South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[Meadmaker]

I don't see anyone on this thread arguing that the Confederate battle flag should be banned - just that official bodies should not fly it.

If that were true, this thread would be shorter.


(The first part of the quoted sentence is true. The second is not.)

 

[Upchurch]

If that were true, this thread would be shorter.


(The first part of the quoted sentence is true. The second is not.)

You're viewing the word "should" a little too broadly. No one is saying people can't fly the Confederate flag. It's just that if one does choose to, they are going to be viewed as being racist.

And rightly so, given its history.

 

[Aepervius]

I don't see anyone on this thread arguing that the Confederate battle flag should be banned - just that official bodies should not fly it.

If that were true, this thread would be shorter.


(The first part of the quoted sentence is true. The second is not.)

Care to point out psot which state the contrary ?

Over and over and over it was said that people could cover their house in confederate flags, but that official government should not fly it.

There were a bit more discussion whether official government museum shop should sell it, as they are also part of the government, but nowhere I can see that people want to stop private idiot fly the flag.


So again, care to point out where it was said this was about forbidding private person flying the flag ?

 

[Rare Truth]

40% right? (Without 11 states). How many state were there at that time?

I'm failing to understand why you think this matters.

The Southern States deliberately kept Lincoln off the ballot.

You think their denial to include a legitimate nominee for President somehow allows them more representation?

Do they get like 3/5ths extra voice or something?

 

[Giordano]

OK. How about the election of Abraham Lincoln. Do some civil war lead up research and get back to me.

When specifically asked what the Confederate flag means to you, (i.e. not the more widespread notion that it symbolizes fighting for the right to keep slaves and segregation) you cite "the election of Abraham Lincoln"! Presumably the Confederate flag symbolizes to you the anti-Lincoln portion of this issue. When further pressed, you cite your resentment that Lincoln's name was not on the ballot in the deep South States.

What on Earth? You realize that the people in these States still voted in the presidential election, just like Northerners, but for Lincoln's opponents? Not having Lincoln on the ballot in these States only made it harder for Lincoln to win because the electoral ballots from these Southern States counted against him! Lincoln was kept off the ballot in these States, and clearly couldn't have won their electoral votes anyway. But Lincoln's absence from these Southern ballots didn't mean that their votes didn't count. They were counted. If anything, it was unfair to Lincoln because he could not carry these States no matter what. None-the-less he won the electoral college despite these added odds against him and the plurality of the total popular vote.

Am I missing the point entirely? Are you claiming that the Confederate flag represents the unfairness Lincoln experienced by being kept off the ballot in these Southern States? Is the Confderate flag, to you, a pro-Lincoln symbol?

Perhaps instead you mean the Confederate flag symbolizes the war of aggression started by Lincoln against the South? Although it was the South that rebelled and that initiated the military attacks.

 

[Giordano]

I grew up in the North but by that time the school system was trying very hard to move away from mindless propaganda. When we were taught about the Civil War, we were taught many bad things about the North, and some good things about the South. We were taught that Sherman's march to the sea was probably a war crime, that Grant was a drunk. We were taught that Lincoln had written racist things, and that he initially only freed the slaves in the States that rebelled, and not in Union friendly States. We were taught that the South had some wonderful generals better than those of the North. We were even told that the War was really based on "state's rights" although later in my life it became clear that the state rights under discussion was the right to keep slaves and have them returned if they escaped. Although we were taught that John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln and was a Confederate sympathizer, it was never tied to the Confederacy itself an (outside of the small number of co-conspirators) it was never discussed as anything the Confederacy as a whole should be considered to be responsible or guilty of. The immense celebration Lincoln's killing generated in much of the South was not even brought up. Carpet baggers were viewed as bad, and the reconciliation urged by Lincoln was considered good. All taught in public schools in the "deep" North.

Yet the more I learn the more I see that at the same time, the South was selling a tissue of lies and fabrications to its citizens. That the Civil War wasn't about slavery but some vague concept of state's rights that they couldn't exactly name, except during the 1950s and 1960s when it was expressly stated by the prominent Southern politicians at the time that state's rights meant the right to continue Jim Crow laws and segregation. That it was justified to selectively use events of 150 years ago to fuel current day resentments. That the blacks in the South were very happy, and it was only those Communist Northern agitators who were coming down and creating problems.

The South had over 100 years to make things better on their own, but segregation persisted just as strongly as before until the Federal government stepped in to protect the rights of all Southerners.

So forgive me, but the discussions in this forum on the Confederate flag have only convinced me even more that the Confederate flag is a horribly stained symbol of racism, and that any attempts to instead symbolize the "New South" (a new South that I do see in many places) would not want to be associated with that flag if that was really their goal. If it is a symbol of "the heritage of the South" then clearly it excludes the large population of Blacks as part of that heritage. Unless one believes that they want to celebrate the heritage of being slaves, beaten, killed, prevented from voting, etc. This is probably why I don't see a lot of black people waving the Confederate flag.

 

[Giordano]

Just to explain:

Mr Upchurch, seams to think if half the country was excluded from voting for a person, it would be the same thing as half the country not voting for the same person. History is not his friend.

In terms of the actual electoral vote, it was exactly the same as "half" of the country not voting for him. That was exactly the way the Southern votes were counted. And nonetheless, Lincoln won substantially and legally. Again- the Southern votes counted just like anyone's and were scored against Lincoln in the electoral college; the only thing that the people in the Southern states could not do was vote FOR Lincoln (not that this was likely, or would possibly have been enough to flip any Southern state to a pro-Lincoln vote in the electoral college).

I haven't looked up yet as to why Lincoln was excluded from the ballot in the deep South, because it only worked against his election and so is irrelevant to this discussion. I imagine that either the Southern states themselves prevented Lincoln from being listed by one means or another, or perhaps the Republicans of the era recognized that in practice they couldn't carry these states even if Lincoln was listed (btw there is no legal requirement that a Presidential candidate be on the ballot in all states; Because of the electoral college, it hardly matters if someone is listed on the Delaware ballot, for example. But current candidates prefer the public image of being on ballots in all states). I will look up the reason, but I just don't see how it could matter. Unless you are arguing that the Confederate flag is a pro-Lincoln symbol and that people wave it to highlight the missed opportunity in the South of making Lincoln's win even greater.

 

[Giordano]

I have seen many aspects of the "New South" and I applaud the actions of the South Carolina government, and others, to make what politically can be very difficult decisions. I have no pre-existing opinion of any "Southerner" and many of the ones I have met are wonderful, extremely thoughtful human beings. I do not believe in stereotyping any group; views held by Southerners differ greatly. But if individual Southerners do not want to be suspected to be racists who re-write history and hold bitter resentments over events of 150 years ago, then they should not try to tie themselves to a symbol of these very beliefs. I am certain that there are people who argue for the Confederate flag who do not believe in these dreadful things. But once more, if they want to emphasize that things have changed, find or create a symbol which evokes the changes in New South, and not the very evils of the past.

I am Jewish, and I have been extraordinarily impressed with how Germany has dealt with the Nazi era. I very much enjoy the Germans that I have met, and I have found that there was been a very open discussion in Germany of the evils of the past, and a true sense of "well that was awful, we recognize it, and now let's move on to a better present and future." Unlike the laws in Germany I am not urging the banning of the symbols of that evil past (it should be legal to privately display the Confederate or Nazi flag if you wish, although I will still think that you are either a racist or don't understand get the problem). But most current day Germans recognize that using Nazi symbols, especially officially, is inappropriate, hurtful to many, and sends the wrong message.

 

[Rare Truth]

In terms of the actual electoral vote, it was exactly the same as "half" of the country not voting for him. That was exactly the way the Southern votes were counted. And nonetheless, Lincoln won substantially and legally. Again- the Southern votes counted just like anyone's and were scored against Lincoln in the electoral college; the only thing that the people in the Southern states could not do was vote FOR Lincoln (not that this was likely, or would possibly have been enough to flip any Southern state to a pro-Lincoln vote in the electoral college).

I haven't looked up yet as to why Lincoln was excluded from the ballot in the deep South, because it only worked against his election and so is irrelevant to this discussion. I imagine that either the Southern states themselves prevented Lincoln from being listed by one means or another, or perhaps the Republicans of the era recognized that in practice they couldn't carry these states even if Lincoln was listed
...

It was the former.

Had a lot to do with having virtually no support in the South, and even getting enough signatures to put him on the ballot.

By the way, in the prior election of 1856, the first time a GOP candidate was nominated for Executive, the south counted practically no votes for him.

In fact, the only slave states reporting vote totals for Fremont were Delaware and Maryland.

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/1856Pop.html

If you'll indulge me, I have a few more comments about Fremont and that election some might find interesting.

Next post.

 

[Rare Truth]

Re: that presidential race of 1856...

The first time ever a Republican was on the ballot: John C. Fremont. Slavery was a Yoooooge issue. All consuming.

Fremont was against the expansion of slavery, and of course was despised in the South.

Here is a campaign ribbon from 1856:

Here is an 1856 anti-Fremont ribbon:

(Heh. What do you think they were trying to impress there?)

The South threatened at that time, if an anti-slavery President was elected - it would mean Civil War and "the Conservative South (soon) will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."

How this for traitorous:

As the 1856 election drew near, a convention of Governors of the Southern slave states was secretly held at Raleigh, North Carolina. Jefferson Davis -- then the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce, was full aware of this.

The object was to devise a scheme of rebellion at that time, in the event of the election of Colonel John C. Fremont, the Republican candidate for the Presidency.

Henry Wise, Governor of Virginia at the time

...afterward boasted that, had Fremont been elected, he should have marched, at the head of twenty thousand men, to Washington, taken possession of the Capitol, and prevented the inauguration of the President elect.

Pictorial history of the Civil War in the United States of America - Lossing, 1866

Well, as we know, Buchanan was elected, and that staved off the fury for a few more years.

And get this: James Mason of Virginia, who was the leading Senator, wrote to US Sec. of War, Jeff Davis, later Confederate President, directly requesting him to arm the Southern states for war against the US -- a four full years before -- in any event a Republican would become President.

This was the letter

"I have a letter from WISE, of the 27th, full of spirit. He says the Governments of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana, have already agreed to rendezvous at Raleigh, and others will—this in your most private ear.

He says, further, that he had officially requested you to exchange with Virginia, on fair terms of difference, percussion for flint muskets. I don't know the usage or power of the Department in such cases, but if it can be done, even by liberal construction, I hope you will accede. … Virginia probably has more arms than the other Southern States, and would divide in case of need. In a letter yesterday to a Committee in South Carolina. I gave it as my judgment, in the event of FREMONT's election, the South should not pause, but proceed at once to "immediate, absolute, and eternal separation."​

Had Fremont been elected, the date of the start of the Civil War would have likely been 1856.

 

[Giordano]

My quick research suggests that the Republican party (at the time) itself chose not to attempt to place Lincoln on the ballots in the Southern states under discussion because of a combination of the knowledge that there was no way to win a majority in those states, that attempts to place him on the ballot failed, and because of real or anticipated intimidation. In addition South Carolina did not have popular elections for any Presidential candidates at the time, but their legislature appointed their (anti-Lincoln) Electors to the Electoral College.

[eidted]: Rare Truth, above, has a more detailed and better researched discussion of this issue.

As I stated, this only worked against Lincoln's election- it wasn't some form of cheap trick. It only meant that Lincoln conceded in advance that these states would vote against him, they did, and their votes against him were counted in the Electoral College just as any other state's.

 

[Rare Truth]

My quick research suggests that the Republican party (at the time) itself chose not to attempt to place Lincoln on the ballots in the Southern states under discussion because of a combination of the knowledge that there was no way to win a majority in those states, that attempts to place him on the ballot failed, and because of real or anticipated intimidation. In addition South Carolina did not have popular elections for any Presidential candidates at the time, but their legislature appointed their (anti-Lincoln) Electors to the Electoral College.

[eidted]: Rare Truth, above, has a more detailed and better researched discussion of this issue.

As I stated, this only worked against Lincoln's election- it wasn't some form of cheap trick. It only meant that Lincoln conceded in advance that these states would vote against him, they did, and their votes against him were counted in the Electoral College just as any other state's.

Thank you.

Well, in the antebellum south, if you so much as talked about Abolition, or had an anti-slavery book or pamphlet in your possession, they'd throw you in jail and in some cases literally hang you.*

Soooo...they weren't about to let an "Abolitionist" president on the ballot.

(How's that for peoples who held up their desires to be **freeeee** and independent and didn't like government telling them what to do?)

I also want to tell you how much I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

Re: that presidential race of 1856...

The first time ever a Republican was on the ballot: John C. Fremont. Slavery was a Yoooooge issue. All consuming.

Fremont was against the expansion of slavery, and of course was despised in the South.

Here is a campaign ribbon from 1856:

[qimg]http://americanpoliticalbuttons.com/election-of-1856/fremont-rib-1.jpg[/qimg]

Here is an 1856 anti-Fremont ribbon:

[qimg]http://www.maineantiquedigest.com/uploads/visual_edit/heritage0615-5.jpg[/qimg]

(Heh. What do you think they were trying to impress there?)

The South threatened at that time, if an anti-slavery President was elected - it would mean Civil War and "the Conservative South (soon) will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."

How this for traitorous:

As the 1856 election drew near, a convention of Governors of the Southern slave states was secretly held at Raleigh, North Carolina. Jefferson Davis -- then the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce, was full aware of this.



Henry Wise, Governor of Virginia at the time
Pictorial history of the Civil War in the United States of America - Lossing, 1866

Well, as we know, Buchanan was elected, and that staved off the fury for a few more years.

And get this: James Mason of Virginia, who was the leading Senator, wrote to US Sec. of War, Jeff Davis, later Confederate President, directly requesting him to arm the Southern states for war against the US -- a four full years before -- in any event a Republican would become President.

This was the letter

"I have a letter from WISE, of the 27th, full of spirit. He says the Governments of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana, have already agreed to rendezvous at Raleigh, and others will—this in your most private ear.

He says, further, that he had officially requested you to exchange with Virginia, on fair terms of difference, percussion for flint muskets. I don't know the usage or power of the Department in such cases, but if it can be done, even by liberal construction, I hope you will accede. … Virginia probably has more arms than the other Southern States, and would divide in case of need. In a letter yesterday to a Committee in South Carolina. I gave it as my judgment, in the event of FREMONT's election, the South should not pause, but proceed at once to "immediate, absolute, and eternal separation."​

Had Fremont been elected, the date of the start of the Civil War would have likely been 1856.

Clearly they were upset about tariffs. The black man on that ribbon is an allegory for the black ink of tariff rates or something.. .

 

[Rare Truth]

Clearly they were upset about tariffs. The black man on that ribbon is an allegory for the black ink of tariff rates or something.. .

<wishes we had "like" buttons here>

 

[jimbob]

There is a "nominate" button

 

[Giordano]

I'm failing to understand why you think this matters.

The Southern States deliberately kept Lincoln off the ballot.

You think their denial to include a legitimate nominee for President somehow allows them more representation?

Do they get like 3/5ths extra voice or something?

Subtle! Well, certainly clever whether subtle or not.

 

[SezMe]

Don't know, don't care.

So when you said...

OK. How about the election of Abraham Lincoln. Do some civil war lead up research and get back to me.

... you had done no civil war research at all but expected others to do it for you. Not good.

 

[Rare Truth]

There is a "nominate" button

What happens if I nominate someone?

 

[dudalb]

Just as well Fremont did not win. If the war had started in 1856 with Fremont as Commander in CHief, the South might well have won, given that Fremont's record as a general in the Civil War is not exactly inspiring.
Fact is Fremont was a good mapmaker,but a lousy general.

 

[jimbob]

What happens if I nominate someone?

The post is quoted and put in a special thread with other nominated posts

you can edit it like a normal post. It just goes into this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=273199