South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[Meadmaker]

The KKK (from the early postbellum period) and white segregationists protesting the civil rights movement in the mid 1900's did not arbitrarily pick the Confederate battle flag to represent their argument,

I was surprised to hear an historian with the American Civil War Museum say that the KKK did not use any Confederate flag at all before 1948. I don't know if that's true or not, but he seemed to know what he was talking about. I would be interested in seeing any evidence that contradicts him.

His claim made me wonder about "Heritage, not hate" as a slogan. The historian's claim was that between the end of the Civil War and the early 20th century, the Confederate flag hardly appeared anywhere at all, with the exception of memorial services and similar activities. It was almost the exclusive "property" of heritage societies like the Sons of Confederate Veterans. As college sports grew, it started being seen in the stands at Southern colleges. It didn't become used as a political symbol until Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948, and during the following decade, especially after Brown v. Board of Education, it began being used by the KKK. I had assumed that "Heritage, not hate" was a very recent slogan, and the SCV's claim that the symbol had been appropriated by hate groups was disingenuous. However, that presentation made me wonder if it might be different. Did the SCV resent its appropriation when it happened in the 1950s?

I don't know. The information the man presented was different than what I had believed happened, but I got most of my information from movies. If he is right, it would put a different spin on the flag.

 

[paulhutch]

This recent article on HistoryNet gives basically the same information you say you heard on NPR.
http://www.historynet.com/embattled-banner-the-convoluted-history-of-the-confederate-flag.htm

 

[Trebuchet]

I was surprised to hear an historian with the American Civil War Museum say that the KKK did not use any Confederate flag at all before 1948. I don't know if that's true or not, but he seemed to know what he was talking about. I would be interested in seeing any evidence that contradicts him.

1948 is about when they started losing the long battle. It makes a certain amount of sense.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

I was surprised to hear an historian with the American Civil War Museum say that the KKK did not use any Confederate flag at all before 1948. I don't know if that's true or not, but he seemed to know what he was talking about. I would be interested in seeing any evidence that contradicts him.

His claim made me wonder about "Heritage, not hate" as a slogan. The historian's claim was that between the end of the Civil War and the early 20th century, the Confederate flag hardly appeared anywhere at all, with the exception of memorial services and similar activities. It was almost the exclusive "property" of heritage societies like the Sons of Confederate Veterans. As college sports grew, it started being seen in the stands at Southern colleges. It didn't become used as a political symbol until Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948, and during the following decade, especially after Brown v. Board of Education, it began being used by the KKK. I had assumed that "Heritage, not hate" was a very recent slogan, and the SCV's claim that the symbol had been appropriated by hate groups was disingenuous. However, that presentation made me wonder if it might be different. Did the SCV resent its appropriation when it happened in the 1950s?

I don't know. The information the man presented was different than what I had believed happened, but I got most of my information from movies. If he is right, it would put a different spin on the flag.

FWIW, the KKK material I've seen from the 1920s shows the Klansmen with the US flag.

 

[Foolmewunz]

So, how was the annual Nathan Bedford Forrest Day in Tennessee? Just wrapping up according to my calendar. (July 13th Tennessee Time, not sure what year, though.)

 

[Checkmite]

So, how was the annual Nathan Bedford Forrest Day in Tennessee?

 

[Foolmewunz]

[qimg]http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c159/jk_mellifera/1310177115933943879_zpsxrkkotia.jpg[/qimg]

I found an old article on Forrest. It has some elements common to the flag discussion. I think his take on this is accurate.

@mods - I've tried to edit for brevity, but he writes so damned well that it's hard to pick out bites. Please pardon the length - his argument is worded brilliantly (imho).

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...t-has-beautiful-eyes/19546/#about-the-authors

<snip>
I've actually long overlooked that last point by noting to myself that virtually all societies practiced slavery. But in the 1850s, the South was only bested in the scale of its slavery, by Russian serfdom. Thus this country was not merely a moral offender among many, but a moral offender on a grand scale, plying its trade at a point when much of the rest of the world had moved forward.

It is one thing to be judged immoral. But to be judged immoral and backward, at the same time, to be both debauched, and yet in your debauchery, still be a loser, is deeply painful. <snip>

The South long evaded that painful reality, and when confronted with it, simply lied. Thus pre-War Jefferson Davis is arguing that the fight is over slavery and white Supremacy. Post-war he's claiming it was about the sovereignty of states. To this day, 150 years later, you find people parroting this lie.

Nathan Bedford Forrest (pictured above) is beautiful. Again, dig those steely eyes, that dead serious countenance, the warrior's beard. His story is American--the dirt poor son of a blacksmith who becomes a millionaire. But he's noble too, and volunteers to fight for his home state of glorious Tennessee. With no military training, he rises to the rank of Lieutenant General, giving the Union hell the whole time.

Forrest is the model of Southern chivalry--too much so. He made his money buying and selling people like me, and when the war started he dutifully enforced the Confederate policy of giving no quarter to black soldiers. At Fort Pillow he massacred black soldiers trying to surrender, and afterward went on to found the Ku Klux Klan. Tennessee is dotted with monuments, not simply to the generals of the Confederacy, but to the first Grand Wizard of the KKK (Forrest). To this day, you can find people who deny his role in Fort Pillow and in the KKK.

<snip>

I imagine for a kid coming up in these times, in certain sectors of the South, it's painful to face up to Nathan Forrest, to the notion that the pomp and glamour, all the talk of honor and independence was, at the end of the day, dependent on slavery. The Lost Cause isn't just "lost," it's barely a cause.

The temptation to continue to lie, to see yourself as the victim in a grand play is formidable--consider Lindsay Graham chafing at the constraints of whiteness, while Sonia Sotamayor evidently swims in a free world of color. But I suspect that some manner of change is coming, that we are reaching point when witlessly honoring the founder of the greatest perpetrator of domestic terrorism in American history, when flying that sorry order's battle flag, becomes embarrassing. Sooner or later, I think the South will understand that the ideology of "noble victimhood" is a luxury it too can ill-afford. Some will hold out, I am sure. But sooner or later, I think most of the South will be black like me.

 

[Aepervius]

"I've actually long overlooked that last point by noting to myself that virtually all societies practiced slavery."


that is actually not true. IIRC msot slavery had been banned already in continental europe pre-18th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

In fact even in russia , the greatest conmtender, serfdom was abolished by the same
time ~1860.


Furthermore serfdom is in no way comparable to slavery. Child could not be sold away for example, and you as a serf would not either, you owned labor to the lord.

Not 100% free man, but neither a slave either.

Despite the scholarly disagreement, it is possible to piece together a general picture of slavery and serfdom. Slaves typically owned no property, and were in fact the property of their masters. Slaves worked full-time for their masters and operated under a negative incentive structure; in other words, failure to work resulted in physical punishment.[141] Serfs owned plots of their own land, which was essentially a form of “payment” that the lord offered in exchange for the serf’s service.[142] Serfs worked part-time for the masters and part-time for themselves and had opportunities to accumulate personal wealth that often did not exist for the slave.[143] Slaves were generally imported from foreign countries or continents, brought to Europe via the slave trade. Serfs were typically indigenous Europeans and were not subject to the same involuntary movements as slaves. Serfs worked in family units, whereas the concept of family was generally murkier for slaves.[144] At any given moment, a slave’s family could be torn apart via trade, and masters often used this threat to coerce compliant behavior from the slave

And by the 13th-15th century most of continental western europe had neither slave nor serf.

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

 

[ponderingturtle]

"I've actually long overlooked that last point by noting to myself that virtually all societies practiced slavery."


that is actually not true. IIRC msot slavery had been banned already in continental europe pre-18th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

In fact even in russia , the greatest conmtender, serfdom was abolished by the same
time ~1860.


Furthermore serfdom is in no way comparable to slavery. Child could not be sold away for example, and you as a serf would not either, you owned labor to the lord.

Not 100% free man, but neither a slave either.

This gets into definitions of exactly what is a slave. I would argue that it is a form of slavery though different and possibly less abusive than that practiced in the american south.

And by the 13th-15th century most of continental western europe had neither slave nor serf.

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

Depends on definition. I would not be surprised to have the odd slave here or there, but it was not common.

 

[Aepervius]

This gets into definitions of exactly what is a slave. I would argue that it is a form of slavery though different and possibly less abusive than that practiced in the american south.

Slavery to totally free man is not a binary state but rather a slide, and some argue that to have to come at fix hours to work to live is also a form of slavery.

IMHO When you look at the detail serfdom is quite far away from what people would say slavery was (or feel as it is). They could possess stuff, their children and family was a unit and not separated, only labor was required (and a fix amount if I read the wiki correctly in percent of the week), and they could not be sold.

This is frankly far nearer freeman than slave. And compared to the southern model, there is no photo a serf was far nearer a normal worker than a slave. And do not forget that except russia, most serfdom was gone by the 1400.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Slavery to totally free man is not a binary state but rather a slide, and some argue that to have to come at fix hours to work to live is also a form of slavery.

IMHO When you look at the detail serfdom is quite far away from what people would say slavery was (or feel as it is). They could possess stuff, their children and family was a unit and not separated, only labor was required (and a fix amount if I read the wiki correctly in percent of the week), and they could not be sold.

This is frankly far nearer freeman than slave. And compared to the southern model, there is no photo a serf was far nearer a normal worker than a slave. And do not forget that except russia, most serfdom was gone by the 1400.

And then the whole thing about slaves purchasing their own freedom from their master is a total myth because if they could do that they must not have been real slaves?

 

[Aepervius]

And then the whole thing about slaves purchasing their own freedom from their master is a total myth because if they could do that they must not have been real slaves?

This is a strawman as far as I can tell. Again i said that slavery is not binary but a gradual line, and you again take part of the argument and try to argue what I did not say.

In what way shape or form from the description of serf, were there LESS free than US slave ? And in what shape way or form did I pretend they were totally free ?

From the perspective I see , US slave were far worst off than serf - less free-, and that in the 19th century , 4 century later after slavery and serfdom was abolished in Europe.
I am neither arguying that serf were 100% free, nor that there was no slave in the US which could not buy their freedom. So strawman.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is a strawman as far as I can tell. Again i said that slavery is not binary but a gradual line, and you again take part of the argument and try to argue what I did not say.

You cited those as reasons they were not classified as slaves, so that means that those are situations lacking from a slave. This is not a strawman but applying your argument for what makes them not a slave to people classed as slaves.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Further, I think that for the writer of the piece it's a distinction without a difference. I doubt he meant to judge quality so much as quantity. Russia was the only place where the sheer volume of persons tied into permanent servitude matched that of the Southern USA.

The derail diminishes the importance of what he was saying, overall.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Further, I think that for the writer of the piece it's a distinction without a difference. I doubt he meant to judge quality so much as quantity. Russia was the only place where the sheer volume of persons tied into permanent servitude matched that of the Southern USA.

The derail diminishes the importance of what he was saying, overall.

Maybe. But pointing out that Russian serfdom isn't actually slavery would actually put the American south in the #1 spot, which I think makes the author's point even stronger.

 

[Travis]

Incidentally slavery, as done by the South, was one of the most pernicious examples. They had an entire slave race. People thought to be destined to be a slave by accident of birth. Even the Romans wouldn't do that.

So the south didn't just do slavery it did perhaps the most historically evil incarnation of it possible.

In other words there is absolutely nothing to be proud of in being a southerner and I told this to someone on facebook not too long ago. If you are from the south there are only two ways to respectability: lie and never let anyone know you are from there or kill yourself.

That's pretty much it.

 

[NoahFence]

Incidentally slavery, as done by the South, was one of the most pernicious examples. They had an entire slave race. People thought to be destined to be a slave by accident of birth. Even the Romans wouldn't do that.

So the south didn't just do slavery it did perhaps the most historically evil incarnation of it possible.

In other words there is absolutely nothing to be proud of in being a southerner and I told this to someone on facebook not too long ago. If you are from the south there are only two ways to respectability: lie and never let anyone know you are from there or kill yourself.

That's pretty much it.

That's a bit melodramatic and harsh, don't you think?

 

[Travis]

That's a bit melodramatic and harsh, don't you think?

Allows me to get my daily hyperbole quota out of the way early.

 

[Upchurch]

That's a bit melodramatic and harsh, don't you think?

Of course. Travis completely fails to account for barbecue.

 

[Cleon]

Of course. Travis completely fails to account for barbecue.

Barbecue, blues, bluegrass, seersucker suits, Hank Williams, mint juleps...

There are so many things about the South that I love, I don't understand why so many want to associate all that is Southern heritage and culture with a four-year period when it was ruled by a clique of racist aristocrats.