South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[jimbob]

Reheat, again, you seem to have missed nuance, whilst accusing others of not reading.

My claims are that the battle flag of the Confederacy is a symbol of tyranny and that there were no redeeming features of the entity of the Confederacy - nothing about the people of the South, except for those who supported slavery, or segregation.

I think that is a common view in this thread.

 

[NoahFence]

That's heritage!

 

[RandFan]

It was not an apology nor a justification for slavery at all and I think you know that. It was simply to counter that ALL people in the South were evil, which had been the primary theme of most comments to that point.

Perhaps that is true but I don't think it is. I think the "theme" is that racism is and has been strong in the south. That the confederate flag has persisted all of these years is evidence of that.

Further, as I pointed out, your example was utter nonsense and disgusting. It's like the rapist who was kind enough to ask his victims if they would prefer that he wear a condom. He actually argued in court that doing so excused his behavior because it demonstrated consent on the part of the victim. Never mind duress.

 

[Giordano]

It was not an apology nor a justification for slavery at all and I think you know that. It was simply to counter that ALL people in the South were evil, which had been the primary theme of most comments to that point. Meadmaker was the only other poster who had been attempting to convey the point that ALL people in the South by the war were NOT evil slave holders. Slavery was LEGAL in all states in the US up to a point when the abolition movement began in earnest. It had become entrenched in much of the economy of the South and was not so easily eliminated in a short period of time. Not all people in the South owned slaves, of course, many were subsistence farmers. However, the rhetoric was such in the 1850's and after that everyone was painted with a broad brush and became more and more offended by that. It evolved into a States Rights issue that many people in the South did not view as related to slavery at all. (I'm sure someone, perhaps many, will continue to argue that it was related to the preservation of slavery and that's all.) The problem is that many in the south did not hold that view at all. Therein was the problem that eventually led to a devastating war. Escalating rhetoric on both sides lead to more and more escalation eventually with neither side willing to compromise.

The same thing has happened here on this Forum over and over again. It's a good thing that this Forum is an obscure site on the Internet and what is said here is of little consequence in reality. I don't believe any form of slavery is in danger of ever returning, nor are there many who even desire that. There are racial bigot on all sides and they will likely exist for many more generations. The main point now is that the national rhetoric is building and people on all sides are getting offended. As I've said previously what concerns me most is that if Memorials, Monuments, Statues, and burial sites are defaced it will get bloody rapidly. It won't then be a silly flag issue any more.

I do hope that's clear, but if it's not I'll be glad to clarify if it's a sincere request. I'm bored with this, so I won't stay long. I have other things to do...

My last point: don't assume that other posters here intentionally claimed that your posts were apologies for slavery and the KKK (presumably for rhetorical advantage?) when they actually knew better. I certainly read them as if they were intended that way (to the point of amazement and horror). I am willing to accept your subsequent clarifications of what you really meant, although at least some of those also appear to be readable as justifications for the actions taken by the South before, during, and after the Civil War.

I've already communicated my views on Memorials, Monuments, Statues, and burial sites (in fact I kind of like to visit the graves of bad people, it is a reminder to me that they are dead). Of course I share your hope that this will not spawn violence from either side.

I've also posted that I do not believe that all, or even most, Southerners are racists. They are people just like everyone else. Certainly many Southerners who fought in the Civil War did not own slaves, being too poor. It is not unusual for the poor to fight for the rights of the rich, or for the rich to create an issue to divide the poor among themselves. In the Old South poor whites were told not to question why some wealthy people owned so much more than they did, but were told instead that their true enemies were, and they were better than, the poor blacks.

No, I don't assume a Southerner is a racist by any means. But if they, Southerner or Northerner, are waving the Confederate flag, then I presume that they are trying to tell me that they are a racist, or are clueless. If they celebrate with a monument to the organizer of the KKK, I will assume that they are a racist or clueless.

 

[jimbob]

And you deserve a Medal for distortion and misinterpretation. Quite obviously, I was referring to the GAR as a philanthropic organization NOT the KKK. The link I posted explained it, as well. You obviously didn't bother to read it, but knee jerked instead.

Here is your post:

Without further research I'm not at all sure that it has ever been proven that Forrest was the originator or even a member of the Klan. I know he's been accused of that, but I was not aware it had ever been proven. I will pursue that historical item and see what I can determine.

The Klan began in response to the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) organization of Union Veterans. That organization was merely a group of veterans who got together and mostly told war stories. They were a philanthropic organization, as well. I'm not at all sure why anyone believed they were a threat to anyone.

http://www.suvcw.org/?page_id=167

It was very similar to the Sons of Confederate Veterans organizations that exist today. They are a philanthropic and historical organization many of whom are also reenactors at those Historical Events. They perpetrate no harm to anyone at all and do not tolerate those who do. Yes, they do use the Battle Flag as a symbol of heritage, not hate and oppose those who do use it as a racist symbol...

It is perfectly reasonable to read this as a claim that just as the GAR was a philanthropic organisation, so was the Klan. In fact that is the most straightforward reading.


You are making claims about the origin of the Klan that I haven't seen before (that it arose in response to a Unionist veterans organisation, and not to subjugate blacks) yet seem to question rather well-accepted facts (Nathan Bedford Forrest's role in the Klan).

It is a bit odd

 

[Reheat]

In some cases where the location is not a monument (which is inherently meant as an honor) but rather a historical site (Robert E. Lee's house) then I believe it should be preserved and shown, but with the historically accurate story provided to the visitors.

Based on these comments I take it you may not know that Robert E. Lee's house and property is the Arlington National Cemetery. His former house is at the top of the Cemetery. It was not an honor to him, but instead it was punishment for his resignation from the U.S. Army and his subsequent Command of the Army of Northern VA and support for the Confederacy. The property was not actually Lee's, but was his wife's from her father.

The story is here...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...etery-came-to-be-145147007/?q=&no-ist=&page=3

 

[Giordano]

Based on these comments I take it you may not know that Robert E. Lee's house and property is the Arlington National Cemetery. His former house is at the top of the Cemetery. It was not an honor to him, but instead it was punishment for his resignation from the U.S. Army and his subsequent Command of the Army of Northern VA and support for the Confederacy. The property was not actually Lee's, but was his wife's from her father.

The story is here...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...etery-came-to-be-145147007/?q=&no-ist=&page=3

Thanks for the information, although I believe that I somewhat vaguely knew that already, although I wasn't using that information in my post.

More relevant to my post- yes, indeed as I stated I have no trouble with the idea of preserving Lee's house. My own post doesn't relate to the justice or lack of same in confiscating his/his wife's property for the National Cemetery. It is now a historical site representing a series of interesting events. Keeping it and explaining these different events to the visitors seem good ideas to me. I've been to Arlington but I don't recall if there is a monument to honor Lee per se, or just an exhibit to acknowledge the facts and invoke the historical context. I wouldn't favor the former.

 

[Reheat]

Historians have concluded he was. The people who were there too - "real Confederates, and real klansmen, had no doubt whatsoever that Forrest was one of them."

I can now accept your references and evidence that he was a member of the Klan. Previous accounts I've read indicated that he was accused, but never proven. Now, I'm convinced he actually was.

It's still a bad idea to disturb his grave although I wouldn't particularly object to removing the statue now that I know it's origin. It is a very volatile issue on both sides and will likely lead to violence if either are not handled carefully. Even then, it still might cause violence fulfilling the desires of those who want that to happen...

 

[Rare Truth]

I can now accept your references and evidence that he was a member of the Klan. Previous accounts I've read indicated that he was accused, but never proven. Now, I'm convinced he actually was.
...

Good form.

 

[Reheat]

Thanks for the information, although I believe that I somewhat vaguely knew that already, although I wasn't using that information in my post.

More relevant to my post- yes, indeed as I stated I have no trouble with the idea of preserving Lee's house. My own post doesn't relate to the justice or lack of same in confiscating his/his wife's property for the National Cemetery. It is now a historical site representing a series of interesting events. Keeping it and explaining these different events to the visitors seem good ideas to me. I've been to Arlington but I don't recall if there is a monument to honor Lee per se, or just an exhibit to acknowledge the facts and invoke the historical context. I wouldn't favor the former.

I don't recall a statue or Memorial to Lee at Arlington. However, they do cover in some detail the origin and how to came to be the National Cemetery. In fact, they embellish it and note that it was punishment for him in his after life to see all of those who have served and died in service to their Country, which he betrayed.

 

[Mike!]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1270&pictureid=9985[/qimg]

That's heritage!

Man, have I got a flag for them!

 

[jimbob]

Two losing organisations joined in a marriage of hate

 

[Giordano]

I don't recall a statue or Memorial to Lee at Arlington. However, they do cover in some detail the origin and how to came to be the National Cemetery. In fact, they embellish it and note that it was punishment for him in his after life to see all of those who have served and died in service to their Country, which he betrayed.

Well, I certainly don't plan to torment anyone in the afterlife for anything that they did in this one.

I never understood why so many people treat bodies with such reverence, to the point of paying $10,000s to buy fancy coffins and graves. Very few religions today believe that there is anything of the "soul" associated with the dead body. I myself don't even believe in a soul. Yet most people would feel awful to find out that their mother's body was fed to a wood chipper after her death, or that their own bodies would be trash in a dumpster after they died of a heart attack. I really don't know why. I accept respecting and honoring dead people for the good things that they did during their life, but I don't really associate these things with their dead bodies.

 

[Reheat]

If you were researching other peoples families you should have said so, as I and I suspect most people, assume the phrase " in my genealogical research" means researching your family.

Well, I've been doing genealogical research for over 25 years. In that I did much of it before the Internet and digitized records, I have spent many hours looking at both relevant and irrelevant records. The fact that some listed slaves in their family records surprised me, so it was rather unforgettable.

Most slaves were buried in a separate Cemetery with no headstones, however, there also some who are buried in the same family Cemetery as their owners as strange as that may seem to some.

 

[Craig B]

Well, I've been doing genealogical research for over 25 years. In that I did much of it before the Internet and digitized records, I have spent many hours looking at both relevant and irrelevant records. The fact that some listed slaves in their family records surprised me, so it was rather unforgettable.

Most slaves were buried in a separate Cemetery with no headstones, however, there also some who are buried in the same family Cemetery as their owners as strange as that may seem to some.

But that was done, or not done, at the whim of the owners - not because the slaves had any rights in the matter.

 

[luchog]

It evolved into a States Rights issue that many people in the South did not view as related to slavery at all.

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly throughout this thread, with supporting documentation, this is fundamentally untrue. All of the articles of secession submitted by the Confederate states explicitly mentioned slavery as their sole or primary reason for seceding, with only one exception. That exception did not frame their secession as a State's Rights issue either.

The State's Rights canard is entirely the work of postbellum revisionists seeking to sanitize the South's reputation by creating a motivation that simply did not exist. In fact, the entire political record of the states which joined the Confederacy showed them to be adamantly opposed to State's Rights, and in favour of using their control over the Federal Government to force the Northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, despite those states opposing it and passing laws that freed slaves arriving on their territory.

State's Rights was the province of the Northern states, not the South. Slavery and human freedom is not, and should never be, a State's Rights issue.

 

[Reheat]

State's Rights was the province of the Northern states, not the South. Slavery and human freedom is not, and should never be, a State's Rights issue.

I have never said not even implied that Slavery should be a States Rights issue.

http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war#articles


Ordinances of secession:

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp

 

[Meadmaker]

Another hero with feet of clay.

ETA: not getting at anyone in this thread - just the racists who do lionise him

My information, before today, came from sources that demonized him. So some lionize him, and some demonize him, and apparently both sides get it wrong.

Based on several minutes of reading in places like Wikipedia, it seems to me that he joined the Klan initially, for reasons unclear, and was even a leader of it, but he then ordered it disbanded. He called for reconciliation between the races, and was vilified for that by Southern racists. The potion I found amusing was that at his last speech, he said he was grateful to get flowers from a colored lady, because he loved the ladies all his life. That was particularly scandalous to the racists. I mean......the horror to think of it.....was he really suggesting....???? No, no, not that!


After his death, people probably said a whole bunch of nasty things about him in biographies or newspapers, to emphasize what a rotten guy he was. "That guy led the Klan!", to which a bunch of racists said, "Cool!" (Or would that be "Kool!")

If only the good guys and bad guys were so easy to identify in reality.

ETA: And what the heck is a Ku Klux Klan anyway? I'm pretty sure that Ku and Klux are not actually words in any language spoken on the face of the Earth?

ETA2: And with the help of the internet, it comes, probably, from the Greek Kuklos, meaning circle or cycle.

 

[Giordano]

My information, before today, came from sources that demonized him. So some lionize him, and some demonize him, and apparently both sides get it wrong.

Based on several minutes of reading in places like Wikipedia, it seems to me that he joined the Klan initially, for reasons unclear, and was even a leader of it, but he then ordered it disbanded. He called for reconciliation between the races, and was vilified for that by Southern racists. The potion I found amusing was that at his last speech, he said he was grateful to get flowers from a colored lady, because he loved the ladies all his life. That was particularly scandalous to the racists. I mean......the horror to think of it.....was he really suggesting....???? No, no, not that!


After his death, people probably said a whole bunch of nasty things about him in biographies or newspapers, to emphasize what a rotten guy he was. "That guy led the Klan!", to which a bunch of racists said, "Cool!" (Or would that be "Kool!")

If only the good guys and bad guys were so easy to identify in reality.

ETA: And what the heck is a Ku Klux Klan anyway? I'm pretty sure that Ku and Klux are not actually words in any language spoken on the face of the Earth?

ETA2: And with the help of the internet, it comes, probably, from the Greek Kuklos, meaning circle or cycle.

All very interesting, and it might represent a cheerful story wherein someone turns around their life. I don't really know the facts in this case. But I am left curious: who arranged for the monument(s) and what do they celebrate about his life? What do they say on the plaques, if anything?

 

[Meadmaker]

All very interesting, and it might represent a cheerful story wherein someone turns around their life. I don't really know the facts in this case. But I am left curious: who arranged for the monument(s) and what do they celebrate about his life? What do they say on the plaques, if anything?

I haven't read the plaques, but it's a safe bet they celebrate his generalship, which was slightly short of legendary.