Confederate Flag to Fly at City Hill in Belleview, Florida

[pErvinalia]

Jim.. language!

[L'Emmerdeur]

. . . if those other flags are not among those who are argued as being beyond the pale, it's reasonable to discuss what might be different about them.

The difference is clear, and indisputable.

The Confederacy came into existence because of one reason above all others--the fear of southern plantation owners that the election of Lincoln would spell at least the beginning of the end of slavery in the United States. No other issue came close, despite all the arguments of Lost Causers and their fellow travellers. As Hermit already pointed out, the raison d'être of the Confederacy was the perpetuation of slavery in the south and to ensure its expansion into the territories, full stop.

Given this, pointing to flags of nations that have some sordid elements in their history (what nation doesn't?) is disingenuous at best: The United Kingdom was not formed for the express purpose of creating a global empire that often was less than kind to its far-flung subjects. The United States was not formed solely to perpetuate slavery or swindle and kill American Indians to take their land. Japan did not come into existence for no other reason than the exploitation of East Asia via military means.

Similarly, the idea that "Lincoln declared war to collect taxes," is asinine and specious. The evidence is right there in the quote you used: "an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out." Lincoln, both in his first inaugural address and thereafter stated unequivocally his motivation; it was to save the Union.

[Forty Two]

. . . if those other flags are not among those who are argued as being beyond the pale, it's reasonable to discuss what might be different about them.

The difference is clear, and indisputable.

The Confederacy came into existence because of one reason above all others--the fear of southern plantation owners that the election of Lincoln would spell at least the beginning of the end of slavery in the United States. No other issue came close, despite all the arguments of Lost Causers and their fellow travellers. As Hermit already pointed out, the raison d'être of the Confederacy was the perpetuation of slavery in the south and to ensure its expansion into the territories, full stop.

The confederacy formed, officially, a year after Lincoln took office, and was in the works since the first couple of decades of the 19th century. The issues were fermenting as far back as the Missouri Compromise and before. If you are of the impression that I contest the role of slavery in the South and in the Civil War, then you are mistaken, and not really reading my posts.

Given this, pointing to flags of nations that have some sordid elements in their history (what nation doesn't?) is disingenuous at best: The United Kingdom was not formed for the express purpose of creating a global empire that often was less than kind to its far-flung subjects.

The United Kingdom was an empire when formed, and was formed by monarchs with the purpose of expanding their influence and creating a bigger empire, in competition with the other empires of the time.

The United States was not formed solely to perpetuate slavery or swindle and kill American Indians to take their land. Japan did not come into existence for no other reason than the exploitation of East Asia via military means.

Neither did the confederacy, not "solely."

Similarly, the idea that "Lincoln declared war to collect taxes," is asinine and specious. The evidence is right there in the quote you used: "an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out." Lincoln, both in his first inaugural address and thereafter stated unequivocally his motivation; it was to save the Union.

Indeed - to save the union. Not to abolish slavery.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Is funny to watch American Red-necked Land Whale fly flags which is get beaten by US.

There's a lot of that going around.... Even at rallies for the Democrat National Convention in 2016...

Yes yes, sometimes Russia is get a little carry away with new ideas, some people is die, and now is never hear the end of it!

[pErvinalia]

[Forty Two]

There's a lot of red going around. Like Corbyn supporters.... :-)

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

I'm glad you are back, Avtomat. We missed your unique Russian perspective on things.

He's paid by Putin to try to influence the European elections...

нет, is not wise for take paycheck from Putin. Sometime you get paid in ruble, sometime is paid with polonium. If Avtomat want work from murdering thug, Marlboro is sometimes post job opportunities.

[NineBerry]

[Forty Two]

[L'Emmerdeur]

. . . if those other flags are not among those who are argued as being beyond the pale, it's reasonable to discuss what might be different about them.

The difference is clear, and indisputable.

The Confederacy came into existence because of one reason above all others--the fear of southern plantation owners that the election of Lincoln would spell at least the beginning of the end of slavery in the United States. No other issue came close, despite all the arguments of Lost Causers and their fellow travellers. As Hermit already pointed out, the raison d'être of the Confederacy was the perpetuation of slavery in the south and to ensure its expansion into the territories, full stop.

The confederacy formed, officially, a year after Lincoln took office, and was in the works since the first couple of decades of the 19th century. The issues were fermenting as far back as the Missouri Compromise and before. If you are of the impression that I contest the role of slavery in the South and in the Civil War, then you are mistaken, and not really reading my posts.

I will take it as read then that you do not dispute the fact that the perpetuation of slavery in the south and ensuring its expansion into the territories were the raisons d'être of the Confederacy. Thus, if we call the Confederacy a nation, it was a nation founded for the purpose of perpetuating and expanding slavery. So we can discern a difference between the Confederacy as a nation and nations such as the United Kingdom, and Japan, and the United States. These nations have engaged in deplorable actions, but their origins do not lie in the perpetuation of atrocities, while the Confederacy's origin lies unequivocally in the desire of the southern planter class to ensure that slavery would continue to support their lifestyle. The Confederate navy jack/battle flag (and indeed, despite its irrelevance to this discussion, the third flag of the Confederacy) can therefore be understood to be symbolically different to the flags of the UK, etc.

Given this, pointing to flags of nations that have some sordid elements in their history (what nation doesn't?) is disingenuous at best: The United Kingdom was not formed for the express purpose of creating a global empire that often was less than kind to its far-flung subjects.

The United Kingdom was an empire when formed, and was formed by monarchs . . .

More or less OK so far, though in fact nobody officially designated the UK as an empire till decades after its formation, and I don't believe it was generally viewed as an empire at the time of its formation.

. . . with the purpose of expanding their influence and creating a bigger empire, in competition with the other empires of the time.

Source? We can examine the political motivations behind the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800, and it is apparent that the primary motivation was consolidation of political power within the Kingdom. In reality, creation of "a bigger empire" had practically nothing to do with it.

The United States was not formed solely to perpetuate slavery or swindle and kill American Indians to take their land. Japan did not come into existence for no other reason than the exploitation of East Asia via military means.

Neither did the confederacy, not "solely."

Primarily, and without slavery the Confederacy would never have come into existence.

Similarly, the idea that "Lincoln declared war to collect taxes," is asinine and specious. The evidence is right there in the quote you used: "an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out." Lincoln, both in his first inaugural address and thereafter stated unequivocally his motivation; it was to save the Union.

Indeed - to save the union. Not to abolish slavery.

Agreed. However NineBerry's statement that "the [Confederate] flag was specifically introduced to represent one side in quarrel over whether to abolish slavery or not" is essentially correct. The south seceded and started the American Civil War because elite southerners wanted to ensure the future of slavery, and believed that with Lincoln in the White House the future of slavery in the United States was in doubt. You ignore this to focus on Lincoln's motivation for fighting the war, as if the south's motivation is irrelevant.

You blithely assert that "South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession" which is true enough, but ignores the fact that the very document you cite, the "Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States" (note the title) is primarily a call to slaveholding states to join the secession for the purpose of ensuring the perpetuation of slavery.

[The United States] are now divided, between agricultural–and manufacturing, and commercial States; between slaveholding and non-slaveholding States. Their institutions and industrial pursuits, have made them, totally different peoples. That Equality in the Government between the two sections of the Union which once existed, no longer exists. We but imitate the policy of our fathers in dissolving a union with non-slaveholding confederates, and seeking a confederation with slaveholding States.

[Forty Two]

. . . if those other flags are not among those who are argued as being beyond the pale, it's reasonable to discuss what might be different about them.

The difference is clear, and indisputable.

The Confederacy came into existence because of one reason above all others--the fear of southern plantation owners that the election of Lincoln would spell at least the beginning of the end of slavery in the United States. No other issue came close, despite all the arguments of Lost Causers and their fellow travellers. As Hermit already pointed out, the raison d'être of the Confederacy was the perpetuation of slavery in the south and to ensure its expansion into the territories, full stop.

The confederacy formed, officially, a year after Lincoln took office, and was in the works since the first couple of decades of the 19th century. The issues were fermenting as far back as the Missouri Compromise and before. If you are of the impression that I contest the role of slavery in the South and in the Civil War, then you are mistaken, and not really reading my posts.

I will take it as read then that you do not dispute the fact that the perpetuation of slavery in the south and ensuring its expansion into the territories were the raisons d'être of the Confederacy.

It was probably the most important issue, albeit not the only issue.

Thus, if we call the Confederacy a nation, it was a nation founded for the purpose of perpetuating and expanding slavery. So we can discern a difference between the Confederacy as a nation and nations such as the United Kingdom, and Japan, and the United States. These nations have engaged in deplorable actions, but their origins do not lie in the perpetuation of atrocities, while the Confederacy's origin lies unequivocally in the desire of the southern planter class to ensure that slavery would continue to support their lifestyle. The Confederate navy jack/battle flag (and indeed, despite its irrelevance to this discussion, the third flag of the Confederacy) can therefore be understood to be symbolically different to the flags of the UK, etc.

That's certainly one argument.

Given this, pointing to flags of nations that have some sordid elements in their history (what nation doesn't?) is disingenuous at best: The United Kingdom was not formed for the express purpose of creating a global empire that often was less than kind to its far-flung subjects.

The United Kingdom was an empire when formed, and was formed by monarchs . . .

More or less OK so far, though in fact nobody officially designated the UK as an empire till decades after its formation, and I don't believe it was generally viewed as an empire at the time of its formation.

Look - the Mongolians have statues of Genghis Khan as a revered symbol of their history. He was one of the worst murderers and tyrants in history - a rapist, a slaver, a despot. Yet, as a symbol of Mongolian history - good, bad, ugly - he's part of it. Do they honor his rapine, slaughter, invasion, conquest, enslavement, pillaging, theft and despotism? Not generally those aspects. They honor the history.



The Hammer and Sickle still can be seen in Russia, like during Victory Day Parades. That hammer and sickle represents enslavement of an entire nation of people under totalitarian communism, and the slaughter of 10s of millions.

[Hermit]

The Hammer and Sickle still can be seen in Russia, like during Victory Day Parades. That hammer and sickle represents enslavement of an entire nation of people under totalitarian communism, and the slaughter of 10s of millions.

Wait. Wait. Let me finish your argument for you: Therefore it's OK to celebrate the flag of a would-be nation that represents the fight to perpetuate the enslavement of over four million African-Americans.

[pErvinalia]

[Forty Two]

The Hammer and Sickle still can be seen in Russia, like during Victory Day Parades. That hammer and sickle represents enslavement of an entire nation of people under totalitarian communism, and the slaughter of 10s of millions.

Wait. Wait. Let me finish your argument for you: Therefore it's OK to celebrate the flag of a would-be nation that represents the fight to perpetuate the enslavement of over four million African-Americans.

"celebrate" the flag? I wouldn't say that. I would say that it would be o.k. to remember the history as an important part of the development of a nation.

Further, where one symbol is singled out for this kind of treatment and banning, it generally seems to me to have a political motive behind it. And, this kind of thing doesn't seem to stop at a flag. Now we have these movements to take down statues, and scrape the names off buildings.

Vanderbilt University renamed "Confederate Memorial Hall." http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion ... /89340624/

Yet, for some reason, nobody has yet complained about the name Vanderbilt. Cornelius Vanderbilt, whose name was given to the university, owned slaves (including a plantation in South Carolina on which an ancestor of Michelle Obama was enslaved). Honor the name of a slave holder?

Heck, I think Anderson Cooper should lose his job on CNN, since he's a direct descendent of Cornelius Vanderbilt, through his mother, Gloria Vanderbilt. And, that kind of honoring of slave families is not to be tolerated. Anderson never even apologized for his family's involvement in the slave trade, or his mother's involvement in the designer jeans industry.

Elihu Yale, for whom Yale University is named, was a slave trader.

This kind of history sanitation sounds reasonable when we're talking about a single symbol that supposedly engenders so much rage. However, these are only symbols, and they only mean what people say they mean. The reason nobody cared about the confederate flag in the 1970s, and it could appear on the top of an orange car in kids' prime-time sitcom, was that it wasn't imbued with the political baggage back then. It just wasn't a huge deal. it doesn't help things to make it a huge deal.

Activists do this as a strategy, though. They will always find something to bitch about.

[Animavore]