20 years ago, it was very common for people to argue in favor of discrimination against gays, and politicians who did it scored political points.
> 
> Lastly, whether you recognize it or not, those flags in South Carolina and Mississippi affect all Americans, not just people who live in those states. The power of those symbols transcends state borders. They make us less of a country and less of a democracy. What is called for here is leadership, true leadership, not "well, let the voters decide." That's a cop out.


Indeed. Democracy should not be a dictatorship for the majority. In Northern Ireland up to the 1960's democracy was, supposedly, practiced. In effect it meant that the Loyalist majority could ride roughshod over the large Catholic minority and completely disregard their views. This seems to be the same kind of thing, a majority using their majority to impose their views on a minority.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Precisely. But it's also more complex. Minorities can, and often do, dictate political outcomes. A wedge issue is something that is very important to a minority of voters and is inconsequential to others. With firearms, gun owners, who are in the minority in terms of population, are more passionate about the issue than the rest of the body politic--they can deliver votes and money and so have political influence that is disproportionate to their numbers. Same thing with Prohibition. Prohibitionists could deliver sufficient votes to swing elections, and so they had political influence that was disproportionate to their numbers. Same principle with the flag issue. Democrats tend to say that government-sponsored CSA symbols should go. Republicans tend to waffle on the issue for fear of losing votes that were never going to go to Democrats in the first place for a variety of reasons. Politicians who waffle on wedge issues are cowards. Really, there is no other word for it.

The thing with wedge issues is, they seldom hold up over time. In the long haul, a minority can only force its will for so long. Eventually, the will of the majority will succeed. Over time, other states, notably Georgia and Florida, have taken down overt Confederate symbols, although some state flags are still reminiscent of Confederate designs. I'm guessing that South Carolina will eventually remove the CSA flag from the Capitol grounds and Mississippi will one day remove the stars and bars from its state flag. It won't happen via popular vote and may not happen in my lifetime. But, eventually, you have to get over the Civil War. It's way past time, especially with a symbol as hurtful to as many people as the stars and bars.



Chouan said:


> Indeed. Democracy should not be a dictatorship for the majority. In Northern Ireland up to the 1960's democracy was, supposedly, practiced. In effect it meant that the Loyalist majority could ride roughshod over the large Catholic minority and completely disregard their views. This seems to be the same kind of thing, a majority using their majority to impose their views on a minority.


----------



## RogerP

Chouan said:


> As an outsider, as it were, it strikes me that a lot is being made of the Confederate flag. It is, of course, an anachronism. It is also a powerful symbol of racism. It was used as such by those racists who opposed the Civil Rights movement in the early 60's. They chose it to symbolise their race hatred. As such a powerful symbol of racial oppression it seems, to me, to be beyond doubt that choosing, consciously, to fly such an odious symbol of oppression to so many people on government buildings is a powerful statement of attitude. It isn't just an anachronistic flag, and condemning the official display of a symbol of race hatred as merely a "rant" strikes me that an important point is being deliberately down-played.
> It is akin to the suggestion that Paolo di Caneo's fascist salute was meaningless.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...all-beautiful-game-paolo-di-canio-nazi-salute


Agree completely. Downplaying an important point is indeed the goal of many who seek to deny the existence of racism itself; to dispute the identification of even the most obvious acts of racial hatred and violence; and to discredit those oppose them as agenda-driven race-baiters.

But hey, I'd probably "rant" about any level of government anywhere flying the Nazi Swastika, so I guess that makes me one of those uppity hustlers.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Good news: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/south-carolina-confederate-flag_n_7637644.html


----------



## Shaver

The censorship of symbols may merely enhance their allure, continue to generate their mystique of evil, concentrate their power as focus for hatefullness. Re-appropriation would appear as a more valuable and enduring solution.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Perhaps. I'm not against Freedom of Speech. If people want to run around wearing swastikas or Confederate flags or pictures of Attila The Hun on their t-shirt, more power to them. Get tattoos, for all I care. Just don't ask me to pay for it and don't do it in my name. If you want to try to re-appropriate such symbols, be my guest. And good luck. Who knows? Christians have, in a sense, re-appropriated the cross.

Addendum: One point I'm not sure has been made that I think is important. South Carolina didn't fly the Confederate flag at the Capitol until 1962, when it went up as a symbol of defiance to the burgeoning civil rights movement in the United States. I think that context should be considered here. If the state, in the face of federal edicts, hadn't decided to symbolically oppose civil rights for blacks by hoisting the flag in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. The state was as wrong then as it is now. The flag should come down.



Shaver said:


> The censorship of symbols may merely enhance their allure, continue to generate their mystique of evil, concentrate their power as focus for hatefullness. Re-appropriation would appear as a more valuable and enduring solution.


----------



## SG_67

Here you go:

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley calls for Confederate flag to be removed from statehouse



This is what happens when the public pressures their elected leaders. Democracy at work.

Addendum: 32RR beat me to it.


----------



## RogerP

32rollandrock said:


> Good news: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/south-carolina-confederate-flag_n_7637644.html


Better late than never.



32rollandrock said:


> Perhaps. I'm not against Freedom of Speech. If people want to run around wearing swastikas or Confederate flags or pictures of Attila The Hun on their t-shirt, more power to them. Get tattoos, for all I care. Just don't ask me to pay for it and don't do it in my name. If you want to try to re-appropriate such symbols, be my guest. And good luck. Who knows? Christians have, in a sense, re-appropriated the cross.
> 
> Addendum: One point I'm not sure has been made that I think is important. South Carolina didn't fly the Confederate flag at the Capitol until 1962, when it went up as a symbol of defiance to the burgeoning civil rights movement in the United States. I think that context should be considered here. If the state, in the face of federal edicts, hadn't decided to symbolically oppose civil rights for blacks by hoisting the flag in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. The state was as wrong then as it is now. The flag should come down.


Agreed. Freedom of speech should embrace the right of the individual to display such odious symbols. But it's very much a different question - and not one of censorship at all - when examining the propriety of a State _government _flying that flag.


----------



## 32rollandrock

We shall see.

She has only called for it. She can't make it happen. The legislature must agree by a two-thirds vote to take up the matter in the upcoming special session, otherwise, it will have to wait until the next regular session. Fingers crossed, it will be a unanimous vote.

I can't claim credit, but someone else has noted that the last flag of the Confederacy was a white flag. So how about yet another compromise: Replace the Confederate flag that now flies at the CSA monument with a white flag. When you think about it, that's appropriate on many levels in addition to being historically accurate.



SG_67 said:


> Here you go:
> 
> South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley calls for Confederate flag to be removed from statehouse
> 
> This is what happens when the public pressures their elected leaders. Democracy at work.
> 
> Addendum: 32RR beat me to it.


----------



## SG_67

^ and inflammatory to a certain subset the same way as the confederate battle flag is to many. 

Listen, I'm no apologist for the southern cause and I'm certainly not a racist, but why is it wrong to senselessly aggravate one group and then turn around and inflame another one on purpose. 

The war ended a long time ago. Leave it at that and let's move forward. When you stop and think about it SC, is really a model of what the modern south can look like; a female governor (and a minority at that), and a black senator elected to office state wide. A generation ago that would have been though impossible.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> Huh? I thought you were stamping your feet a few posts ago about not making this thread about the confederate flag? Or did you mean that nobody should point out that it is as obvious a symbol of racial hatred as the Nazi Swastika and instead use code words for its proponents' shared desire to go back to the good old days when blacks knew their place by calling it a matter of 'heritage'? The Swastika wasn't ONLY about racial hatred, either. But to pretend that it wasn't quite fundamentally about that would be an act of absurd revisionist history. Same with the Confederate flag.


Stomping my feet? Hardly. I was trying to prevent this thread about a hateful murder of 9 innocent people into a wrongheaded blamefest on something that had nothing to do with it.

No one is saying that the young man who murdered these people was not a racist - that has been quite well established.

What I am saying is that his racism and anger had nothing to do with the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia or roads named for Confederate generals or statesmen.

Just for my edification though, can I get a list of all the things that are forbidden symbols, so that I make sure to avoid them in the future?


----------



## Liberty Ship

Insane people rarely murder "for no reason." They always have a reason, it's just not a reason that any sane person would consider to be a justification. The justification might make perfect sense to their demented mind, yet have no basis in reality. Thus, "insanity." 

This shooting in an historic, Black church reminds me of another that happened in 1974. Marcus Wayne Chenault walked into Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Atlanta and shot several people including the mother of Dr. Martin Luther King who at the time was at the organ playing, "The Lord's Prayer." I believe that a deacon and others were shot and killed. Chenault said his enemy was Christianity and that he was on a mission to kill Black ministers. He missed with the shot he took at King's father. Similarly to the Charleston incident, he sat in a front pew and sat through about half the service before he pulled two guns and started shooting. I'm sort of surprised that the collective memory has not reminded us of this incident in context of Charleston.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Addendum: One point I'm not sure has been made that I think is important. South Carolina didn't fly the Confederate flag at the Capitol until 1962, when it went up as a symbol of defiance to the burgeoning civil rights movement in the United States. I think that context should be considered here. If the state, in the face of federal edicts, hadn't decided to symbolically oppose civil rights for blacks by hoisting the flag in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. The state was as wrong then as it is now. The flag should come down.


Correct - and much of the rebellion was driven by what was seen as a second reconstruction.

Perhaps you should do some studying up on the reconstruction. It weren't pretty. There is a very good argument to be made that the south did not recover from reconstruction until the 1950's and Charlotte is the first southern city to become a major city that was not a major one pre war.

Perversely, the worst thing that every happened to the south was Booth killing Lincoln.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> We shall see.
> 
> She has only called for it. She can't make it happen. The legislature must agree by a two-thirds vote to take up the matter in the upcoming special session, otherwise, it will have to wait until the next regular session. Fingers crossed, it will be a unanimous vote.
> 
> I can't claim credit, but someone else has noted that the last flag of the Confederacy was a white flag. So how about yet another compromise: Replace the Confederate flag that now flies at the CSA monument with a white flag. When you think about it, that's appropriate on many levels in addition to being historically accurate.


The flag that is being discussed was never an official flag of the CSA. It is the battle flag of the Army Of Northern Virginia - hence the reason why it is considered as the way to honor the Confederate dead and their bravery. And also why it is considered as a symbol of rebellion. There were a few official CSA flags, none of which you would know about unless you looked for them. One was indeed mostly white, but very short lived as it looked too much like a flag of surrender. FWIW, the CSA flags were rarely, if ever, carried into battle by CSA troops.


----------



## 32rollandrock

"Second reconstruction?" Are you suggesting that the civil rights movement that, ultimately, resulted in an end to segregation and blacks gaining the true power to vote was somehow a "second reconstruction?" If so, I would suggest that anyone who believes that the civil rights movement was a second reconstruction that somehow did harm to the South is, well, exactly what any thinking person would conclude. Are you suggesting that opposition to equal rights for black people justified the stars-and-bars being flown above the Capitol? Really?

Agreed that Lincoln's death was a blow to the South. But the rest of what you are saying, if I grasp your meaning, is plain hard to digest. Putting it mildly.



vpkozel said:


> Correct - and much of the rebellion was driven by what was seen as a second reconstruction.
> 
> Perhaps you should do some studying up on the reconstruction. It weren't pretty. There is a very good argument to be made that the south did not recover from reconstruction until the 1950's and Charlotte is the first southern city to become a major city that was not a major one pre war.
> 
> Perversely, the worst thing that every happened to the south was Booth killing Lincoln.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> "Second reconstruction?" Are you suggesting that the civil rights movement that, ultimately, resulted in an end to segregation and blacks gaining the true power to vote was somehow a "second reconstruction?" If so, I would suggest that anyone who believes that the civil rights movement was a second reconstruction that somehow did harm to the South is, well, exactly what any thinking person would conclude. Are you suggesting that opposition to equal rights for black people justified the stars-and-bars being flown above the Capitol? Really?
> 
> Agreed that Lincoln's death was a blow to the South. But the rest of what you are saying, if I grasp your meaning, is plain hard to digest. Putting it mildly.


It really should not be hard to digest if you have even a cursory knowledge of history.

The was brutally exploited and run roughshod over during reconstruction and many saw the federal troops there to force desegregation as a second go round of that experience. It is not about the ends, it is about the means. You often miss that.

I want to make this perfectly clear - I am not a lost causer. The best thing that ever happened to the south was to lose the Civil War. Reconstruction did suck though and there is pretty much no one who will disagree with that.


----------



## Liberty Ship

There were three Confederate National Flags. And there were quite a few "battle flags," usually associated with the various states. Tennessee and Virginia being the most "popular." One interesting one is the Confederate battle flag of the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee nation was pretty mad at the Federal government and they threw in with the Rebels.

FWIW, in my experience the Confederate flag is usually displayed to flaunt authority, particularly government authority in general, than as a racist statement. It is a sad commentary that people have "attached" to the symbol rather than understanding history and the nature of violent crime. It sort or reminds me of the way the Taliban or ISIS destroy historical artifacts as if these inanimate objects constitute a real, physical threat.

Here are a sampling of the flags which, I suppose, should be banned. Along with "Gold's Gym" t-shirts.

https://rememberingletters.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/usa-z-battle-flags-of-confederate-states.jpg


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> Stomping my feet? Hardly. I was trying to prevent this thread about a hateful murder of 9 innocent people into a wrongheaded blamefest *on something that had nothing to do with it.
> *
> No one is saying that the young man who murdered these people was not a racist - that has been quite well established.
> 
> What I am saying is that his racism and anger had nothing to do with the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia or roads named for Confederate generals or statesmen.
> 
> Just for my edification though, can I get a list of all the things that are forbidden symbols, so that I make sure to avoid them in the future?


Racism had everything to do with it. The Confederate flag is a symbol of racist oppression openly flouted by the actual shooter, along with other symbols of racist oppression that I referenced earlier (Rhodesia and SA flags). I get that you can't / won't see a connection between your beloved flag and this contemptible atrocity - and I know that trying to pierce the wall of ignorance that prevents you from seeing it would take more time and energy than I am willing to devote to the task.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Here's the cold, hard truth: No one outside the South cares about these distinctions. No one. All we see is a bunch of folks who can't seem to get over the Civil War, and we can't understand why. It's like folks who defend the swastika by pointing out that it's a symbol that dates back thousands of years. No one cares. Because what matters is what it means in the here and now.

Lots of brave soldiers from the South fought and died. No one is denying that. We get it. Really, we do. The problem is, they fought and died for a cause predicated on the enslavement of people based on the color of their skin. That's not a good cause to fight and die for, no matter how you cut it.

It is encouraging to see that white, Republican politicians in South Carolina are, finally, recognizing that the flag is a divisive symbol that has no place in government. It has taken way too long. You and everyone should hope that the vote to bring the issue up in the special session is a unanimous one and that the flag is voted to be taken down with a minimum of debate and hoopla. We've had way too much of that. Let the politicians work their magic behind closed doors, twist the appropriate arms, have a floor vote with no speeches and then move on. The CSA had sufficient sense to raise the white flag 150 years ago. It's time, finally, for others to do the same.



vpkozel said:


> The flag that is being discussed was never an official flag of the CSA. It is the battle flag of the Army Of Northern Virginia - hence the reason why it is considered as the way to honor the Confederate dead and their bravery. And also why it is considered as a symbol of rebellion. There were a few official CSA flags, none of which you would know about unless you looked for them. One was indeed mostly white, but very short lived as it looked too much like a flag of surrender. FWIW, the CSA flags were rarely, if ever, carried into battle by CSA troops.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Liberty Ship said:


> There were three Confederate National Flags. And there were quite a few "battle flags," usually associated with the various states. Tennessee and Virginia being the most "popular." One interesting one is the Confederate battle flag of the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee nation was pretty mad at the Federal government and they threw in with the Rebels.
> 
> *FWIW, in my experience the Confederate flag is usually displayed to flaunt authority, particularly government authority in general, *than as a racist statement. It is a sad commentary that people have "attached" to the symbol rather than understanding history and the nature of violent crime. It sort or reminds me of the way the Taliban or ISIS destroy historical artifacts as if these inanimate objects constitute a real, physical threat.
> 
> Here are a sampling of the flags which, I suppose, should be banned. Along with "Gold's Gym" t-shirts.
> 
> https://rememberingletters.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/usa-z-battle-flags-of-confederate-states.jpg


Funny, didn't see any Confederate flags flying in Ferguson or Baltimore. Just sayin'.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Here's the cold, hard truth: No one outside the South cares about these distinctions. No one. All we see is a bunch of folks who can't seem to get over the Civil War, and we can't understand why. It's like folks who defend the swastika by pointing out that it's a symbol that dates back thousands of years. No one cares. Because what matters is what it means in the here and now.
> 
> Lots of brave soldiers from the South fought and died. No one is denying that. We get it. Really, we do. The problem is, they fought and died for a cause predicated on the enslavement of people based on the color of their skin. That's not a good cause to fight and die for, no matter how you cut it.
> 
> It is encouraging to see that white, Republican politicians in South Carolina are, finally, recognizing that the flag is a divisive symbol that has no place in government. It has taken way too long. You and everyone should hope that the vote to bring the issue up in the special session is a unanimous one and that the flag is voted to be taken down with a minimum of debate and hoopla. We've had way too much of that. Let the politicians work their magic behind closed doors, twist the appropriate arms, have a floor vote with no speeches and then move on. The CSA had sufficient sense to raise the white flag 150 years ago. It's time, finally, for others to do the same.


Oh, we get that y'all don't really care at all unless you want to lecture us on why we are wrong and just need to do what you say. I understand that history really doesn't mean anything to you, but they weren't fighting for slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free all of the slaves in the Union, Lincoln was willing to reunite the Union and let the CSA keep the slaves, etc.

And again, it isn't losing that bugs us. It is Reconstruction.

This might be a bad spot to point out that the governor of SC is Indian (Asian, not American).


----------



## RogerP

Chouan said:


> Further to my previous post I found this, which I thought said it better than me.
> _*" early in the civil rights movement the rebel flag was adopted by segregationists who held on tight to the Jim Crow status quo. Anti-integration college students waved it as they fought the National Guard. South Carolina began flying the flag over the state capitol in 1962, and it stayed until the end of the century. I remember the news when it was finally moved to a nearby Confederate memorial.*__*The flag's racist associations were solidified when it was adopted as a symbol of hatred for minority groups and resistance to government by the KKK and the Aryan Nation. And more recently by Christian fundamentalists who argued that those who want to ban the Confederate flag are committing "cultural genocide" against the South, claiming it would lead to "feeding the Constitution to a shredder."
> But while the flag represents a whole spectrum of attitudes and ideals to southern whites, black folks are unified in their perception. It represents slavery and white supremacy, and the fact that it's still displayed a century and a half after the end of the Civil war is proof that racism is still very much with us.
> *__*That said, no one who flies the flag can be unaware of its hateful symbolism. No matter how benign the intent, flying it communicates a racist, violent message and is itself a callous, aggressive, even malevolent act."*_


Spot on in every respect. The Confederate flag has absolutely no connection with racism only if we ignore all the connections with racism. Hateful symbolism, indeed.

Rep. Doug Brannon is quoted as saying of the Confederate flag: ""It's not just a symbol of hate, it's actually a symbol of pride in one's hatred." He spoke the truth.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> Racism had everything to do with it. The Confederate flag is a symbol of racist oppression openly flouted by the actual shooter, along with other symbols of racist oppression that I referenced earlier (Rhodesia and SA flags). I get that you can't / won't see a connection between your beloved flag and this contemptible atrocity - and I know that trying to pierce the wall of ignorance that prevents you from seeing it would take more time and energy than I am willing to devote to the task.


Racism most certainly did have everything to do with this. No one is saying otherwise.

But if there is a linkage between the flag and murders like this, why have there not been a lot more?


----------



## vpkozel

I am genuinely curious - but do those who call for the connection of the murderer here to the Confederate flag also call for the connection for the man who said this to the Islam?

"The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one … By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Sharia in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? … when you drop a bomb do you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? … Through many passages in the Koran we must fight them as they fight us … I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is gonna get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think politicians are going to die? No, it's going to be the average guy, like you and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back … leave our lands and you will live in peace."


----------



## vpkozel

FWIW, I just watched Rep. James Clyburn on Meet The Press discussing this.

Here is his quote. “That is not the Confederate flag. That's the battle flag that flies in front of the statehouse. That is the flag of rebellion. We would not be having this discussion if that were the Confederate flag or the flag of the Confederate States of America. Because that flag is not a symbol of hate.”

When I first heard it, I though he was agreeing with what I have been saying about the battle flag, but now I am not sure if he is agreeing with those who say that the battle flag is the hateful one and an official CSA flag would not be.

The point is though, for those of you who think that this is so cut and dried, is that a black congressman from SC apparently sees at least some confederate flags as NOT being symbols of hate. And he was also the one who brokered the move of the flag down from the above the statehouse to its current location.

Edit - I also highly recommend checking out the interview with one of the victim's family. It was quite inspirational - as have been the others that I have seen.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Why, on earth, do you continually bring up radical Islam? So often, it doesn't matter what the subject is, you keep bringing up Muslims. No one is defending ISIS or Bin Laden. But, please, give it a rest. OK?



vpkozel said:


> I am genuinely curious - but do those who call for the connection of the murderer here to the Confederate flag also call for the connection for the man who said this to the Islam?
> 
> "The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one &#8230; By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Sharia in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? &#8230; when you drop a bomb do you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? &#8230; Through many passages in the Koran we must fight them as they fight us &#8230; I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don't care about you. You think David Cameron is gonna get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think politicians are going to die? No, it's going to be the average guy, like you and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back &#8230; leave our lands and you will live in peace."


----------



## 32rollandrock

Yup--yer right. Darn tootin'. Lots of black folk LOVE the stars and bars! Ain't that right, Bubba?

Really. We don't care about finer points of Confederate flag design. We just want it to go away. I am not prepared to discuss Mr. Clyburn's remarks. I have not seen or heard them in their entirety. He may well love Confederate flags. It is his right to do so. It is my right to say that it has no place at a government-sponsored institution. Everyone has that right. And the overwhelming number of people, when confronted with the question in broad daylight as opposed to the secrecy of a ballot box, aren't leaping to defend the stars and bars. Even Lindsay Graham, after a weekend of waffling and consulting with political advisors, has seen the light.

It will be very interesting to see what the South Carolina legislature does and whether anyone ventures to demonstrate in defense of the flag. You're in the area. Will you show up with a picket sign?



vpkozel said:


> FWIW, I just watched Rep. James Clyburn on Meet The Press discussing this.
> 
> Here is his quote. "That is not the Confederate flag. That's the battle flag that flies in front of the statehouse. That is the flag of rebellion. We would not be having this discussion if that were the Confederate flag or the flag of the Confederate States of America. Because that flag is not a symbol of hate."
> 
> When I first heard it, I though he was agreeing with what I have been saying about the battle flag, but now I am not sure if he is agreeing with those who say that the battle flag is the hateful one and an official CSA flag would not be.
> 
> The point is though, for those of you who think that this is so cut and dried, is that a black congressman from SC apparently sees at least some confederate flags as NOT being symbols of hate. And he was also the one who brokered the move of the flag down from the above the statehouse to its current location.
> 
> Edit - I also highly recommend checking out the interview with one of the victim's family. It was quite inspirational - as have been the others that I have seen.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Why, on earth, do you continually bring up radical Islam? So often, it doesn't matter what the subject is, you keep bringing up Muslims. No one is defending ISIS or Bin Laden. But, please, give it a rest. OK?


So what one guy says while committing murder is important, but what another says is not?


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Yup--yer right. Darn tootin'. Lots of black folk LOVE the stars and bars! Ain't that right, Bubba?
> 
> Really. We don't care about finer points of Confederate flag design. We just want it to go away. I am not prepared to discuss Mr. Clyburn's remarks. I have not seen or heard them in their entirety. He may well love Confederate flags. It is his right to do so. It is my right to say that it has no place at a government-sponsored institution. Everyone has that right. And the overwhelming number of people, when confronted with the question in broad daylight as opposed to the secrecy of a ballot box, aren't leaping to defend the stars and bars. Even Lindsay Graham, after a weekend of waffling and consulting with political advisors, has seen the light.
> 
> It will be very interesting to see what the South Carolina legislature does and whether anyone ventures to demonstrate in defense of the flag. You're in the area. Will you show up with a picket sign?


I understand that you like to lump us all in together as racists and bigots, but I am from NC, not SC, so this is not my issue.

And please stop acting like this is an issue that I brought up. I tried to stop the erroneous attempts to tie the 2 things together.

I also don't think that I have posted my thoughts on whether the flag should fly or not - I have simply posted the history of it and corrected mistaken assumptions and facts.


----------



## Shaver

32rollandrock said:


> *Yup--yer right. Darn tootin'. Lots of black folk LOVE the stars and bars! Ain't that right, Bubba?*
> 
> Really. We don't care about finer points of Confederate flag design. We just want it to go away. I am not prepared to discuss Mr. Clyburn's remarks. I have not seen or heard them in their entirety. He may well love Confederate flags. It is his right to do so. It is my right to say that it has no place at a government-sponsored institution. Everyone has that right. And the overwhelming number of people, when confronted with the question in broad daylight as opposed to the secrecy of a ballot box, aren't leaping to defend the stars and bars. Even Lindsay Graham, after a weekend of waffling and consulting with political advisors, has seen the light.
> 
> It will be very interesting to see what the South Carolina legislature does and whether anyone ventures to demonstrate in defense of the flag. You're in the area. Will you show up with a picket sign?


*splutter* are crass cultural stereotypes now permissible?


----------



## tocqueville

According to this article, the flag's designer intended it to represent white supremacy: https://m.mic.com/articles/121082/h...tion_type_map=["og.shares"]&action_ref_map=[]. Anyway, I tire of the south's coddling of its criminal past. Every day I drive on a highway named for a traitor and criminal, Jefferson Davis, built with federal dollars. It's grotesque.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

By the way, when I was in Charleston a little while ago I noticed that Ben Silver, the menswear Mecca, flies the CSA flag on its store front.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> According to this article, the flag's designer intended it to represent white supremacy: https://m.mic.com/articles/121082/h...tion_type_map=["og.shares"]&action_ref_map=[]. Anyway, I tire of the south's coddling of its criminal past. Every day I drive on a highway named for a traitor and criminal, Jefferson Davis, built with federal dollars. It's grotesque.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That flag is not the same flag as the battle flag. It was an official flag of the CSA. I think that at this point it has become clear that the actual facts of events no longer matter as long as ng as the conclusion is the "correct" one that south = bad and south = racist.

Personally, I wish that folks would take their cue from the families of the victims instead of continuing this rush to judgement of all things southern. This was the act of a twisted racist - in no way condoned by almost any southerner - or northerner, westerner, easterner, or middler.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> That flag is not the same flag as the battle flag. It was an official flag of the CSA.


It doesn't matter. Do you not understand that? Arguing about details of the actual flag is completely missing, or obfuscating, the point. The confederate flag, in whatever form, is forever associated with racism. It is forever associated with racism because racists adopted the, a, confederate flag as their symbol. They made the confederate flag a symbol of their racial hatred. Having made the confederate flag a symbol of race hatred it is, now, a symbol of racism, no matter what southerners may now want it to be.



vpkozel said:


> I think that at this point it has become clear that the actual facts of events no longer matter as long as ng as the conclusion is the "correct" one that south = bad and south = racist.


Not at all. As long as southerners support the use of racist symbolism they are going to be, naturally, associated with racism.



vpkozel said:


> Personally, I wish that folks would take their cue from the families of the victims instead of continuing this rush to judgement of all things southern. This was the act of a twisted racist - in no way condoned by almost any southerner - or northerner, westerner, easterner, or middler.


You appear to be being dreadfully defensive once again. Nobody here is judging "all things southern".


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> It doesn't matter. Do you not understand that?


As I wrote, I am accutely aware that the facts don't matter at all in this.



> You appear to be being dreadfully defensive once again. Nobody here is judging "all things southern".


Read toqueville's comment again. Pay particular attention to the point where he calls Davis a traitor and criminal.


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> Anyway, I tire of the south's coddling of its criminal past. Every day I drive on a highway named for a traitor and criminal, Jefferson Davis, built with federal dollars. It's grotesque.


There have been many interesting and emotionally charged comments made by both sides in this thread, and I find myself in agreement with many of them. This remark, however, is ludicrous.

Jefferson Davis a "traitor" and a "criminal"? The States that legally and constitutionally seceded from the Union created the Confederate States of America (a separate republic). Nothing about this was either unconstitutional or treasonous! If you wish to prove otherwise, please do. You may also wish to cover Mr. Lincoln's transgressions in your response, too, in the interest of historical accuracy. Otherwise, save your outlandish comments for your other diatribes...


----------



## SG_67

^ You say "southerners" as though it's a monolithic block. There are many people who live in the south who do not support the flying of the CSA battle flag on public property. 

By the way, drive about 20-30 miles south of Chicago and it's not uncommon to see pick ups trucks with a CSA flag sticker on the back window. 

Lumping all people who live in the south together is a bit unfair. I wonder what you would say if someone from the outside called all Welsh and Scots English?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ You say "southerners" as though it's a monolithic block. There are many people who live in the south who do not support the flying of the CSA battle flag on public property.
> 
> By the way, drive about 20-30 miles south of Chicago and it's not uncommon to see pick ups trucks with a CSA flag sticker on the back window.
> 
> Lumping all people who live in the south together is a bit unfair. I wonder what you would say if someone from the outside called all Welsh and Scots English?


I'm not suggesting that _*all*_ southerners support the flying of that flag or that they're a monolithic block. I'm saying that southerners do support the flying of that flag. Some may not, but many certainly do. No suggestion from me that all do. Neither am I suggesting that all of those who live in the south are the same. The people who have actively defended or supported or justified the flying of that flag do tend to be southerners. 
Do you not wonder why those people from Illinois fly a flag that symbolises racism?


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Do you not wonder why those people from Illinois fly a flag that symbolises racism?


Because they like England's St. George flag.


----------



## SG_67

^ They're hillbillies, pure and simple. My point is that Illinois is a northern state yet we have people that have no trouble showing it. 

You indicated "southerners" without any qualification as to some, all, a majority, etc. Therefore I had no choice but to take it as it was meant. 

Mind you, the issue of race is incredibly complex in this country. Yes, the southern states do seem to have a penchant for displaying the CSA flag in public spaces, yet also keep in mind that it wasn't until the circa 1976 until Boston, yes Boston, the bastion of liberal and progressive politics, desegregated it's public schools. It wasn't until 1988 that the DOJ finally indicated that they had succeeded. 

South Carolina started the desegregation of the University of South Carolina in 1963. As a country, I don't think we can truly discuss and resolve racial issues until we stop talking and thinking in cliches and consider it in an adult and non-reflexive manner.


----------



## vpkozel

SG_67 said:


> ^ They're hillbillies, pure and simple. My point is that Illinois is a northern state yet we have people that have no trouble showing it.
> 
> You indicated "southerners" without any qualification as to some, all, a majority, etc. Therefore I had no choice but to take it as it was meant.
> 
> Mind you, the issue of race is incredibly complex in this country. Yes, the southern states do seem to have a penchant for displaying the CSA flag in public spaces, yet also keep in mind that it wasn't until the circa 1976 until Boston, yes Boston, the bastion of liberal and progressive politics, desegregated it's public schools. It wasn't until 1988 that the DOJ finally indicated that they had succeeded.
> 
> South Carolina started the desegregation of the University of South Carolina in 1963. As a country, I don't think we can truly discuss and resolve racial issues until we stop talking and thinking in cliches and consider it in an adult and non-reflexive manner.


If I thought taking the flag down would make one whit of difference, I would drive the 90 minutes south and rip the F-ing thing down myself.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I'll buy the gas, because it does make a difference.

SG is right: Confederate symbolism is everywhere. Why? Because there are racists everywhere. It really is that simple.



vpkozel said:


> If I thought taking the flag down would make one whit of difference, I would drive the 90 minutes south and rip the F-ing thing down myself.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Well, one thing for sure. By reactively attaching to the Confederate flag as the cause of the whole thing and attacking a marginally related symbol that means a lot to many decent people, I predict that soon a new generation of stars and bars will blossom across the country as an unintended consequence of pouncing on this tragedy to promote a long term liberal agenda. 

Just as Obama was named "gun salesman of the year," the people attacking the Confederate flag will see it backfire on them. Their failure to understand the dynamics of the Civil war, their monomania regarding slavery, and their total buy-in of Hollywood's representation of the Confederate flag as an exclusively racist symbol has set them up for a surprise.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> I'll buy the gas, because it does make a difference.
> 
> SG is right: Confederate symbolism is everywhere. Why? Because there are racists everywhere. It really is that simple.


So, without the flag those racists go away?

That is quite a statement.


----------



## SG_67

Whatever meaning the flag has to anyone one person or group, it's a lazy way out.

Racial dynamics are incredibly complicated. Illinois does not fly the confederate flag on its public grounds, yet there are racial tensions present here. 

The flag is a marginal issue and an easy rallying point one way or another. It's a physical symbol and its removal will therefore have a marginal effect. It will only be beneficial and helpful if it is followed up upon by meaningful soul searching and dialogue. 

Is there racism in this country? Of course. Is it racist to build housing projects that end up becoming virtual ghettos which propagate generational poverty and reliance on government as well as acting as de facto segregation blocks? Yes and we've seen the results of this in Chicago. 

I'm afraid what will happen is that the flag will be taken down and it will end there. Politicians and those with a political agenda will take a victory lap and the conversation will end there. If the flag issue became a catalyst for a more insightful discussion, one where old prejudices, predispositions and ideas were laid in the table for discussion and where incredibly sensitive topics like the breakdown of the family as well as other sacred cows not spared, and yes even a discussion of police violence discussed openly then I'll be for it. 

My guess, unfortunately, is that it won't. That's why I don't really care about the flag issue because ultimately I know it's not going to amount to much and the old issues and sores will only go on to fester.


----------



## Shaver

At 3:19 the magnificent Elvis as demi-god, glowering, sweat dripping from his profile, a triumphant idol, preparing to unleash the bellowing vocal:

"Glory, glory - Hallelujah!"






Elvis was a hero to most, 
But he never meant sh*t to me 
Straight up racist, the sucker was 
Simple and plain 
Muthaf**k him and John Wayne!

- Public Enemy

.
.
.
.

.


----------



## vpkozel

I would only add that there is racism in every country, not just this one.


----------



## RogerP

32rollandrock said:


> Why, on earth, do you continually bring up radical Islam? So often, it doesn't matter what the subject is, you keep bringing up Muslims. No one is defending ISIS or Bin Laden. But, please, give it a rest. OK?


Because he is hoping to divert discussion away from his beloved Confederate flag. This is the red herring in the discussion. Not racial intolerance, as SG suggested.

There is no point in trying to enlighten him. Ensconced deep within his very own reality bubble, unless there were conclusive scientific proof that the Confederate flag literally MADE the shooter kill those innocent people, then the flag has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It's the same impenetrable simpleton's login that holds that the solution to gun violence is always more guns. Because if only everyone had a gun, nobody would ever get shot.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> Because he is hoping to divert discussion away from his beloved Confederate flag. This is the red herring in the discussion. Not racial intolerance, as SG suggested.
> 
> There is no point in trying to enlighten him. Ensconced deep within his very own reality bubble, unless there were conclusive scientific proof that the Confederate flag literally MADE the shooter kill those innocent people, then the flag has absolutely nothing to do with it.
> 
> It's the same impenetrable simpleton's login that holds that the solution to gun violence is always more guns. Because if only everyone had a gun, nobody would ever get shot.


Roger - please post where I have either said that this killer was not racially motivated or that I excused it.


----------



## tocqueville

This is good: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...is-cruel-war-was-over/396482/?utm_source=SFFB

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> At 3:19 the magnificent Elvis as demi-god, glowering, sweat dripping from his profile, a triumphant idol, preparing to unleash the bellowing vocal:
> 
> "Glory, glory - Hallelujah!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elvis was a hero to most,
> But he never meant sh*t to me
> Straight up racist, the sucker was
> Simple and plain
> Muthaf**k him and John Wayne!
> 
> - Public Enemy
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> 
> .


That's actually the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Strange coming from a Son of the South.


----------



## 32rollandrock

A marginal effect is better than no effect at all. Like it or not, flags are powerful symbols. I have never understood why that is the case, but it is.

You are right that there is racism everywhere, and you are right that removing the flag won't solve the issue. It's deep-seated, it's complex and it is everywhere. It's not going to disappear anytime soon. If there was an easy way out of this, we would have taken it long ago. That doesn't mean that we should not do the right thing when we can and when we have a chance to do it. My guess is, progress is going to come incrementally. Some increments are bigger than others.



SG_67 said:


> Whatever meaning the flag has to anyone one person or group, it's a lazy way out.
> 
> Racial dynamics are incredibly complicated. Illinois does not fly the confederate flag on its public grounds, yet there are racial tensions present here.
> 
> The flag is a marginal issue and an easy rallying point one way or another. It's a physical symbol and* its removal will therefore have a marginal effect.* It will only be beneficial and helpful if it is followed up upon by meaningful soul searching and dialogue.
> 
> Is there racism in this country? Of course. Is it racist to build housing projects that end up becoming virtual ghettos which propagate generational poverty and reliance on government as well as acting as de facto segregation blocks? Yes and we've seen the results of this in Chicago.
> 
> I'm afraid what will happen is that the flag will be taken down and it will end there. Politicians and those with a political agenda will take a victory lap and the conversation will end there. If the flag issue became a catalyst for a more insightful discussion, one where old prejudices, predispositions and ideas were laid in the table for discussion and where incredibly sensitive topics like the breakdown of the family as well as other sacred cows not spared, and yes even a discussion of police violence discussed openly then I'll be for it.
> 
> My guess, unfortunately, is that it won't. That's why I don't really care about the flag issue because ultimately I know it's not going to amount to much and the old issues and sores will only go on to fester.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Indeed. Any questions?



tocqueville said:


> This is good: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...is-cruel-war-was-over/396482/?utm_source=SFFB
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> That's actually the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Strange coming from a Son of the South.


The song he sings includes "Dixie" and a spiritual called "All my troubles". He's combining traditional songs from North, South and the Afro-Caribbean-American cultures.
There were a significant number of troops raised by the Union from the Southern States, volunteers as well, not conscripted. They totaled about 120,000 men. Details here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Unionist


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> A marginal effect is better than no effect at all. Like it or not, flags are powerful symbols. I have never understood why that is the case, but it is.
> 
> You are right that there is racism everywhere, and you are right that removing the flag won't solve the issue. It's deep-seated, it's complex and it is everywhere. It's not going to disappear anytime soon. If there was an easy way out of this, we would have taken it long ago. That doesn't mean that we should not do the right thing when we can and when we have a chance to do it. My guess is, progress is going to come incrementally. Some increments are bigger than others.


That's a very optimistic view, and unfortunately an incorrect one.

The flag is low hanging fruit and I'm afraid it won't help or resolve anything. It may make some people feel good, and that's fine. But as a means to anything, sorry but it won't go beyond that. That's why I stated it's a lazy way out.

If I thought it was some sort of incremental step forward, great. But it won't be. Just like anything else, as a country we will move on and the subject of race relations will only come to the forefront of the national dialogue, if it can even be called that, when something else happens.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> This is good: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...is-cruel-war-was-over/396482/?utm_source=SFFB
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is indeed. Very well written and well supported with interesting evidence. Not that it will convince those who see nothing wrong with the flag!


----------



## eagle2250

tocqueville said:


> This is good: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...is-cruel-war-was-over/396482/?utm_source=SFFB
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





32rollandrock said:


> Indeed. Any questions?


Agreed. It certainly puts the present issue of discussion within a more accurate and detailed historical perspective! Thanks for sharing that article.


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> There have been many interesting and emotionally charged comments made by both sides in this thread, and I find myself in agreement with many of them. This remark, however, is ludicrous.
> 
> Jefferson Davis a "traitor" and a "criminal"? The States that legally and constitutionally seceded from the Union created the Confederate States of America (a separate republic). Nothing about this was either unconstitutional or treasonous! If you wish to prove otherwise, please do. You may also wish to cover Mr. Lincoln's transgressions in your response, too, in the interest of historical accuracy. Otherwise, save your outlandish comments for your other diatribes...


If leading hundreds of thousands of men to their deaths and making war on the state for the sake of keeping others in bondage is not treason or a crime, than nothing is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> If leading hundreds of thousands of men to their deaths and making war on the state for the sake of keeping others in bondage is not treason or a crime, than nothing is.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Leave George Washington out of this.....


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> If leading hundreds of thousands of men to their deaths and making war on the state for the sake of keeping others in bondage is not treason or a crime, than nothing is.


"Making war on the state"? Eleven states that were once part of the United States legally and constitutionally seceded, and formed a new union. Nothing illegal, criminal, or unconstitutional about it. (In 1848, none other than Abraham Lincoln referred to secession as a "sacred right.") Both republics wanted war, and they got it - to act as if only the CSA bears the guilt is silly and inaccurate.

"For the sake of keeping others in bondage" - you do realize that the Union allowed slavery, don't you? Every state in the Union once allowed slavery, and even during the War four states in the Union allowed slavery - and Mr. Lincoln and the Union Congress did nothing to change that. You also realize that President Lincoln stated that he would support a constitutional amendment that would enshrine the legality of slavery for perpetuity, don't you?

If you wish to discuss history, please be a) accurate and/or b) honest. Making up a version of history to support your present beliefs is odious...


----------



## SG_67

^ And let's not forget the Fugitive Slave Act. 

For a longest time leading up to the Civil War, keeping the Union together and appeasing the South was more important than the abolition of slavery. Compromise was key.


----------



## RogerP

I just read a quote from the creator of the Confederate flag discussing its symbolism and its role in representing the fight to maintain the " heavens ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race".

Nope, nothing racist about that.

I can't seem to cut and paste on my phone but if you Google William Thompson Confederate Flag quote you should get it.

Know your history, indeed.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> I just read a quote from the creator of the Confederate flag discussing its symbolism and its role in representing the fight to maintain the " heavens ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race".
> 
> Nope, nothing racist about that.
> 
> I can't seem to cut and paste on my phone but if you Google William Thompson Confederate Flag quote you should get it.
> 
> Know your history, indeed.


Different flag.


----------



## Tiger

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of *******, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

That was Abraham Lincoln in 1858, during the fourth debate with Stephen A. Douglas. Once we delve into history, the complications amass. We are far better off believing that neither side was on the side of the angels...


----------



## RogerP

tocqueville said:


> This is good: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...is-cruel-war-was-over/396482/?utm_source=SFFB
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is better than good. It is excellent. It won't change a single closed mind here or elsewhere, but at least it sets the factual and historical record straight.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> Different flag.


Not really. Small version of this flag on a white background. Though I'm sure in your bubble, the two are wholly unrelated.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> Not really. Small version of this flag on a white background. Though I'm sure in your bubble, the two are wholly unrelated.


You posted something that was not accurate as proof of something. Don't get upset with me because you didn't do your homework correctly.

And please quit the ad hominem attacks. They are getting tiresome.


----------



## Gurdon

*Gentlemen*

This is an interesting, and, I think, worthwhile thread. Please keep it civil so I don't have to close it.

Selfishly,
Gurdon


----------



## Tiger

RogerP said:


> This is better than good. It is excellent. It won't change a single closed mind here or elsewhere, but at least it sets the factual and historical record straight.


I quoted Lincoln in 1858 to show that the mentality that is being condemned both ipso facto and as emblematic of the Confederacy is actually a mindset that permeated every state, long before and during the War - and after.

Lincoln's preliminary "Emancipation Proclamation" not only leaves slavery untouched in the Union, but pledges to continue his administration's policy of deportation of black people (with their permission, of course!). Hell, Ulysses Grant's family owned slaves!

The issue(s) are far more complex than some are leading us to believe...


----------



## Shaver

I am uncertain if this information might be at all relevant?


----------



## 32rollandrock

So, when you see an opportunity to do something good or something that ought to be done, you shouldn't do it because it's low hanging fruit? We'll have to disagree that it is an incremental step forward. This might sound goofy, but hear it out, if you will. If the state of Illinois flew a flag that said "Physicians are quacks" at public buildings at state expense, I would assume, and hope, that you would want the state to take the flag down, even though doing so would not change the minds of people who believe that doctors are quacks. Same principle here.



SG_67 said:


> That's a very optimistic view, and unfortunately an incorrect one.
> 
> The flag is low hanging fruit and I'm afraid it won't help or resolve anything. It may make some people feel good, and that's fine. But as a means to anything, sorry but it won't go beyond that. That's why I stated it's a lazy way out.
> 
> If I thought it was some sort of incremental step forward, great. But it won't be. Just like anything else, as a country we will move on and the subject of race relations will only come to the forefront of the national dialogue, if it can even be called that, when something else happens.


----------



## SG_67

^ I think it would be worthwhile to ask what they consider to be "slavery".


----------



## 32rollandrock

Problem was, compromise didn't work.

People weren't idiots. The South seceded upon Lincoln's election because they could see the writing on the wall. He was going to, and did, go after slavery. He realized that compromise hadn't worked and could not work. If the South didn't think he wasn't going to move for abolition, the South would have remained in the union.

Lincoln was many things, including a politician. It is not mutually exclusive that he would be opposed to slavery, which he was, and also argue that blacks are inferior to whites, which he did, either because he believed it or because he was pandering. End of day, doesn't really matter. With politicians, you have to watch what they do, not what they say. In Lincoln's case, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation to make it abundantly clear, if it was not already, that the war was a war over slavery. He was, however, a politician, and so it didn't apply to Union states, notably Kentucky and Missouri, that he feared might secede. There were still 1 million legal slaves after the proclamation. Fast forward to the 13th Amendment, which Lincoln pushed. That outlawed slavery everywhere, and its timing was such that the war was all but over when it took effect--Lincoln didn't have to worry about Union states switching sides.

Again, very much appreciate Tocqueville's link, which does a very good job of dispelling the myth that the Civil War was somehow not about slavery.

.


SG_67 said:


> ^ And let's not forget the Fugitive Slave Act.
> 
> For a longest time leading up to the Civil War, keeping the Union together and appeasing the South was more important than the abolition of slavery. Compromise was key.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I was thinking the exact same thing. I was not aware that slavery is legal in Mexico. Or maybe people just identify as slaves.



SG_67 said:


> ^ I think it would be worthwhile to ask what they consider to be "slavery".


----------



## Dmontez

Shaver said:


> I am uncertain if this information might be at all relevant?


The powers that be have just changed the name from "slavery" to human trafficking.

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/direc...cations/2014/txHumanTraffickingAssessment.pdf


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> I was thinking the exact same thing. I was not aware that slavery is legal in Mexico. Or maybe people just identify as slaves.


Nor that 60,000 people in the U.S. are enslaved.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Missed this, but please read my post on watching what politicians do instead of what they say. When you do that, the issue is not so complicated as it might seem. As for both sides wanting war, can't agree. The war happened because, really, it was inevitable. The Fugitive Slave Act, the Dred Scott decision, the compromises over slavery in territories and new states made that abundantly clear. The South wasn't going to abandon slavery and the North wasn't going to let it continue in the manner that the South wanted it to continue. Sometimes, war happens because there is no other way, and this was one of those times.



Tiger said:


> "Making war on the state"? Eleven states that were once part of the United States legally and constitutionally seceded, and formed a new union. Nothing illegal, criminal, or unconstitutional about it. (In 1848, none other than Abraham Lincoln referred to secession as a "sacred right.") Both republics wanted war, and they got it - to act as if only the CSA bears the guilt is silly and inaccurate.
> 
> "For the sake of keeping others in bondage" - you do realize that the Union allowed slavery, don't you? Every state in the Union once allowed slavery, and even during the War four states in the Union allowed slavery - and Mr. Lincoln and the Union Congress did nothing to change that. You also realize that President Lincoln stated that he would support a constitutional amendment that would enshrine the legality of slavery for perpetuity, don't you?
> 
> If you wish to discuss history, please be a) accurate and/or b) honest. Making up a version of history to support your present beliefs is odious...


----------



## 32rollandrock

Heck, I've been trafficked for most of my life in one way or another. Free Peanut.



Dmontez said:


> The powers that be have just changed the name from "slavery" to human trafficking.
> 
> https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/direc...cations/2014/txHumanTraffickingAssessment.pdf


----------



## 32rollandrock

Not seeing that on the map--looked to me like the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia and a third of South America, to name a few, are at zero. Thank goodness for countries with no slaves.



SG_67 said:


> Nor that 60,000 people in the U.S. are enslaved.


----------



## SG_67

^ Read the report and you'll see that, according to this organization, there are 60K people enslaved in the U.S.

I believe they consider sexual exploitation, prostitution, etc. to be a form of slavery.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Thanks. Do you know where I might purchase a slave? I'm thinking that a slave could come in pretty handy, and not for anything sexual. Given a choice, I'm pretty sure that a slave would rather mow my lawn than, ahem, plow a beanfield, so to speak. I imagine my house would look much nicer if cleaned every day and the environs would also look nicer and be safer if I had someone available 24/7 to shovel snow, weed the garden, clean the bathroom, etc., upon demand, and I'm guessing I'd probably save money in the long run if I didn't have to keep hiring these things out. Given enough lead time, I suppose a slave could also roof my house, after I loan him out (at a price of course) so that he could practice on other people's houses first. If I can't afford to buy a slave, perhaps I could rent one, or join some sort of slave co-op.

I guess, though, that my definition of slavery might be different than others. If you can't find a slave on craigslist (and no, not on _that_ part of craigslist), then I'm not sure I'm convinced that slavery really exists.



SG_67 said:


> ^ Read the report and you'll see that, according to this organization, there are 60K people enslaved in the U.S.
> 
> I believe they consider sexual exploitation, prostitution, etc. to be a form of slavery.


----------



## Acct2000

Children are a possibility, but they take at least six or seven years to get to the point where you can consistently get work out of them.


----------



## 32rollandrock

No, I am not interested in breeding my slave(s) once I acquire them.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> Children are a possibility, but they take at least six or seven years to get to the point where you can consistently get work out of them.


----------



## MaxBuck

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Children are a possibility, but they take at least six or seven years to get to the point where you can consistently get work out of them.


It took my parents a lot longer than that with me.


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> Missed this, but please read my post on watching what politicians do instead of what they say. When you do that, the issue is not so complicated as it might seem. As for both sides wanting war, can't agree. The war happened because, really, it was inevitable.


You are creating a sanitized version of Lincoln that you wish existed, as opposed to the one that did. Your history is too revisionist for me. Mr. Lincoln:

1) As a member of the Illinois legislature, voted against black suffrage, interracial marriage, and allowing blacks to testify in court or serve as jurors
2) In no way believed in the social and political equality of the black and white races (see fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, as previously quoted)
3) The War was about bringing the seceded States - by force - back into the Union; the slavery aspect didn't appear until nearly one and a half years later. Lincoln made this clear many times; it even angered abolitionists!
4) The "Emancipation Proclamation" legally freed...no one! Putting aside the lack of executive constitutional authority to change the constitutionality of slavery, the proclamation attempted to free slaves who were no longer part of the United States, but permitted slavery to exist in states that were a part of the Union
5) Lincoln sought to deport African-Americans throughout his presidency
6) Lincoln supported a constitutional amendment - during his Presidency! - that would have enshrined slavery as constitutional in perpetuity

You asked us to judge politicians on what they do, not what they say; I believe I'm doing that, 32rollandrock. Are you?

By the way, saying the War was inevitable opens up all sorts of arguments, not the least of which is the free will vs. determinism debate. It is probably not profitable to pursue that path further, I believe...


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> I guess, though, that my definition of slavery might be different than others. If you can't find a slave on craigslist (and no, not on _that_ part of craigslist), then I'm not sure I'm convinced that slavery really exists.


Some cultures still practice it and there have been a few cases where they have brought it here. Most recently this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/...g-household-staff-are-far-from-the-first.html

There's also this in Qatar:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/revealed-qatars-world-cup-slaves

The taking of passports pretty much guarantees that workers are kept as chattel labor and in police state like Qatar that's pretty much de facto slavery.


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> You are creating a sanitized version of Lincoln that you wish existed, as opposed to the one that did. Your history is too revisionist for me. Mr. Lincoln:
> 
> 1) As a member of the Illinois legislature, voted against black suffrage, interracial marriage, and allowing blacks to testify in court or serve as jurors
> 2) In no way believed in the social and political equality of the black and white races (see fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, as previously quoted)
> 3) The War was about bringing the seceded States - by force - back into the Union; the slavery aspect didn't appear until nearly one and a half years later. Lincoln made this clear many times; it even angered abolitionists!
> 4) The "Emancipation Proclamation" legally freed...no one! Putting aside the lack of executive constitutional authority to change the constitutionality of slavery, the proclamation attempted to free slaves who were no longer part of the United States, but permitted slavery to exist in states that were a part of the Union
> 5) Lincoln sought to deport African-Americans throughout his presidency
> 6) Lincoln supported a constitutional amendment - during his Presidency! - that would have enshrined slavery as constitutional in perpetuity
> 
> You asked us to judge politicians on what they do, not what they say; I believe I'm doing that, 32rollandrock. Are you?
> 
> By the way, saying the War was inevitable opens up all sorts of arguments, not the least of which is the free will vs. determinism debate. It is probably not profitable to pursue that path further, I believe...


So far as I can tell, you're using the fact that Lincoln was a fallible man shaped by the times he lived in to justify continued display of the symbol of the Confederacy by state and local governments. Hardly a logical argument.

The fact that African-Americans are overwhelmingly offended and saddened by this symbol of slavery (and that's how they perceive it, regardless of how white folks feel) is sufficient to justify its removal. Nikki Haley clearly agrees with me on this, along with many GOP lawmakers both inside and outside of Carolina, and I hope the legislature carries through and promulgates accordingly. Lincoln's views on racial equality have FA to do with this debate.


----------



## Tiger

MaxBuck said:


> So far as I can tell, you're using the fact that Lincoln was a fallible man shaped by the times he lived in to justify continued display of the symbol of the Confederacy by state and local governments. Hardly a logical argument. The fact that African-Americans are overwhelmingly offended and saddened by this symbol of slavery (and that's how they perceive it, regardless of how white folks feel) is sufficient to justify its removal. Nikki Haley clearly agrees with me on this, along with many GOP lawmakers both inside and outside of Carolina, and I hope the legislature carries through and promulgates accordingly. Lincoln's views on racial equality have FA to do with this debate.


I have not made any such argument - "to justify continued display of the symbol of the Confederacy by state and local governments" - in this or any other thread. Please re-read my posts, and refrain from making such disingenuous attacks.

I've only sought to correct the historical inaccuracies that have surfaced; nothing illogical about that.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Interesting that President Truman's mother refused to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom when visiting the White House because of the savagery the Federal government had visited on Missouri when she was a child during the Civil War. There seems to be so much that so many don't know; but as we know winners write the history. 

"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision."

--- General Patrick Cleburne, CSA


----------



## Shaver

32rnr, I like you, I really do. However, your mockery of, and denial of, contemporary slavery is deeply troubling. Less knee-jerking and more reading is my recommendation to you.


----------



## SG_67

MaxBuck said:


> So far as I can tell, you're using the fact that Lincoln was a fallible man shaped by the times he lived in to justify continued display of the symbol of the Confederacy by state and local governments. Hardly a logical argument.
> 
> The fact that African-Americans are overwhelmingly offended and saddened by this symbol of slavery (and that's how they perceive it, regardless of how white folks feel) is sufficient to justify its removal. Nikki Haley clearly agrees with me on this, along with many GOP lawmakers both inside and outside of Carolina, and I hope the legislature carries through and promulgates accordingly. Lincoln's views on racial equality have FA to do with this debate.


I don't think he's doing that at all, at least that's not my interpretation of it.

I think what he's doing is using facts to show that the events leading up to the Civil War, as well as attitudes amongst northerner and southerners weren't quite so cut and dry and sterile. They were, in fact, quite complex.

It's true, the thinking at the time among many northern politicians, including Lincoln was that there was an inherent inequality between the races but that did not justify the owning of one human being by another.

As for the flag, personally I've never cared for it nor do I have any particular connection to it. My sole argument is that I'm afraid it's removal will be substituted for a true dialogue about racial attitudes and relations and the cultural problems and issues faced by Black Americans. There are those who will sit back on their laurels and say, "well, the flag is gone. That's that! Let's get back to business." If that happens, then the taking down of the flag, as good as it may feel will be an empty and useless act.


----------



## MaxBuck

SG_67 said:


> I don't think he's doing that at all, at least that's not my interpretation of it.
> 
> I think what he's doing is using facts to show that the events leading up to the Civil War, as well as attitudes amongst northerner and southerners weren't quite so cut and dry and sterile. They were, in fact, quite complex.
> 
> It's true, the thinking at the time among many northern politicians, including Lincoln was that there was an inherent inequality between the races but that did not justify the owning of one human being by another.
> 
> As for the flag, personally I've never cared for it nor do I have any particular connection to it. My sole argument is that I'm afraid it's removal will be substituted for a true dialogue about racial attitudes and relations and the cultural problems and issues faced by Black Americans. There are those who will sit back on their laurels and say, "well, the flag is gone. That's that! Let's get back to business." If that happens, then the taking down of the flag, as good as it may feel will be an empty and useless act.


It won't be either empty or useless to African-Americans, so you can put that concern to rest.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Without going too far into the weeds--and I would encourage you to re-read what I wrote--get back to two essential points, and focus on what he _did,_ not what he _said:_

1. Lincoln absolutely pushed the 13th Amendment through Congress. Again, what he did, not what he said. Of course the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves in the Union--did you read what I wrote? I freakin' said that. Nonetheless, it was a step, an important one, that helped define the war's purpose and set the stage for the 13th amendment. In my judgment anyone who argues otherwise is delusional. Were there other aspects to the Emancipation Proclamation? Of course there were, not the least of which was settling the question of what to do with runaway slaves and encouraging slaves in the South to head north. But that doesn't eliminate the essential truths described above. We should also remember that the EP was considered a big political risk, and Lincoln deserves credit for expending political capital.

2. Again, and most importantly, those who were alive and dealing with all this while it was unfolding were in the best position to judge the situation and Lincoln's intentions. It wasn't an accident that secession happened upon Lincoln's election. We've already discussed this, so let's just say it wasn't a coinky-dink.

Did Lincoln ever cast a vote in favor of slavery? No. Did he believe in the social equality of blacks and whites? Asked-and-answered--again, you seem to have not given my previous post a very good reading, so I'll boil it down to one word: irrelevant.

The thing with lines of argument such as this is, they assume on some level that Lincoln was, is, supposed to be Martin Luther King, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama rolled into one, and when he is shown to said or have done something to undermine that image, it's supposed to be an "Ah ha! See?" moment. Poppycock. He was a man ahead of his time in many ways, but he was also a man of his times. He could not possibly have become president if he'd run on a platform of black suffrage, interracial marriage, allowing black on juries, etc. 21st century quarterbacks love to go back and parse and dissect until they can get Lincoln to be anything that they want him to be. It's no different than today, when we get barraged by political attack ads by spin doctors who take votes out of context and warn voters against voting for Joe Politician because he voted to kill puppy dogs and Agent-Orange butterflies when, in fact, he took a preliminary vote on a much larger issue with a poison-pill phony issue buried in it for use come election season.

So, once again: Focus. Keep your eye on what was done, not what was said. Keep repeating to yourself, "Slaves before Lincoln became president, no slavery after." These are the essential truths. The rest is just a lot of noise.



Tiger said:


> You are creating a sanitized version of Lincoln that you wish existed, as opposed to the one that did. Your history is too revisionist for me. Mr. Lincoln:
> 
> 1) As a member of the Illinois legislature, voted against black suffrage, interracial marriage, and allowing blacks to testify in court or serve as jurors
> 2) In no way believed in the social and political equality of the black and white races (see fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, as previously quoted)
> 3) The War was about bringing the seceded States - by force - back into the Union; the slavery aspect didn't appear until nearly one and a half years later. Lincoln made this clear many times; it even angered abolitionists!
> 4) The "Emancipation Proclamation" legally freed...no one! Putting aside the lack of executive constitutional authority to change the constitutionality of slavery, the proclamation attempted to free slaves who were no longer part of the United States, but permitted slavery to exist in states that were a part of the Union
> 5) Lincoln sought to deport African-Americans throughout his presidency
> 6) Lincoln supported a constitutional amendment - during his Presidency! - that would have enshrined slavery as constitutional in perpetuity
> 
> You asked us to judge politicians on what they do, not what they say; I believe I'm doing that, 32rollandrock. Are you?
> 
> By the way, saying the War was inevitable opens up all sorts of arguments, not the least of which is the free will vs. determinism debate. It is probably not profitable to pursue that path further, I believe...


----------



## 32rollandrock

I stand by what I said.

My point was, and is, I cannot go buy a slave. Slaves are not advertised for sale, and for a very obvious reason: Slavery is illegal. Against the law. Punishable by prison. Are there people being held against their will and forced to do things that they would rather not do? I am quite sure that's the case. But that ain't chattel slavery. Not even close. Illegal? Yes. Indefensible? Yes. Morally repugnant? Absolutely, perhaps as much, even, as chattel slavery. But let's call it what it is. Forcible restraint and pimping would be much more accurate terms than slavery. Someone who is forced to perform sex acts for money that goes to someone else can, at least in theory, run to a cop for protection and have the slave master, or whatever term one prefers, arrested. A slave cannot. That's the difference.

I resent appropriation of terms in ways that make words less meaningful and precise. "Slave" is one example. "Human trafficking" is another. "Suspect" is another. Example (and you'll see or hear this one on a near-daily basis): "The suspect entered the bank, put a gun to a teller's head and fled with a bag full of money." No, a suspect did not do that, a bank robber did that. Now, if someone has been arrested on suspicion of being a bank robber, we now have a suspect. But no suspect in the history of the world robbed a bank or kidnapped a child or murdered a person, etc. Criminals, not suspects, do that.

Sorry for digression, but that's the sort of thing I mean. Slavery, to me at least, is chattel slavery, and calling other forms of despicable behavior slavery isn't appropriate.



Shaver said:


> 32rnr, I like you, I really do. However, your mockery of, and denial of, contemporary slavery is deeply troubling. Less knee-jerking and more reading is my recommendation to you.


----------



## Tiger

I read everything you wrote, but I'm afraid you continue to possess a progressive view of history, and don't let facts get in the way of that perspective. I saw it in your roll call of "bad" presidents, and I'm certain your "good" presidents would betray this bias, too.

Everything I wrote about Mr. Lincoln was factual. I provided a list of things *he did *- as per your challenge - but you still seek to invalidate them. Just about everything Lincoln did to eradicate slavery came as a reaction to unfolding events - he wasn't the driver; he was merely along for the ride. The "Emancipation Proclamation" was a departure in his thinking, not some grand plan that he had been sculpting for years. It was a political and military exigency, not a moral one. Same is true with secession; he supported the concept until it became expedient to deny it.

I've tried throughout this thread to point out historical inaccuracies and imbalance. Lincoln is usually deified; you haven't quite done that, but still seek to excuse his *beliefs *and *actions*.

Here's the irony - based on Lincoln's *beliefs *and *actions*, had those Southern States not seceded, and Lincoln and Congress had their way, slavery would have continued right through to whenever Lincoln's Administration would've ended.


----------



## Dmontez

32rollandrock said:


> I stand by what I said.
> 
> My point was, and is, I cannot go buy a slave. Slaves are not advertised for sale, and for a very obvious reason: Slavery is illegal. Against the law. Punishable by prison. _*Are there people being held against their will and forced to do things that they would rather not do?*_ I am quite sure that's the case. But that ain't chattel slavery. Not even close. Illegal? Yes. Indefensible? Yes. Morally repugnant? Absolutely, perhaps as much, even, as chattel slavery. But let's call it what it is. Forcible restraint and pimping would be much more accurate terms than slavery. Someone who is forced to perform sex acts for money that goes to someone else can, at least in theory, run to a cop for protection and have the slave master, or whatever term one prefers, arrested. A slave cannot. That's the difference.
> 
> I resent appropriation of terms in ways that make words less meaningful and precise. "Slave" is one example. "Human trafficking" is another. "Suspect" is another. Example (and you'll see or hear this one on a near-daily basis): "The suspect entered the bank, put a gun to a teller's head and fled with a bag full of money." No, a suspect did not do that, a bank robber did that. Now, if someone has been arrested on suspicion of being a bank robber, we now have a suspect. But no suspect in the history of the world robbed a bank or kidnapped a child or murdered a person, etc. Criminals, not suspects, do that.
> 
> Sorry for digression, but that's the sort of thing I mean. Slavery, to me at least, is chattel slavery, and calling other forms of despicable behavior slavery isn't appropriate.


I didn't read you entire post, because you have dis-proven yourself with the statement you made that I have highlighted. The portion that I highlighted of whatever the point you are trying to make is the very definition of slavery.

I have since read your entire post, and I must say that it is really scary to me that you are a journalist. I don't believe I've read anything you have had published, and for all I know you are the entertainment columnist for a local paper, but what you have written here is just wrong.

You don't want people in the modern day to be called slaves, and they are not first and foremost they are called victims of human trafficking by out government, but if you ask me the definition of slave fits what is being done to these people. Stop trying to change the definition of words. You want someone who is suspected of robbing a bank to be called a criminal, well I have a problem with that, they have not yet been tried by their peers, and convicted of that, so until then we will continue to call them a suspect. Stop trying to change the definition of words.

That is something that does really bother me. I do not like people trying to change the definition of a word to make their argument valid. When someone says that I am a racist for not agreeing with our President, or for not voting for him, that is them trying to change the definition of the word racist. I do not believe my own race to be superior to any others therefore I am not a racist.


----------



## Tiger

For the record, here are a few more things Lincoln *did *that I'm sure revisionists will spin so as not to tarnish Lincoln's reputation. (Keep in mind that someone had earlier called Jefferson Davis a criminal without offering any evidence. Perchance, would any of these items be criminal? As bad as Watergate? Teapot Dome? Hmmm?)


Illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus
Launched a military invasion without a declaration of war from Congress
Imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies
Arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses
Censored telegraph communications
Ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections
Deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln's unconstitutional behavior


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> I stand by what I said.
> 
> My point was, and is, I cannot go buy a slave. Slaves are not advertised for sale, and for a very obvious reason: Slavery is illegal. Against the law. Punishable by prison. Are there people being held against their will and forced to do things that they would rather not do? I am quite sure that's the case. But that ain't chattel slavery. Not even close. Illegal? Yes. Indefensible? Yes. Morally repugnant? Absolutely, perhaps as much, even, as chattel slavery. But let's call it what it is. Forcible restraint and pimping would be much more accurate terms than slavery. Someone who is forced to perform sex acts for money that goes to someone else can, at least in theory, run to a cop for protection and have the slave master, or whatever term one prefers, arrested. A slave cannot. That's the difference.
> 
> I resent appropriation of terms in ways that make words less meaningful and precise. "Slave" is one example. "Human trafficking" is another. "Suspect" is another. Example (and you'll see or hear this one on a near-daily basis): "The suspect entered the bank, put a gun to a teller's head and fled with a bag full of money." No, a suspect did not do that, a bank robber did that. Now, if someone has been arrested on suspicion of being a bank robber, we now have a suspect. But no suspect in the history of the world robbed a bank or kidnapped a child or murdered a person, etc. Criminals, not suspects, do that.
> 
> Sorry for digression, but that's the sort of thing I mean. Slavery, to me at least, is chattel slavery, and calling other forms of despicable behavior slavery isn't appropriate.


It really doesn't matter what you perceive the differences to be or how fine you split the hairs to back up your flawed point of view. In fact, the mere existence of this post in public is offensive and as such, it should be removed immediately.


----------



## Shaver

Care less about your romanticised notion of cotton picking and more about current events.



32rollandrock said:


> I stand by what I said.
> 
> My point was, and is, I cannot go buy a slave. Slaves are not advertised for sale, and for a very obvious reason: Slavery is illegal. Against the law. Punishable by prison. Are there people being held against their will and forced to do things that they would rather not do? I am quite sure that's the case. But that ain't chattel slavery. Not even close. Illegal? Yes. Indefensible? Yes. Morally repugnant? Absolutely, perhaps as much, even, as chattel slavery. But let's call it what it is. Forcible restraint and pimping would be much more accurate terms than slavery. Someone who is forced to perform sex acts for money that goes to someone else can, at least in theory, run to a cop for protection and have the slave master, or whatever term one prefers, arrested. A slave cannot. That's the difference.
> 
> I resent appropriation of terms in ways that make words less meaningful and precise. "Slave" is one example. "Human trafficking" is another. "Suspect" is another. Example (and you'll see or hear this one on a near-daily basis): "The suspect entered the bank, put a gun to a teller's head and fled with a bag full of money." No, a suspect did not do that, a bank robber did that. Now, if someone has been arrested on suspicion of being a bank robber, we now have a suspect. But no suspect in the history of the world robbed a bank or kidnapped a child or murdered a person, etc. Criminals, not suspects, do that.
> 
> Sorry for digression, but that's the sort of thing I mean. Slavery, to me at least, is chattel slavery, and calling other forms of despicable behavior slavery isn't appropriate.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Thanks for not reading.



Dmontez said:


> I didn't read you entire post, because you have dis-proven yourself with the statement you made that I have highlighted. The portion that I highlighted of whatever the point you are trying to make is the very definition of slavery.


----------



## 32rollandrock

What is offensive about it?

We're talking points of language, nothing more, nothing less.



vpkozel said:


> It really doesn't matter what you perceive the differences to be or how fine you split the hairs to back up your flawed point of view. In fact, the mere existence of this post in public is offensive and as such, it should be removed immediately.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Didn't say I don't care about current events, including this issue of forcible restraint and sex crimes. My quibble is with labels. If I've romanticized cotton picking, please indicate where and how.



Shaver said:


> Care less about your romanticised notion of cotton picking and more about current events.


----------



## SG_67

MaxBuck said:


> It won't be either empty or useless to African-Americans, so you can put that concern to rest.


It will only mean something if it causes soul searching by society as a whole on why certain segments of our society seem to be left behind with failing institutions.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Ah, and the oil slick spreads. We've moved from questions of slavery to other criticisms of Lincoln. What, pray, do these issues have to do with slavery?



Tiger said:


> For the record, here are a few more things Lincoln *did *that I'm sure revisionists will spin so as not to tarnish Lincoln's reputation. (Keep in mind that someone had earlier called Jefferson Davis a criminal without offering any evidence. Perchance, would any of these items be criminal? As bad as Watergate? Teapot Dome? Hmmm?)
> 
> 
> Illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus
> Launched a military invasion without a declaration of war from Congress
> Imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies
> Arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses
> Censored telegraph communications
> Ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections
> Deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln's unconstitutional behavior


----------



## 32rollandrock

Are you seriously suggesting that Lincoln would have gone to bat for slavery? It is impossible, of course, to prove a negative, but that's a bit hard to swallow.



Tiger said:


> I read everything you wrote, but I'm afraid you continue to possess a progressive view of history, and don't let facts get in the way of that perspective. I saw it in your roll call of "bad" presidents, and I'm certain your "good" presidents would betray this bias, too.
> 
> Everything I wrote about Mr. Lincoln was factual. I provided a list of things *he did *- as per your challenge - but you still seek to invalidate them. Just about everything Lincoln did to eradicate slavery came as a reaction to unfolding events - he wasn't the driver; he was merely along for the ride. The "Emancipation Proclamation" was a departure in his thinking, not some grand plan that he had been sculpting for years. It was a political and military exigency, not a moral one. Same is true with secession; he supported the concept until it became expedient to deny it.
> 
> I've tried throughout this thread to point out historical inaccuracies and imbalance. Lincoln is usually deified; you haven't quite done that, but still seek to excuse his *beliefs *and *actions*.
> 
> Here's the irony - based on Lincoln's *beliefs *and *actions*, had those Southern States not seceded, and Lincoln and Congress had their way, slavery would have continued right through to whenever Lincoln's Administration would've ended.


----------



## 32rollandrock

As for Jefferson Davis, it's a prima facie case. He took up arms against the United States. A lot of folks would call that treason. You may disagree, but surely you can grasp the logic.



Tiger said:


> For the record, here are a few more things Lincoln *did *that I'm sure revisionists will spin so as not to tarnish Lincoln's reputation. (Keep in mind that someone had earlier called Jefferson Davis a criminal without offering any evidence. Perchance, would any of these items be criminal? As bad as Watergate? Teapot Dome? Hmmm?)
> 
> 
> Illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus
> Launched a military invasion without a declaration of war from Congress
> Imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies
> Arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses
> Censored telegraph communications
> Ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections
> Deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln's unconstitutional behavior


----------



## Tiger

The point was, that if we wish to assess Lincoln, we should look at what he said and did. I have already demonstrated what Lincoln believed (and did) about slavery and African-Americans; here I am merely adding more grist for the anti-deification of Lincoln mill. You know, for those that see criminality in Davis but halos and wings for Lincoln...


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that Lincoln would have gone to bat for slavery? It is impossible, of course, to prove a negative, but that's a bit hard to swallow.


"Gone to bat for slavery"? As Mr. Lincoln himself stated in his first inaugural address, he supported a constitutional amendment that would protect slavery for perpetuity. Not sure if that's "going to bat" or not, but it certainly isn't an eradication!


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> What is offensive about it?
> 
> We're talking points of language, nothing more, nothing less.


I am sure that those folks being pimped around, forced to perform sex acts, or work for nothing will appreciate your care for nuance and language skills.


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> As for Jefferson Davis, it's a prima facie case. He took up arms against the United States. A lot of folks would call that treason. You may disagree, but surely you can grasp the logic.


Surely _you _can grasp that the Confederate States of America was a separate republic, and thus treason isn't an issue. There was no "rebellion" but rather a political disunion. Unless you believe that secession wasn't legal/constitutional; if so, tell us why. If you agree that it is legal/constitutional for a State to choose to leave a political union that it had earlier chosen to join, then you should realize that no traitorous behavior occurred. I await your explanation...

By the way, both sides used Fort Sumter as a political/military chess match. It was the Union, however, that launched an invasion of Virginia (a State in the CSA). Had the States that seceded been allowed to do so, would peace (and two separate republics) have prevailed, i.e., if Lincoln did not "take up arms against the (Confederate) States"?


----------



## Chouan

We've managed to turn a discussion about murderous racism into an argument about whether or not Lincoln was a bad man, or Davis was a traitor. Nicely distracted.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> We've managed to turn a discussion about murderous racism into an argument about whether or not Lincoln was a bad man, or Davis was a traitor. Nicely distracted.


This occurred because some made the link to the Confederate battle flag and the Confederacy itself, and off the rails it went. If you're hinting that some tried to _purposely _derail the discussion, I disagree (and hope that I'm correct). We've all been involved in many of these threads that begin one way, and flail out in many different directions; this one is no different. Hell, we've done that over shorts, jeans, and shoes!

By the way, was there an actual "discussion about murderous racism"? Has anyone seriously supported the notion that the Charleston shooter was anything other than a murderous, racist, deranged and despicable person?


----------



## SG_67

Actually the thread got derailed almost from the beginning. What's there to really discuss? The guy is nuts and I think this will be borne out as this case moves forward. I'm not suggesting he is absolved of what he did because of insanity, rather that he found meaning in something twisted because he's just plain crazy.

If quickly derailed when we started talking about the flag.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Tiger said:


> Surely _you _can grasp that the Confederate States of America was a separate republic, and thus treason isn't an issue. There was no "rebellion" but rather a political disunion. Unless you believe that secession wasn't legal/constitutional; if so, tell us why. If you agree that it is legal/constitutional for a State to choose to leave a political union that it had earlier chosen to join, then you should realize that no traitorous behavior occurred. I await your explanation...
> 
> By the way, both sides used Fort Sumter as a political/military chess match. It was the Union, however, that launched an invasion of Virginia (a State in the CSA). Had the States that seceded been allowed to do so, would peace (and two separate republics) have prevailed, i.e., if Lincoln did not "take up arms against the (Confederate) States"?


Stonewall Jackson's speech to the troops from, "Gods and Generals." Pretty good summary, having NOTHING to do with the church murders except that a nut case was photographed holding the Confederate flag.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Liberty Ship said:


> Well, one thing for sure. By reactively attaching to the Confederate flag as the cause of the whole thing and attacking a marginally related symbol that means a lot to many decent people, I predict that soon a new generation of stars and bars will blossom across the country as an unintended consequence of pouncing on this tragedy to promote a long term liberal agenda.
> 
> Just as Obama was named "gun salesman of the year," the people attacking the Confederate flag will see it backfire on them. Their failure to understand the dynamics of the Civil war, their monomania regarding slavery, and their total buy-in of Hollywood's representation of the Confederate flag as an exclusively racist symbol has set them up for a surprise.


Amazon's sales of Confederate flags have skyrocketed by more than 3,000% in the past 24 hours.

Read more: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-sales-of-confederate-flags-are-booming-2015-6#ixzz3dv1L6PUa


----------



## Tiger

Liberty Ship said:


> Stonewall Jackson's speech to the troops from, "Gods and Generals." Pretty good summary, having NOTHING to do with the church murders except that a nut case was photographed holding the Confederate flag.


A great two and a half minute history lesson. Virginia was divided as to whether to secede or not - ultimately, whoever controls the convention controls the outcome - but when Lincoln requested troops from States to put down the "rebellion," Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina seceded.

Still waiting on all of those who were quick to cry "treason" and "criminal" to demonstrate why secession was (is?) illegal and unconstitutional. The answer to that question - really, the answer to what the heck is this thing we call the "United States" - will help explain much about American history post-secession (oops!) from the British Empire...


----------



## 32rollandrock

Don't much care whether they appreciate it or not. I have a thing for language. I like it to be precise. I like things to mean what is said. I think that nuance is important. And I never once said that I don't appreciate the gravity of their position.



vpkozel said:


> I am sure that those folks being pimped around, forced to perform sex acts, or work for nothing will appreciate your care for nuance and language skills.


----------



## SG_67

^ Just wondering how you can appreciate nuance and at the same time want precision and for things to "mean what they say"? Just curious that's all.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> ^ Just wondering how you can appreciate nuance and at the same time want precision and for things to "mean what they say"? Just curious that's all.


They are separate things that can both be appreciated. We can open another thread on language, I suppose, but the English language is bombarded by bastardizations, often driven by political correctness and socio-political agendas, so frequently that the head spins. Sometimes you don't know why. "Family members" is another one that drives me batty. Why not just say "relatives?"

Again, not deriding the plight of victims. I can't say whether the nomenclature is a result of any particular agenda. But they are victims of crimes, it seems to me, more than they are slaves, which connotes chattel slavery, which is not what's going on.


----------



## 32rollandrock

You can't know what Lincoln, or anyone else, believed (or believes). Only the person themselves knows that.



Tiger said:


> The point was, that if we wish to assess Lincoln, we should look at what he said and did. I have already demonstrated what Lincoln believed (and did) about slavery and African-Americans; here I am merely adding more grist for the anti-deification of Lincoln mill. You know, for those that see criminality in Davis but halos and wings for Lincoln...


----------



## 32rollandrock

It's my understanding that the British considered the Founding Fathers to be traitors. "If we don't hang together, we shall surely hang separately." That's how Ben Franklin put it.



Tiger said:


> A great two and a half minute history lesson. Virginia was divided as to whether to secede or not - ultimately, whoever controls the convention controls the outcome - but when Lincoln requested troops from States to put down the "rebellion," Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina seceded.
> 
> Still waiting on all of those who were quick to cry "treason" and "criminal" to demonstrate why secession was (is?) illegal and unconstitutional. The answer to that question - really, the answer to what the heck is this thing we call the "United States" - will help explain much about American history post-secession (oops!) from the British Empire...


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> They are separate things that can both be appreciated. We can open another thread on language, I suppose, but the English language is bombarded by bastardizations, often driven by political correctness and socio-political agendas, so frequently that the head spins. Sometimes you don't know why. "Family members" is another one that drives me batty. Why not just say "relatives?"
> 
> Again, not deriding the plight of victims. I can't say whether the nomenclature is a result of any particular agenda. But they are victims of crimes, it seems to me, more than they are slaves, which connotes chattel slavery, which is not what's going on.


Why open a new thread about it? Afraid it is too far off topic of this one's original purpose? :happy:


----------



## RogerP

I see the apologists have succeeded in diverting the discussion to an examination of Lincoln. Gotta watch out for those sneaky red herrings - they can slip.by and really stink up the joint!

Whatever hairs may be split about Lincoln, there can be no doubt what the confederacy stood for and what it's flag represents: white supremacy and the heinous subjugation of an entire race. Period. Dress it up as heritage all you want but you can't change facts.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Liberty Ship said:


> Amazon's sales of Confederate flags have skyrocketed by more than 3,000% in the past 24 hours.
> 
> Read more: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-sales-of-confederate-flags-are-booming-2015-6#ixzz3dv1L6PUa


Not anymore--Amazon has pulled them: https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/22/politics/confederate-flag-walmart-south-carolina/


----------



## 32rollandrock

It was inevitable.

Sure, Lincoln had his faults. Everyone does. But where would we be without him? Anyone?



RogerP said:


> I see the apologists have succeeded in diverting the discussion to an examination of Lincoln. Gotta watch out for those sneaky red herrings - they can slip.by and really stink up the joint!
> 
> Whatever hairs may be split about Lincoln, there can be no doubt what the confederacy stood for and what it's flag represents: white supremacy and the heinous subjugation of an entire race. Period. Dress it up as heritage all you want but you can't change facts.


----------



## RogerP

MaxBuck said:


> So far as I can tell, you're using the fact that Lincoln was a fallible man shaped by the times he lived in to justify continued display of the symbol of the Confederacy by state and local governments. Hardly a logical argument.
> 
> The fact that African-Americans are overwhelmingly offended and saddened by this symbol of slavery (and that's how they perceive it, regardless of how white folks feel) is sufficient to justify its removal. Nikki Haley clearly agrees with me on this, along with many GOP lawmakers both inside and outside of Carolina, and I hope the legislature carries through and promulgates accordingly. Lincoln's views on racial equality have FA to do with this debate.


Well said Max. And props to you for spotting the diversion and calling it out for what it is.

The one good thing to come of this renewed focus on that hateful flag is that it is both isolating and identifying the radicalized members of the right. Decent, fair-minded Republicans are stepping up and saying enough is enough. They are no longer attempting to defend the indefensible and I respect them for it.


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> You can't know what Lincoln, or anyone else, believed (or believes). Only the person themselves knows that.


We risk lapsing into skepticism then, if we don't rely on what people say and do to provide us with a window into what they believe...


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> It's my understanding that the British considered the Founding Fathers to be traitors. "If we don't hang together, we shall surely hang separately." That's how Ben Franklin put it.


Yes, they did. Putting aside Lockean notions of broken social contracts and rights to alter and abolish governments, the huge difference is that the British Colonies did not choose to enter into a relationship with Great Britain. However, the thirteen (and subsequent) States voluntarily ratified first the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution, thus becoming part of a voluntary (how could it be otherwise, or we'd have autocracy!) political union. The States that seceded from this voluntary union did so in the same manner that they joined - via a state convention.


----------



## Tiger

RogerP said:


> I see the apologists have succeeded in diverting the discussion to an examination of Lincoln. Gotta watch out for those sneaky red herrings - they can slip.by and really stink up the joint! Whatever hairs may be split about Lincoln, there can be no doubt what the confederacy stood for and what it's flag represents: white supremacy and the heinous subjugation of an entire race. Period. Dress it up as heritage all you want but you can't change facts.


I hope you're not referring to me; I've been merely trying to set the historical record straight. I've made the point that both the USA and CSA essentially had the same political and social policies toward "an entire race" and distinctions began to arise during the war, not before it and not at its outset.


----------



## Tiger

RogerP said:


> Well said Max. And props to you for spotting the diversion and calling it out for what it is.
> 
> The one good thing to come of this renewed focus on that hateful flag is that it is both isolating and identifying the radicalized members of the right. Decent, fair-minded Republicans are stepping up and saying enough is enough. They are no longer attempting to defend the indefensible and I respect them for it.


The first part of MaxBuck's statement was completely false. I never made such an argument, nor would I. In fact, I purposely steered clear of the flag issue because it was obvious that it was engendering (too) much passion. I see I was unsuccessful; despite what I've written, I'm still accused of things I do not believe...


----------



## Liberty Ship

32rollandrock said:


> Not anymore--Amazon has pulled them: https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/22/politics/confederate-flag-walmart-south-carolina/


Maybe in the future we will be able to buy them if we have a government issued photo ID and pass a criminal background check. Oh. Better add a waiting period. There! That will end racially motivated crime. Except...isn't a photo ID requirement racist?


----------



## tocqueville

RogerP said:


> I see the apologists have succeeded in diverting the discussion to an examination of Lincoln. Gotta watch out for those sneaky red herrings - they can slip.by and really stink up the joint!
> 
> Whatever hairs may be split about Lincoln, there can be no doubt what the confederacy stood for and what it's flag represents: white supremacy and the heinous subjugation of an entire race. Period. Dress it up as heritage all you want but you can't change facts.


Yup.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

To lighten this up a bit: https://www.theonion.com/article/south-carolina-refuses-remove-confederate-flag-cap-50725

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> Yup.


Thank you for that outstanding contribution. You were one of the people who threw around reckless - and false - remarks, but never was able to support them when challenged.

Yup...


----------



## Gurdon

From the Daily Kos:

"Are you familiar with the Family Research Council? It's the conservative anti-gay group that Josh Duggar worked for before he stepped down recently after admitting he had molested his sisters and a babysitter. The FRC was designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center back in 2010.
Well, in 2012, a black man with a gun and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches walked into the offices of the Family Research Council and planned on shooting the employees and rubbing the sandwiches on their faces (here are the literal sandwiches). He didn't do it and was disarmed by the security officer in the building who held him there until the police showed up.

The federal government called that terrorism. The feds even prosecuted him as a terrorist, and he was the first person ever convicted under a 2002 anti-terrorism act and was sentenced to serve 25 years in prison:

He pleaded guilty to the charges in February.
U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen heralded the sentence as sending a strong message on terrorism.

“A security guard’s heroism is the only thing that prevented Floyd Corkins II from carrying out a mass shooting intended to kill as many people as possible,” Machen said in a statement.

OK? So, a black man walks into a building of conservative white folk with some chicken sandwiches and a gun, gets manhandled by security, and he's a full-fledged terrorist sentenced to 25 years in prison for terrorism.
But, a white man researches the most historic black church in South Carolina with a state senator as its pastor, speaks on his desire to start a civil war, goes into that church, kills a state senator and eight other African Americans, but it's not terrorism?

According to FBI Director James Comey, it isn't.

But look at the definitions of terrorism listed on the federal government websites and you see this below the fold:

The search for a universal, precise definition of terrorism has been challenging for researchers and practitioners alike. Different definitions exist across the federal, international and research communities.
Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Both definitions of terrorism share a common theme: the use of force intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal. In most cases, NIJ researchers adopt the FBI definition, which stresses methods over motivations and is generally accepted by law enforcement communities.

Something is terribly wrong here. It doesn't add up.
Glenn Greenwald is right. "The refusal to call the Charleston shootings 'terrorism' again shows it's a meaningless propaganda term."

Furthermore, it appears that the reluctance to call a white man who terrorized not only the nine people he killed, but their church, their community, African Americans in general, and black churches across the nation, while calling an African American who almost did the same thing a terrorist is not preposterous—it is a racist application of the law.

ORIGINALLY POSTED TO SHAUNKING ON MON JUN 22, 2015 AT 08:34 AM PDT.

ALSO REPUBLISHED BY POLITICAL LANGUAGE AND MESSAGING AND DAILY KOS."

Gurdon


----------



## vpkozel

I don't think that either should be classified as terrorism - which I take to mean something more organized and further reaching. I think that we have vastly overused that word lately.

Both of those cases seem to be angry men who more than likely had mental issues. But if the first crime was classified as terrorism, then the one in Charleston must be as well.


----------



## MaxBuck

SG_67 said:


> It will only mean something if it causes soul searching by society as a whole on why certain segments of our society seem to be left behind with failing institutions.


That's a view held by a white man. Black folk likely disagree.

You make the argument that unless grand changes occur as a result, there's no reason to pull down the symbol of slavery. That's ridiculous. One might as well say, "Unless my donation will end hunger throughout the world, it means nothing."


----------



## MaxBuck

Liberty Ship said:


> Amazon's sales of Confederate flags have skyrocketed by more than 3,000% in the past 24 hours.
> 
> Read more: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-sales-of-confederate-flags-are-booming-2015-6#ixzz3dv1L6PUa


Allow me to opine that that is a pretty f()(king sorry commentary on the present state of our nation.


----------



## MaxBuck

Tiger said:


> The first part of MaxBuck's statement was completely false. I never made such an argument, nor would I. In fact, I purposely steered clear of the flag issue because it was obvious that it was engendering (too) much passion. I see I was unsuccessful; despite what I've written, I'm still accused of things I do not believe...


Given the preceding discussion, I inferred that you support the continued display of the Confederate flag in SC. If I am in error, you have my apology.


----------



## SG_67

MaxBuck said:


> That's a view held by a white man. Black folk likely disagree.
> 
> You make the argument that unless grand changes occur as a result, there's no reason to pull down the symbol of slavery. That's ridiculous. One might as well say, "Unless my donation will end hunger throughout the world, it means nothing."


I'm white now?

Your analogy is preposterous as donations of food are real and not symbolic.

Sure it makes someone feel better and I'm not suggesting that it wouldn't matter to someone who is offended by the flag, but the flag itself is a symbol of something that will be around long after it's removal.

Too often we congratulate ourselves on symbolic victories thereby giving ourselves an out when it comes to doing the heavy lifting and having uncomfortable conversations.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I don't give a hoot about whether anyone calls anything terrorism. We get too hung up over labels. "Massacre," "blood bath," "mass murder," etc. are plenty good enough for me. I feel the same way about "hate crimes." If you kill someone for whatever reason, it's almost always a given that hate is the driver. There was an excellent South Park episode on this. Cartman is convicted of a hate crime for insulting Token (amazing what they can get away with on that show), and there is an excellent speech--I forget who gave it--on the silliness of parsing out the motives behind crimes when it comes to prosecuting them. The takeaway was, crimes are crimes, and we should mete out punishment based on the heinousness of any given act. After all, prosecutors don't have to establish motives to gain convictions--unless, apparently, it involves a "hate crime"(or, perhaps, terrorism).

I'm as against racism and racial violence as anyone, but it seems to me that there are plenty of existing laws under which we can punish racists without creating a separate category of crime. It's been said before, I'm sure.



vpkozel said:


> I don't think that either should be classified as terrorism - which I take to mean something more organized and further reaching. I think that we have vastly overused that word lately.
> 
> Both of those cases seem to be angry men who more than likely had mental issues. But if the first crime was classified as terrorism, then the one in Charleston must be as well.


----------



## MaxBuck

SG_67 said:


> Sure it makes someone feel better and I'm not suggesting that it wouldn't matter to someone who is offended by the flag, but the flag itself is a symbol of something that will be around long after it's removal.
> 
> Too often we congratulate ourselves on symbolic victories thereby giving ourselves an out when it comes to doing the heavy lifting and having uncomfortable conversations.


It's not only a "symbolic victory" to rid ourselves of a symbol of hatred, separation and subjugation. Your repetitive suggestion that removing the flags would "only be symbolic" suggests to me you are not African-American. If you are, you have my apology. If you are not, then yes, you're "white now."


----------



## 32rollandrock

Absolutely agree. If there was ever something that illustrated how far it is that we have to go, it is these sales figures.



MaxBuck said:


> Allow me to opine that that is a pretty f()(king sorry commentary on the present state of our nation.


----------



## 32rollandrock

For the record, I'm a pug.



MaxBuck said:


> It's not only a "symbolic victory" to rid ourselves of a symbol of hatred, separation and subjugation. Your repetitive suggestion that removing the flags would "only be symbolic" suggests to me you are not African-American. If you are, you have my apology. If you are not, then yes, you're "white now."


----------



## SG_67

^ intent has everything to do with crime and the punishment meted out. It goes back to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. 

Otherwise stealing would just be stealing. Killing would just be killing. Our whole basis for jurisprudence is based on the intent of the perpetrator in relation to the act.


----------



## Tiger

MaxBuck said:


> Given the preceding discussion, I inferred that you support the continued display of the Confederate flag in SC. If I am in error, you have my apology.


Thank you for your kindness, MaxBuck.


----------



## SG_67

MaxBuck said:


> It's not only a "symbolic victory" to rid ourselves of a symbol of hatred, separation and subjugation. Your repetitive suggestion that removing the flags would "only be symbolic" suggests to me you are not African-American. If you are, you have my apology. If you are not, then yes, you're "white now."


sorry but that is completely incoherent.

What is "white now"?


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> I don't give a hoot about whether anyone calls anything terrorism. We get too hung up over labels. "Massacre," "blood bath," "mass murder," etc. are plenty good enough for me.


I'm sorry, aren't you the one who wanted to be precise about language?



> I feel the same way about "hate crimes." If you kill someone for whatever reason, it's almost always a given that hate is the driver. There was an excellent South Park episode on this. Cartman is convicted of a hate crime for insulting Token (amazing what they can get away with on that show), and there is an excellent speech--I forget who gave it--on the silliness of parsing out the motives behind crimes when it comes to prosecuting them. The takeaway was, crimes are crimes, and we should mete out punishment based on the heinousness of any given act. After all, prosecutors don't have to establish motives to gain convictions--unless, apparently, it involves a "hate crime"(or, perhaps, terrorism).
> 
> I'm as against racism and racial violence as anyone, but it seems to me that there are plenty of existing laws under which we can punish racists without creating a separate category of crime. It's been said before, I'm sure.


I agree with all of that.


----------



## vpkozel

SG_67 said:


> What is "white now"?


The way that Krepke says "right now?"


----------



## SG_67

vpkozel said:


> The way that Krepke says "right now?"


How can I argue with that kind of logic.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Intent is different from motive. Just so we're clear. Prosecutors need only prove intent and result to gain conviction. Unless it's a hate crime. At that point, motive becomes germane. I don't understand this. If you waste nine people and the state can prove it, the punishment should be, in almost all cases, life without possibility of parole. Going down to the level of, say, a cross burning where no one is injured, there are still serious charges that can be brought without going to hate crime. You don't have to actually injure someone in Illinois to be convicted of assault. Committing an act that puts someone in reasonable fear that they will be physically harmed is enough. I'm not a lawyer and I may be wrong, but it seems to me that we should not be making exceptions when it comes to motive.



SG_67 said:


> ^ intent has everything to do with crime and the punishment meted out. It goes back to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.
> 
> Otherwise stealing would just be stealing. Killing would just be killing. Our whole basis for jurisprudence is based on the intent of the perpetrator in relation to the act.


----------



## Gurdon

vpkozel said:


> I don't think that either should be classified as terrorism - which I take to mean something more organized and further reaching. I think that we have vastly overused that word lately.
> 
> Both of those cases seem to be angry men who more than likely had mental issues. But if the first crime was classified as terrorism, then the one in Charleston must be as well.


Logically you are correct. The point of the quotation, and my reason for bringing it to this discussion, is to point out the racism inherent in much of the response to Charleston when compared to a comparable situation but with the races of the participants reversed -- Black perp = "terrorist," white perp = isolated deranged individual. That he may be deranged does not prevent him from also being racist. For that matter, perhaps being racist is a kind of derangement.

It is still too early to know with certainty about the motivation of the Charleston killer. It does, however, appear that he had web connections to *********** and racist groups, and that he posted racist statements, and photos, such as one described as him wearing a jacket with South African and Rhodesian insignias. If the descriptions of what he said at the time of the murders are accurate it would be reasonable to conclude that the young man was acting out of racial animus.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> This occurred because some made the link to the Confederate battle flag and the Confederacy itself, and off the rails it went. If you're hinting that some tried to _purposely _derail the discussion, I disagree (and hope that I'm correct). We've all been involved in many of these threads that begin one way, and flail out in many different directions; this one is no different. Hell, we've done that over shorts, jeans, and shoes!
> 
> By the way, was there an actual "discussion about murderous racism"? Has anyone seriously supported the notion that the Charleston shooter was anything other than a murderous, racist, deranged and despicable person?


There _*were*_ deliberate attempts to deflect the discussion; the St.George of England was raised, as was George Washington. Neither of these have any relevance whatsoever, nor does the fact that racism exists elsewhere, except to distract from the discussion.


----------



## tocqueville

I approve: https://fusion.net/story/155523/peo...acebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fusion

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

The motivation of the killer? He's nuts. Was he spurned on by online hate groups, white supremacist ideology and all of the other things that have been discussed? Absolutely. 

All of these things exist now, will continue to exist and have existed in the past. There's a huge leap that has to take place for someone who may be a racist to sitting in the pews of a church for an hour and then opening fire killing 9 random people. It's an inherently irrational act. 

Combine that with the fact that he left behind a manifesto, something by the way that the Uni-Bomber also did, the fact that he wanted the "world to know what happened here" and statements from people that knew him, it's clear this guy was unstable.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> There _*were*_ deliberate attempts to deflect the discussion; the St.George of England was raised, as was George Washington. Neither of these have any relevance whatsoever, nor does the fact that racism exists elsewhere, except to distract from the discussion.


Neither does the Confederate flag.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Neither does the Confederate flag.


Except that the racist killer used the confederate flag as a symbol, so it is absolutely relevant. St.George, England, Washington, racism in other countries are all deliberate distractions and attempts at diversions.


----------



## Chouan

Can anyone explain what "Bump the Chumps" means?


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Except that the racist killer used the confederate flag as a symbol, so it is absolutely relevant. St.George, England, Washington, racism in other countries are all deliberate distractions and attempts at diversions.


I am sure he used lots of symbols and other mass murderers have also used symbols. This was all about opportunism and an easy target.

But I am not going to rehash this entire thread.


----------



## 32rollandrock

That's your opinion, but my guess is that he won't be found insane under the law. Generally, you have to show that the defendant wasn't aware that he was committing a crime in order to get a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. This guy seemed to know that he was breaking the law. Otherwise, he would not have fled.



SG_67 said:


> *The motivation of the killer? He's nuts.* Was he spurned on by online hate groups, white supremacist ideology and all of the other things that have been discussed? Absolutely.
> 
> All of these things exist now, will continue to exist and have existed in the past. There's a huge leap that has to take place for someone who may be a racist to sitting in the pews of a church for an hour and then opening fire killing 9 random people. It's an inherently irrational act.
> 
> Combine that with the fact that he left behind a manifesto, something by the way that the Uni-Bomber also did, the fact that he wanted the "world to know what happened here" and statements from people that knew him, it's clear this guy was unstable.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> That's your opinion, but my guess is that he won't be found insane under the law. Generally, you have to show that the defendant wasn't aware that he was committing a crime in order to get a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. This guy seemed to know that he was breaking the law. Otherwise, he would not have fled.


I don't think that the guy was legally insane at all. I think he was very capable of planning and executing both the killings and the get away. It was really dumb luck that caused him to be caught.

That doesn't mean he wasn't nuts though.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Not sure it was dumb luck. He was just dumb. Seemed to have no real destination or getaway plan. Don't know for sure, but the surveillance camera seemed, from the photo that was captured, to be one of those just-above-the-door deals--a pro would have either figured out a way to take it out or a way to cover his face. The authorities did a good job of quickly getting a good picture of him out. Good photo plus lots of publicity plus tooling around in a car festooned with a symbol widely recognized as racist. That's what did it.



vpkozel said:


> I don't think that the guy was legally insane at all. I think he was very capable of planning and executing both the killings and the get away. It was really dumb luck that caused him to be caught.
> 
> That doesn't mean he wasn't nuts though.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Not sure it was dumb luck. He was just dumb. Seemed to have no real destination or getaway plan. Don't know for sure, but the surveillance camera seemed, from the photo that was captured, to be one of those just-above-the-door deals--a pro would have either figured out a way to take it out or a way to cover his face. The authorities did a good job of quickly getting a good picture of him out. Good photo plus lots of publicity plus tooling around in a car festooned with a symbol widely recognized as racist. That's what did it.


The lady who started the events that led to his capture saw him in traffic - that is pretty dumb luck. And the flag license plate was indeed one of the key items she used to make the initial identification.

Nice try on attempting to revive the flag diversion though....


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> The lady who started the events that led to his capture saw him in traffic - that is pretty dumb luck. And the flag license plate was indeed one of the key items she used to make the initial identification.
> 
> Nice try on attempting to revive the flag diversion though....


Only the flag isn't a diversion, it's part of the issue. St.George, England, Washington, racism in other countries, they are all deliberate diversions. The racist symbolism of the flag is part of this particular problem.


----------



## 32rollandrock

It's a pug. No, it's not.



vpkozel said:


> The lady who started the events that led to his capture saw him in traffic - that is pretty dumb luck. And the flag license plate was indeed one of the key items she used to make the initial identification.
> 
> Nice try on attempting to revive the flag diversion though....


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> It's a pug. No, it's not.


Roof owned a pug, ergo people who owned pugs are racist.


----------



## 32rollandrock

You are the first person to mention the name on this thread, which proves that you are out to glorify him.



vpkozel said:


> Roof owned a pug, ergo people who owned pugs are racist.


----------



## MaxBuck

SG_67 said:


> sorry but that is completely incoherent.
> 
> What is "white now"?


You asked the question, "So I'm white now?" I was answering in the affirmative.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> You are the first person to mention the name on this thread, which proves that you are out to glorify him.


Just trying to be precise.


----------



## tocqueville

Meanwhile:

https://whnt.com/2015/06/24/alabama-governor-orders-confederate-flags-taken-down-from-state-capitol/

The bad news is that the greater the fuss made over the flag, the greater it's symbolic charge.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> That's your opinion, but my guess is that he won't be found insane under the law. Generally, you have to show that the defendant wasn't aware that he was committing a crime in order to get a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. This guy seemed to know that he was breaking the law. Otherwise, he would not have fled.


That's not for me, or for you to decide, but for a court of law. But that's besides the point.

I was not suggesting that he is innocent by reason of insanity. Please read other comments I have made regarding this. I'm saying he knew right from wrong but that he's essentially an imbalanced person with mental issues.

My point is that there is a huge gap between being racist and doing something like this. Not all racists think about, let alone act on, such desires and impulses that would end the lives of 9 of their fellow human beings.


----------



## vpkozel

Gurdon said:


> From the Daily Kos:
> 
> "Are you familiar with the Family Research Council? It's the conservative anti-gay group that Josh Duggar worked for before he stepped down recently after admitting he had molested his sisters and a babysitter. The FRC was designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center back in 2010.


The Moore, OK beheading case also came to mind when I was pondering your post. This was not classified as terrorism either as far as I know.


----------



## RogerP

tocqueville said:


> Meanwhile:
> 
> https://whnt.com/2015/06/24/alabama-governor-orders-confederate-flags-taken-down-from-state-capitol/
> 
> The bad news is that the greater the fuss made over the flag, the greater it's symbolic charge.


That's progress. And I don't consider the focus brought to bear to be bad at all. It is at last identifying the flag for what it really is, and cutting through all the obfuscation about heritage and history.


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> The motivation of the killer? He's nuts. Was he spurned on by online hate groups, white supremacist ideology and all of the other things that have been discussed?


Well you're half right. He was certainly motivated by racial hatred and a white supremacist ideology. I see no indication whatsoever that he was nuts. That can really only have one of two meanings - 1) he was suffering from some defined mental illness, or 2) he was "insane" at law in that he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his actions.

From the content of his "manifesto" and the comments he made to victims immediately before the shooting, he knew exactly what he was doing, and why. He chose his target for a specific reason. He understood the nature, purpose and consequences of his actions at all times. This isn't someone who doesn't know what he is doing. This isn't someone operating under some schizophrenic delusion whereby he thought the people in he church were demons or some such. This was a cold blooded killer. Which is something very different from being nuts. Just because someone decides to commit an act of mass murder does not make him crazy.

And frankly, the immediate jump by the political right to cast this as an act of a crazy person does itself smack of racism.

Why? Well I submit to you that if it had been a lone gunman rampaging through a mall shooting everyone he could find and posting a manifesto praising ISIS and hatred for Americans, I guarantee you that not one - NOT ONE SINGLE Fox analyst or Republican presidential nominee would be diminishing the heinous nature of the act by saying "well, he must have been crazy".


----------



## Dmontez

RogerP said:


> And frankly, the immediate jump by the political right to cast this as an act of a crazy person does itself smack of racism.


I don't believe it does. I still have not seen one person say that this guy is not a racist. I believe that completely he is a racist, and a terrible person, but you also have to be a little off in the head to want to kill someone let alone multiple people. I don't think he would be found insane, and therefore not guilty, but I would say that the guy is also nuts to have done what he did.

A couple of days ago there was a murder suicide here in my neck of the woods. A guy stabbed his wife to death, and then stabbed himself in the chest while their two under 10 year old children watched. That guy was nuts for doing that, but because he's hispanic, is it racist for a white guy to say that hes crazy for doing that? no. Let's not forget that in order to be racist you must think that your race is superior to another. Just because this guy was crazy enough to kill people and I think he was crazy to do that does not mean that I am racist towards blacks.


----------



## Tiger

RogerP said:


> Well you're half right. He was certainly motivated by racial hatred and a white supremacist ideology. I see no indication whatsoever that he was nuts. That can really only have one of two meanings - 1) he was suffering from some defined mental illness, or 2) he was "insane" at law in that he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his actions.
> 
> From the content of his "manifesto" and the comments he made to victims immediately before the shooting, he knew exactly what he was doing, and why. He chose his target for a specific reason. He understood the nature, purpose and consequences of his actions at all times. This isn't someone who doesn't know what he is doing. This isn't someone operating under some schizophrenic delusion whereby he thought the people in he church were demons or some such. This was a cold blooded killer. Which is something very different from being nuts. Just because someone decides to commit an act of mass murder does not make him crazy.
> 
> And frankly, the immediate jump by the political right to cast this as an act of a crazy person does itself smack of racism.
> 
> Why? Well I submit to you that if it had been a lone gunman rampaging through a mall shooting everyone he could find and posting a manifesto praising ISIS and hatred for Americans, I guarantee you that not one - NOT ONE SINGLE Fox analyst or Republican presidential nominee would be diminishing the heinous nature of the act by saying "well, he must have been crazy".


I agree with this completely!

I think decent people will often be stunned by the viciousness, violence, and hatred in this world that we tend to ascribe various forms of derangement to those heinous acts (I did earlier in one of the concurrent Charleston threads) because we are dumbfounded as to why such things outside of the normal/moral universe occur (or are allowed to occur). Hence, Adolf Hitler is often called a "mad man" - but was he? Was Stalin and Mao? Surely their crimes are so unimaginable that they must be, ipso facto, the product of warped minds? Perhaps, or maybe they are simply evil personified.

Maybe we'll learn more about the mental state of the Charleston murderer down the road, but from what we've heard and read, this is not a case of mental illness. This is abject hatred spurring horrifying violence. The fact that it happened to Christian worshippers in a church exacerbates this tragedy...


----------



## RogerP

Tiger said:


> I agree with this completely!
> 
> I think decent people will often be stunned by the viciousness, violence, and hatred in this world that we tend to ascribe various forms of derangement to those heinous acts (I did earlier in one of the concurrent Charleston threads) because we are dumbfounded as to why such things outside of the normal/moral universe occur (or are allowed to occur). Hence, Adolf Hitler is often called a "mad man" - but was he? Was Stalin and Mao? Surely their crimes are so unimaginable that they must be, ipso facto, the product of warped minds? Perhaps, or maybe they are simply evil personified.
> 
> Maybe we'll learn more about the mental state of the Charleston murderer down the road, but from what we've heard and read, this is not a case of mental illness. This is abject hatred spurring horrifying violence. The fact that it happened to Christian worshippers in a church exacerbates this tragedy...


Thank you. Just as there is extreme good in this world, there is extreme evil. Extreme evil and mental illness do not necessarily go hand in hand. In my not inconsiderable experience, they rarely do. Kindness, generosity and selflessness are ultimately grounded in the same place as spitefulness, hatred and willful violence: the character of the individual.


----------



## RogerP

Dmontez said:


> I don't believe it does.


Do you believe the same would be said of a brown Muslim murdering 9 white innocent white civilians while screaming "death to America"? I sure don't. I don't recall "crazy" being offered as an excuse for the Charlie Hebdo killers. Or for 9-11. Nor should it have been. All were acts of planned and premeditated murder, fueled by a hateful ideology. Crazy had nothing to do with it.

So why when a white supremacist murders black civilians does the right immediately engage in a repeated chorus of "Well, he was crazy, and crazy people do crazy things. Aw shucks."

One Fox anchor disputed that race had anything to do with it - that this was not an attack on blacks but an attack on Christians. Just a spectacularly vile attempt at spin, IMO. When Jeb Bush was asked whether he believed the act was motivated by racism, he gazed wonderingly at the blameless sky and said "I don't know." Maybe he just didn't understand the question.


----------



## Tiger

RogerP said:


> Thank you. Just as there is extreme good in this world, there is extreme evil. Extreme evil and mental illness do not necessarily go hand in hand. In my not inconsiderable experience, they rarely do. Kindness, generosity and selflessness are ultimately grounded in the same place as spitefulness, hatred and willful violence: the character of the individual.


This is a path I fear to tread, because it leads me to ponder volition, determinism, the existence of God, and the incomprehensible sadness that many experience. I live in New York City, and I can't simply read about a tragedy - I wind up personalizing it. What if that horrible event (fill in the blank) happened to my wife? My children? Parents? Friends? Just because it didn't happen to me doesn't mean it was any less real - it sure as hell happened to someone!

Not easy being me...


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> Do you believe the same would be said of a brown Muslim murdering 9 white innocent white civilians while screaming "death to America"? I sure don't. I don't recall "crazy" being offered as an excuse for the Charlie Hebdo killers. Or for 9-11. Nor should it have been. All were acts of planned and premeditated murder, fueled by a hateful ideology. Crazy had nothing to do with it.
> 
> So why when a white supremacist murders black civilians does the right immediately engage in a repeated chorus of "Well, he was crazy, and crazy people do crazy things. Aw shucks."
> 
> One Fox anchor disputed that race had anything to do with it - that this was not an attack on blacks but an attack on Christians. Just a spectacularly vile attempt at spin, IMO. When Jeb Bush was asked whether he believed the act was motivated by racism, he gazed wonderingly at the blameless sky and said "I don't know." Maybe he just didn't understand the question.


And yet no one tried to ban the Koran or proclaim it as a symbol of hate in those cases.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> And yet no one tried to ban the Koran or proclaim it as a symbol of hate in those cases.


You're right. White supremacists are the real victim here, losing their cherished symbol of all they hold dear. :rolleyes2:

Actually, not losing it at all. Near as I can see, nobody has declared the flag illegal to own or to display by individuals. You and your like-minded compatriots are as free as you ever were to wave that flag to your heart's content, if that is in fact what you wish to do. All that is lost is the display of the flag by the government. And that is just absurdly overdue.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> You're right. White supremacists are the real victim here, losing their cherished symbol of all they hold dear. :rolleyes2:
> 
> Actually, not losing it at all. Near as I can see, nobody has declared the flag illegal to own or to display by individuals. You and your like-minded compatriots are as free as you ever were to wave that flag to your heart's content, if that is in fact what you wish to do. All that is lost is the display of the flag by the government. And that is just absurdly overdue.


You have continued to assume that I am in favor of the Confederate flag, simply because I do not accept your and others' conclusions on it. You have no idea on my thoughts of the flag, so I would ask you once again to stop the ad hominem attacks that are not allowed on this forum.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> You have continued to assume that I am in favor of the Confederate flag, simply because I do not accept your and others' conclusions on it. You have no idea on my thoughts of the flag, so I would ask you once again to stop the ad hominem attacks that are not allowed on this forum.


I assume you are in favor of it because your denial of what it represents and your unwavering defense of its display.

You may safely assume that I am against it based on my criticism of what it represents and my assertion that its display by or on behalf of the government is odious and wholly inappropriate.

Your claim that I have "no idea" what your thoughts are on the flag seems to be grounded in the same faulty logic as your assertion that the flag has "nothing to do" with the killings.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> I assume you are in favor of it because your denial of what it represents and your unwavering defense of its display.
> 
> You may safely assume that I am against it based on my criticism of what it represents and my assertion that its display by or on behalf of the government is odious and wholly inappropriate.
> 
> Your claim that I have "no idea" what your thoughts are on the flag seems to be grounded in the same faulty logic as your assertion that the flag has "nothing to do" with the killings.


Your assumption is incorrect as it relates to my position.

And there is no causation between the flag and the killings that I seen. If there is a causation, then this would not be the first time that this type of attack happened in the state. If, as you say, my logic is faulty, then there would not be racially motivated murders in any states where the Confederate flag does not fly - which is also not the case.

If you have proof of this causation, I would love to see it. And remember that correlation dos not equal causation.

I also thank you for making this the first response to me where you have not made a personal attack.


----------



## SG_67

Let me clarify my position.

1) I believe this guy is a racist and he knew what he was doing. I don't believe, based on my imperfect understanding of the law, that he is entitled to a legit insanity plea

2) he was fueled and urged on by rhetoric and the existence of online as well as other racist propaganda.

My point is that there are many people out there who harbor such feelings but never dream or ponder acting out on them. I get cut off in traffic and say to myself " I want to punch that guy!" But I don't. Someone becomes unhinged and tracks the person down and runs him over in a parking lot. Clearly that person has some type of self control or anti social personality disorder. 

Anti social behavior is unique to a particular milieu. A father kills his daughter in some middle eastern village because she held a boys hand. There it is seen as normal behavior and here we call it crazy. A suicide bomber blows himself up and in Iraq or a Buddhist monk self immolates as a protest yet if our neighbor does that he was crazy. It's behavior that is out of the norm for a given society. 

I'm not suggesting this guy was DSM V schizoid, but he certainly had a few screws loose. He was also a racist and there's no denying that. Like I said, even in the dark days of the 1950's and 60's civil rights struggle in the south I don't think anything like this happened.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> Your assumption is incorrect as it relates to my position.
> 
> And *there is no causation between the flag and the killings that I seen*. If there is a *causation,* then this would not be the first time that this type of attack happened in the state. If, as you say, my logic is faulty, then there would not be racially motivated murders in any states where the Confederate flag does not fly - which is also not the case.
> 
> *If you have proof of this causation*, I would love to see it. And remember that correlation dos not equal causation.
> 
> I also thank you for making this the first response to me where you have not made a personal attack.


How could a flag literally cause a killing? That makes no sense and is just one more diversionary tactic on your part. You want proof that the flag itself somehow made the shooter engage in these horrendous acts of violence? I'll leave you to deal with that straw man, since it is entirely of your creation. Do with it what you will, but don't expect me to join you.

Your claim wasn't that the flag didn't cause the killings, your claim that was that the flag had "nothing to do with the killings":



vpkozel said:


> This guy wasn't created by America any more than Charles Manson or Jim Jones were.
> 
> * I am not going to make this about the Confederate flag *and I would appreciate it if others didn't either.
> 
> * That has nothing to do with this shooting* and to try to make it so if downright offensive to me - not just as a southerner, but as a human being.


You're simply wrong. The flag had very much to do with the killings, as I and others have pointed out. You wish to stick your fingers in your ears and whistle Dixie and ignore reality, that's just fine. It's not my job to burst your bubble.

And my assumptions about your position on the flag are nothing more than a summary of what you have said about the flag in this thread. My assumptions are not incorrect, unless you have been just trolling this thread, espousing sentiments which you do not actually hold as a means of creating controversy. If you meant what you have said, then my assumptions are entirely correct.


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> How could a flag literally cause a killing? That makes no sense and is just one more diversionary tactic on your part. You want proof that the flag itself somehow made the shooter engage in these horrendous acts of violence? I'll leave you to deal with that straw man, since it is entirely of your creation. Do with it what you will, but don't expect me to join you.
> 
> Your claim wasn't that the flag didn't cause the killings, your claim that was that the flag had "nothing to do with the killings":


Nothing to do with means the cause of in commonly used vernacular.



> You're simply wrong. The flag had very much to do with the killings, as I and others have pointed out. You wish to stick your fingers in your ears and whistle Dixie and ignore reality, that's just fine. It's not my job to burst your bubble.
> 
> And my assumptions about your position on the flag are nothing more than a summary of what you have said about the flag in this thread. My assumptions are not incorrect, unless you have been just trolling this thread, espousing sentiments which you do not actually hold as a means of creating controversy. If you meant what you have said, then my assumptions are entirely correct.


If you think this, then you must by extension think that saying Allahu Akhbar when flying a plane into a building means that Islam is at fault or when a guy who hates police shoots 2 NYC officers. and we should react in kind when that happens. I could care less about the conclusion, but the logic must remain the same for each case. And as is quite obvious, it most definitely has not.

But, back to the personal insults with the Dixie comment I see.


----------



## RogerP

vpkozel said:


> Nothing to do with means the cause of in commonly used vernacular.


Um, no. That would be highly uncommon vernacular indeed. Perhaps used by you alone.

The burning cross didn't CAUSE the Klan to commit the many atrocities they perpetrated upon blacks. But to say that the absence of causation means that the burning cross "had nothing to do with" those atrocities would be, well, nuts. The Swastika didn't CAUSE the Nazis to attempt genocide, but to say that the flag "had nothing to do with" such conduct born of their hateful ideology would be outside the bounds of reason.

To THEN suggest that since the burning cross, Swastika and Confederate flag didn't CAUSE a single act of violence, that it should be permissible for governments to display them would, quite frankly, be a good deal worse than just nuts.


----------



## Gurdon

SG_67 said:


> Let me clarify my position.
> 
> I'm not suggesting this guy was DSM V schizoid, but he certainly had a few screws loose. He was also a racist and there's no denying that. Like I said, even in the dark days of the 1950's and 60's civil rights struggle in the south I don't think anything like this happened.


SG_67,
The above leaves me nearly speechless.

Having lived through those times and advocated for civil rights then and now, I, perhaps, have had more opportunities than you have to be aware of the dreadful things that have been done in the US to perpetuate racism and, in particular, to prevent racial minorities from enjoying the same rights and opportunities enjoyed by white Americans.

I refer to things like dogs and fire hoses and clubs used on demonstrators, bombings of African American churches, one in which children were killed, and murders of civil rights activists. The name Medgar Evers comes to mind -- there were others. There were lynchings, at least as late as 1960.

We think of lynchings as happening in the dim and distant past. There were, I have read, hundreds of lynchings in the first half of the 20th Century, and many lynchings (I think at least 50) between the end of World War II and 1960.

Listening to Billy Holiday singing "Strange Fruit" doesn't have nearly the impact of archive newspaper clippings of burned and mutilated (a euphemism for castration) black bodies hanging in front of crowds of white men women and children.

I generally try not to think about the horribleness of these things. I think, however, it is necessary to know what you apparently do not know, about the violence and the terror of the repression of racial minorities in the US.

Gurdon


----------



## vpkozel

RogerP said:


> Um, no. That would be highly uncommon vernacular indeed. Perhaps used by you alone.


I disagree, but that truly has nothing at all to do with this discussion and if in fact there had been any confusion or clarification needed on your part, perhaps it would have been better to ask than to assume facts not in evidence.



> The burning cross didn't CAUSE the Klan to commit the many atrocities they perpetrated upon blacks. But to say that the absence of causation means that the burning cross "had nothing to do with" those atrocities would be, well, nuts. The Swastika didn't CAUSE the Nazis to attempt genocide, but to say that the flag "had nothing to do with" such conduct born of their hateful ideology would be outside the bounds of reason.
> 
> To THEN suggest that since the burning cross, Swastika and Confederate flag didn't CAUSE a single act of violence, that it should be permissible for governments to display them would, quite frankly, be a good deal worse than just nuts.


I don't think that we are using causation in the same way. I am using it in the statistical sense - and I think that you are confusing it with correlation. The most often used example is the relationship between storks and birthrates. The 2 are almost identical from a data perspective, but there is no causation - only correlation.



> Causation, or causality, is the capacity of one variable to influence another. The first variable may bring the second into existence or may cause the incidence of the second variable to fluctuate.
> Causation is often confused with correlation, which indicates the extent to which two variables tend to increase or decrease in parallel. However, correlation by itself does not imply causation. There may be a third factor, for example, that is responsible for the fluctuations in both variables.
> 
> A statistically significant correlation has been reported, for example, between yellow cars and a lower incidence of accidents. That does not indicate that yellow cars are safer, but just that fewer yellow cars are involved in accidents. A third factor, such as the personality type of the purchaser, is more likely to be responsible.
> 
> https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/causation


And your examples prove my point. There was no burning cross in this case was there, yet there was still an atrocity. Same with genocide and the Swastika. There was however a lot of correlation between the these acts - at least anecdotally. And just to make sure there is no confusion on what anecdotally means in this situation - it means based on what you see, without going through the data and determining statistical significance.

And once again, if the causation is there that you claim, why have there not been more mass murders such as this in SC?


----------



## RogerP

Gurdon said:


> SG_67,
> The above leaves me nearly speechless.
> 
> Having lived through those times and advocated for civil rights then and now, I, perhaps, have had more opportunities than you have to be aware of the dreadful things that have been done in the US to perpetuate racism and, in particular, to prevent racial minorities from enjoying the same rights and opportunities enjoyed by white Americans.
> 
> I refer to things like dogs and fire hoses and clubs used on demonstrators, bombings of African American churches, one in which children were killed, and murders of civil rights activists. The name Medgar Evers comes to mind -- there were others. There were lynchings, at least as late as 1960.
> 
> We think of lynchings as happening in the dim and distant past. There were, I have read, hundreds of lynchings in the first half of the 20th Century, and many lynchings (I think at least 50) between the end of World War II and 1960.
> 
> Listening to Billy Holiday singing "Strange Fruit" doesn't have nearly the impact of archive newspaper clippings of burned and mutilated (a euphemism for castration) black bodies hanging in front of crowds of white men women and children.
> 
> I generally try not to think about the horribleness of these things. I think, however, it is necessary to know what you apparently do not know, about the violence and the terror of the repression of racial minorities in the US.
> 
> Gurdon


Thank you for speaking the truth on this. I frankly don't know how anyone could suggest that acts such as this did not take place even in the darkest days of the civil rights movement in the South. I am likewise left nearly speechless by that comment. Honest commentary such as yours is both a valuable tool to inform those who may be (spectacularly) ignorant of the truth and a valuable shield against spurious attempts at revisionist history.

It is the latter that I find more troubling, and regrettably, it has become all too prevalent.


----------



## Shaver

And yet...... racism does not equal extermination. It is not the next small and obvious step from discrimination on grounds of colour to spree killing.

Here is an interesting on-line assessment, for those who believe that they are prejudice free:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

Go on! Take this test folks.... I dare you.

.

.
.
.


----------



## SG_67

Gurdon said:


> SG_67,
> The above leaves me nearly speechless.
> 
> Having lived through those times and advocated for civil rights then and now, I, perhaps, have had more opportunities than you have to be aware of the dreadful things that have been done in the US to perpetuate racism and, in particular, to prevent racial minorities from enjoying the same rights and opportunities enjoyed by white Americans.
> 
> I refer to things like dogs and fire hoses and clubs used on demonstrators, bombings of African American churches, one in which children were killed, and murders of civil rights activists. The name Medgar Evers comes to mind -- there were others. There were lynchings, at least as late as 1960.
> 
> We think of lynchings as happening in the dim and distant past. There were, I have read, hundreds of lynchings in the first half of the 20th Century, and many lynchings (I think at least 50) between the end of World War II and 1960.
> 
> Listening to Billy Holiday singing "Strange Fruit" doesn't have nearly the impact of archive newspaper clippings of burned and mutilated (a euphemism for castration) black bodies hanging in front of crowds of white men women and children.
> 
> I generally try not to think about the horribleness of these things. I think, however, it is necessary to know what you apparently do not know, about the violence and the terror of the repression of racial minorities in the US.
> 
> Gurdon


Please don't put words in my mouth and read what I wrote without editorializing.

I'm not denying the heinous nature of this act. I'm well aware of what happened in the 50's and 60's and though I don't have personal knowledge of it as you do, I do read. I'm aware of lynchings and all of the other crimes that occurred. Please don't suggest that I don't know or I'm unaware. That is a completely unfair statement and nowhere did I try to present some sanitized version of the violence of those times, or the violence prior to that dating back to the founding of this nation.

What I am saying, and if people would just cool down a bit and read, is that I cannot recall an incident of this nature.

People have been shot in movie theaters before, but there was an incident a few years ago in Aurora CO, which was extraordinary in it's scope and circumstance. There have been many shootings in schools due to gang rivalries but there was an incident in Columbine CO in 1999 that was extraordinary in it's scope and circumstance.

This incident was extraordinary in it's scope and circumstance. There's enough background info on this guy so as there is no argument about his intent.

It's not every human being that can do what this guy did, and thank God for that! There's something that's not quite right with the way this guy processes information and makes decisions. All I've suggested is that there is a dimension beyond racism that needs to be looked at with this guy.

Not that he should be absolved or the crime mitigated, rather studied so that in the future hopefully someone will spot such deviant behavior and alert others before another act is committed.

addendum: Some on this thread have commented that the Right is trying to blame all of this on mental illness so as to cover up, or pass over the racist angle. I don't think I have but allowing for that argument, it's just as wrong and misleading as to completely blame racism and racist attitudes for the crime.

Calls for taking down the Confederate flag are fine and I don't have any issue with that. But if we just leave it at being a racist act, we miss the psychological and behavioral dimension that could expose what happened in it's full light and allow a better understanding and perhaps preventing something like this again.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> And yet...... racism does not equal extermination. It is not the next small and obvious step from discrimination on grounds of colour to spree killing.
> 
> Here is an interesting on-line assessment, for those who believe that they are prejudice free:
> 
> https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1
> 
> Go on! Take this test folks.... I dare you.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> .
> .


The link doesn't seem to work.


----------



## RogerP

Shaver said:


> And yet...... racism does not equal extermination. It is not the next small and obvious step from discrimination on grounds of colour to spree killing.
> 
> Here is an interesting on-line assessment, for those who believe that they are prejudice free:
> 
> https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1
> 
> Go on! Take this test folks.... I dare you.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> .
> .


It's a question of degree, Shaver. Not everyone possessed of any racial bias is a small step away from an act of violence. Those who subscribe to the white supremacist / Nazi doctrine, however, are indeed one small step from racial violence. One need only look to their actual written doctrines (best undertaken on an empty stomach) to see that.

Shortly after my family moved from Jamaica to Canada, a white neighbor who was fed up with all the immigrants taking over the neighborhood entered my home (when my sister and I were at school and my father was working at one of his two jobs) and physically assaulted my mother and grandmother, yelling at them to "go back home". She then summoned the police and attempted to claim that she had been lured into our home and attacked without provocation.

This was 1976.

Not something from a dusty history book.

And while I don't equate that act with the horror of Charleston, again, it is but a question of degree. The degree of violence, in this instance. The sentiments held by the perpetrators were very much the same.

And my neighbor wasn't crazy. Just a hateful racist.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> The link doesn't seem to work.


Try this link: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/featuredtask.html


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> The link doesn't seem to work.


Click on the take the test link on the top menu.


----------



## Shaver

RogerP said:


> It's a question of degree, Shaver. Not everyone possessed of any racial bias is a small step away from an act of violence. Those who subscribe to the white supremacist / Nazi doctrine, however, are indeed one small step from racial violence. One need only look to their actual written doctrines (best undertaken on an empty stomach) to see that.
> 
> Shortly after my family moved from Jamaica to Canada, a white neighbor who was fed up with all the immigrants taking over the neighborhood entered my home (when my sister and I were at school and my father was working at one of his two jobs) and physically assaulted my mother and grandmother, yelling at them to "go back home". She then summoned the police and attempted to claim that she had been lured into our home and attacked without provocation.
> 
> This was 1976.
> 
> Not something from a dusty history book.
> 
> And while I don't equate that act with the horror of Charleston, again, it is but a question of degree. The degree of violence, in this instance. The sentiments held by the perpetrators were very much the same.
> 
> And my neighbor wasn't crazy. Just a hateful racist.


But the type of appalling behaviour demonstrated by your neighbour, whilst perhaps not out and out crazy, is most certainly maladjusted.

I am minded that a person who would execute those observing faith in their place of worship does so on a pretext. This creature would doubtless have aligned his motivation with (as example) Lucifer in the absence of Aryan Nations.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> Try this link: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/featuredtask.html


What a bizarre result!


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> What a bizarre result!


Do we need to buy you a Confederate flag? :devil:


----------



## Gurdon

*inconsistencies*



SG_67 said:


> Please don't put words in my mouth and read what I wrote without editorializing.
> 
> I'm not denying the heinous nature of this act. I'm well aware of what happened in the 50's and 60's and though I don't have personal knowledge of it as you do, I do read. I'm aware of lynchings and all of the other crimes that occurred. Please don't suggest that I don't know or I'm unaware. That is a completely unfair statement and nowhere did I try to present some sanitized version of the violence of those times, or the violence prior to that dating back to the founding of this nation.


SG_67,
I didn't put words in your mouth. I read what you wrote, "Like I said, even in the dark days of the 1950's and 60's civil rights struggle in the south I don't think anything like this happened." I was struck by what appeared to be ignorance on your part of the ferocity of our suppression of people of color in America. I responded with a brief resume of salient examples of the murderous suppression of black people in the "... dark days of the 1950's and 60's... ."

Your statement below to the effect that you are "well aware of what happened in the 50's and 60's... ." seems to me to be inconsistent with your initial statement quoted above. I don't see how it can be understood as meaning anything other than what a plain reading of the text presents.

I did not intend this as a personal attack, quite the contrary. If anything, I was attacking your lack of knowledge of what should be a widely known dimension of American history.

If, however, when you wrote that you don't " ...think anything like this happened [in the 1950's and '60's]," you actually were "well aware" of the facts, this raises questions about the inconsistency between those two contradictory statements.

You say that you were not trying to present a sanitized version of the violence of those times. What were you trying to do, or say?

I don't know the answers to these questions.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## 32rollandrock

James Byrd was dragged behind a pickup truck by racists in Texas in 1998. He was alive, apparently, for more than a mile until his body hit a culvert, which resulted in him losing an arm and getting beheaded. They dumped his remains in front of an African American church, then went out for barbecue

It wasn't a case of a lone-wolf nut. It was three people who did this. And Byrd didn't do a single thing to deserve it, as if anything like this could be justified on any level. He simply needed a ride, they agreed to give him one, then they killed him in a manner not befitting a dog or goldfish or even rodent. One of the killers has been executed. Here's what he said the day before he died:  "As far as any regrets, no, I have no regrets. No, I'd do it all over again, to tell you the truth."

So we should be careful when we talk about things that happened back in the 50s or 60s, as if stuff like this doesn't still happen. Because it does still happen. And some people think it's OK. 1998 wasn't that long ago. And there have been examples since then.



Gurdon said:


> SG_67,
> I didn't put words in your mouth. I read what you wrote, "Like I said, even in the dark days of the 1950's and 60's civil rights struggle in the south I don't think anything like this happened." I was struck by what appeared to be ignorance on your part of the ferocity of our suppression of people of color in America. I responded with a brief resume of salient examples of the murderous suppression of black people in the "... dark days of the 1950's and 60's... ."
> 
> Your statement below to the effect that you are "well aware of what happened in the 50's and 60's... ." seems to me to be inconsistent with your initial statement quoted above. I don't see how it can be understood as meaning anything other than what a plain reading of the text presents.
> 
> I did not intend this as a personal attack, quite the contrary. If anything, I was attacking your lack of knowledge of what should be a widely known dimension of American history.
> 
> If, however, when you wrote that you don't " ...think anything like this happened [in the 1950's and '60's]," you actually were "well aware" of the facts, this raises questions about the inconsistency between those two contradictory statements.
> 
> You say that you were not trying to present a sanitized version of the violence of those times. What were you trying to do, or say?
> 
> I don't know the answers to these questions.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


----------



## SG_67

Gurdon said:


> SG_67,
> I didn't put words in your mouth. I read what you wrote, "Like I said, even in the dark days of the 1950's and 60's civil rights struggle in the south I don't think anything like this happened." I was struck by what appeared to be ignorance on your part of the ferocity of our suppression of people of color in America. I responded with a brief resume of salient examples of the murderous suppression of black people in the "... dark days of the 1950's and 60's... ."
> 
> Your statement below to the effect that you are "well aware of what happened in the 50's and 60's... ." seems to me to be inconsistent with your initial statement quoted above. I don't see how it can be understood as meaning anything other than what a plain reading of the text presents.
> 
> I did not intend this as a personal attack, quite the contrary. If anything, I was attacking your lack of knowledge of what should be a widely known dimension of American history.
> 
> If, however, when you wrote that you don't " ...think anything like this happened [in the 1950's and '60's]," you actually were "well aware" of the facts, this raises questions about the inconsistency between those two contradictory statements.
> 
> You say that you were not trying to present a sanitized version of the violence of those times. What were you trying to do, or say?
> 
> I don't know the answers to these questions.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Please show me an example of a mass killing such as was the nature of the Charleston event.

There's an element of this crime that seems to me to transcend racial hatred. I really wish people wouldn't go into their ideological bunkers on this. No one, certainly not me, is denying the facts of what happened and I'm certainly not denying violence perpetrated in the name of racial purity and the segregation of the races in the 1950's, 60's and for centuries before that.

You have to at least admit that the nature of this particular crime, the context and the actual perpetration of it seem quite different.

If this man that never been exposed to racist websites or white supremacist ideology, I have a feeling that something would have tripped his trigger at some point. Perhaps a girl would have rebuffed his advances and he would have gone into a sorority and shot up a bunch of young women.

There's a mental component to this event that is just as wrong to overlook. It doesn't explain or excuse what happened, but to ignore it is to ignore certain facts that may help prevent something like this from happening again.

In 2006 a man walked into an Amish school house and killed young children simply attending school. I don't for a minute believe the crime was one that was perpetrated because this guy had something against the Amish. But he did select them specifically. Of course, the gunman in this case committed suicide so no one will ever know.

So please, stop insinuating that I'm ignorant of history, insensitive or other contradicting myself. Mass shooting were not a feature of the crimes perpetrated against blacks in the 1950's and 60's. Just about every mass killing that has occurred like this, where one person just goes off, whether it was the Amish case, Columbine, New Town, the University of Texas incident, VA Tech in 2007 and Charleston all have some element of mental instability which I'll leave to professionals to explain and identify.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I don't see that it is much different at all. What's the difference between white supremacists who fire-bombed the Birmingham church in 1963 and this guy? I'm not seeing it.



SG_67 said:


> Please show me an example of a mass killing such as was the nature of the Charleston event.
> 
> There's an element of this crime that seems to me to transcend racial hatred. I really wish people wouldn't go into their ideological bunkers on this. No one, certainly not me, is denying the facts of what happened and I'm certainly not denying violence perpetrated in the name of racial purity and the segregation of the races in the 1950's, 60's and for centuries before that.
> 
> *You have to at least admit that the nature of this particular crime, the context and the actual perpetration of it seem quite different. *
> 
> If this man that never been exposed to racist websites or white supremacist ideology, I have a feeling that something would have tripped his trigger at some point. Perhaps a girl would have rebuffed his advances and he would have gone into a sorority and shot up a bunch of young women.
> 
> There's a mental component to this event that is just as wrong to overlook. It doesn't explain or excuse what happened, but to ignore it is to ignore certain facts that may help prevent something like this from happening again.
> 
> In 2006 a man walked into an Amish school house and killed young children simply attending school. I don't for a minute believe the crime was one that was perpetrated because this guy had something against the Amish. But he did select them specifically. Of course, the gunman in this case committed suicide so no one will ever know.
> 
> So please, stop insinuating that I'm ignorant of history, insensitive or other contradicting myself. Mass shooting were not a feature of the crimes perpetrated against blacks in the 1950's and 60's. Just about every mass killing that has occurred like this, where one person just goes off, whether it was the Amish case, Columbine, New Town, the University of Texas incident, VA Tech in 2007 and Charleston all have some element of mental instability which I'll leave to professionals to explain and identify.


----------



## Shaver

Racist beliefs make one predisposed to mass murder?



32rollandrock said:


> I don't see that it is much different at all. What's the difference between white supremacists who fire-bombed the Birmingham church in 1963 and this guy? I'm not seeing it.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> I don't see that it is much different at all. What's the difference between white supremacists who fire-bombed the Birmingham church in 1963 and this guy? I'm not seeing it.


You're not seeing it because you don't want to see it.

Certain folks here have gone into their corners and any attempt at seeing this as more than just a hate crime or view it as something outside the context of a racially motivated is all of a sudden viewed as heresy and the labeling of that person as ignorant.

But let me try to explain it: This guy didn't fire bomb anything. He looked his victims in the eye and shot them. He sat and prayed with them for an hour. He wrote a manifesto prior to the act. He let one go so she could "tell the world what happened here."

We don't say of child molesters and rapists that they have a high libido, yet both acts on their surface are of a sexual nature.


----------



## Liberty Ship

SG_67 said:


> Please show me an example of a mass killing such as was the nature of the Charleston event.


I will repost part of my post earlier in this thread:

This shooting in an historic, Black church reminds me of another that happened in 1974. Marcus Wayne Chenault walked into Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Atlanta and shot several people including the mother of Dr. Martin Luther King who at the time was at the organ playing, "The Lord's Prayer." I believe that a deacon and others were shot and killed. Chenault said his enemy was Christianity and that he was on a mission to kill Black ministers. He missed with the shot he took at King's father. Similarly to the Charleston incident, he sat in a front pew and sat through about half the service before he pulled two guns and started shooting. I'm sort of surprised that the collective memory has not reminded us of this incident in context of Charleston.


----------



## SG_67

Liberty Ship said:


> I will repost part of my post earlier in this thread:
> 
> This shooting in an historic, Black church reminds me of another that happened in 1974. Marcus Wayne Chenault walked into Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Atlanta and shot several people including the mother of Dr. Martin Luther King who at the time was at the organ playing, "The Lord's Prayer." I believe that a deacon and others were shot and killed. Chenault said his enemy was Christianity and that he was on a mission to kill Black ministers. He missed with the shot he took at King's father. Similarly to the Charleston incident, he sat in a front pew and sat through about half the service before he pulled two guns and started shooting. I'm sort of surprised that the collective memory has not reminded us of this incident in context of Charleston.


Right. And in this case Chenault himself was black.

People who commit these types of crimes are in a category by themselves. There is something quite askew and off about them and so to categorize it simply as a hate crime or purely motivated by race without considering the whole person in itself makes the tragedy worse.

Unfortunately when tragedies like this happen people will instinctively run into their respective corners. Perhaps it's because I'm first generation American and so I can step back and look at it from a different perspective.


----------



## MaxBuck

Liberty Ship said:


> I will repost part of my post earlier in this thread:
> 
> This shooting in an historic, Black church reminds me of another that happened in 1974. Marcus Wayne Chenault walked into Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Atlanta and shot several people including the mother of Dr. Martin Luther King who at the time was at the organ playing, "The Lord's Prayer." I believe that a deacon and others were shot and killed. Chenault said his enemy was Christianity and that he was on a mission to kill Black ministers. He missed with the shot he took at King's father. Similarly to the Charleston incident, he sat in a front pew and sat through about half the service before he pulled two guns and started shooting. I'm sort of surprised that the collective memory has not reminded us of this incident in context of Charleston.


I'm not surprised, inasmuch as I fail to see the direct connection. But maybe the following connects them?

This kid shot black people because he had hatred toward black people. Similarly, ISIS thugs kill "infidels" (as they call non-Muslims) because they have hatred toward "infidels." Hatred begets evil, and evil begets violence. Mental instability hastens the process.


----------



## Shaver

Max, as ever, we may depend upon your clarity of thought.

Racism combined with nuttiness is the correct answer.



MaxBuck said:


> I'm not surprised, inasmuch as I fail to see the direct connection. But maybe the following connects them?
> 
> This kid shot black people because he had hatred toward black people. Similarly, ISIS thugs kill "infidels" (as they call non-Muslims) because they have hatred toward "infidels." Hatred begets evil, and evil begets violence. Mental instability hastens the process.


----------



## 32rollandrock

They put a dozen or so sticks of dynamite under a building and set it to go off during a church activity. When they knew that a lot of people would be inside. Miracle, really, that just four little girls died.

I'm just sayin'.



SG_67 said:


> You're not seeing it because you don't want to see it.
> 
> Certain folks here have gone into their corners and any attempt at seeing this as more than just a hate crime or view it as something outside the context of a racially motivated is all of a sudden viewed as heresy and the labeling of that person as ignorant.
> 
> But let me try to explain it: This guy didn't fire bomb anything. He looked his victims in the eye and shot them. He sat and prayed with them for an hour. He wrote a manifesto prior to the act. He let one go so she could "tell the world what happened here."
> 
> We don't say of child molesters and rapists that they have a high libido, yet both acts on their surface are of a sexual nature.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> They put a dozen or so sticks of dynamite under a building and set it to go off during a church activity. When they knew that a lot of people would be inside. Miracle, really, that just four little girls died.
> 
> *I'm just sayin'*.


Say away all you want.

Are you suggesting that this guy is perfectly sane? That this is nothing more than a hate crime by a racist who is otherwise not a sociopath?

I'm curious what you think you're arguing for.


----------



## Gurdon

SG_67 said:


> Please show me an example of a mass killing such as was the nature of the Charleston event.
> 
> There's an element of this crime that seems to me to transcend racial hatred. I really wish people wouldn't go into their ideological bunkers on this. No one, certainly not me, is denying the facts of what happened and I'm certainly not denying violence perpetrated in the name of racial purity and the segregation of the races in the 1950's, 60's and for centuries before that.
> 
> You have to at least admit that the nature of this particular crime, the context and the actual perpetration of it seem quite different.
> 
> If this man that never been exposed to racist websites or white supremacist ideology, I have a feeling that something would have tripped his trigger at some point. Perhaps a girl would have rebuffed his advances and he would have gone into a sorority and shot up a bunch of young women.
> 
> There's a mental component to this event that is just as wrong to overlook. It doesn't explain or excuse what happened, but to ignore it is to ignore certain facts that may help prevent something like this from happening again.
> 
> In 2006 a man walked into an Amish school house and killed young children simply attending school. I don't for a minute believe the crime was one that was perpetrated because this guy had something against the Amish. But he did select them specifically. Of course, the gunman in this case committed suicide so no one will ever know.
> 
> So please, stop insinuating that I'm ignorant of history, insensitive or other contradicting myself. Mass shooting were not a feature of the crimes perpetrated against blacks in the 1950's and 60's. Just about every mass killing that has occurred like this, where one person just goes off, whether it was the Amish case, Columbine, New Town, the University of Texas incident, VA Tech in 2007 and Charleston all have some element of mental instability which I'll leave to professionals to explain and identify.


I am not sure what you mean by mass murder. Nine victims doesn't seem like enough dead people.

Here is a list of people killed in civil rights efforts in the South in the 1960's. It includes their photos, not of the bodies, but of the individuals before they were killed. <https://www.splcenter.org/civil-rights-memorial/civil-rights-martyrs>

If it is a body count you want, you can go to Norway. Just google Norway mass killing. This fits into your schema pretty well, but I question your logic. Underlying most killings, whether they be done by solitary individuals, small groups of individuals, special interest groups, police agencies, or the military of nation states, is the idea that in some instances it is acceptable, necessary even, to take lives in furtherance of the aims of the individual or group.

You seem to be saying that somehow the Charlston killings are not racist killings, but rather a mass murder committed by an individual who might just as easily killed sorority members if he hadn't stumbled upon black people first. It sounds terribly theoretical to me, and like a red herring.

At this point all I can say is that I am tired of so much killing -- whether it is done by individual zelots, or at the behest of a Kissinger or Rice, or a Muslim clergyman, or the Commander-in-Chief, based on a memorandum written by a law professor.

A plain reading of what you wrote lead me to conclude that you either didn't know how many people had been murdered in connection with the civil rights movement or that you were in some way denying that people were murdered out of racist animus. Your rejoinder that the individuals involved were mentally unstable and that this should be sorted out by professionals so that it can be prevented from happening again does not change my conclusion.

Gurdon


----------



## SG_67

Gurdon said:


> I am not sure what you mean by mass murder. Nine victims doesn't seem like enough dead people.
> 
> Here is a list of people killed in civil rights efforts in the South in the 1960's. It includes their photos, not of the bodies, but of the individuals before they were killed. <https://www.splcenter.org/civil-rights-memorial/civil-rights-martyrs>
> 
> If it is a body count you want, you can go to Norway. Just google Norway mass killing. This fits into your schema pretty well, but I question your logic. Underlying most killings, whether they be done by solitary individuals, small groups of individuals, special interest groups, police agencies, or the military of nation states, is the idea that in some instances it is acceptable, necessary even, to take lives in furtherance of the aims of the individual or group.
> 
> You seem to be saying that somehow the Charlston killings are not racist killings, but rather a mass murder committed by an individual who might just as easily killed sorority members if he hadn't stumbled upon black people first. It sounds terribly theoretical to me, and like a red herring.
> 
> At this point all I can say is that I am tired of so much killing -- whether it is done by individual zelots, or at the behest of a Kissinger or Rice, or a Muslim clergyman, or the Commander-in-Chief, based on a memorandum written by a law professor.
> 
> A plain reading of what you wrote lead me to conclude that you either didn't know how many people had been murdered in connection with the civil rights movement or that you were in some way denying that people were murdered out of racist animus. Your rejoinder that the individuals involved were mentally unstable and that this should be sorted out by professionals so that it can be prevented from happening again does not change my conclusion.
> 
> Gurdon


For goodness sake knock it off!

I'm merely suggesting that an act like this has more than just a racial animus element to it. This guy is a plain kook!

This has nothing to do with body count, or denying that this guy was motivated by racial hatred. There is something exquisitely different and unique about someone who can, in cold blood, pull out a gun and indiscriminately gun down 9 of his fellow human beings. Something that goes beyond simple racism, which by the way I don't deny that he is.

Simply being a racist and being a white supremacist does not explain behavior like this, and if you think it's as simple as that, then I'm afraid you are not only wrong, but as I mentioned before adding to the tragedy in that something may be learned from this that can help prevent future tragedies.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I'm saying that I don't see a qualitative difference in killing a lot of people in a church with a gun and killing a lot of people in a church with explosives. You're the one who seems to be saying well, that stuff that happened back in the 1950s and 1960s isn't really happening anymore, at least, not for the same reasons. I'm just sayin' that I'm not seeing a difference. What you seem to be saying is that fewer people agree with this sort of thing than agreed with it way back when. I'm saying that there are still way too many people who do this sort of thing, or don't object to it, because they see nothing wrong with bigotry and racism. There's still sufficient tolerance for racism and bigotry that it exists way more than it should.

Clear enough?



SG_67 said:


> Say away all you want.
> 
> Are you suggesting that this guy is perfectly sane? That this is nothing more than a hate crime by a racist who is otherwise not a sociopath?
> 
> I'm curious what you think you're arguing for.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> I'm saying that I don't see a qualitative difference in killing a lot of people in a church with a gun and killing a lot of people in a church with explosives. *You're the one who seems to be saying well, that stuff that happened back in the 1950s and 1960s isn't really happening anymore, at least, not for the same reasons*. I'm just sayin' that I'm not seeing a difference. What you seem to be saying is that fewer people agree with this sort of thing than agreed with it way back when. I'm saying that there are still way too many people who do this sort of thing, or don't object to it, because they see nothing wrong with bigotry and racism. There's still sufficient tolerance for racism and bigotry that it exists way more than it should.
> 
> Clear enough?


Please point out where I've said that. My reference has been solely to this incident and no others.

Please specifically point out where and how I've alluded to anything else. I've not said anything about the attitudes of racists, how many racists, what form racism takes.

My entire line of discussion has been solely around this one person, this act and how I believe it represents more than an act of racial animus and how this guys pattern of behavior fits well with a long line of mass shootings in this country.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Here is what you said:
_
"No one, certainly not me, is denying the facts of what happened and I'm certainly not denying violence perpetrated in the name of racial purity and the segregation of the races in the 1950's, 60's and for centuries before that. 

*You have to at least admit that the nature of this particular crime, the context and the actual perpetration of it seem quite different. *

If this man that never been exposed to racist websites or white supremacist ideology, I have a feeling that something would have tripped his trigger at some point. Perhaps a girl would have rebuffed his advances and he would have gone into a sorority and shot up a bunch of young women."_

I disagree with you that the nature of this crime is different than the bombing of the Birmingham church in the 1960s. Are things different today? Absolutely, in some ways. But the crime here in 2015 is not, in any way, different than what happened then, at least, so far as I can see. The goal, in both cases, was to kill a lot of people based on the color of their skin.

Hate existed then and it exists now. Racism was tolerated then and it is tolerated now. Dynamiting a church was against the law then and it is against the law now. Shooting up a church was against the law then and is against the law now.



SG_67 said:


> Please point out where I've said that. My reference has been solely to this incident and no others.
> 
> Please specifically point out where and how I've alluded to anything else. I've not said anything about the attitudes of racists, how many racists, what form racism takes.
> 
> My entire line of discussion has been solely around this one person, this act and how I believe it represents more than an act of racial animus and how this guys pattern of behavior fits well with a long line of mass shootings in this country.


----------



## RogerP

32rollandrock said:


> I don't see that it is much different at all. What's the difference between white supremacists who fire-bombed the Birmingham church in 1963 and this guy? I'm not seeing it.


There is no meaningful difference. The mental and linguistic contortions that some will undertake in order to cast this act as something - anything - other than what it really is has been eye-opening indeed.


----------



## RogerP

Gurdon said:


> I am not sure what you mean by mass murder. Nine victims doesn't seem like enough dead people.
> 
> Here is a list of people killed in civil rights efforts in the South in the 1960's. It includes their photos, not of the bodies, but of the individuals before they were killed. <https://www.splcenter.org/civil-rights-memorial/civil-rights-martyrs>
> 
> If it is a body count you want, you can go to Norway. Just google Norway mass killing. This fits into your schema pretty well, but I question your logic. Underlying most killings, whether they be done by solitary individuals, small groups of individuals, special interest groups, police agencies, or the military of nation states, is the idea that in some instances it is acceptable, necessary even, to take lives in furtherance of the aims of the individual or group.
> 
> You seem to be saying that somehow the Charlston killings are not racist killings, but rather a mass murder committed by an individual who might just as easily killed sorority members if he hadn't stumbled upon black people first. It sounds terribly theoretical to me, and like a red herring.
> 
> At this point all I can say is that I am tired of so much killing -- whether it is done by individual zelots, or at the behest of a Kissinger or Rice, or a Muslim clergyman, or the Commander-in-Chief, based on a memorandum written by a law professor.
> 
> A plain reading of what you wrote lead me to conclude that you either didn't know how many people had been murdered in connection with the civil rights movement or that you were in some way denying that people were murdered out of racist animus. Your rejoinder that the individuals involved were mentally unstable and that this should be sorted out by professionals so that it can be prevented from happening again does not change my conclusion.
> 
> Gurdon


Spot on in every respect. There is simply no means by which one can reconcile the assertion that nothing like this happened during the dark days of the '50s and '60s with this thing I like to refer to as reality.


----------



## RogerP

MaxBuck said:


> I'm not surprised, inasmuch as I fail to see the direct connection. But maybe the following connects them?
> 
> This kid shot black people because he had hatred toward black people. Similarly, ISIS thugs kill "infidels" (as they call non-Muslims) because they have hatred toward "infidels." Hatred begets evil, and evil begets violence. Mental instability hastens the process.


Correct. But once hatred and evil are fully engaged, there needn't be mental illness in order to arrive at violence. It is certainly a factor which could operate to hasten the process, as you say, but perfectly sane people not infrequently do horrible things for heinous reasons.

I have spent the better part of a quarter century working in the criminal justice system - and for the latter half of that period almost exclusively within the context of murders. Have I seen instances where mental illness was the cause, or a contributing factor in the killing? Absolutely - but they are the exception to the rule. Have I seen a single case of mental illness being either the cause or a contributing factor in the case of a planned and deliberate killing? Nope.

Not unless we wish to cast every human vice as mental illness.


----------



## SG_67

There's no linguistic or intellectual contortion here at all. This guy is a racist. But simply being a racist is not in and off itself a gateway to going on a shooting spree.

Does anyone deny the fact that there is something unique in this case and that though he's a racist, that this is an act that seemed to go beyond the norm of typical behavior from those of his ilk? 

Does anyone deny that, at least on its surface, this act bears much commonality with other mass shootings in recent history? That at least some of this fits that profile? 

That it would at least be wise and prudent to explore that angle in the hopes of preventing something like this again?

Perhaps it's just easy to say, "well he's a racist and that's what racists do". Perhaps I'm approaching this too clinically but it's never been my intention to hurt anyone's feelings or appear insensitive. 

Should we try to determine what else there may have been that caused this guy to do what he did, beyond the fact that he's a racist?

The CCC has, according to the SPLC, approximately 15,000 members. All apparently reading the same garbage but this one seemed capable of taking it a step further. As a society what is the more responsible next step? To just stop at that and say he's a racist or explore the link websites like this have on mentally imbalanced people who also happen to be racist? Were there clues that were missed? Were there signs that something like this was going to happen? 

If not, then I rest my case and I'll shut up. I've indicated in just about every conceivable way with no uncertain language how I feel and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## SG_67

RogerP said:


> Correct. But once hatred and evil are fully engaged, there needn't be mental illness in order to arrive at violence. It is certainly a factor which could operate to hasten the process, as you say, but perfectly sane people not infrequently do horrible things for heinous reasons.
> 
> I have spent the better part of a quarter century working in the criminal justice system - and for the latter half of that period almost exclusively within the context of murders. Have I seen instances where mental illness was the cause, or a contributing factor in the killing? Absolutely - but they are the exception to the rule. Have I seen a single case of mental illness being either the cause or a contributing factor in the case of a planned and deliberate killing? Nope.
> 
> Not unless we wish to cast every human vice as mental illness.


There's a killing and then there is spree killing and mass shootings.

You're an educated man so you must follow some of the tragedies that have occurred in this country with mass killings. This particular case notwithstanding, would you say that the perpetrators, in your opinion, were of sound mind?

And I don't mean the legal threshold for the insanity defense, I mean as a lay person did these guys strike you as nuts?

I'm willing to bet that it did. Were they evil? Of course. Were the acts deliberate and planned? Exquisitely so. Was there an element of mental instability if not outright illness in most if not all of these cases? It would appear so.


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> And I don't mean the legal threshold for the insanity defense, I mean as a lay person did these guys strike you as nuts?.


Nope. I am not one to use "nuts" as either an excuse or an explanation for acts of violence absent some forensic support for that conclusion. You seem to equate bad / evil / violent with crazy. I don't. And I don't see anything crazy here. It's not hard to understand what he did or why he did it. His actions were an entirely rational extension of his hateful ideology. Not crazy at all.


----------



## SG_67

RogerP said:


> Nope. I am not one to use "nuts" as either an excuse or an explanation for acts of violence absent some forensic support for that conclusion. You seem to equate bad / evil / violent with crazy. I don't. And I don't see anything crazy here. It's not hard to understand what he did or why he did it. His actions were an entirely rational extension of his hateful ideology. Not crazy at all.


Well enough. I don't disagree with you on the heinous nature of the crime, that he's a racist or that he consumed racist propaganda. Nor do I dispute that he's evil or the act was evil.

But in the public interest and safety, his motives and the act itself should be considered in the context of other mass shootings to see if there are parallels.

Other mass shooters were filled with hate as well but seemed to break at some point and I don't believe anyone argued then that the act was a rational conclusion to that hatred.

I'm truly sorry about what happened to you when you were wrong. I've dealt with morons like that before and I've had personal experiences which I'll be happy to share with you privately. Understand though I know how you must have felt when you were young.


----------



## RogerP

Thank you SG.


----------



## SG_67

RogerP said:


> Thank you SG.


Roger,
Sorry, I mispelled young! I'm truly sorry what happened to you when you were young, not wrong.

My fault for not wearing my current prescription when using my phone this morning.


----------



## RogerP

SG_67 said:


> Roger,
> Sorry, I mispelled young! I'm truly sorry what happened to you when you were young, not wrong.
> 
> My fault for not wearing my current prescription when using my phone this morning.


Lol - my brain had auto-corrected it anyway. :hi:


----------



## tocqueville

A beautiful and inspiring response from our President. Worth watching through to the end, when, yes, he sings. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eagle2250

Thou I didn't watch the youtube video of it, I did take the time to watch the event on TV, as it happened. Historically, he has proven himself to be quite the public orator and indeed in eulogizing Reverend/Senator Pinckney, the President was at his very best!


----------



## tocqueville

Worth posting, even on an old thread. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Worth posting, even on an old thread.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A very good article. However, it won't change the narrative, as those who hold it dear won't allow truth to change their cherished myths. They never do.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> A very good article. However, it won't change the narrative, as those who hold it dear won't allow truth to change their cherished myths. They never do.


Yet, that piece by sociologist James Loewen contains factual errors, and conflicts with the writing of many actual historians. Loewen is also known to write from a very tendentious perspective. If I wanted to read an accurate account of, say, how the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003, I would not rely on the writings of Max Boot, Bill Kristol and others of that ideological slant.

Simply posting opinion pieces and acting as if these are the final word on unvarnished truth is just another attempt at creating a "narrative" filled with "cherished myths." Answering one person's slanted viewpoint with another that is just as slanted (but fits the poster's perspective) doesn't seem to me to get any closer to the truth...


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> Yet, that piece by sociologist James Loewen contains factual errors, and conflicts with the writing of many actual historians. Loewen is also known to write from a very tendentious perspective. If I wanted to read an accurate account of, say, how the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003, I would not rely on the writings of Max Boot, Bill Kristol and others of that ideological slant.
> 
> Simply posting opinion pieces and acting as if these are the final word on unvarnished truth is just another attempt at creating a "narrative" filled with "cherished myths." Answering one person's slanted viewpoint with another that is just as slanted (but fits the poster's perspective) doesn't seem to me to get any closer to the truth...


Perhaps. But what the stuff I've posted has in common is some pretty damning evidence regarding the motives of Southern secessionists. Not necessarily the men who joined and fought, but the leaders and politicians. Their words leave little doubt at least to me that the fight was undeniably and unequivocally about slavery and racial supremacy. And then there's the context in which the battle flag was reintroduced in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Even if we entertain the notion that in 1861 the "cause" wasn't about slavery, the flag in 1958 was nothing more or less than an F-U to black people. In both cases denial represents a form of institutional racism for one forgets that, well, black lives matter, and what might be heroism or valor for some was evil for a very large portion of our fellows.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> Perhaps. But what the stuff I've posted has in common is some pretty damning evidence regarding the motives of Southern secessionists. Not necessarily the men who joined and fought, but the leaders and politicians. Their words leave little doubt at least to me that the fight was undeniably and unequivocally about slavery and racial supremacy. And then there's the context in which the battle flag was reintroduced in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Even if we entertain the notion that in 1861 the "cause" wasn't about slavery, the flag in 1958 was nothing more or less than an F-U to black people. In both cases denial represents a form of institutional racism for one forgets that, well, black lives matter, and what might be heroism or valor for some was evil for a very large portion of our fellows.


Agree with the second portion of your comments, but I've concentrated my posts on the nineteenth century historical aspects. The two should not be conflated, in my view. Again, the policies of the United States of America and the Confederate States of America regarding slavery and black people in general were remarkably similar. The demonization of one and the deification of the other seems to be pure revisionism...


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Agree with the second portion of your comments, but I've concentrated my posts on the nineteenth century historical aspects. The two should not be conflated, in my view. Again, the policies of the United States of America and the Confederate States of America regarding slavery and black people in general were remarkably similar. The demonization of one and the deification of the other seems to be pure revisionism...


But they are conflated. As soon as white supremacists started using that flag as a symbol, that flag became a symbol of white supremacists. Whatever your view of the flag or the cause might be, the symbol and the cause have been taken by others. You can't change that.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Yet, that piece by sociologist James Loewen contains factual errors, and conflicts with the writing of many actual historians. Loewen is also known to write from a very tendentious perspective. If I wanted to read an accurate account of, say, how the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003, I would not rely on the writings of Max Boot, Bill Kristol and others of that ideological slant.
> 
> Simply posting opinion pieces and acting as if these are the final word on unvarnished truth is just another attempt at creating a "narrative" filled with "cherished myths." Answering one person's slanted viewpoint with another that is just as slanted (but fits the poster's perspective) doesn't seem to me to get any closer to the truth...


Some errors of detail don't change the thrust of the argument offered.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> But they are conflated. As soon as white supremacists started using that flag as a symbol, that flag became a symbol of white supremacists. Whatever your view of the flag or the cause might be, the symbol and the cause have been taken by others. You can't change that.


Because some appropriate a symbol for their own warped purposes doesn't mean that we all lose the ability to discuss issues on their own terms. If a terrorist group appropriated the Irish flag in some way and proceeded to slaughter innocent people, would we now "conflate" the history of Ireland with such atrocities? If murderous thugs appropriated the symbols from Led Zeppelin's fourth album, would we judge the musicians by the thuggery?

You're correct, I can't change the twentieth century appropriations, but I can certainly understand distinctions...


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Some errors of detail don't change the thrust of the argument offered.


The errors are far greater than mere "detail" and the "thrust" of his argument (in most aspects) is false...


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Because some appropriate a symbol for their own warped purposes doesn't mean that we all lose the ability to discuss issues on their own terms. If a terrorist group appropriated the Irish flag in some way and proceeded to slaughter innocent people, would we now "conflate" the history of Ireland with such atrocities?


In the way that they actually did? A curious analogy! The use of the Tricolour by the PIRA and other nationalist terrorist organisations in the recent troubles, during a period in which they indeed "proceeded to slaughter innocent people", certainly meant that at least some of the population of N.Ireland and Britain saw that flag as a symbol of violence and terrorism. Many still do.



Tiger said:


> You're correct, I can't change the twentieth century appropriations, but I can certainly understand distinctions...


You might be able to, but many people can't. Obviously, I don't know your ethnicity, but I would suggest that to many Black people, as has been explained in this thread before, the flag is seen, absolutely, as a symbol of white supremacy. At least partly because of the origin of the flag, and partly because of it's appropriation by white supremacists.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> The errors are far greater than mere "detail" and the "thrust" of his argument (in most aspects) is false...


Are they? Could you point out to me the factual errors that reduce the validity of his arguments?


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> In the way that they actually did? A curious analogy! The use of the Tricolour by the PIRA and other nationalist terrorist organisations in the recent troubles, during a period in which they indeed "proceeded to slaughter innocent people", certainly meant that at least some of the population of N.Ireland and Britain saw that flag as a symbol of violence and terrorism. Many still do.
> 
> You might be able to, but many people can't. Obviously, I don't know your ethnicity, but I would suggest that to many Black people, as has been explained in this thread before, the flag is seen, absolutely, as a symbol of white supremacy. At least partly because of the origin of the flag, and partly because of it's appropriation by white supremacists.


How some people see (or experience) a symbol is not how all people do. I don't see an Irish flag and think, "those bloody IRA terrorists" nor do I believe the Reign of Terror in France must mean that all Frenchmen are Jacobins and Montagnards.

I live in New York, and many crimes are committed by people wearing hoodies and oversized baseball caps. If we associate crime with such garb, should we seek to ban it? What the heck would teenagers wear?:great:


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Are they? Could you point out to me the factual errors that reduce the validity of his arguments?


I am not going to perform research for you, Chouan, or provide a point-by-point refutation (it certainly can be done, but it's too large a job for me now). So, I'll point out two:

Loewen writes that "Maryland did not secede" which is ostensibly true, but leaves out the fact that the Lincoln Administration arrested pro-secession members of the Maryland legislature so that the secession vote would ensure that the state remained in the Union. It is thus impossible to determine what Marylanders thought about secession, under these circumstances. He also states that General Lee received no help from Maryland on any of his forays north; not sure how Loewen can possibly know this, especially considering that even he concedes that the state sent 24,000 troops to the Confederacy, despite not being a part of it!

He also screws up his anti-States' Rights logic. He claims that the seceding states did not believe in "States' Rights" by citing their opposition to Northern states' practices of ignoring fugitive slave laws. However, such laws were constitutional, so (Northern) states that violated them weren't practicing "States' Rights" ideology; they were acting unconstitutionally. To denigrate the Southern states for being hypocritical on "States Rights" issues for rejecting unconstitutional acts of Northern states is illogical, and to believe that "States' Rights" issues played no role (or a very limited one) in the War is simply false. It would be the same as saying that slavery (or economic issues such as tariffs) played no role or a limited one, in the War. All of this is myth-making to support a political position...

Note: The term, "War Between the States" is used by some people, and I believe it to be inaccurate. Just as inaccurate is the term, "Civil War," since this wasn't a war between factions inside of one political entity, but rather a battle between two distinct republics. Using the former term is no more incendiary than using the latter, but Loewen seems to think so. Ultimately, I think he - like many others - wants us to believe that secession was illegal (if it's a "civil war" then it's a "rebellion" against the U.S. and thus "treasonous" is how the logic supposedly works). I'm still waiting for anyone to provide any substantive evidence of the illegality of secession. For the record, I prefer the term "War for Southern Independence" because the Southern states that seceded did so to be independent of the Union, and Mr. Lincoln's stated reason for war was to return those states to the Union...


----------



## Gurdon

The economics of slavery has been missing from this discussion. I ran across the description below on the City Lights bookstore website and it occurred to me that it might be of interest to the participants in this discussion. 

Gurdon


Americans tend to cast slavery as a pre-modern institution—the nation's original sin, perhaps, but isolated in time and divorced from America’s later success. But to do so robs the millions who suffered in bondage of their full legacy.

As historian Edward Baptist reveals in The Half Has Never Been Told, the expansion of slavery in the first eight decades after American independence drove the evolution and modernization of the United States. In the span of a single lifetime, the South grew from a narrow coastal strip of worn-out tobacco plantations to a continental cotton empire, and the United States grew into a modern, industrial, and capitalist economy. Until the Civil War, Baptist explains, the most important American economic innovations were ways to make slavery ever more profitable. Through forced migration and torture, slave owners extracted continual increases in efficiency from enslaved African Americans. Thus the United States seized control of the world market for cotton, the key raw material of the Industrial Revolution, and became a wealthy nation with global influence.

Told through intimate slave narratives, plantation records, newspapers, and the words of politicians, entrepreneurs, and escaped slaves, The Half Has Never Been Told offers a radical new interpretation of American history. It forces readers to reckon with the violence at the root of American supremacy, but also with the survival and resistance that brought about slavery’s end—and created a culture that sustains America’s deepest dreams of freedom.

Publisher Basic Books
Format Hardcover
Nb of pages 498 p.
ISBN-10 046500296X
ISBN-13 9780465002962


----------



## Tiger

Thank you, Gurdon.

If I remember correctly, it was historian Kenneth M. Stampp in _And the War Came_ who wrote about the implications of Southern secession on the Northern economy, and how the economic turmoil and large financial losses that would have assuredly occurred in the North were prominent factors that fueled Northern desire for war, should secession take place.


----------



## SG_67

I don't want to weigh in on this again in anyway but to shed light on what I understand to be the economic realities leading up to the Civil War. 

1) At the turn of the century (dawn of the 19th) the south was the agricultural powerhouse and economic powerhouse of the United States. Agriculture was in fact the primary industry and output of the U.S. in the early 19th century.

2) As the century wore on, cotton prices began to drop and the North began to industrialize. The north soon began to outpace the south both in industrial capacity as well as population. The south's agricultural economy was not only incredibly labor intensive, but also land intensive. Northern farms were smaller. 

3) At around the time of the outbreak of the Civil War, 75% of the nations wealth was concentrated in the north, roughly 90% of industrial production was also located in the north. Immigration was largely directed north and the south's economy slowly grew stagnant. 

Without getting into debates about the legality or illegality of secession, the North and South were slowly becoming distinct regions, each with their own economy, culture and path to prosperity, or in the case of the south, a path toward obscurity. 

I'm not convinced that secession from the Union would have thrown the north into economic turmoil. The south was no furnishing finished goods, rather a commodity and like today, commodities are bought and sold on a global scale.


----------



## Tiger

Like many of these topics, unless one has extensive knowledge in the specific area under discussion, we can offer speculation but probably not enough substance to be certain of our opinions or convincing to others. I cited Stampp because of his reputation and his book, but he certainly can be wrong - many historians are! 

Note: The South produced about 75% of the world's cotton, and the North had lots of textile factories that craved cotton. Whether secession would've caused economic turmoil in the North is one question; whether it caused Northern politicians turmoil - real or hyped - is another!


----------



## tocqueville

Nice piece in the times: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/...html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0&referrer=

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> I am not going to perform research for you, Chouan, or provide a point-by-point refutation (it certainly can be done, but it's too large a job for me now). So, I'll point out two:
> 
> Loewen writes that "Maryland did not secede" which is ostensibly true, but leaves out the fact that the Lincoln Administration arrested pro-secession members of the Maryland legislature so that the secession vote would ensure that the state remained in the Union. It is thus impossible to determine what Marylanders thought about secession, under these circumstances. He also states that General Lee received no help from Maryland on any of his forays north; not sure how Loewen can possibly know this, especially considering that even he concedes that the state sent 24,000 troops to the Confederacy, despite not being a part of it!
> 
> He also screws up his anti-States' Rights logic. He claims that the seceding states did not believe in "States' Rights" by citing their opposition to Northern states' practices of ignoring fugitive slave laws. However, such laws were constitutional, so (Northern) states that violated them weren't practicing "States' Rights" ideology; they were acting unconstitutionally. To denigrate the Southern states for being hypocritical on "States Rights" issues for rejecting unconstitutional acts of Northern states is illogical, and to believe that "States' Rights" issues played no role (or a very limited one) in the War is simply false. It would be the same as saying that slavery (or economic issues such as tariffs) played no role or a limited one, in the War. All of this is myth-making to support a political position...
> 
> Note: The term, "War Between the States" is used by some people, and I believe it to be inaccurate. Just as inaccurate is the term, "Civil War," since this wasn't a war between factions inside of one political entity, but rather a battle between two distinct republics. Using the former term is no more incendiary than using the latter, but Loewen seems to think so. Ultimately, I think he - like many others - wants us to believe that secession was illegal (if it's a "civil war" then it's a "rebellion" against the U.S. and thus "treasonous" is how the logic supposedly works). I'm still waiting for anyone to provide any substantive evidence of the illegality of secession. For the record, I prefer the term "War for Southern Independence" because the Southern states that seceded did so to be independent of the Union, and Mr. Lincoln's stated reason for war was to return those states to the Union...


A classic response of it's type. Person makes an assertion, assertion is challenged, person responds with "I won't do your research for you". It's a classic means of avoiding justifying an assertion.
The other stuff that you've written isn't pointing out factual errors, or even pointing out errors, you're just pointing out differences in interpretations of events. As such his argument still stands. You've in no sense disproved or countered any of the important arguments that Loewen has presented, but merely disputed them on technicalities.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> Like many of these topics, unless one has extensive knowledge in the specific area under discussion, we can offer speculation but probably not enough substance to be certain of our opinions or convincing to others. I cited Stampp because of his reputation and his book, but he certainly can be wrong - many historians are!
> 
> Note: The South produced about 75% of the world's cotton, and the North had lots of textile factories that craved cotton. Whether secession would've caused economic turmoil in the North is one question; whether it caused Northern politicians turmoil - real or hyped - is another!


On a purely economic basis, cotton wasn't as indispensable as the South thought. Britain and France very quickly found equivalent sources of cotton, much of it superior to the American product, such that the South's cotton production became marginal in Europe.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> A classic response of it's type. Person makes an assertion, assertion is challenged, person responds with "I won't do your research for you". It's a classic means of avoiding justifying an assertion.
> The other stuff that you've written isn't pointing out factual errors, or even pointing out errors, you're just pointing out differences in interpretations of events. As such his argument still stands. You've in no sense disproved or countered any of the important arguments that Loewen has presented, but merely disputed them on technicalities.


I avoided absolutely nothing. You asked for something far too lengthy, so I provided a refutation/response to some rather than every point made by author Loewen. Unsurprisingly, you're still not satisfied.

Of course, I have highlighted errors made by Loewen, but either you ignored them, didn't understand them, or are so beholden to a certain ideological position that you refuse to see them. Also unsurprising...

So, Chouan, it's time for you to do a little work - please highlight for us Loewen's factual "important arguments" and I'll do my best to respond. Those arguments won't be interpretations or assertions shaped by the author's biases, mere "technicalities" or bits and pieces of events that exclude inconvenient information that the author wishes to avoid, correct?

Fire away!


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> On a purely economic basis, cotton wasn't as indispensable as the South thought. Britain and France very quickly found equivalent sources of cotton, much of it superior to the American product, such that the South's cotton production became marginal in Europe.


Agreed; as it turned out, "King Cotton" diplomacy may have helped flame anger in the North, but was far less efficacious than Southern leaders believed.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> On a purely economic basis, cotton wasn't as indispensable as the South thought. Britain and France very quickly found equivalent sources of cotton, much of it superior to the American product, such that the South's cotton production became marginal in Europe.


Continuing with the pure economic theme, I'd have to agree.

The problem with having a commodity driven economy is that one is at the whim of nature. New reserves of oil are found, droughts occur and new sources of that commodity are found.

Agriculture was becoming less and less a factor in the national GDP and the south was unable, and quite unwilling, to diversify. There was also a cultural problem.

When I think of the South in the 19th century, I think of Saudi Arabia today. Like the Saudis, a southerner thought of work as beneath a gentleman. A gentleman was a landowner and farmer and served in the military or government. Saudi males really don't work. They import their labor and many in the human rights community would liken conditions for foreign, non-western workers in Saudi Arabia to slavery.

A society like that is bound to implode at some point. Couple this with the fact that there were millions of enslaved human beings in the south, at some point something was bound to change.


----------



## Tiger

Agreed, but with one quick distinction - since 80% of Southerners did not own slaves, the vast majority of them had no illusions about "work being beneath" them. Unlike the planter class, they had no choice but to work hard!


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> I avoided absolutely nothing. You asked for something far too lengthy, so I provided a refutation/response to some rather than every point made by author Loewen. Unsurprisingly, you're still not satisfied.
> 
> Of course, I have highlighted errors made by Loewen, but either you ignored them, didn't understand them, or are so beholden to a certain ideological position that you refuse to see them. Also unsurprising...
> 
> So, Chouan, it's time for you to do a little work - please highlight for us Loewen's factual "important arguments" and I'll do my best to respond. Those arguments won't be interpretations or assertions shaped by the author's biases, mere "technicalities" or bits and pieces of events that exclude inconvenient information that the author wishes to avoid, correct?
> 
> Fire away!


Quite straight forward. His argument is that the culture, social and political, was predicated on white supremacy. He uses various contemporary documents to support this. He also suggests that modern America seems to regard it's white supremacist Confederate past as being of more cultural worth than the rather more egalitarian culture that replaced it.
I don't see what your problem with the article is.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> How some people see (or experience) a symbol is not how all people do. I don't see an Irish flag and think, "those bloody IRA terrorists"


But some people do. I would suggest that you haven't lived through a terrorist murder campaign, and that you haven't been shot at by the terrorists who carried out their murders under that flag, so don't see it as an issue. That you don't see it as a symbol of terrorism doesn't matter. It is a symbol of terrorism to many. The Confederate flag is a symbol of white supremacy, even if you don't see it that way. Those who were oppressed by the white supremacist culture of the South _*do*_ see it that way, because that was what it was used to symbolise.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Quite straight forward. His argument is that the culture, social and political, was predicated on white supremacy. He uses various contemporary documents to support this. He also suggests that modern America seems to regard it's white supremacist Confederate past as being of more cultural worth than the rather more egalitarian culture that replaced it. I don't see what your problem with the article is.


But as I've written about previously, both the Confederacy (CSA) and the Union (USA) had essentially the same policies regarding African Americans. In both republics, blacks (with few exceptions) were treated as second class citizens with limited rights, slavery was legal and constitutional, and most political leaders - including Lincoln - did not seek to end this system. Both Lee and Grant owned slaves (through inheritance, I believe) but God help an institution named after Lee, but if it's named after Grant it passes politically correct muster! Such double standards are usually present when biased historical accounts are written, as this one is. It makes the entire article historically flawed and the argument tenuous.

The "social and political cultures" were incredibly similar, except to the revisionists. Neither Loewen or you attempted to tackle this; both of you imposed your revisionism on the way you believe things were (or wished to be) upon the past, without attempting to be impartial in the least. Again, this is a crucial flaw and devalues whatever point the author wishes to make. In addition, both of you use universal language, as if everyone thought/acted the same way. Such generalizations are always suspect...

Finally, there are many schools of historiography on this subject. To act as if only the Loewen version of events is true is silly. Maybe now you see what my "problem with the article" is?


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> But some people do. I would suggest that you haven't lived through a terrorist murder campaign, and that you haven't been shot at by the terrorists who carried out their murders under that flag, so don't see it as an issue. That you don't see it as a symbol of terrorism doesn't matter. It is a symbol of terrorism to many. The Confederate flag is a symbol of white supremacy, even if you don't see it that way. Those who were oppressed by the white supremacist culture of the South _*do*_ see it that way, because that was what it was used to symbolise.


I live in New York City, and I seem to remember a terrorist attack in 2001...

I understand that the CSA battle flag has been appropriated by various racist groups; there are lots of symbols that have been appropriated by odious groups/people. The problem with your reasoning is that many people will find many things offensive - so what do we do next? What exactly are you advocating?


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> I live in New York City, and I seem to remember a terrorist attack in 2001...
> 
> I understand that the CSA battle flag has been appropriated by various racist groups; there are lots of symbols that have been appropriated by odious groups/people. The problem with your reasoning is that many people will find many things offensive - so what do we do next? What exactly are you advocating?


If by "appropriated by various racist groups" you mean the CSA, I might agree with you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> But as I've written about previously, both the Confederacy (CSA) and the Union (USA) had essentially the same policies regarding African Americans. In both republics, blacks (with few exceptions) were treated as second class citizens with limited rights, slavery was legal and constitutional, and most political leaders - including Lincoln - did not seek to end this system. Both Lee and Grant owned slaves (through inheritance, I believe) but God help an institution named after Lee, but if it's named after Grant it passes politically correct muster! Such double standards are usually present when biased historical accounts are written, as this one is. It makes the entire article historically flawed and the argument tenuous.
> 
> The "social and political cultures" were incredibly similar, except to the revisionists. Neither Loewen or you attempted to tackle this; both of you imposed your revisionism on the way you believe things were (or wished to be) upon the past, without attempting to be impartial in the least. Again, this is a crucial flaw and devalues whatever point the author wishes to make. In addition, both of you use universal language, as if everyone thought/acted the same way. Such generalizations are always suspect...
> 
> Finally, there are many schools of historiography on this subject. To act as if only the Loewen version of events is true is silly. Maybe now you see what my "problem with the article" is?


Oh, the "He did it too" excuse! Because the North could be described as racist, and white supremacist, then it was reasonable for the South to be racist and white supremacist! Therefore, there's nothing wrong with celebrating the racist and white supremacist South!

As I said, there's nothing factually incorrect in any of his arguments, you just don't agree with his interpretation. That doesn't make him wrong or inaccurate.


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> If by "appropriated by various racist groups" you mean the CSA, I might agree with you.


There is no doubt that some here seem to only read what they wish (perhaps solely their own posts?). As I wrote just a few inches up this page (and elsewhere in this thread):

"Both the Confederacy (CSA) and the Union (USA) had essentially the same policies regarding African Americans. In both republics, blacks (with few exceptions) were treated as second class citizens with limited rights, slavery was legal and constitutional, and most political leaders - including Lincoln - did not seek to end this system." Lincoln also supported a constitutional amendment that would've enshrined slavery in perpetuity.

So, the USA was just as racist as the CSA, correct? If not,Tocqueville, please explain why not. In addition, you still haven't answered the challenge to demonstrate why secession was illegal/unconstitutional, yet you feel quite comfortable using the term "traitor" and "treason" so cavalierly.


----------



## Chouan

Tiger said:


> I live in New York City, and I seem to remember a terrorist attack in 2001...


Are you equating 9/11 with a sustained campaign of terror that killed more people than 9/11 and 7/7 put together? If you are, perhaps you might find the symbol, if they had one, of the 9/11 terrorists offensive. The various Nationalist terrorist groups used the Tricolour, to many, especially in Northern Ireland, it is a terrorist symbol. Of course, many in the US supported the Nationalist terrorist organisations, and US government officials prevented the extradition of Nationalist terrorists, so perhaps American views of terrorism are variable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King



Tiger said:


> I understand that the CSA battle flag has been appropriated by various racist groups; there are lots of symbols that have been appropriated by odious groups/people. The problem with your reasoning is that many people will find many things offensive - so what do we do next? What exactly are you advocating?


I'm not actually advocating much beyond trying to get you to understand that what you seem to think of as a harmless cultural symbol is a symbol of race hatred to a significant number of people in the US. As such it seems to me to be rather insensitive of people to display it. Actually, the consciously defiant attitude of many of those who display it, and defend it, today tend to create an impression that they know full well what it represents, and that they have pride in that.


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Oh, the "He did it too" excuse! Because the North could be described as racist, and white supremacist, then it was reasonable for the South to be racist and white supremacist! Therefore, there's nothing wrong with celebrating the racist and white supremacist South!
> 
> As I said, there's nothing factually incorrect in any of his arguments, you just don't agree with his interpretation. That doesn't make him wrong or inaccurate.


You are being deliberately obtuse, because I know you're too intelligent to spout such nonsense. Either that, or you are imprisoned by your tendentious ideology.

_*You *_specified that Loewen's main points were:

1) CSA "culture, social and political, was predicated on white supremacy"
2) "He also suggests that modern America seems to regard it's white supremacist Confederate past as being of more cultural worth than the rather more egalitarian culture that replaced it"

However, if the USA held similar policies, why is Loewen (and you) making a (false) distinction? His entire argument in Point #1 collapses! Stop the deification of the Union - it's blatantly inaccurate and misleading (propagandizing?) to others!

Point #2 is completely Loewen's opinion, and absolutely unsupportable in its wild generalizations. It also makes zero sense in light of Point #1 above. In addition, it slurs an entire nation - not that such remarks would bother you, as you've demonstrated in the past. I'm all for castigating American politicians of every stripe (and have done so repeatedly on this forum) when they're wrong/immoral/stupid, but to attack an entire population is grotesque. People such as Loewen and Howard Zinn have made a lot of money doing it; I think it's disgraceful.

"Nothing factually incorrect"? Even though I've already pointed out various inaccuracies? Even though Loewen hangs his proverbial hat on the CSA being "white supremacist" and that the Union wasn't (you've ascribed to that, too), which has been proven false here? Even though he clearly misunderstands or distorts the concept of States' Rights - one of the dominant reasons historians of various perspectives ascribe to the cause of secession and war?

We no longer have any grounds to discuss this issue. Chouan, you have once again proven to be so ideologically driven that facts no longer hold meaning...


----------



## Tiger

Chouan said:


> Are you equating 9/11 with a sustained campaign of terror that killed more people than 9/11 and 7/7 put together? If you are, perhaps you might find the symbol, if they had one, of the 9/11 terrorists offensive. The various Nationalist terrorist groups used the Tricolour, to many, especially in Northern Ireland, it is a terrorist symbol. Of course, many in the US supported the Nationalist terrorist organisations, and US government officials prevented the extradition of Nationalist terrorists, so perhaps American views of terrorism are variable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King
> 
> I'm not actually advocating much beyond trying to get you to understand that what you seem to think of as a harmless cultural symbol is a symbol of race hatred to a significant number of people in the US. As such it seems to me to be rather insensitive of people to display it. Actually, the consciously defiant attitude of many of those who display it, and defend it, today tend to create an impression that they know full well what it represents, and that they have pride in that.


If you didn't understand my 9/11 analogy, there's no sense in trying to clarify here. I also didn't realize that Peter King speaks for 325 million Americans...thanks for the tip, though.

Not only have you completely deflected from the topic (because you're clinging to indefensible positions), you have shifted into dishonesty mode. I have never, ever said anything remotely akin to any symbol being "a harmless cultural symbol." You will either point out specifically where I've written this, or you will apologize. Such tactics are a disgrace!

In fact, don't apologize. I really don't need meaningless words from someone with a penchant for behaving in so disgusting a fashion. You have done this before - with me and with others - and at least with me, it stops now!


----------



## tocqueville

I remain confounded by the need to regard the CSA and the reason for its secession and the war itself as being related to anything other than the preservation of slavery. To me, it's like arguing that Germany in 1939 went to war to right the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles. Yes, there's some truth to that, but it's also entirely missing the point.


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> I remain confounded by the need to regard the CSA and the reason for its secession and the war itself as being related to anything other than the preservation of slavery. To me, it's like arguing that Germany in 1939 went to war to right the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles. Yes, there's some truth to that, but it's also entirely missing the point.


Again, secession and the war were caused by many reasons, not just the preservation of slavery. To ascribe slavery as the _*only *_cause is simplistic and inaccurate. Besides, slavery was legal in the USA before and during the war, and if Lincoln had his way (based on his first inaugural promise) slavery would never have been threatened by the federal government. I've written this so many times now my fingers hurt when striking the keyboard!

I raised the issue of the legality of secession once you referred to the CSA - and particularly Jefferson Davis - as a "criminal and a traitor" (I believe those were your words). I made the point that for you to be correct, secession would have to be illegal/unconstitutional, and asked you to demonstrate this or stop using such terms...


----------



## L-feld

While I am broadly on the same side of the argument as Tocqueville, Chouan, Duvel and 32, let's set slavery aside for a second.

How is it in any way appropriate for a government seat of power, like a statehouse, to fly the flag of an ousted rebel regime? The answer of "because it is part of the state's history" is not sufficient, because all ousted regimes are, by definition, part of their regional history.

What if the city hall of Vichy started flying the Petain flag on the grounds that it was an important part of the city's history? That regime lasted about as long as the confederacy.

What if the city hall of Potsdam started flying the DDR flag as some misguided symbol of the independence of Prussia from Greater Germany?

What if the statehouses of California, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas began flying the Mexican flag? Those were part of Mexico for a significant period and a significant plurality in all of those states are of Mexican descent. And I'm not talking about immigrants; I'm talking about people whose families have been there since the Mexican-American war. I would gather that most Americans would see flying the Mexican flag in Austin to be somewhat of a challenge to US sovereignty, even if it's an important part of the cultural heritage of the state.


----------



## L-feld

SG_67 said:


> Well enough. I don't disagree with you on the heinous nature of the crime, that he's a racist or that he consumed racist propaganda. Nor do I dispute that he's evil or the act was evil.
> 
> But in the public interest and safety, his motives and the act itself should be considered in the context of other mass shootings to see if there are parallels.
> 
> Other mass shooters were filled with hate as well but seemed to break at some point and I don't believe anyone argued then that the act was a rational conclusion to that hatred.
> 
> I'm truly sorry about what happened to you when you were wrong. I've dealt with morons like that before and I've had personal experiences which I'll be happy to share with you privately. Understand though I know how you must have felt when you were young.


I think a real litmus test here would be whether you consider Dzokhar Tsarnaev or Amedy Coulibaly to be "nuts" or political terrorists. Both were relatively isolated, pledged a vague allegiance to a rebel cause, and were radicalized primarily through internet fora. Neither had significant training from or even contact with an organized political organization.


----------



## L-feld

SG_67 said:


> So please, stop insinuating that I'm ignorant of history, insensitive or other contradicting myself. Mass shooting were not a feature of the crimes perpetrated against blacks in the 1950's and 60's. Just about every mass killing that has occurred like this, where one person just goes off, whether it was the Amish case, Columbine, New Town, the University of Texas incident, VA Tech in 2007 and Charleston all have some element of mental instability which I'll leave to professionals to explain and identify.


Technically not mass shootings, but firebombings and lynchings. I don't see the material difference between forms of racially-otivated mass violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_T._Moore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Marcus_Edwards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bowers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers'_murders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_Georgia_lynching

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmie_Lee_Jackson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medger_Evers

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/...tner=socialflow&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=3&referrer


----------



## SG_67

L-feld said:


> I think a real litmus test here would be whether you consider Dzokhar Tsarnaev or Amedy Coulibaly to be "nuts" or political terrorists. Both were relatively isolated, pledged a vague allegiance to a rebel cause, and were radicalized primarily through internet fora. Neither had significant training from or even contact with an organized political organization.


Sorry it's not a "litmus test" of any kind. Tests have binary conclusion; pass or fail, right or wrong.

Let's apply your litmus test to the Amish school shooting. Did he have a hatred for the Amish? Did the theater shooter in Aurora have something against Batman fans?

For every example you find in support of your position another can be found to refute it. Litmus tests are useless and meaningless. This guy was at least caught. Let's see if we can learn anything more from him so as to prevent or minimize the occurrence of such an act in the future.


----------



## L-feld

SG_67 said:


> Sorry it's not a "litmus test" of any kind. Tests have binary conclusion; pass or fail, right or wrong.
> 
> Let's apply your litmus test to the Amish school shooting. Did he have a hatred for the Amish? Did the theater shooter in Aurora have something against Batman fans?
> 
> For every example you find in support of your position another can be found to refute it. Litmus tests are useless and meaningless. This guy was at least caught. Let's see if we can learn anything more from him so as to prevent or minimize the occurrence of such an act in the future.


My point is that Dylann Roof bears a stronger similarity to Dzokhar Tsarnaev and Amedy Coulibaly than to Charles Carl Roberts or James Eagan Holmes. Roof, like Tsarnaev and Coulibaly, had a stated socio-political motive and some limited internet interaction with radical political organizations, but no formal training or in person contact. Roberts stated that he shot up the Amish school because he was having dreams about raping the little Amish girls. Holmes, from what I can tell, just wanted to kill people for the sake of killing people.

If you think Tsarnaev and Coulibaly are just lone nuts and have little or nothing to do with the influence of Radical Islam in western society, then you're reasoning is consistent. If, on the other hand, you think Tsarnaev and Coulibaly are politically motivated terrorists, then so is Dylann Roof.


----------



## SG_67

L-feld said:


> My point is that Dylann Roof bears a stronger similarity to Dzokhar Tsarnaev and Amedy Coulibaly than to Charles Carl Roberts or James Eagan Holmes. Roof, like Tsarnaev and Coulibaly, had a stated socio-political motive and some limited internet interaction with radical political organizations, but no formal training or in person contact. Roberts stated that he shot up the Amish school because he was having dreams about raping the little Amish girls. Holmes, from what I can tell, just wanted to kill people for the sake of killing people.
> 
> If you think Tsarnaev and Coulibaly are just lone nuts and have little or nothing to do with the influence of Radical Islam in western society, then you're reasoning is consistent. If, on the other hand, you think Tsarnaev and Coulibaly are politically motivated terrorists, then so is Dylann Roof.


Hmmm, me thinks you are guilty of the fallacy of the false dilemma.

You pose an arbitrary binary option when the actual answer is likely more layered. Why can't he be both a racist and a nut?

Again, I go back to the nature of the crime itself. Mass shootings, not bombings or other crimes, but shootings by lone gunmen occupy a tragically unique place in the pantheon of criminal acts. This guy acted alone.

He killed because he felt that blacks were destroying the country. He gunned down innocent people in cold blood and let one go so she could tell the world.

Look, all of this is moot. The guy is in custody and he will be objectively examined by a psychiatrist. There should be no quarter for this monster, and monster do live among us whether by virtue of pure evil, mental illness or a combination of both.


----------



## L-feld

SG_67 said:


> Hmmm, me thinks you are guilty of the fallacy of the false dilemma.
> 
> You pose an arbitrary binary option when the actual answer is likely more layered. Why can't he be both a racist and a nut?
> 
> Again, I go back to the nature of the crime itself. Mass shootings, not bombings or other crimes, but shootings by lone gunmen occupy a tragically unique place in the pantheon of criminal acts. This guy acted alone.
> 
> He killed because he felt that blacks were destroying the country. He gunned down innocent people in cold blood and let one go so she could tell the world.
> 
> Look, all of this is moot. The guy is in custody and he will be objectively examined by a psychiatrist. There should be no quarter for this monster, and monster do live among us whether by virtue of pure evil, mental illness or a combination of both.


First, Coulibaly acted alone and was a shooter. All we heard after that was "terrorism."

Second, the point is not whether or not he was crazy. Most terrorists are crazy. That doesn't mean they aren't terrorists. You think the Tsarnaev brothers and Coulibaly were perfectly sane?

Saying that he is a monster, while accurate, doesn't tell the whole story. He was a monster who was heavily influenced by an ideology that is still very pervasive in today's society.

By minimizing Roof as "nuts" you are diverting attention from the underlying problems that influenced him to commit his atrocities.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

L-feld said:


> First, Coulibaly acted alone and was a shooter. All we heard after that was "terrorism."
> 
> Second, the point is not whether or not he was crazy. Most terrorists are crazy. That doesn't mean they aren't terrorists. You think the Tsarnaev brothers and Coulibaly were perfectly sane?
> 
> Saying that he is a monster, while accurate, doesn't tell the whole story. He was a monster who was heavily influenced by an ideology that is still very pervasive in today's society.
> 
> By minimizing Roof as "nuts" you are diverting attention from the underlying problems that influenced him to commit his atrocities.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Most terrorists aren't nuts. As for the pervasive ideology, I doubt that's going anywhere and part of the human condition. We still make choices though and are not bond to follow the dictates of our darker selves.

Yes he was influenced but so are many others who buy into that crap. But not all of those who do go off and become spree shooters. There's always an underlying problem that causes someone to do something like this. Furthermore, no one is arguing that he's not a racist. But to say he's a racist and therefore he did this is leaving out a big piece of this puzzle.

As for racism in general, sadly it's not going anywhere. This notion of "ending racism" is dribble. You may as well say let's end breathing. We've always been afraid of those who are different from us. We've always been distrustful of those outside of our own tribe. The question is how do we manage that within a rational framework and comtinue to function. Do we let it consume us or do we learn through our uniquely human process that we are being irrational?

There will always be those who burn crosses either in public or in their hearts. How we manage as a whole and build a society is what matters.


----------



## Shaver

^ Burning crosses is racist now!? 

*sigh* I just can't keep up.


----------



## SG_67

^ It takes a while for things to make their way across the Pond!


----------



## Shaver

^ My ancestors were burning crosses before Columbus had even set foot on the American continent.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> ^ My ancestors were burning crosses before Columbus had even set foot on the American continent.


Are you referring to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiery_cross


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> ^ Burning crosses is racist now!?
> 
> *sigh* I just can't keep up.


Here it is understood to be a Klu Klux Klan thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Here it is understood to be a Klu Klux Klan thing.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Ku Klux Klan breathe air ergo breathing air is an inherently racist act?

*VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED
*


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> The Ku Klux Klan breathe air ergo breathing air is an inherently racist act?


Of course not, but the Klan made cross burning a sort of signature act. Think of it like the Nazi's appropriation of the Hindu Swastika, the origins of which have absolutely nothing to do with Nazism. So in our country, if you burn a cross, it's safe to assume that everyone will understand the action as a conscious reference to the Klan and/or what the Klan represents.

Wiki does a good job of explaining its history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_burning


----------



## Shaver

^ A handful of dunderheads pottering about the Southern states, dressed in sheets, are comparable to the Third Reich?


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> The Ku Klux Klan breathe air ergo breathing air is an inherently racist act?


Of course not, but the Klan made cross burning a sort of signature act. Thank of it like the Nazi's appropriation of the Hindu Swastika, the origins of which have absolutely nothing to do with Nazism. So in our country, if you burn a cross, it's safe to assume that everyone will understand the action as a conscious reference to the Klan and/or what the Klan represents.


----------



## tocqueville

Django Unchained was a great movie, by the way. I think the depiction of slavery was extreme, but the fact remains that the entire thing was built upon terror, and abuses of the worst sort imaginable are inevitable with that kind of system. Toni Morrison's masterpiece "Beloved" also demonstrates that (the movie version with Oprah Winfrey is well worth your time if you're not up to reading the book). Southern revisionist histories and the whole thing about flying the CSA battle flag or erecting monuments to CSA heroes represents a willful occlusion of the experiences of a large portion of the Southern population that was tortured and terrorized for the economic benefit of a handful of rich whites.


----------



## Gurdon

SG_67 said:


> Most terrorists aren't nuts. As for the pervasive ideology, I doubt that's going anywhere and part of the human condition. We still make choices though and are not bond to follow the dictates of our darker selves.
> 
> Yes he was influenced but so are many others who buy into that crap. But not all of those who do go off and become spree shooters. There's always an underlying problem that causes someone to do something like this. Furthermore, no one is arguing that he's not a racist. But to say he's a racist and therefore he did this is leaving out a big piece of this puzzle.
> 
> As for racism in general, sadly it's not going anywhere. This notion of "ending racism" is dribble. You may as well say let's end breathing. We've always been afraid of those who are different from us. We've always been distrustful of those outside of our own tribe. The question is how do we manage that within a rational framework and comtinue to function. Do we let it consume us or do we learn through our uniquely human process that we are being irrational?
> 
> There will always be those who burn crosses either in public or in their hearts. How we manage as a whole and build a society is what matters.


Actually racism, bigotry and violence, are going somewhere; slowly away. Although our society is becoming increasingly polarized, various polls show that attitudes about race and other socially divisive issues are gradually shifting as the population grows younger and increasingly diverse. Steven Pinker, a Harvard Professor of linguistics and, I think, psychology, has written an annoying book part of the title of which includes "our better nature," documenting the absolute and dramatic decline in violence as he measures it (killing people).

The meaning of symbols changes through time. The burning crosses referred to by Shaver had very different meanings than the burning crosses of the KKK. Just as we learned in a recent thread here the term Fenian has a significantly different meaning to those in the British Isles than it does here.

People are still racist here, but they are less so than was the case 20 or 30 years ago. And certainly the publec expression of bigotry and racial animus has diminished dramatically in recent decades. The issue is not necessarily the elimination of prejudice, but rather the establishment of comity within society. SG_67 and gurdon are unlikely to accept each other's religious beliefs. We are, however, highly likely to tolerate them as a function of civil behavior in a diverse nation.

Regards,
gurdon


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> Again, secession and the war were caused by many reasons, not just the preservation of slavery. To ascribe slavery as the _*only *_cause is simplistic and inaccurate. Besides, slavery was legal in the USA before and during the war, and if Lincoln had his way (based on his first inaugural promise) slavery would never have been threatened by the federal government. I've written this so many times now my fingers hurt when striking the keyboard!
> 
> I raised the issue of the legality of secession once you referred to the CSA - and particularly Jefferson Davis - as a "criminal and a traitor" (I believe those were your words). I made the point that for you to be correct, secession would have to be illegal/unconstitutional, and asked you to demonstrate this or stop using such terms...


I posted several articles pointing out that the argument that the cause of the CSA and secession was not about slavery is historical revisionism--a lie, as the clear, stated motive of the secessionists was the preservation of slavery and white supremacy. You countered by repeating the myths as authoritative.

I am at a disadvantage when it comes to arguing against southern revisionism because I am far from being an expert on the historiography of the Civil War; I am trained in European History, not American, and I know far more about France's civil wars than Americas. I rely in my opinions on the authority of James McPherson's seminal "Battle Cry of Freedom," which was referred to me by friends who were in fact card carrying American history experts (Ph.D. candidates at Yale in the subject) as the one book I should read, and I did. I recommend it to all those on the other side of the Pond who are curious about what all this fuss is about and want to understand matters better. It's a phenominal work of scholarship. It's also a fantastic read.

So, what does McPherson have to say? Over and over again McPherson states in no uncertain terms that behind this, that, or the other dispute between north and south was the quarrel over slavery. In other words, it all boiled down to slavery. The North by and large did not enter the war to abolish it--that's true--but the south started the war to prevent its abolition, pre-emptively. The cultural divisions and the religious divisions also boiled down to the slavery issue. The churches split into northern and southern halves over slavery, each fueling the fires on either side. "Underlying all of these differences was the peculiar institution." (p. 41). Every debate over policy esp with respect to the country's growth and expansion, ended up being a fight over slavery.Mexico made it worse, as did the question of Texas. And as for the south, slavery had become a source of identity and pride. Southerners considered themselves superior culturally and morally to northerners and considered their society superior by every measure to northern society, and they believed that slavery was ultimately the reason for their superiority (p. 56). Slavery was understood to be the guarantee of liberty.

Moderate secessionists, accroding to McPherson, those who wanted to cooperate with the north, argued for presenting a list of demands to Lincoln. What did they want? Enforcement of the fugitive slave law, repeal of personal liberty laws, guarantees against interference with slavery in the District of Columbia or with the interstate slave trade, and protection of slavery in the territories. (p. 237).

On the question of what interest the non-slaveholder majority of whites had in secession, McPherson writes that the secessionists undertook a campaign to bring them to their side by convincing them that they had a stake as well. "The stake was white supremacy. In this view, the Black Republican program of abolition was the first step toward racial equality and amalgamation. Georgia's Governor Brown carried this message to his native uplands of north Georgia whose voters idolized him. Slavery 'is the poor man's best government....amonug us the poor white laborer...deoes not belong to the menial class. The ***** is in no sense his equal...he belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of whie men...'"p. 243

"Much secessionist rhetoric played variations on this theme. The election of Lincoln, declared an Alabama newspaper, 'shows that the North intends to free the ******* and force amalgamation between them and the children of the poor men of the South.' Do you love your mother, your wife, your sister, your daughter?' a Georgia secessionist asked non-slaveholders? If Gerogia remaiend in a Union 'ruled by Lincoln and his crew...in ten years or less our children will be the slaves of *******.'"p. 243

"Most southerh whites could agree that 'democratic liberty exists solely because we have black slaves' whose presence 'promotes equaity among the free.' Hence 'freedom is not possible without slavery.'"244

I could go on, but the bottom line is that slavery was at the root of southern identity, southern politics, southern secessionist ideology. LIncoln might not have gone to war to abolish slavery, but the men who started the war and fired on Ft. Sumter did. Of course, they said they were fighting for liberty, but they understood their liberty to be based on slavery. They were synonyms.

Was it illegal? The Constitution is silent on secession, but as I said before, if rebelling against constitutional government and starting the largest war ever to take place in the Americas for the sake of preserving slavery is not illegal, I don't know what is. And yes, treason. If nothing else, treason for conspiring with Great Britain to attack the US. Britain, fortunately, didn't bite, in the end. But the South tried. And all those southern officers in the US military and government who swore to "protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" broke their oath. There is no honor in that. Southern honor? Whatever.


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> Southern revisionist histories and the whole thing about flying the CSA battle flag or erecting monuments to CSA heroes represents a willful occlusion of the experiences of a large portion of the Southern population that was tortured and terrorized for the economic benefit of a handful of rich whites.


Just as long as we agree that there are "revisionists" of every stripe writing about every topic under the sun.

By the way, are you opposed to monuments to CSA Generals Lee and Jackson? What about USA Generals Sherman, Sheridan, and Butler? Just curious...


----------



## tocqueville

I am opposed to monuments to CSA Generals, esp. those who were in the US Army but resigned their commissions. I am opposed to "heros" and leaders of the CSA. I'm ok with monuments to soldiers lost.

In Germany one will never ever find a monument to leaders of the 3rd Reich. One does find, everywhere, quite tasteful monuments to the fallen, especially local boys. I've seen many. They are appropriate and necessary. I have no quarrel with them. I also have no quarrel with the Germans being proud of their boys' sense of duty and dedication, even if they were fighting an evil cause. It is thus possible to honor the dead and honor their sacrifice (battlefield valor, even), without pretending that the cause was right.


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> Just as long as we agree that there are "revisionists" of every stripe writing about every topic under the sun.


That doesn't make them right.


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> I posted several articles pointing out that the argument that the cause of the CSA and secession was not about slavery is historical revisionism--a lie, as the clear, stated motive of the secessionists was the preservation of slavery and white supremacy. You countered by repeating the myths as authoritative.
> 
> I am at a disadvantage when it comes to arguing against southern revisionism because I am far from being an expert on the historiography of the Civil War; I am trained in European History, not American, and I know far more about France's civil wars than Americas. I rely in my opinions on the authority of James McPherson's seminal "Battle Cry of Freedom," which was referred to me by friends who were in fact card carrying American history experts (Ph.D. candidates at Yale in the subject) as the one book I should read, and I did. I recommend it to all those on the other side of the Pond who are curious about what all this fuss is about and want to understand matters better. It's a phenominal work of scholarship. It's also a fantastic read.
> 
> So, what does McPherson have to say? Over and over again McPherson states in no uncertain terms that behind this, that, or the other dispute between north and south was the quarrel over slavery. In other words, it all boiled down to slavery. The North by and large did not enter the war to abolish it--that's true--but the south started the war to prevent its abolition, pre-emptively. The cultural divisions and the religious divisions also boiled down to the slavery issue. The churches split into northern and southern halves over slavery, each fueling the fires on either side. "Underlying all of these differences was the peculiar institution." (p. 41). Every debate over policy esp with respect to the country's growth and expansion, ended up being a fight over slavery.Mexico made it worse, as did the question of Texas. And as for the south, slavery had become a source of identity and pride. Southerners considered themselves superior culturally and morally to northerners and considered their society superior by every measure to northern society, and they believed that slavery was ultimately the reason for their superiority (p. 56). Slavery was understood to be the guarantee of liberty.
> 
> Moderate secessionists, accroding to McPherson, those who wanted to cooperate with the north, argued for presenting a list of demands to Lincoln. What did they want? Enforcement of the fugitive slave law, repeal of personal liberty laws, guarantees against interference with slavery in the District of Columbia or with the interstate slave trade, and protection of slavery in the territories. (p. 237).
> 
> On the question of what interest the non-slaveholder majority of whites had in secession, McPherson writes that the secessionists undertook a campaign to bring them to their side by convincing them that they had a stake as well. "The stake was white supremacy. In this view, the Black Republican program of abolition was the first step toward racial equality and amalgamation. Georgia's Governor Brown carried this message to his native uplands of north Georgia whose voters idolized him. Slavery 'is the poor man's best government....amonug us the poor white laborer...deoes not belong to the menial class. The ***** is in no sense his equal...he belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of whie men...'"p. 243
> 
> "Much secessionist rhetoric played variations on this theme. The election of Lincoln, declared an Alabama newspaper, 'shows that the North intends to free the ******* and force amalgamation between them and the children of the poor men of the South.' Do you love your mother, your wife, your sister, your daughter?' a Georgia secessionist asked non-slaveholders? If Gerogia remaiend in a Union 'ruled by Lincoln and his crew...in ten years or less our children will be the slaves of *******.'"p. 243
> 
> "Most southerh whites could agree that 'democratic liberty exists solely because we have black slaves' whose presence 'promotes equaity among the free.' Hence 'freedom is not possible without slavery.'"244
> 
> I could go on, but the bottom line is that slavery was at the root of southern identity, southern politics, southern secessionist ideology. LIncoln might not have gone to war to abolish slavery, but the men who started the war and fired on Ft. Sumter did. Of course, they said they were fighting for liberty, but they understood their liberty to be based on slavery. They were synonyms.
> 
> Was it illegal? The Constitution is silent on secession, but as I said before, if rebelling against constitutional government and starting the largest war ever to take place in the Americas for the sake of preserving slavery is not illegal, I don't know what is. And yes, treason. If nothing else, treason for conspiring with Great Britain to attack the US. Britain, fortunately, didn't bite, in the end. But the South tried. And all those southern officers in the US military and government who swore to "protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" broke their oath. There is no honor in that. Southern honor? Whatever.


I hope you understand that what you call "myth" others call "truth." Similarly, writers such as McPherson write from an extremely pro-Union perspective; to many, he's a creator of "myths"! Perhaps it would benefit you to read the perspectives of other historians, and not just the ones that you agree with; to act as if McPherson is the epitome of truth and opposing views are "myths" is nonsense!

Who started the war is far more complex than you seem to think. To act as if the firing of the first shot at Sumter "started the war" without examining antecedents is far too simplistic.

"Rebelling against constitutional government"? Didn't the seceding states legally and constitutionally leave the Union, just as they initially joined? Are you saying that once a state joins the Union, there's no way to ever leave? How autocratic of you! If you believe that, you are in conflict with the overwhelming opinion of the Founders and the historical record. In fact, multiple states included language in their initial ratifications of the Constitution that specified their right to leave this union of states! (I can supply a dozen more arguments, if you wish. I hope you can supply a couple to the contrary.)

"Starting the largest war ever to take place in the Americas for the sake of preserving slavery is not illegal, I don't know what is." See above, and you may wish to review the work of the multitude of historians - North and South over the past two centuries - that wrote about the various reasons for secession and war. Apparently, you really don't know what is illegal and what isn't!

"And yes, treason. If nothing else, treason for conspiring with Great Britain to attack the US." If the seceded states left the Union legally and constitutionally, and formed their own new union, then any acts subsequent to that by definition can't be treasonous! Again, you love to make bold statements, but can you at least offer some proof of their veracity? 

"And all those southern officers in the US military and government who swore to 'protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic' broke their oath." No, they didn't - once their states seceded, they were no longer part of the United States, or its military. There are obligations in a contract; however, once the contract is legally rescinded, the obligations no longer exist.

Your misunderstanding of secession lies at the root of your problematic logic. So, I'll ask you for the final time - can you please provide historical/logical support for your assertions that secession was illegal or unconstitutional? Everything seems to hinge on this point, so I would think that you'd support all of your claims by providing evidence of the illegality of secession.

Heck, the American colonies who separated from Britain in the 18th century were on far less solid ground than the states that seceded from the Union! 

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better." - Abraham Lincoln, 1848


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> I am opposed to monuments to CSA Generals, esp. those who were in the US Army but resigned their commissions. I am opposed to "heros" and leaders of the CSA. I'm ok with monuments to soldiers lost.
> 
> In Germany one will never ever find a monument to leaders of the 3rd Reich. One does find, everywhere, quite tasteful monuments to the fallen, especially local boys. I've seen many. They are appropriate and necessary. I have no quarrel with them. I also have no quarrel with the Germans being proud of their boys' sense of duty and dedication, even if they were fighting an evil cause. It is thus possible to honor the dead and honor their sacrifice (battlefield valor, even), without pretending that the cause was right.


Sherman, Butler, and Sheridan committed acts during the war that were equal to war crimes; Lee and Jackson were two of the finest officers ever produced on these shores, and men of integrity (go ahead, look it up!). Not sure what you think should be memorialized...

Your inability to understand the legality of secession poisons all of your subsequent thoughts.


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> That doesn't make them right.


Nor does it make your "revisionist" historians correct. So, perhaps the best thing to do is avoid the tendentious, one-sided historians of either side, and do some research of your own. It's the only way to sift through the mess - this is true in politics, history, economics, and really all of the social sciences. I'll allow others to speak for the "hard" sciences...


----------



## tocqueville

McPherson is a revisionist? But yes, a good historian works his way through the historiography and at least considers all sides. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## L-feld

Never more than now, I am convinced of the veracity of that study positing that liberals and conservatives live in such different and irreconcilable realities that logical discussions are impossible because their fundamental assumptions about reality are so divergent.

To wit, I think Chuck Thompson's "Better Off WIthout 'Em" makes some really good points. I suppose that makes me a left-wing separatist. Or to use right -wing lingo, I'm a "cultural realist."


----------



## tocqueville

Here's an interview with McPherson that presents a concise summary of his work: 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

Lee a gentleman. Lol. He led a war that killed hundreds of thousands for the sake of keeping almost half of the southern population in chains. 

And I love the tautology: by breaking one's oath, one is no longer bound to it and thus cannot be accused of breaking it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> McPherson is a revisionist? But yes, a good historian works his way through the historiography and at least considers all sides.


I don't believe McPherson is revisionist, nor was Douglas Southall Freeman, either. There's no doubt that McPherson is pro-Union; he's said so himself. Likewise, there's no doubt that Shelby Foote or Robert Selph Henry is pro-Confederacy.

The trick - and it's hard as hell - is to read and think as much as possible and come to our own conclusions, on this and many other topics...


----------



## Tiger

L-feld said:


> Never more than now, I am convinced of the veracity of that study positing that liberals and conservatives live in such different and irreconcilable realities that logical discussions are impossible because their fundamental assumptions about reality are so divergent."


Many of us have gone through multiple incarnations of who we are/what we believe. James Burnham was a Trotskyite, who became a senior editor of National Review. Richard Cheney tilted to non-interventionism in Iraq in 1991; he became a leading interventionist neocon in 2001 forward.

I believe the only answer is to keep learning and be honest and flexible enough to alter positions and philosophy as more enlightenment edges our way. If not, they'll always be "different worlds" inhabited by those who refuse to be objective...


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> Many of us have gone through multiple incarnations of who we are/what we believe. James Burnham was a Trotskyite, who became a senior editor of National Review. Richard Cheney tilted to non-interventionism in Iraq in 1991; he became a leading interventionist neocon in 2001 forward.
> 
> I believe the only answer is to keep learning and be honest and flexible enough to alter positions and philosophy as more enlightenment edges our way. If not, they'll always be "different worlds" inhabited by those who refuse to be objective...


I don't have an open mind when it comes to slavery. If it took Sherman and his "crimes" to destroy it, fine. If Lee staked his honor on defending it and keeping 45% of his fellow southerners in chains, that's on him. Why must we defend the south? Or sympathize with it? The good guys won, so let's move on.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> Lee a gentleman. Lol. He led a war that killed hundreds of thousands for the sake of keeping almost half of the southern population in chains. And I love the tautology: by breaking one's oath, one is no longer bound to it and thus cannot be accused of breaking it.


You really have no idea of what you're writing about!

Lee did not "lead a war." Your reasoning for the war is simplistic and piecemeal. He broke no oath - this was demonstrated earlier.

_*Again, making assertions without any support is inane. It's getting very hard to take you seriously...
*_
As an aside, you may not wish to be so enamored of oath-taking. Mr. Lincoln swore an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, yet he violated it on multiple occasions ("traitor"! "treason"! "dishonor"!). Even the Lincoln sycophants don't deny that...but I'm sure you'll figure out a way to excuse _those _transgressions!


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> I don't have an open mind when it comes to slavery. If it took Sherman and his "crimes" to destroy it, fine. If Lee staked his honor on defending it and keeping 45% of his fellow southerners in chains, that's on him.


Putting the word _crimes _in quote marks in this context is a crime in itself...

You must really hate the United States, then, since the institution of slavery was legal and constitutional from the Colonial Period until the Declaration of Independence, through the Articles of Confederation, and from the Washington to Lincoln Administrations inclusively.

Good to see that you have no problem defending war crimes committed against women and children. No wonder you won't attempt to learn anything beyond your warped and flawed "understanding" of American history. Such a mindset precludes objectivity and balance...


----------



## tocqueville

Wow. Just, wow. I guess a patriot = someone who believes a ***** is worth 3/5ths of a man. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> Wow. Just, wow. I guess a patriot = someone who believes a ***** is worth 3/5ths of a man.


Not surprisingly, you have misunderstood the concept behind the "Three-Fifths Compromise" at the Philadelphia Convention. But, to humor you, then clearly you have hatred for everyone who signed the Constitution in 1787, every person and state that subsequently supported it and ratified it, and every American citizen and politician who lived and served under that Constitution until 1868.


----------



## tocqueville

Truth be told the British were on the right side of the slavery issue. That's a fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> Truth be told the British were on the right side of the slavery issue. That's a fact.


Another fact: It was England that brought slavery to her Colonies in the first place!


----------



## Shaver

^ Yet, commerce aside, we were too civilised to countenance their captivity on our blessed soil. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> ^ Yet, commerce aside, we were too civilised to countenance their captivity on our blessed soil. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.


As it turns out, a very wise decision, as England avoided the turmoil that occurred on these shores. Pipe filled and smoked!


----------



## Shaver

^ Fine fellow.


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> Another fact: It was England that brought slavery to her Colonies in the first place!


Yes, but England saw the light and smashed the Atlantic slave trade. So, too, did the U.S. North and Lincoln, however belatedly. Not the white half of the south, and not your man Lee. Half of the country progressed. Half had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Sherman and Grant. The end remains the same: The South's defeat was a Good thing, no ifs ands or buts. I don't care about Sherman's crimes any more than I care about Eisenhower's or Patton's. The institution Lee defended terrorized women and children. Torture. Murder. That's the good society Lee fought for. Terror. Good riddance. Anyway, the war's over. Get over it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

Gurdon said:


> Actually racism, bigotry and violence, are going somewhere; slowly away. Although our society is becoming increasingly polarized, various polls show that attitudes about race and other socially divisive issues are gradually shifting as the population grows younger and increasingly diverse. Steven Pinker, a Harvard Professor of linguistics and, I think, psychology, has written an annoying book part of the title of which includes "our better nature," documenting the absolute and dramatic decline in violence as he measures it (killing people).
> 
> The meaning of symbols changes through time. The burning crosses referred to by Shaver had very different meanings than the burning crosses of the KKK. Just as we learned in a recent thread here the term Fenian has a significantly different meaning to those in the British Isles than it does here.
> 
> People are still racist here, but they are less so than was the case 20 or 30 years ago. And certainly the publec expression of bigotry and racial animus has diminished dramatically in recent decades. The issue is not necessarily the elimination of prejudice, but rather the establishment of comity within society. SG_67 and gurdon are unlikely to accept each other's religious beliefs. We are, however, highly likely to tolerate them as a function of civil behavior in a diverse nation.
> 
> Regards,
> gurdon


Perhaps racism, or ethnic prejudice, against certain people but the fact of racism or fear of strangers will not.

There was a time when Irish and Italian immigrants were blamed for diseases. We don't think that way anymore.

There will be others, and it will happen again unfortunately.

But you are correct, regardless of anyone's particular religious affiliation or lifestyle, it should not preclude people from being able to engage with one another in civil society.


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> Yes, but England saw the light and smashed the Atlantic slave trade. So, too, did the U.S. North and Lincoln, however belatedly. Not the white half of the south, and not your man Lee. Half of the country progressed. Half had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Sherman and Grant. The end remains the same: The South's defeat was a Good thing, no ifs ands or buts. I don't care about Sherman's crimes any more than I care about Eisenhower's or Patton's. The institution Lee defended terrorized women and children. Torture. Murder. That's the good society Lee fought for. Terror. Good riddance. Anyway, the war's over. Get over it.


The only thing I'm trying to "get over" is your ignorance of this topic - it is immense!

When did "Lincoln smash the Atlantic slave trade"? What the hell are you talking about? (Take a look at Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution; written and ratified before Lincoln was born.) I'm certainly glad we now have same-sex unions, because I think you're ready to exhume Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman and enter marital bliss. You may find out - actually, your bias won't permit - that the men you married were quite different than you believed them to be!

Lee defended his state, and by extension his republic (and the people living there). Your attacks are not judicious nor grounded in fact. Lee was "so evil" that he was the Lincoln Administration's first choice to lead the U.S. Army as war approached. Of course, when his home state of Virginia seceded, Lee followed.

There's a lot of literature on the nature of slavery, Miss Stowe; you might want to learn more about it. Of course, even if it was a system of solely torture and murder, you have this problem: Lincoln did not wish to end it, neither did Grant or Sherman (or McClellan). Additionally, George Washington was then a proponent of torture, murder, and terror, as was Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Mason, Henry, Andrew Jackson, Monroe, and so many others that it would be folly to count. Even some black people owned slaves - those terroristic murderers!

_Something for you to ruminate on about Sherman from wikipedia, and note the sources:
_
"Sherman was not an abolitionist before the war and, like others of his time and background, he did not believe in "***** equality."[SUP][85][/SUP][SUP][86][/SUP]Before the war, *Sherman at times even expressed some sympathy with the view of Southern whites that the black race was benefiting from slavery,* although he opposed breaking up slave families and advocated teaching slaves to read and write.[SUP][29][/SUP] During the Civil War, Sherman declined to employ black troops in his armies.[SUP][87]

[/SUP]_Finally, a tidbit on General Thomas J. Jackson, also from wikipedia:

_"Jackson was revered by many of the African Americans in town, both slaves and free blacks. He was instrumental in the organization in 1855 of Sunday School classes for blacks at the Presbyterian Church. His second wife, Mary Anna Jackson, taught with Jackson, as "he preferred that my labors should be given to the colored children, believing that it was more important and useful to put the strong hand of the Gospel under the ignorant African race, to lift them up."[SUP][24][/SUP] The pastor, Dr. William Spottswood White, described the relationship between Jackson and his Sunday afternoon students: "In their religious instruction he succeeded wonderfully. His discipline was systematic and firm, but very kind. ... His servants reverenced and loved him, as they would have done a brother or father. ... He was emphatically the black man's friend." He addressed his students by name and they, in turn, referred to him affectionately as "Marse Major".[SUP][25][/SUP]
Jackson's family owned six slaves in the late 1850s. Three (Hetty, Cyrus, and George, a mother and two teenage sons) were received as a wedding present. Another, Albert, requested that Jackson purchase him and allow him to work for his freedom; he was employed as a waiter in one of the Lexington hotels and Jackson rented him to VMI. Amy also requested that Jackson purchase her from a public slave auction and she served the family as a cook and housekeeper. The sixth, Emma, was a four-year-old orphan with a learning disability, accepted by Jackson from an aged widow and presented to his second wife, Mary Anna, as a welcome-home gift.[SUP][26][/SUP] After the American Civil War began he appears to have hired out or sold his slaves. Mary Anna Jackson, in her 1895 memoir, said, "our servants ... without the firm guidance and restraint of their master, the excitement of the times proved so demoralizing to them that he deemed it best for me to provide them with good homes among the permanent residents."[SUP][27][/SUP] James Robertson wrote about Jackson's view on slavery:
Jackson neither apologized for nor spoke in favor of the practice of slavery. He probably opposed the institution. Yet in his mind the Creator had sanctioned slavery, and man had no moral right to challenge its existence. The good Christian slaveholder was one who treated his servants fairly and humanely at all times.[SUP][28]

[/SUP]​


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> The only thing I'm trying to "get over" is your ignorance of this topic - it is immense!
> 
> When did "Lincoln smash the Atlantic slave trade"? What the hell are you talking about? (Take a look at Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution; written and ratified before Lincoln was born.) I'm certainly glad we now have same-sex unions, because I think you're ready to exhume Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman and enter marital bliss. You may find out - actually, your bias won't permit - that the men you married were quite different than you believed them to be!
> 
> Lee defended his state, and by extension his republic (and the people living there). Your attacks are not judicious nor grounded in fact. Lee was "so evil" that he was the Lincoln Administration's first choice to lead the U.S. Army as war approached. Of course, when his home state of Virginia seceded, Lee followed.
> 
> There's a lot of literature on the nature of slavery, Miss Stowe; you might want to learn more about it. Of course, even if it was a system of solely torture and murder, you have this problem: Lincoln did not wish to end it, neither did Grant or Sherman (or McClellan). Additionally, George Washington was then a proponent of torture, murder, and terror, as was Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Mason, Henry, Andrew Jackson, Monroe, and so many others that it would be folly to count. Even some black people owned slaves - those terroristic murderers!
> 
> _Something for you to ruminate on about Sherman from wikipedia, and note the sources:
> _
> "Sherman was not an abolitionist before the war and, like others of his time and background, he did not believe in "***** equality."[SUP][85][/SUP][SUP][86][/SUP]Before the war, *Sherman at times even expressed some sympathy with the view of Southern whites that the black race was benefiting from slavery,* although he opposed breaking up slave families and advocated teaching slaves to read and write.[SUP][29][/SUP] During the Civil War, Sherman declined to employ black troops in his armies.[SUP][87]
> 
> [/SUP]_Finally, a tidbit on General Thomas J. Jackson, also from wikipedia:
> 
> _"Jackson was revered by many of the African Americans in town, both slaves and free blacks. He was instrumental in the organization in 1855 of Sunday School classes for blacks at the Presbyterian Church. His second wife, Mary Anna Jackson, taught with Jackson, as "he preferred that my labors should be given to the colored children, believing that it was more important and useful to put the strong hand of the Gospel under the ignorant African race, to lift them up."[SUP][24][/SUP] The pastor, Dr. William Spottswood White, described the relationship between Jackson and his Sunday afternoon students: "In their religious instruction he succeeded wonderfully. His discipline was systematic and firm, but very kind. ... His servants reverenced and loved him, as they would have done a brother or father. ... He was emphatically the black man's friend." He addressed his students by name and they, in turn, referred to him affectionately as "Marse Major".[SUP][25][/SUP]
> Jackson's family owned six slaves in the late 1850s. Three (Hetty, Cyrus, and George, a mother and two teenage sons) were received as a wedding present. Another, Albert, requested that Jackson purchase him and allow him to work for his freedom; he was employed as a waiter in one of the Lexington hotels and Jackson rented him to VMI. Amy also requested that Jackson purchase her from a public slave auction and she served the family as a cook and housekeeper. The sixth, Emma, was a four-year-old orphan with a learning disability, accepted by Jackson from an aged widow and presented to his second wife, Mary Anna, as a welcome-home gift.[SUP][26][/SUP] After the American Civil War began he appears to have hired out or sold his slaves. Mary Anna Jackson, in her 1895 memoir, said, "our servants ... without the firm guidance and restraint of their master, the excitement of the times proved so demoralizing to them that he deemed it best for me to provide them with good homes among the permanent residents."[SUP][27][/SUP] James Robertson wrote about Jackson's view on slavery:Jackson neither apologized for nor spoke in favor of the practice of slavery. He probably opposed the institution. Yet in his mind the Creator had sanctioned slavery, and man had no moral right to challenge its existence. The good Christian slaveholder was one who treated his servants fairly and humanely at all times.[SUP][28]
> 
> [/SUP]​


Dear me, now you're arguing that maybe slavery wasn't all that bad.

No, Lincoln didn't smash the Atlantic slave trade, that was Britain. Lincoln smashed slavery in the US. Sherman may well have been a racist (who wasn't, back then?), but he served his country, put down a rebellion, and destroyed the south. If there's anyone to blame for the carnage he left in his wake, it's Jefferson Davis, Lee, etc. Lee and Jackson might not have been raving pro-slavery types or racists, but at the end of the day, that's what they did: they defended slavery and a "country" that was established for the sole purpose of preserving slavery.

Lincoln and his commanders, we can all agree, did not set out to break slavery; but the truth is that the southern commanders did set out to defend it. That's why the CSA was created. No other reason. Lincoln evolved, fast. And whatever was in his heart of hearts, his actions were great. Destroying the south was a great thing.

You write: "Lee defended his state, and by extension his republic (and the people living there)." Yes and no. He defended a republic created to preserve slavery. He defended 55% of the people living there and fought to ensure that they would remain lord and master over the other 45%. By writing "the people living there" means you're ignoring the 45%. They don't matter?

Putting up a statue to him in the name of the south is a lie. He's only a hero to the white half. Calling that half "the southern people" is denying the existence of the other half. That's what they call these days institutional racism. The premise that the other half matters, that their lives matter, that they might take issue with the beatification of the men who would see them enslaved, is what motivates me and others to clamor for taking that damned flag down.

I'm sure Jackson believed that the Creator had sanctioned slavery. Just because he believed that does not mean I should tolerate his point of view. Lots of people believe lots of things. That doesn't make it true; or it doesn't make those things tolerable.

Edit: my stats are off...it might be 33% of the population, but that changes nothing.

Here's some numbers: https://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/slavery-and-secession-1860-census-statistics/


----------



## tocqueville

Here's a question: was it a good thing or a bad thing that the CSA lost?


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> Dear me, now you're arguing that maybe slavery wasn't all that bad.
> 
> No, Lincoln didn't smash the Atlantic slave trade, that was Britain. Lincoln smashed slavery in the US. Sherman may well have been a racist (who wasn't, back then?), but he served his country, put down a rebellion, and destroyed the south. If there's anyone to blame for the carnage he left in his wake, it's Jefferson Davis, Lee, etc. Lee and Jackson might not have been raving pro-slavery types or racists, but at the end of the day, that's what they did: they defended slavery and a "country" that was established for the sole purpose of preserving slavery.
> 
> Lincoln and his commanders, we can all agree, did not set out to break slavery; but the truth is that the southern commanders did set out to defend it. That's why the CSA was created. No other reason. Lincoln evolved, fast. And whatever was in his heart of hearts, his actions were great. Destroying the south was a great thing.
> 
> You write: "Lee defended his state, and by extension his republic (and the people living there)." Yes and no. He defended a republic created to preserve slavery. He defended 55% of the people living there and fought to ensure that they would remain lord and master over the other 45%. By writing "the people living there" means you're ignoring the 45%. They don't matter?
> 
> Putting up a statue to him in the name of the south is a lie. He's only a hero to the white half. Calling that half "the southern people" is denying the existence of the other half. That's what they call these days institutional racism. The premise that the other half matters, that their lives matter, that they might take issue with the beatification of the men who would see them enslaved, is what motivates me and others to clamor for taking that damned flag down.
> 
> I'm sure Jackson believed that the Creator had sanctioned slavery. Just because he believed that does not mean I should tolerate his point of view. Lots of people believe lots of things. That doesn't make it true; or it doesn't make those things tolerable.


When did I write that "slavery wasn't all that bad"?* I merely quoted Union General Sherman, to point out the folly that you persist in clinging to - that all of this was such a simple matter, devoid of complexities. *My words speak for themselves; no need for you to misrepresent them.

You continue with the same nonsense, despite everything I've written, and despite everything in the universe of historical writing. You have never responded to any of the points I've made, except with your repeated inanities. You have yet to prove anything you've written. You continue to spew falsehoods and inaccuracies, without adducing proof of anything. You've created a history in your mind based on what you believe it to be, rather than what it really was, and have shut your mind to any other concepts or perspectives.

This has become the antithesis of intellectual discussion...


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> Here's a question: was it a good thing or a bad thing that the CSA lost?


You have very little grasp of the history of the time period under discussion, and can't defend/support just about anything you've written or disprove anything I've written, yet you now want to enter the world of conjecture? No thanks...


----------



## L-feld

Tiger said:


> Many of us have gone through multiple incarnations of who we are/what we believe. James Burnham was a Trotskyite, who became a senior editor of National Review. Richard Cheney tilted to non-interventionism in Iraq in 1991; he became a leading interventionist neocon in 2001 forward.
> 
> I believe the only answer is to keep learning and be honest and flexible enough to alter positions and philosophy as more enlightenment edges our way. If not, they'll always be "different worlds" inhabited by those who refuse to be objective...


You're just proving my point, which means continuing this conversation is probably futile.


----------



## Tiger

L-feld said:


> You're just proving my point, which means continuing this conversation is probably futile.


I _*was *_trying to prove your point!

I also was trying - with very little success - to get beyond the emotional appeals and the simplistic depictions of events that are in actuality far more complex than most imagine.

_My post #395 was my swan song..._


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> When did I write that "slavery wasn't all that bad"?* I merely quoted Union General Sherman, to point out the folly that you persist in clinging to - that all of this was such a simple matter, devoid of complexities. *My words speak for themselves; no need for you to misrepresent them.
> 
> You continue with the same nonsense, despite everything I've written, and despite everything in the universe of historical writing. You have never responded to any of the points I've made, except with your repeated inanities. You have yet to prove anything you've written. You continue to spew falsehoods and inaccuracies, without adducing proof of anything. You've created a history in your mind based on what you believe it to be, rather than what it really was, and have shut your mind to any other concepts or perspectives.
> 
> This has become the antithesis of intellectual discussion...


What inanities have I uttered? That the point of secession was the preservation of slavery? Is that inane? That Lee fought to defend a state created to preserve slavery? What is inane about that? Is McPherson inane?

What to you is "intellectual" to me amounts to indulging in Confederate apologetics, which I find completely bizarre. I can be plenty intellectual and have intellectual conversations, but I confess to having a hard time doing so with Confederate apologists, whom I consider close relatives to slavery apologists. Or Nazi apologists. I once met a German whose family had lived in Poznan as colonists but had been dispossessed of its land...he insisted that people misunderstood the German occupation of Poznan and that everyone got along great. Sure, buddy. He entirely missed the point, as I think you do as well. Or a southern friend who told me that race relations had been great before the civil rights movement...but she, too, seemed to miss the point. I don't like Confederate apologetics because I regard the Confederacy as something that can't be defended. Sometimes some societies go in wrong directions. Like Germany in 1933-1945. From what I understand, the south over time became more and more wed to slavery and made it more and more central to their identity, while the north, during the same period, divested itself from slavery in all senses of the term, such that most northerners either abhored it or didn't care one way or another because it was irrelevant. Thus, the south took a wrong turn. I don't think that can be defended any more than Germany's turn in 1933. Lee's role was no different from any of a number of German Field Marshals who served the Nazi regime. Some were better than others: some were out and out war criminals while others were most definitely not, but either way the cause they served, whether they acknowledged it or not, whether it was a prime motivation for them or not, was odious. That war ended not a second too soon. Just as the Civil War ended not a second too soon, not only because that meant that the blood shed was over but because the end of the war meant the end of slavery. Once you understand that the CSA's victory would have meant the preservation of slavery, it is really hard to justify the CSA's origins. All those men who died died for that one objective, which fortunately the Union Army thwarted.

Through intellectual labor one can learn to understand and even empathize. I am am more than capable of empathizing with CSA soldiers. Understanding their point of view. But at the end of the day they served an evil cause, and memorializing their cause and beatifying their 'heros' clearly has had a pernicious effect on America even today.

One of the wonders of contemporary Germany is that it did such an admirable job of looking itself in the mirror and recognizing what it had done. Germans rebooted themselves, to speak, and started over again, fresh, but with the insight that comes from knowing how easy it had been for them to do evil. I believe that in America, for us to get over our racism we need, collectively, to be able to look ourselves in the mirror and see our problems and failings. Whitewashing our history through apologetics does us no good.


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> What inanities have I uttered? That the point of secession was the preservation of slavery? Is that inane? That Lee fought to defend a state created to preserve slavery? What is inane about that? Is McPherson inane?
> 
> What to you is "intellectual" to me amounts to indulging in Confederate apologetics, which I find completely bizarre. I can be plenty intellectual and have intellectual conversations, but I confess to having a hard time doing so with Confederate apologists, whom I consider close relatives to slavery apologists. Or Nazi apologists. I once met a German whose family had lived in Poznan as colonists but had been dispossessed of its land...he insisted that people misunderstood the German occupation of Poznan and that everyone got along great. Sure, buddy. He entirely missed the point, as I think you do as well. Or a southern friend who told me that race relations had been great before the civil rights movement...but she, too, seemed to miss the point. I don't like Confederate apologetics because I regard the Confederacy as something that can't be defended. Sometimes some societies go in wrong directions. Like Germany in 1933-1945. From what I understand, the south over time became more and more wed to slavery and made it more and more central to their identity, while the north, during the same period, divested itself from slavery in all senses of the term, such that most northerners either abhored it or didn't care one way or another because it was irrelevant. Thus, the south took a wrong turn. I don't think that can be defended any more than Germany's turn in 1933. Lee's role was no different from any of a number of German Field Marshals who served the Nazi regime. Some were better than others: some were out and out war criminals while others were most definitely not, but either way the cause they served, whether they acknowledged it or not, whether it was a prime motivation for them or not, was odious. That war ended not a second too soon. Just as the Civil War ended not a second too soon, not only because that meant that the blood shed was over but because the end of the war meant the end of slavery. Once you understand that the CSA's victory would have meant the preservation of slavery, it is really hard to justify the CSA's origins. All those men who died died for that one objective, which fortunately the Union Army thwarted.
> 
> Through intellectual labor one can learn to understand and even empathize. I am am more than capable of empathizing with CSA soldiers. Understanding their point of view. But at the end of the day they served an evil cause, and memorializing their cause and beatifying their 'heros' clearly has had a pernicious effect on America even today.
> 
> One of the wonders of contemporary Germany is that it did such an admirable job of looking itself in the mirror and recognizing what it had done. Germans rebooted themselves, to speak, and started over again, fresh, but with the insight that comes from knowing how easy it had been for them to do evil. I believe that in America, for us to get over our racism we need, collectively, to be able to look ourselves in the mirror and see our problems and failings. Whitewashing our history through apologetics does us no good.


For my own sanity, I'll keep this brief...well, at least for me.

1) "What inanities have I uttered?" Many, and I've pointed them out and refuted them, with no substantive response from you.
2) "That the point of secession was the preservation of slavery?" As I've written too many times now, there were a multitude of reasons for secession and war, not solely slavery. Even a cursory bit of research would demonstrate this.
3) "That Lee fought to defend a state created to preserve slavery?" See #2. Remember too, that throughout the war and for at least two hundred years prior, slavery was legal in the U.S. and in the English Colonies. Somebody sure as hell - including Mr. Lincoln - was preserving slavery in the U.S.!
4) "Is McPherson inane?" James McPherson is not the only historical scholar of the period. There are at least hundreds of them over the course of the past century and a half; many with varying viewpoints that disagree with McPherson (an admitted pro-Union historian). Should I continually cite Ulrich Phillips? William Dunning? You might not like what they've written! Besides, I'd be surprised if much of what you've written comes from McPherson. He's clearly pro-Union, yet so much of what you've written is historically inaccurate.
5) Please point out any example of "apologetics" regarding the Confederacy or slavery that I've written. Just because you don't like or want to believe something, doesn't mean that it is either untrue or "apologetics." Go ahead, point it out - I have time!
6) "Nazi Germany"? Somehow, Hitler and the Third Reich creeps into so many conversations. Not with me...one argument at a time!
7) You continue to describe the CSA as if it had diametrically different policies regarding blacks than the USA. I have written repeatedly about this; the opposite is true. if you choose to not believe it or understand it, there's nothing more I can do for you. Perhaps you simply don't read others' posts? Otherwise, I'm at a loss to explain why you still parrot such nonsense.
8) The vast majority of the North - including Lincoln - had similar opinions to the vast majority of the South. The only clear disparate movement was abolitionism, and it was a minority political movement in the North. Lincoln was not an abolitionist...
9) There are many historians who believe the slave system was doomed to end naturally, without the expenditure of 720,000 lives and the destruction of an enormous amount of wealth and capital.
10) Many historians compare Lee not to Nazi German Field Marshals but to George Washington. You might not like that, but it is a valid analogy.
11) Was Southern independence an "evil cause"? Was American independence from Britain an "evil cause"? Would love for you to point out the difference!
12) You seem to indicate - and I could be wrong about your intimations - that "racism" is something that only whites do to blacks. Surely you don't believe that this is a one-way street? (It's probably a multi-lane highway.)
13) I've tried to provide a factual basis for everything I've written. If I'm wrong, please point it out with evidence, not your opinion. (I have asked you to do so repeatedly - especially on the key issue of secession - yet you have failed to do so.) If what I've written is true, then I'm not the one guilty of whitewashing; it seems to me, though, that you have been doing that very thing with your CSA/USA juxtapositions.


----------



## tocqueville

There's much to say here. The American Revolution did not take place for an evil purpose. I think it was of questionable morality and it was certainly illegal. But the objectives were mostly rather noble. The result was very good. That those noble people also countenanced slavery is a serious blemish on them or their enterprise, but slavery was not the point. In the case of the secession, slavery was the point. All that was noble was accessory to something truly wicked. Had they succeeded, the result would have been horrific.

The facts you insist you've cited are just allegations and talking points, and they can be divided into two categories. Tautologies and information intended to relativize the South's sins. So, for example, you deny that the southern leaders committed treason because the were citizens of a sovereign state to which they were loyal, the CSA. That is a tautology. They were not disloyal because they were disloyal. And the CSA was not a sovereign state, and that it existed at all was because U.S. Citizens committed treason. As for your relativizing facts, you repeat that the north was racist too. No one denies it. But the north defended the constitution and its officers kept their oath. And wether they intended to or not, they destroyed slavery. The south made war on their nation and did so to preserve slavery and white supremacy. That was the whole point of their enterprise. And whatever Sherman or Lincoln did or said does not change that fact any more than the fact that the U.S. Was deeply racist in the 1940: diminishes the fact that Germany and Japan were wicked. We all agree on which side of that fight was good, and we're all pleased with the war's result. Just as I'm pleased with the civil war's result, and thank god the CSA was obliterated. To suggest that oh, slavery would have ended any way, so a southern victory wouldn't have been so bad, is disgusting. 


Is racism a two-way street? What's your point? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> There's much to say here. The American Revolution did not take place for an evil purpose. I think it was of questionable morality and it was certainly illegal. But the objectives were mostly rather noble. The result was very good. That those noble people also countenanced slavery is a serious blemish on them or their enterprise, but slavery was not the point. In the case of the secession, slavery was the point. All that was noble was accessory to something truly wicked. Had they succeeded, the result would have been horrific.
> 
> The facts you insist you've cited are just allegations and talking points, and they can be divided into two categories. Tautologies and information intended to relativize the South's sins. So, for example, you deny that the southern leaders committed treason because the were citizens of a sovereign state to which they were loyal, the CSA. That is a tautology. They were not disloyal because they were disloyal. And the CSA was not a sovereign state, and that it existed at all was because U.S. Citizens committed treason. As for your relativizing facts, you repeat that the north was racist too. No one denies it. But the north defended the constitution and its officers kept their oath. And wether they intended to or not, they destroyed slavery. The south made war on their nation and did so to preserve slavery and white supremacy. That was the whole point of their enterprise. And whatever Sherman or Lincoln did or said does not change that fact any more than the fact that the U.S. Was deeply racist in the 1940: diminishes the fact that Germany and Japan were wicked. We all agree on which side of that fight was good, and we're all pleased with the war's result. Just as I'm pleased with the civil war's result, and thank god the CSA was obliterated. To suggest that oh, slavery would have ended any way, so a southern victory wouldn't have been so bad, is disgusting.
> 
> Is racism a two-way street? What's your point?


1) It is unfathomable to believe that anyone today would approve of slavery, but we have to come to grips with the fact that it was a part of European and American history (still is in some parts of the world). All of your fulminating has to be reconciled with the fact that so many legendary Americans owned slaves. Are you prepared to call Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Jackson, Grant, et al. "murders, torturers, and terrorists" or are you at least willing to concede that there's a greater complexity here that transcends your name-calling?
2) _"Allegations"? "Talking points"? "Tautologies"? Please, adduce some proof, or knock off the nonsensical attacks born of ignorance of the subject matter. You are the one who flails about making unsupported allegations, not me. A little intellectual honesty would be a pleasant change! _
3) _You continue to insist on using the term "treason." I have asked you multiple times to demonstrate this; you haven't. I assume you cannot. Until you can make the case that secession was illegal/unconstitutional, you will continue to sound like a child making accusations without any proof. Since so much of what you've written is predicated on "treason" one would think you would've addressed my challenge long ago. That you haven't speaks volumes._
4) Military officers resigned their commissions, so they did not violate their oaths. When states seceded from the Union and formed another republic, they did so legally and thus no treason was involved. Prove otherwise, or cease ranting.
5) The Union violated the Constitution often; to act as if the Union had fealty to it is simply false. (In fact, the Constitution was violated almost from the outset, much like many Anti-Federalists predicted, but that's another discussion entirely...or is it?)
6) The South "made war on the nation"? Two separate confederated republics, not a "nation." The Union invaded the Confederacy, not the other way around.
7) As written so often before, the USA and CSA had nearly identical policies toward blacks and slavery. The demonizing of one side and the deification of the other highlights your inability to be objective.
8) "To suggest that slavery would have ended any way, so a southern victory wouldn't have been so bad, is disgusting." I never made any such suggestion. Like many here who find that their positions are unsupportable by evidence, you resort to dishonesty. That's what truly is "disgusting"!


----------



## Liberty Ship

"The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history... But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth". It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves." - H.L. Mencken


----------



## tocqueville

Liberty Ship said:


> "The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history... But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination - "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth". It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves." - H.L. Mencken


Here are some more bons mots from dear H.L. Mencken on the subject of race: https://greatmindsonrace.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/h-l-mencken/


----------



## Liberty Ship

tocqueville said:


> Here are some more bons mots from dear H.L. Mencken on the subject of race: https://greatmindsonrace.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/h-l-mencken/


Interesting.


----------



## tocqueville

Honestly, I can't believe we're even debating this in 2015. Oh, that's right, this started because a cracker with a bad haircut murdered some black people in a church, a guy who no doubt was nourished with the same revisionist lies that Tiger's pushing here. And where did he murder them? In a city whose entire existence and prosperity derives from slavery, a city whose white leaders took it upon themselves to shell and seize a federal garrison for the purpose of preserving slavery. It's reasonable: that city would be nothing without slavery. Nothing.

Now, Tiger, you keep asking me to provide proof of treason and illegality? The fact that they rebelled against the United States is all the proof I need that they rebelled. The fact that a chair is a chair is all the proof I need that the chair is a chair. Done. Debate over. Perhaps I'm guilty of a tautology as well, but I don't think that's the right word for arguing that something is something, that a duck is a duck, etc. Your answer is the mirror image: the fact that they rebelled proves that they did not rebel. This logic works for you because you regard the CSA as an independent state. So, by fighting for the CSA they are not rebels because the CSA exists. I suppose this might be chalked up as a chicken and egg scenario: it takes a rebellion to have a state, so which comes first? Only in this case there is no chicken. There is no CSA as an independent republic, a sovereign, recognized, independent state. It was not Mexico. And also there's a clear chronology: rebellion precedes state. No rebellion, no state. I can even argue that the existence of the CSA is proof that there was a rebellion. There can be no CSA without a rebellion, without thousands of acts of treason by people who wish to bring the CSA into the world. Someone born in the CSA perhaps is not guilty of treason, but not those who made the CSA. If Lee had been loyal, he would have done his duty and served Lincoln, just as all officers are obliged to serve civilian authority whatever their politics. That is what it means to a professional and loyal soldier. But no, he abandoned his country to be midwife to another, and klling thousands in the process.

If a US citizen with security clearances renounces his clearances and his citizenship and moves to Russia, assumes Russian citizenship, and shares his state secrets with the Russians, can you argue, really, that he has broken no laws and committed no treason?

There is also the basic point that to my mind separates the Revolution from the Civil War and makes any comparison between Lee and Washington laughable. Again, the objective of the Revolution was good; the result very good. The objective of the rebellion that birthed the CSA was preserving slavery. That is not good. It is bad. Had the CSA prevailed, the result would have been not good. It would have been very bad. If there is honor in what any CSA commander did it is analogous to that of the Wehrmacht officers who stayed true to Hitler because they felt duty bound and were patriots, although at the end of the day the truth is they served an evil cause. And everyone knows it. And the CSA officers were worse than the Wehrmacht officers. Lee turned on his country for the purpose of an evil cause. The Wehrmacht men stayed true to their country for an evil cause. I guess you could say that he regarded Virginia as his country. Ok, I'll buy that. But the whole point of the war was to advance the cause of slavery. Virginia's 'beef' with the federal government had everything to do with the federal government's policies vis a vis slavery.

The north had the same policies as the south? I guess that's why northern armies freed slaves and often took care of them. Not always, but they did. Did CSA armies? An anecdote: a few weeks ago I took my kids to Bull Run. There was a movie. Among other things it told the story of the wife of a Union officer who was wounded and in a hospital behind enemy lines. She, living in Washington, had her black driver (never clear if he was slave or free) take her in her carriage past the enemy lines so that she could tend to her husband. When she arrived, the rebel soldiers were kind to her and let her do her thing. Oh, but they seized the black driver and sold him into slavery. Never to be seen again. That's the Confederate cause. They confiscated him like a horse or a bottle of booze. The CSA was created to preserve the right to do that to black people.


----------



## Shaver

Cracker!? :icon_pale:


----------



## Liberty Ship

“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” 

Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864 



WE are, of course, dealing with the product of that education by Northern teachers and books in any discussion of the flag or the Confederacy. The kind of blanket generalizations and, yes, prejudice that Liberals are so quick to pounce on and rip to shreds when exhibited by a conservative seem to be the stock in trade of attacks on the Confederate flag and associated discussions. Ironic, yet predictable.


----------



## tocqueville

Quiry: can a state come to life through a virgin birth? Born from a mother but without the stain of rebellion? Or even blood? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

Liberty Ship said:


> "Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late&#8230; It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision&#8230; It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
> 
> Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864
> 
> WE are, of course, dealing with the product of that education by Northern teachers and books in any discussion of the flag or the Confederacy. The kind of blanket generalizations and, yes, prejudice that Liberals are so quick to pounce on and rip to shreds when exhibited by a conservative seem to be the stock in trade of attacks on the Confederate flag and associated discussions. Ironic, yet predictable.


Omg people, the war is over!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

Liberty Ship said:


> Interesting.


Yes, interesting that a man so taken with race theory would have such a soft spot for the CSA.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> Here's a question: was it a good thing or a bad thing that the CSA lost?


it was the best thing that ever happened to the US. Reconstruction was one of the worst.

None of that changes the underlying facts that you seem to want to ignore.


----------



## Tiger

"... same revisionist lies that Tiger's pushing here...Tiger, you keep asking me to provide proof of treason and illegality? The fact that they rebelled against the United States is all the proof I need that they rebelled. The fact that a chair is a chair is all the proof I need that the chair is a chair. Done. Debate over..."

1) "Revisionist lies" that you are unable to disprove, or even point out. The only one lying - partially out of fierce ignorance, partially out of deceitful motives - is you. 
2) So, proof of "rebellion" is "rebellion." Tautological stupidity, but unsurprising. Eleven states legally and constitutionally decided to end their relationship with the Union. You called this treason, and still cannot point to anything to prove this, other than, "because I said so." It is akin to me saying, "secession is secession." Well, yeah, but the question is, it is legal and constitutional? It's much better to keep your stupidity to yourself, than to put it on display for all to see...
3) You do realize how many anecdotes I could provide? Why don't you read up on Union General Benjamin "Beast" Butler. You'll like him alot - maybe not as much as you like war crimes against women and children, but you'll like him. Maybe if you go to Louisiana you'll see a movie about him, too!

_*Since you cannot adduce any support for your positions, and cannot offer any historical refutation for mine, we'll end this dialogue. I tried my best, but someone so arrogantly close-minded and intellectually obtuse makes for a very difficult and unpleasant discussion partner. *_


----------



## tocqueville

vpkozel said:


> it was the best thing that ever happened to the US. Reconstruction was one of the worst.
> 
> None of that changes the underlying facts that you seem to want to ignore.


What facts am I ignoring? That the south rebelled to preserve slavery? Tiger says it was a fact that what they did was legal. That doesn't strike me as a fact. It is a wish.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eagle2250

^^(in response to post # 412)

Indeed, the Northern bred/dispatched carpet bagger's screwed (up) the Southern reconstruction just about as badly, as the US did, more recently, in Iraq, with our misguided effort(s) to rebuild Iraq in our image. Egomaniacs enjoyed their time in the sun, criminals got rich and those proverbial downtrodden masses suffered mightily. Sadly, some things never change.


----------



## tocqueville

Liberty Ship said:


> "Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late&#8230; It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision&#8230; It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
> 
> Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864
> 
> WE are, of course, dealing with the product of that education by Northern teachers and books in any discussion of the flag or the Confederacy. The kind of blanket generalizations and, yes, prejudice that Liberals are so quick to pounce on and rip to shreds when exhibited by a conservative seem to be the stock in trade of attacks on the Confederate flag and associated discussions. Ironic, yet predictable.


I'm not impressed. People's ability to justify their actions is stupendous: 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> Here are some more bons mots from dear H.L. Mencken on the subject of race: https://greatmindsonrace.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/h-l-mencken/


_*My goodness - Mencken sounds like Lincoln in 1858!
*_
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of *******, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Abraham Lincoln


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> _*My goodness - Mencken sounds like Lincoln in 1858!
> *_
> "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of *******, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Abraham Lincoln


Yes, and Obama spoke out against gay marriage in 2004. So what? People evolve. Apparently not, though, in the south.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> Yes, and Obama spoke out against gay marriage in 2004. So what? People evolve. Apparently not, though, in the south.


Or in Washington, D.C.!


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> Or in Washington, D.C.!


People have different understandings of evolution, or at least good evolution. To my mind, embracing Confederate apologetics does not constitute evolution.

The fact that I am a white man whose choses to live in downtown DC 40 years after the race riots and puts his children in an integrated and astonishingly diverse school that teaches him all about MLK, etc., is, to my mind, and indication of progress, for neither I nor my children are alone.

Tiger, we are of course talking past one another. The proof I can muster that Lee and his crew are criminals and committed treason is evidence you can not accept (if I am obtuse, we both are). My evidence is the seizure of federal property, the mobilization of armed troops, the firing on Sumter, and every shot fired with the intention of doing harm to the United States and the people who serve it. Every shot fired. Every man killed. All an act of treason.

You don't see these things as treason because you, through some act of alchemy, transmute acts against the United States as acts in defense of the CSA, and you refuse to recognize that the CSA is born of treason. Rebellion. So was the US. Washington committed treason, and the British would have been in their right to hang him. We are all collectively willing to whitewash the fact that he broke the law because we believe that he was a good guy and his cause was good, and thus his "crimes" magically become heroic acts. These are the myths nations tell themselves about themselves. The French don't trouble themselves with the crimes committed against the garrison at the Bastille or the general insubordination, riot, and treason against the Crown. It helps that we can tell ourselves that we the rebellion was about was something good.

Tiger's facts boil down to the assertion that what I see as acts of rebellion are not. He's performing the alchemy we all do with the Revolution. Hence his claim the the CSA was not born of rebellion, as if it pre-existed the act that created it. And then there's the insistence that the whole point of the creation of the CSA was not about slavery. But it was. I believe that to be a fact.


----------



## tocqueville

In case anyone was wondering why South Carolina seceded: the north wasn't endorsing slave laws and threatened slavery. Read it all.

1 minute agoDetails
https://teachingamericanhistory.org...-carolina-declaration-of-causes-of-secession/

DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION.

The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments - Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring in the first article, "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the War of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3d September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the Independence of the Colonies in the following terms:

"Article 1.- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country as a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended, for the adoption of the states, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed, the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were - separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But, to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On 23d May, 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her people, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government, with defined objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties, to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert, that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfil their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its 4th Article, provides as follows:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio river.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

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 constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which this Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

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 burthening 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 assumed 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 the 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.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the Common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the subversion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons, who, by the Supreme Law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its peace and safety.

On the 4th March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced, that the South shall be excluded from the common Territory; that the Judicial Tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The Guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error, with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates, in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> People have different understandings of evolution, or at least good evolution. To my mind, embracing Confederate apologetics does not constitute evolution.
> 
> The fact that I am a white man whose choses to live in downtown DC 40 years after the race riots and puts his children in an integrated and astonishingly diverse school that teaches him all about MLK, etc., is, to my mind, and indication of progress, for neither I nor my children are alone.
> 
> Tiger, we are of course talking past one another. The proof I can muster that Lee and his crew are criminals and committed treason is evidence you can not accept (if I am obtuse, we both are). My evidence is the seizure of federal property, the mobilization of armed troops, the firing on Sumter, and every shot fired with the intention of doing harm to the United States and the people who serve it. Every shot fired. Every man killed. All an act of treason.
> 
> You don't see these things as treason because you, through some act of alchemy, transmute acts against the United States as acts in defense of the CSA, and you refuse to recognize that the CSA is born of treason. Rebellion. So was the US. Washington committed treason, and the British would have been in their right to hang him. We are all collectively willing to whitewash the fact that he broke the law because we believe that he was a good guy and his cause was good, and thus his "crimes" magically become heroic acts. These are the myths nations tell themselves about themselves. The French don't trouble themselves with the crimes committed against the garrison at the Bastille or the general insubordination, riot, and treason against the Crown. It helps that we can tell ourselves that we the rebellion was about was something good.
> 
> Tiger's facts boil down to the assertion that what I see as acts of rebellion are not. He's performing the alchemy we all do with the Revolution. Hence his claim the the CSA was not born of rebellion, as if it pre-existed the act that created it. And then there's the insistence that the whole point of the creation of the CSA was not about slavery. But it was. I believe that to be a fact.


_*As written a thousand times already - it all comes down to whether secession (whether you like or agree with the concept or not) was legal and constitutional. You either can't or won't accept this, but it is true nonetheless.

*_If secession was not permissible, then most of what you've written has a degree of validity. *If secession was legal and constitutional, then the states that seceded formed a new and separate republic, were no longer part of the U.S., and by definition cannot be "treasonous" or "criminal" or any other hyperbolic charge you can levy. You either can't or won't accept this as well, but this too is true nonetheless.

*I can offer about a dozen proofs supporting my position; you've offered none, despite my supplications. We both know what this ultimately means. Please, no more - your mere assertions are inadequate in a historical debate. I'm seceding from this thread!


----------



## Tiger

If you're going to post C.G. Memminger's _Declaration _you should at least give him credit. I've read it multiple times - have you? Hope you enjoyed his history lesson on the nature of the United States - you needed it!


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> If you're going to post C.G. Memminger's _Declaration _you should at least give him credit. I've read it multiple times - have you? Hope you enjoyed his history lesson on the nature of the United States - you needed it!


You mean the lesson on how South Carolina felt the need to rebel because the U.S. Was not enforcing the fugitive slave laws? Did you get to the bottom when you read this multiple times? The part where after invoking the cause of liberty and democracy he explains that at the heart of the matter is the protection and extension of slavery?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> You mean the lesson on how South Carolina felt the need to rebel because the U.S. Was not enforcing the fugitive slave laws? Did you get to the bottom when you read this multiple times!


And since those laws were constitutional, Memminger points out that Northern states were in violation of the Constitution!

Please, stop! Reopen the thread on Israel, so you can battle others. Leave me alone!


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> And since those laws were constitutional, Memminger points out that Northern states were in violation of the Constitution!
> 
> Please, stop! Reopen the thread on Israel, so you can battle others. Leave me alone!


So noble of him. To start a war so that escaped slaves can be dragged back to servitude.

Southern trees bear strange fruit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RogerP

tocqueville - thank you for your contributions. I haven't checked into this thread in a while, but see that manic attempts at revisionist history are still being made. I am grateful to all who have the stamina to hold forth against such efforts.


----------



## Chouan

Liberty Ship said:


> WE are, of course, dealing with the product of that education by Northern teachers and books in any discussion of the flag or the Confederacy. The kind of blanket generalizations and, yes, prejudice that Liberals are so quick to pounce on and rip to shreds when exhibited by a conservative seem to be the stock in trade of attacks on the Confederate flag and associated discussions. Ironic, yet predictable.


I think not. Most of my Secondary Education was actually in the South, in Kent, and most of my teachers were also from the south.


----------



## Chouan

RogerP said:


> tocqueville - thank you for your contributions. I haven't checked into this thread in a while, but see that manic attempts at revisionist history are still being made. I am grateful to all who have the stamina to hold forth against such efforts.


There seems to be an assumption being made by some that the culture of "The South" is *their* culture, a white Confederate culture, disregarding the large minority in the South to whom the white supremacist culture of the South was never *their* culture. These people seem to be able to "double-think" the politics, culture and economy of the "Old South", and that by ignoring the role of slavery in secession that they can somehow give the confederacy some kind of dignity that it doesn't deserve.
A couple of months ago I was teaching my Year 8's about the origins of the American Civil war. I explained in simple terms the Constitution, the role of Congress, the president Supreme Court etc. I explained that the states each have their own government and spent some time discussing which should be paramount, State Law or Federal Law. We then looked at the secession and the reasons for it. They concluded that the Southern States may or may not have been entitled to secede, so no absolute agreement. However, they, In every single case, argued that although the war was fought over secession, de jure, the reason for secession, de facto, was slavery. To argue as some have that secession, and therefore the Civil War, had nothing to do with slavery is self-deluding chauvinism of the highest order.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> I think not. Most of my Secondary Education was actually in the South, in Kent, and most of my teachers were also from the south.


I don't know if you were trying to be funny or if I am missing the Kent you are speaking of, but if you were referring to Kent, England then this is very clever. And well played.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> There seems to be an assumption being made by some that the culture of "The South" is *their* culture, a white Confederate culture, disregarding the large minority in the South to whom the white supremacist culture of the South was never *their* culture. These people seem to be able to "double-think" the politics, culture and economy of the "Old South", and that by ignoring the role of slavery in secession that they can somehow give the confederacy some kind of dignity that it doesn't deserve.
> A couple of months ago I was teaching my Year 8's about the origins of the American Civil war. I explained in simple terms the Constitution, the role of Congress, the president Supreme Court etc. I explained that the states each have their own government and spent some time discussing which should be paramount, State Law or Federal Law. We then looked at the secession and the reasons for it. They concluded that the Southern States may or may not have been entitled to secede, so no absolute agreement. However, they, In every single case, argued that although the war was fought over secession, de jure, the reason for secession, de facto, was slavery. To argue as some have that secession, and therefore the Civil War, had nothing to do with slavery is self-deluding chauvinism of the highest order.


Sounds like a good class.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Liberty Ship

tocqueville said:


> Omg people, the war is over!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you are weary, I am willing to accept your surrender under favorable terms. You may keep your mule for spring planting. Heck, since you are a gentleman, I would even let you keep your revolver and musket. .... Oh excuse me. I beg your pardon. Being in DC, I don't suppose you are allowed to own such things. Well, you can have your mule, anyway.


----------



## tocqueville

Mules are noble creatures. That's not a bad deal, but I'll pass 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Liberty Ship

I have often longed for a good dressage mule so I could compete against Ann Romney and Bruce Springsteen's daughter; and the new Mrs. Gaston Glock. I thought it would sort of bring the event down to earth, as it were. After all, if a $50 mule could beat a $300,000 Hanoverian, it would make for good conversation.

When mules jump, they do it from a standing position rather than cantoring like a horse. I'm sure the sudden acceleration would dump the best rider, bringing him down to earth!


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> What facts am I ignoring?


The minor fact that Lincoln fought the war to preserve the union, not abolish slavery.



> That the south rebelled to preserve slavery?


I will try to type the rest later. The site is acting up. Argh!!!!



> Tiger says it was a fact that what they did was legal. That doesn't strike me as a fact. It is a wish.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

The article below by Dr. Brion McClanahan is perhaps the best treatment of the topic of secession that I've read. Hope everyone can read it with a scholarly mind, rather than an accusatory and emotional one...

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> The article below by Dr. Brion McClanahan is perhaps the best treatment of the topic of secession that I've read. Hope everyone can read it with a scholarly mind, rather than an accusatory and emotional one...
> 
> https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/


Tiger, it occurred to me that perhaps there is a distinction to be drawn between scholarly inquiry on one hand and what I consider to be a very different activity, which is defining who we are and choosing how we remember the past. As a trained historian I endorse the idea of doing whatever is possible to understand and even empathize with people in the past, however disagreeable their actions might have been. That Youtube link I included earlier with the Wehrmacht soldiers justifying their actions is an example of that: I think it valuable to listen to such men, as I think it's important to understand that the choices they made were reasonable given the context, given what they thought and what they were told, etc. They were not monsters, even if they did monstrous things.

This link is another great example, Christian de la Mazière explaining why he became a Nazi: it amounts to a choice between being a Bolshevik or a Fascist. He saw no third option, and from a certain point of view one can even admire him for walking the walk and putting himself on the line for his convictions rather than remain neutral or spending the war on the sidelines in a café like Sartre and pretending to be resisting through a well-aimed scowl:





De la Mazière was no monster. He was not insane. By some measures he was a hero. Yet you'll find no statues of him in France. Despite the validity of some of his views, such as the horrors of communism, the vast majority of Frenchmen and women have come to view Vichy as an abomination and branded the ideological collaborators like de la Mazière as beyond the pale. France, modern France, cannot tolerate men like him in their midst, not if France is to live up to the values that most French people identify as the ones they want to define them and their nation. The Germans have done the same thing, and they have done it without belittling the sacrifices of the men who fought for Nazi Germany. Indeed, as part of my job I spend a lot of time immersed in contemporary German Army publications, and it really is striking to see the care with which they both honor the virtues of the Wehrmacht, while also making clear that that army had served an abomination and made itself an abomination. For the Germans, understanding the views of those old men is important because they want to learn all the right lessons: We seriously went off the rails as a people, they tell themselves, it was THAT easy...so let's work really hard at making sure we are going in the right direction now. Today's Bundeswehr is designed to never ever become the army it was once while at the same time maintaining at least some of that past army's sheer competence. Because Germany never wants to be that Germany again, ever. They get it.

If we were to watch a Youtube video of Lee and listened to him carefully, I'm sure we'd similarly walk away with the impression that he was no monster, his views were reasonable, and he could even be admired for walking the walk and following through on his convictions à la de la Mazière. The information you've been posting, Tiger, helps us appreciate the context and get into Lee's head. Why he saw himself as no traitor, and why others would not have seen him as such at the time. It would have been the rare white southerner who would have made different choices (not that rare, actually, but still a minority nonetheless).

But then there's the question of who we are as a people, who we want to be, and how we choose to memorialize the past. Would I want to expunge Lee, Davis, etc., etc. from the history books? Of course not, no more than I would hide from my students the perspectives of Wehrmacht soldiers or a card-carrying Nazi like de la Mazière. But it would be perverse to erect a statue to these men, just as it would be perverse to erect a statue to de la Mazière.

For me, the value in understanding the world of Lee and the South he fought for is no different: It is important for us to understand their world view and how normal and even "right" their views were given the context. For the CSA was an abomination, and the South had become an abomination, but it was an abomination born of all of us, all of the US, just as the Nazi regime was born of Germany. We were all racist; slavery was there from the beginning, but in the South, by 1860, slavery defined society to the point where Southerners equated it as an extreme good, the source of their felicity and virtue...they doubled down on it just as much of the rest of the country was evolving away from it. Today, we're still racist, much less so than in 1860, but it's alive and well. We also appreciate that it's a problem, and we appreciate that it's easy for us to backslide or let things fester if we aren't vigilant. Cognizant of who we wish to be, it is appropriate--ideal even--to look back to 1860 and be shocked and dismayed by how far we had fallen from the values that, hopefully, define us, the values we proclaimed to be our organizing principles in 1776. You see, that's the thing: how do we wish to define who we are now? Who are "we"? Having a CSA flag at the South Caroline state house for all these years made clear that white South Carolinians defined "we" as "we whites." Not only that, it also made clear that the whole slavery thing was nothing, which implies that blacks didn't matter, since they're not "us" anyway. Raise a monument to Lee, and you're saying, "that's who we are." With we = whites. The decision to take the flag down, finally, suggests that belated the idea has caught on that black lives matter, that we = all South Carolina. That maybe it was an abomination, at least if we think in terms of the values we proclaim as our own. The shooter reminded us of how natural it is for people in our culture to be THAT racist; CSA apologetics, to the extent that they diminish what should be the shock of looking back upon the abomination that was what we once were, encourages people like him.

I can appreciate listening to Nazi perspectives like de la Mazière's for intellectual reasons and to learn what we can to avoid becoming him. But I can't tolerate Nazi apologetics if the aim, really, is to make light of fact that what he fought for was an abomination. A heroic man can still serve a monster. So can a "gentleman" like Lee.


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> The article below by Dr. Brion McClanahan is perhaps the best treatment of the topic of secession that I've read. Hope everyone can read it with a scholarly mind, rather than an accusatory and emotional one...
> 
> https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/


From a scholarly point of view you might be right. But I contend that that's beside the point. What if we had irrefutable proof that the Nazi take over and all that ensued afterward was 100% legal?


----------



## Tiger

1) Thank you for your thoughtful post #437, Tocqueville.
2) Not once did I defend (or even mention) the Confederate battle flag in my posts.
3) Not once did I defend the institution of slavery.
4) I spent a lot of time adding historical fact and context.
5) Unfortunately, some chose to accuse and distort; not one disproved anything I wrote. This often happens with emotionally charged topics, as this one clearly is.
6) Regarding your post above - you have been arguing primarily on two tracks: a) The abomination of slavery and everyone (well, only Southern!) associated with it; and b) the CSA was a "treasonous" regime and its leaders all "traitors" and its military men "oath breakers." In light of your above post, the latter line of reasoning no longer has merit.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Tiger, it occurred to me that perhaps there is a distinction to be drawn between scholarly inquiry on one hand and what I consider to be a very different activity, which is defining who we are and choosing how we remember the past. As a trained historian I endorse the idea of doing whatever is possible to understand and even empathize with people in the past, however disagreeable their actions might have been. That Youtube link I included earlier with the Wehrmacht soldiers justifying their actions is an example of that: I think it valuable to listen to such men, as I think it's important to understand that the choices they made were reasonable given the context, given what they thought and what they were told, etc. They were not monsters, even if they did monstrous things.
> 
> This link is another great example, Christian de la Mazière explaining why he became a Nazi: it amounts to a choice between being a Bolshevik or a Fascist. He saw no third option, and from a certain point of view one can even admire him for walking the walk and putting himself on the line for his convictions rather than remain neutral or spending the war on the sidelines in a café like Sartre and pretending to be resisting through a well-aimed scowl:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De la Mazière was no monster. He was not insane. By some measures he was a hero. Yet you'll find no statues of him in France. Despite the validity of some of his views, such as the horrors of communism, the vast majority of Frenchmen and women have come to view Vichy as an abomination and branded the ideological collaborators like de la Mazière as beyond the pale. France, modern France, cannot tolerate men like him in their midst, not if France is to live up to the values that most French people identify as the ones they want to define them and their nation. The Germans have done the same thing, and they have done it without belittling the sacrifices of the men who fought for Nazi Germany. Indeed, as part of my job I spend a lot of time immersed in contemporary German Army publications, and it really is striking to see the care with which they both honor the virtues of the Wehrmacht, while also making clear that that army had served an abomination and made itself an abomination. For the Germans, understanding the views of those old men is important because they want to learn all the right lessons: We seriously went off the rails as a people, they tell themselves, it was THAT easy...so let's work really hard at making sure we are going in the right direction now. Today's Bundeswehr is designed to never ever become the army it was once while at the same time maintaining at least some of that past army's sheer competence. Because Germany never wants to be that Germany again, ever. They get it.
> 
> If we were to watch a Youtube video of Lee and listened to him carefully, I'm sure we'd similarly walk away with the impression that he was no monster, his views were reasonable, and he could even be admired for walking the walk and following through on his convictions à la de la Mazière. The information you've been posting, Tiger, helps us appreciate the context and get into Lee's head. Why he saw himself as no traitor, and why others would not have seen him as such at the time. It would have been the rare white southerner who would have made different choices (not that rare, actually, but still a minority nonetheless).
> 
> But then there's the question of who we are as a people, who we want to be, and how we choose to memorialize the past. Would I want to expunge Lee, Davis, etc., etc. from the history books? Of course not, no more than I would hide from my students the perspectives of Wehrmacht soldiers or a card-carrying Nazi like de la Mazière. But it would be perverse to erect a statue to these men, just as it would be perverse to erect a statue to de la Mazière.
> 
> For me, the value in understanding the world of Lee and the South he fought for is no different: It is important for us to understand their world view and how normal and even "right" their views were given the context. For the CSA was an abomination, and the South had become an abomination, but it was an abomination born of all of us, all of the US, just as the Nazi regime was born of Germany. We were all racist; slavery was there from the beginning, but in the South, by 1860, slavery defined society to the point where Southerners equated it as an extreme good, the source of their felicity and virtue...they doubled down on it just as much of the rest of the country was evolving away from it. Today, we're still racist, much less so than in 1860, but it's alive and well. We also appreciate that it's a problem, and we appreciate that it's easy for us to backslide or let things fester if we aren't vigilant. Cognizant of who we wish to be, it is appropriate--ideal even--to look back to 1860 and be shocked and dismayed by how far we had fallen from the values that, hopefully, define us, the values we proclaimed to be our organizing principles in 1776. You see, that's the thing: how do we wish to define who we are now? Who are "we"? Having a CSA flag at the South Caroline state house for all these years made clear that white South Carolinians defined "we" as "we whites." Not only that, it also made clear that the whole slavery thing was nothing, which implies that blacks didn't matter, since they're not "us" anyway. Raise a monument to Lee, and you're saying, "that's who we are." With we = whites. The decision to take the flag down, finally, suggests that belated the idea has caught on that black lives matter, that we = all South Carolina. That maybe it was an abomination, at least if we think in terms of the values we proclaim as our own. The shooter reminded us of how natural it is for people in our culture to be THAT racist; CSA apologetics, to the extent that they diminish what should be the shock of looking back upon the abomination that was what we once were, encourages people like him.
> 
> I can appreciate listening to Nazi perspectives like de la Mazière's for intellectual reasons and to learn what we can to avoid becoming him. But I can't tolerate Nazi apologetics if the aim, really, is to make light of fact that what he fought for was an abomination. A heroic man can still serve a monster. So can a "gentleman" like Lee.


That was so well written that I can't think of any comment to make other than, very well done. I'm well impressed.


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> 1) Thank you for your thoughtful post #437, Tocqueville.
> 2) Not once did I defend (or even mention) the Confederate battle flag in my posts.
> 3) Not once did I defend the institution of slavery.
> 4) I spent a lot of time adding historical fact and context.
> 5) Unfortunately, some chose to accuse and distort; not one disproved anything I wrote. This often happens with emotionally charged topics, as this one clearly is.
> 6) Regarding your post above - you have been arguing primarily on two tracks: a) The abomination of slavery and everyone (well, only Southern!) associated with it; and b) the CSA was a "treasonous" regime and its leaders all "traitors" and its military men "oath breakers." In light of your above post, the latter line of reasoning no longer has merit.


I'm really sorry if I've given you the impression that I concede your point about the legality of the war. What you've done is provide ample example of two things. One is the extent to which southern thinkers in 1860 equated the preservation of slavery with liberty, such that they dare invoke liberty to justify the preservation and extension of slavery. It's gross. The second is the extent to which American conservatives often persist in having a soft spot for the CSA and at the very least a tin ear when it comes to race. Moreover, I see the insistence on making the legal case tantamount to whitewashing the CSA, and then Any effort to elevate it's leaders to hero status really crosses a line between academic objectivity and condoning horror.

I'm sticking to my position: making war on one's country is treason and criminal. Doing it for the sake of keeping others in servitude is monstrous. Take down the flag. And while we're at it, those statues. I'll allow a statue of Lee provided the epithet reads: ordered thousands to kill and be killed so that others may live in bondage.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

tocqueville said:


> I'm really sorry if I've given you the impression that I concede your point about the legality of the war. What you've done is provide ample example of two things. One is the extent to which southern thinkers in 1860 equated the preservation of slavery with liberty, such that they dare invoke liberty to justify the preservation and extension of slavery. It's gross. The second is the extent to which American conservatives often persist in having a soft spot for the CSA and at the very least a tin ear when it comes to race. Moreover, I see the insistence on making the legal case tantamount to whitewashing the CSA, and then Any effort to elevate it's leaders to hero status really crosses a line between academic objectivity and condoning horror.
> 
> I'm sticking to my position: making war on one's country is treason and criminal. Doing it for the sake of keeping others in servitude is monstrous. Take down the flag. And while we're at it, those statues. I'll allow a statue of Lee provided the epithet reads: ordered thousands to kill and be killed so that others may live in bondage.


1) The issue was the legality of secession, not "legality of the war" (whatever that means).

2) You have utterly misunderstood everything I've written - everything! You've also misunderstood Dr. McClanahan, either because you didn't understand what he wrote, or because you insist on your own "facts" and version of events, even if they have absolutely nothing to do with the truth.

3) Your attempts to define/describe me are so off-base as to be shocking. You know nothing about me or what I believe, and your intimations couldn't be more wrong.

4) You have an inability to separate historical truth from personal predilection. Also shocking.

5) Despite everything that I've written and Dr. McClanahan's article (and about a million other things one could point to), you still claim, "making war on one's country is treason and criminal." Not only do you not understand secession, you do not understand the nature of "the United States" as a political/governmental construct. Or, you just don't care, because it interferes with your unshakeable belief in your made-up version of American history.

Please, no more. You are on a pseudo-holy crusade fueled by gross ignorance and wild-eyed zeal that is frightening...


----------



## Acct2000

Here is another look at this situation. I don't agree entirely with this, but I do think there is some overreaction to this whole thing. Rather than removing statues of people who basically were not completely over the top in their era, we could focus on their strengths as well as their weaknesses and aim to find examples of minorities to extol.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/o...07/10/finley-risk-scrubbing-history/29977167/


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> I'm really sorry if I've given you the impression that I concede your point about the legality of the war. What you've done is provide ample example of two things. One is the extent to which southern thinkers in 1860 equated the preservation of slavery with liberty, such that they dare invoke liberty to justify the preservation and extension of slavery. It's gross. The second is the extent to which American conservatives often persist in having a soft spot for the CSA and at the very least a tin ear when it comes to race. Moreover, I see the insistence on making the legal case tantamount to whitewashing the CSA, and then Any effort to elevate it's leaders to hero status really crosses a line between academic objectivity and condoning horror.


Which laws made it illegal or unconstitutional for the south to secede? Please be specific.

It is also worth noting that at every step of the way the US was the aggressor.



> I'm sticking to my position: making war on one's country is treason and criminal. Doing it for the sake of keeping others in servitude is monstrous. Take down the flag. And while we're at it, those statues. I'll allow a statue of Lee provided the epithet reads: ordered thousands to kill and be killed so that others may live in bondage.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Taking that view must make it tough to live in a city named after a traitor.


----------



## tocqueville

Tiger said:


> 1) The issue was the legality of secession, not "legality of the war" (whatever that means).
> 
> 2) You have utterly misunderstood everything I've written - everything! You've also misunderstood Dr. McClanahan, either because you didn't understand what he wrote, or because you insist on your own "facts" and version of events, even if they have absolutely nothing to do with the truth.
> 
> 3) Your attempts to define/describe me are so off-base as to be shocking. You know nothing about me or what I believe, and your intimations couldn't be more wrong.
> 
> 4) You have an inability to separate historical truth from personal predilection. Also shocking.
> 
> 5) Despite everything that I've written and Dr. McClanahan's article (and about a million other things one could point to), you still claim, "making war on one's country is treason and criminal." Not only do you not understand secession, you do not understand the nature of "the United States" as a political/governmental construct. Or, you just don't care, because it interferes with your unshakeable belief in your made-up version of American history.
> 
> Please, no more. You are on a pseudo-holy crusade fueled by gross ignorance and wild-eyed zeal that is frightening...


So he's Dr. Mclanahan. Well then.

To be fair, I suppose in a perverse world it's only fair that if I can compare the CSA to the Third Reich or Vichy France, the good Dr. McLanahan can write that FDR is a fascist and his New Deal is comparable to Nazism. (https://www.brionmcclanahan.com/blog/fascist-fraud/). Which tells me he has a very poor grasp of history, among other things, and a weird ideological bent, which makes him no more likely to be "objective" than I. So forgive me if I write off the sophistry of a crack-pot.

I think I have a very good grasp of history, thank you very much, but I openly confess that attempts to justify the CSA rub me the wrong way. I see CSA apologetics as no better than arguments that maybe the Nazis were right... I mean a lot of German jurists seem to have been on board with it, after all, and those brave young Wehrmacht soldiers were in fact defending Europe from Bolshevism. These things are true. Moreover, the US, UK, and France were super racist at the time as well: The UK and France at the time had huge overseas Empires in which they played lord over millions of people of color. So what right do we have to hold the Third Reich to such a high standard?

Christopher Memminger (Heil, Memminger!...sorry, I couldn't resist) corroborates McPherson's arguments about the degree to which southerners believed slavery was essential to liberty. It's a total perversion, of course, of the Founding Fathers' arguments, but it was what it was, which is why he and his ilk sincerely believed they were on the side of liberty when they started the war and tried to destroy the US, which they thought was a threat to their liberty (their liberty to keep people in bondage). Memminger doesn't hide it either when he makes very clear that the whole thing was about slavery. Slavery = liberty. Which makes liberty a code word for slavery, sort of the way "heritage" can and does mean all sorts of nefarious things. I think that historical objective obliges us to understand that this was what Memminger was thinking, but that is different from putting up a statue to him or pretending that secession was about something other than slavery. And perhaps there really is no "objective" truth beyond the statistics, the numbers of dead and wounded. There are only narratives. Stories. Forgive me for being suspicious of people who see virtue in Memminger and tell his story as anything but a cautionary tale regarding the power of ideology to shape perception and how justice can be perverted.


----------



## tocqueville

Here's a legit hero: a pro-slavery Kentuckian officer who remained faithful to his oath and loyal to his country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Anderson_(Civil_War)

The German Bundeswehr makes a great effort to memorialize the officers who resisted Hitler, usually paying for it with their lives. Those are the men the Bundeswehr chooses to honor. We should follow their lead.


----------



## tocqueville

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Here is another look at this situation. I don't agree entirely with this, but I do think there is some overreaction to this whole thing. Rather than removing statues of people who basically were not completely over the top in their era, we could focus on their strengths as well as their weaknesses and aim to find examples of minorities to extol.
> 
> https://www.detroitnews.com/story/o...07/10/finley-risk-scrubbing-history/29977167/


That's a thoughtful piece. Thank you for posting.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger

_Tocqueville_:

1) Ad hominem attacks on Dr. McClanahan while simultaneously ignoring his arguments on secession are rather unseemly. You referred to yourself as a "historian" - perhaps the traditional definition has changed?

2) "Sophistry"? "Crack pot"? From David Gordon's review of Wolfgang Schivelbusch's _Three New Deals_, comparing the rise of government power in Italy, Germany, and the U.S. in the 1930s: 

"The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." The Nazi Party newspaper, the _Völkischer Beobachter_, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial _Führerprinzip_" (p. 190).

Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He "told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with [FDR] in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual"'" (pp. 19-20). A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.

_There's only one person on this thread practicing sophistry..._


----------



## Tiger

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Here is another look at this situation. I don't agree entirely with this, but I do think there is some overreaction to this whole thing. Rather than removing statues of people who basically were not completely over the top in their era, we could focus on their strengths as well as their weaknesses and aim to find examples of minorities to extol. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/o...07/10/finley-risk-scrubbing-history/29977167/


Thank you, forsbergacct2000. Putting aside the historical errors of terminology and fact (e.g., Jefferson and Polk expanded the U.S. far more than Jackson), the author raised the point that I had made much earlier - there's a ton of legendary Americans who either owned, countenanced, or condoned slavery, so anyone in the icon-cleansing business will be awfully busy trying to expunge history...


----------



## 32rollandrock

True scholars do not have works published in periodicals with names like "The American Conservative."



tocqueville said:


> From a scholarly point of view you might be right. But I contend that that's beside the point. What if we had irrefutable proof that the Nazi take over and all that ensued afterward was 100% legal?


----------



## tocqueville

32rollandrock said:


> True scholars do not have works published in periodicals with names like "The American Conservative."


What, are you trying to say that Pat Buchanan is not a true scholar? Blasphemy! Lol. But seriously, people still publish that guy?


----------



## Tiger

32rollandrock said:


> True scholars do not have works published in periodicals with names like "The American Conservative."


What a ridiculous comment!


----------



## tocqueville

Gang, I've agreed with the Mods to close this thread. I also wish to apologize for playing a role that I think is unbecoming for a Moderator.


----------

