South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[Upchurch]

The battle flag was also known as the Stars and bars, however when it was officially adopted it was known as the Navy Jack. People in the South still refer to the Battle Flag as the Stars and Bars regardless of what you find on ze Interwebz search...

And people, most everywhere, also refer to it just as "the Confederate flag".

Glad we got that cleared up.

 

[Checkmite]

I remain unconvinced that I should be willing to be a slave, but I am open to ideas of people adopting me. Offers?

I promise I'll treat you all tendersome and endearing-like. Of course, I can't guarantee the person I will you to along with the rest of my property will be as nice; but slavery is a crap shoot like that.

 

[RandFan]

Some may have even shed a tear to add to that river...

I hope so. Most people are cold and cynical and just don't get the tender nature of being a human pet. Human dignity and self determination are such overrated things. Hardly compares to having a roof over your head and a loving owner to feed you.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The Ocala argument is interesting. I guess you can't buy the actual "Stars and Bars" replicas because the "Pride" people seem to be flying the well-known battle standard. I can't wait until they re-set the original flag and Lurleen-Bob posts to a comments section, "I though they's gonna put our flag back..."

I fall on the side of historical accuracy for Ocala and for Six Flags. Both are actual flags of the CSA, and they have a place in history. The display, like the emblems on the Texas state house, does not say that Florida or Texas currently supports Spain or the CSA, but that this was a period of their history. In context, the issue in Ocala is not in the least similar to South Carolina. There, the flag was in a stand-alone monument, established as a safe home for it after it was deemed a segregationist emblem (which it was) and removed from the Capital. South Carolina had its own variation of a Confederate State Flag, and it largely inspired the battle flag/naval ensign. If they want to honor their history, the could've flown that one, but they wanted the one associated with the segregationists, t'ain't no two ways about it.

 

[bruto]

That's real clever. I'm sure everyone got a laugh over it. Some may have even shed a tear to add to that river...

I got a chuckle.

Many things that are bad could have been worse. Thomas Jefferson porked his property with tenderness and maybe even a bizarre variant of love. The lion that eats you could do it more slowly. It is not enough that the darkies danced. Apologetics are long past too late and stink of justification.

 

[paulhutch]

Yes, I fully realize slavery was a very bad institution and I am in no way defending it.

So far so good.

However, I also know that many of the horror stories were also balanced by the fact that some families considered the slaves as part of their extended families. In fact, in my genealogical research I've found many Bible Records where the detailed birth and death records of slaves were kept in the same family Bible that the rest of the family was kept in. In many of those families some slaves stayed even after the Emancipation Proclamation kicked in. Many of those are buried in the same Cemetery as their former owners families were. It was a different time with different attitudes yet many judge it in view of present attitudes.

Then you go on to try to defend it and minimize the vile disgusting institution of slavery, one of the worst things humans have ever done to each other and some continue to do.

 

[Reheat]

Yes, I fully realize slavery was a very bad institution and I am in no way defending it. However, I also know that many of the horror stories were also balanced by the fact that some families considered the slaves as part of their extended families. In fact, in my genealogical research I've found many Bible Records where the detailed birth and death records of slaves were kept in the same family Bible that the rest of the family was kept in. In many of those families some slaves stayed even after the Emancipation Proclamation kicked in. Many of those are buried in the same Cemetery as their former owners families were. It was a different time with different attitudes yet many judge it in view of present attitudes.

Then you go on to try to defend it and minimize the vile disgusting institution of slavery, one of the worst things humans have ever done to each other and some continue to do.

And there you go putting thoughts in my head that aren't there. What I posted was merely to counter the repeated mantra about how badly slaves were treated and how evil all Southern slave owners were. I was in no way whatsoever defending the indefensible, so please don't twist my purpose for writing that into something you think it means. I thought my leading statements made it pretty clear what my intent was, but then again this is the political arena where reasonable intent and innocuously intended comments frequently get twisted and hyperbole is king.

 

[RandFan]

I can't speak for Reheat, but you seem like a decent fellow, and I would consider this offer. Do you have cable?

Netflix. Sorry.

 

[Giordano]

And there you go putting thoughts in my head that aren't there. What I posted was merely to counter the repeated mantra about how badly slaves were treated and how evil all Southern slave owners were. I was in no way whatsoever depending the indefensible, so please don't twist my purpose for writing that into something you think it means. I thought my leading statements made it pretty clear what my intent was, but then again this is the political arena where reasonable intent and innocuously intended comments frequently get twisted and hyperbole is king.

I get it: those symbols, your words, can't be used to understand what you are really thinking. Apparently words, like flags, mean whatever you intend them to mean and it is other people's fault for not understanding your real intent.

Sorry, but you really are defending slavery by stating that some slaves were treated kindly and like members of the family. Owning another person as property is an inherent horror; one can only add additional layers of horror on top of that by adding beatings, rape, tearing apart families, etc. One can't subtract the core, inherent horror of the practice by noting that some owners were better to their slaves than others. Slavery was inherently incredibly evil even at its most "kind" and can only become yet more evil by adding these additional horrors.

Your arguments are very similar to those of the slave owners in the Old South, and were used at that time to justify the continuation of slavery. So does waving the Confederate (battle) flag today disinter the discredited pro-slavery and pro-segregation groups and arguments for which it was created and which it represented over the years.

Perhaps it would be best for you to drop this line of argument. I don't think that it is working to support your argument that the Confederate (battle) flag now represents the "New South."

 

[RandFan]

What I posted was merely to counter the repeated mantra about how badly slaves were treated and how evil all Southern slave owners were.

What mantra? Do you have a link? I don't think anyone has suggested that every slave was treated equally bad. Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'd like to know why the very real pain and suffering associated with that flag never really enters the equation. We're all too busy defending it to stop and think of what it means to others. Those who have lost loved ones to the lynchings and the Dylan Roof type morons - are they not allowed to express anger at the sight of it? Why does their opinion matter less than the good ol' boys drinkin' whiskey on the flat bed of their pickup truck?

It's a good question. As background to an answer, I think it's worthwhile to look at what people actually have said in this thread. Keep in mind I said background to the answer, not the answer itself.

First, every single person who has weighed in on the South Carolina statehouse flag has said it should be brought down.

Second, when it comes to private citizens waving flags, there is also very little disagreement. Everyone has said that, at the very least, a person waving that flag has to realize that even if he is not racist, an awful lot of people will think he is. He has to very carefully consider what other people will think of him, regardless of what he is actually thinking. The general consensus, with which I agree, is that someone waving a Confederate flag in the manner you describe is either a racist or is clueless. On the other hand, everyone* agrees that the first amendment gives him the right to wave that flag.

So how does a thread with such near unanimity go on for thirty-six pages? We are in very close agreement on the big topics. All the disagreement is about the fringe cases.

With that as background, I'll attempt to address your point.

Of course they are allowed to, and they have, expressed their anger, and the people you describe in the pickup trucks are not looked on kindly by anyone here at all. At least, I can't recall any words of support for them.**

On the other hand, the flag is a part of history. The Civil War was a dramatic moment in time. Wars capture our attention, and the Civil War was, by many measures, the largest war in the history of the world up to that time, and the greatest by far on American soil. That flag is an intrinsic part of that history. I will defend the use of that flag in an historical context, whether part of education, or part of a personal interest in the time period, or part of family history.

What I see, though, is something that others have described variously as a "witch hunt" or a "crusade", to get rid of that flag, even in the historical contexts. I see politicians in particular pulling various shenanigans trying to embarrass their opponents or just prove their right thinking bona - fides. So you end up with directives to remove key chains from gift shops, and amendments to appropriations bills to prohibit grave decoration, and calls for monuments or statuary to be destroyed.

To add to the list of such stunts previously mentioned, yesterday the Fresno City Council voted to prohibit the display of the Confederate flag on any city property as part of any municipal display. Needless to say, there are no Confederate flags on city property. No one can ever remember such a flag on city property. No one knew anyone planning to put one on city property. But by gum, they were right there to make sure it got written into law, just in case anyone got any ideas.

None of those things serve any real purpose whatsoever. It's just political grandstanding. It gives the self righteous a chance to pat themselves on the backs about how good they are, but it doesn't accomplish anything. Well, it did manage to prevent funding for the Department of the Interior, but that will be sorted out eventually.

So my objection is that the anti-flag frenzy is being exploited by some parties as an opportunity for meaningless rhetoric. I suppose no real harm will be done if a little bit of Ocala history is swept under a rug, but I just don't see the point in doing it.




*Everyone here, that is. I actually read news stories about people who wanted to declare Confederate flag display a hate crime. However, I think those people are crackpots, and I think their proposals would find very close to zero support here.

**ETA: I remembered that DGM did seem to support the NASCAR Confederate flag wavers, so I guess that's pretty much the same thing.

 

[paulhutch]

I get it: those symbols, your words, can't be used to understand what you are really thinking. Apparently words, like flags, mean whatever you intend them to mean and it is other people's fault for not understanding your real intent.

Sorry, but you really are defending slavery by stating that some slaves were treated kindly and like members of the family. Owning another person as property is an inherent horror; one can only add additional layers of horror on top of that by adding beatings, rape, tearing apart families, etc. One can't subtract the core, inherent horror of the practice by noting that some owners were better to their slaves than others. Slavery was inherently incredibly evil even at its most "kind" and can only become yet more evil by adding these additional horrors.

Your arguments are very similar to those of the slave owners in the Old South, and were used at that time to justify the continuation of slavery. So does waving the Confederate (battle) flag today disinter the discredited pro-slavery and pro-segregation groups and arguments for which it was created and which it represented over the years.

Perhaps it would be best for you to drop this line of argument. I don't think that it is working to support your argument that the Confederate (battle) flag now represents the "New South."

+100.

I'm having trouble composing a response to Reheat that doesn't violate the member agreement so I'd better just not try.

 

[Rare Truth]

Originally Posted by Reheat
Yes, I fully realize slavery was a very bad institution and I am in no way defending it. However, I also know that many of the horror stories were also balanced by the fact that some families considered the slaves as part of their extended families. In fact, in my genealogical research I've found many Bible Records where the detailed birth and death records of slaves were kept in the same family Bible that the rest of the family was kept in.

Keeping birth and death records in the family bible does not speak to how the slaves were treated.

There were no formal birth and death records for most people back then - white or black.

Recording them in the bible was what most people did. Many 19th century bibles contain special blank-lined pages entitled: Birth / Death Records

In many of those families some slaves stayed even after the Emancipation Proclamation kicked in.

There wasn't a lot of options for freed slaves. You've heard of sharecropping, right?

Many of those are buried in the same Cemetery as their former owners families were. It was a different time with different attitudes yet many judge it in view of present attitudes.

Very rarely.

Cemeteries were segregated back then. In fact - many were up until the mid 1900's.

 

[Meadmaker]

That's real clever. I'm sure everyone got a laugh over it. Some may have even shed a tear to add to that river...

Having tried to make a similar point to yours, with similar results, I feel your pain.

I think, though, you managed to go even farther off the rails than I did. Still, I wanted to say that I understood the point you were trying to make, however clumsily you made it

 

[Rare Truth]

Originally Posted by Reheat
What I posted was merely to counter the repeated mantra about how badly slaves were treated and how evil all Southern slave owners were.

I wonder...

what do you think was the number one thing that kept most slaves from just walking away?

 

[SezMe]

First sentence of your post:

I'll just add what several others have already said in this thread and expect to be ignored by the know it all PC crowd.

Makes you an assured winner, eh? Those who agree with you are in the know and those who don't can be ignored as losers in the "PC crowd".

I'll just add what others have already said in this thread and expect to be ignored by the know-it-all redneck crowd.

See how that works?

 

[Giordano]

I wonder...

what do you think was the number one thing that kept most slaves from just walking away?

Why, they just knew that their loving owners would be helpless without them and feeling love and affection, they stayed to do the cooking, field work, and servant stuff. "My god, my dear Mr John couldn't even make his own pancakes, so if I just left the poor man would starve. And he has so many other worries about the plantation." Just like the old Aunt Jemima boxes implied.

Well it might also have had something to do with being whipped, having your foot cut off, killed, or jailed if you ran off. But who can judge the true motivations of another human being from the outside?

 

[Aepervius]

And there you go putting thoughts in my head that aren't there. What I posted was merely to counter the repeated mantra about how badly slaves were treated and how evil all Southern slave owners were. I was in no way whatsoever defending the indefensible, so please don't twist my purpose for writing that into something you think it means. I thought my leading statements made it pretty clear what my intent was, but then again this is the political arena where reasonable intent and innocuously intended comments frequently get twisted and hyperbole is king.

And yet they fled the south,. and yet the south needed law and cooperation of the north to bring them back and refuse escaped slave protection.

If it was such a paradise of extended lovey doves family, you would think they would attempt less to flee, and slavery and coercion would not be necessary. In fact they could jsut have abandoned slavery and called them "lovey dovey indentured servant" and give them freedom since they were so generally nice with the slave and the slaves wanted to stay.

What's the laughing hiena emoticon again ?

 

[Aepervius]

And to add to the previous post : I have no doubt some slave owner had a certain fondness to what they considered a pet. Like a horse used to draw a carriage. But I seriously doubt that anything beyond a minority went beyond that. You do not enslave somebody you love as your family. You free them. On the other hand something you consider to be a pet, not even a human, that you use for work and at your will, selling their offspring like lamb in springs, yeah sure they could have fondness to them.

But the premise was still they were slave - subhuman - possession - Still immoral as hell, and deeply disgusting.

 

[Checkmite]

Photograph from a currently-ongoing heritage rally taking place outside the SC state house.