View Poll Results: Should the flag be moved-removed from all State Buildings?

Voters
70. You may not vote on this poll
  • Moved

    5 7.14%
  • Removed

    46 65.71%
  • Stay where it is

    15 21.43%
  • Not sure

    4 5.71%
Page 39 of 41 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 402

Thread: Gov. Haley to call for removal of Confederate flag from Capitol grounds [W:154]

  1. #381
    Professor WSUwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Seen
    03-21-16 @ 02:34 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,864

    Re: Gov. Haley to call for removal of Confederate flag from Capitol grounds [W:154]

    Removing the flag is just more prog bull**** trying to erase the history of this nation.


    News flash: Flags cant be racist, they are inanimate objects, they are just made of cloth, they cant hurt you.
    "Opportunity does not come knocking. It is usually running down the street, you have to chase and tackle it." - Sheriff David Clarke, Milwaukee County.

  2. #382
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,241

    Re: Gov. Haley to call for removal of Confederate flag from Capitol grounds [W:154]

    Quote Originally Posted by HowardBThiname View Post
    Slavery most likely would have been safe under Lincoln had they not seceded before he took office. He wasn't going to fight to end it - even though he personally opposed it.
    So you're saying the South misunderstood Lincoln? LOL.

    Lincoln didn't see blacks as equal to whites, in fact, he would have been right there with the folks who opposed Civil Rights for blacks. Here's another Lincoln quote:
    It's not at all clear what he believed on the subject, and it's certainly not clear whether Lincoln, in 1950, would have felt the same way he did in 1860. In his day, he was a liberal on the subject, and he frequently refers to the practical impossibility of freeing the slaves and making them equals, and cites the objections of people in the North and South to complete equality. So if he wanted to be elected, he went as far as he could politically.
    Where again is Lincoln's moral high ground again?
    His moral high ground is determined by comparing to men of his era, not of our era. It's this:

    "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel.
    and this:

    I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas
    Versus this:

    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
    Freedom versus slavery. I don't have a problem picking out the position with the moral high ground.

    See above - what's laughable is that you insist on hanging some equality halo on the head of a President that considered blacks as inferior to whites.
    No halo, but I admire the man.

    Like Lincoln, the voters likely didn't care enough about slavery to make a big deal out of it. You're forgetting the time in which these people lived. What they did care about was electing someone who would help them with their own needs. The Jim Crow segregationists had an identical ideology to that of Lincoln. See the comments from his debate again.
    Come on, you can't claim Lincoln didn't "care" about slavery. If you read his writings what he deeply cared about first and foremost was preserving the country, and upholding his duty as President.

    And the Jim Crow segregationists held that view for the next 100 years after slaves had in fact been granted supposed political and social equality. The "time in which these people lived" was through the 1960s. There was a lot of progress elsewhere in those 100 years.

    You're also probably right that the concern of most whites was their own well being, which was helped by subordinating blacks and limiting them to crap jobs, a crap education, unable to vote and exercise their political will. Blacks couldn't hold office or serve on juries or exercise any power. Even the little stuff was probably nice - whites got to sit at the front of the bus and use nice restrooms instead of an outhouse in the woods.

    I'm not saying blacks did not suffer and that it wasn't wrong. It was wrong. I'm pointing out (again) that the flag, although some racists might have used it - long meant something else to millions more.
    Not just "some racists." You keep ignoring that the "some racists" included the legislature of S.C. and the Governor, sheriffs, etc. as well as elected officials in the rest of the former CSA. These people had the support of majorities of those "millions more" in every southern state. It's really incredible you can't recognize that the racism was an integral part of the "Southern Heritage," through the 1960s, throughout white society, from bottom to the VERY top.

    Walmart's pulling all its confederate memorabilia off the shelves, other stores are doing the same. Mattel is stopping production of toys with confederate emblems.

    All that's doing is creating hatred for Southerners.
    No it's not. I'm a Southerner. I'm happy that stuff is gone. What breeds hatred for decent Southerners is our elected leaders defending a flag the rest of the WORLD associates with racist dirtbags and a racist period in this region.

  3. #383
    Professor
    HowardBThiname's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    America's Heartland
    Last Seen
    08-19-16 @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,955

    Re: Gov. Haley to call for removal of Confederate flag from Capitol grounds [W:154]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post


    His moral high ground is determined by comparing to men of his era, not of our era. It's this:.
    You might not realize it but you just made the point I've been trying to make.

    Just as Lincoln's morality must be judged by the era in which he lived - so must the decisions of the people of the Confederate South.
    "Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude." ~ Thomas Jefferson

  4. #384
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,241

    Re: Gov. Haley to call for removal of Confederate flag from Capitol grounds [W:154]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    The level of Federal interference into State providence was never intended to be what it has gradually become. Expedience has brought things to where they are today.
    It's hard to know what you're referring to, but if you are referring to passing the CRA and VRA and related court cases that forcibly ended nearly a century of state sponsored and enforced at the point of government guns brutal oppression of blacks, in my view that is EXACTLY the primary function of a national government. If it doesn't do that, protect the rights of its citizens, everywhere, then plow that government under and sow it with salt.

    I agree, but until that happen I'm not one to sit there and take it, so I was just asking the reason for staying put. I'll admit there probably was more but I'm being too lazy to go back and see the context which spawned the question.
    Perhaps, but it's very easy to sit back 50 or 100 years later and pretend that if you were black and faced oppression, you would have moved. Because of Jim Crow and purposely inadequate schools, many or most would have been at best barely literate, with no skills with which to land decent jobs in the North, ALL of them penniless or nearly so because of slavery, NONE could draw on family support from other former slaves, there were few safety nets, and so no cushion or ability to spend even a few months looking for work. Further, it's not like on one side of the line was oppression (black if you will) and cross over into equality nirvana (white) - all they gained from a trip North was the end of state sanctioned and enforced oppression into the dark gray zone where blacks were still widely discriminated against, but not as completely and systematically disenfranchised, but still forced to the fringes of society in most areas and facing huge racial obstacles.

    And the point was, I think, that "markets" could have solved this. And if that was the point, I don't agree because functioning markets assume that the rights of the participants are equally enforced. There is nothing approaching a 'free market' when some large share of the population has no rights, and others 'competing' in the same space have ample rights protected by the state. It's an evil kind of market distortion, with the government of the South picking and guaranteeing that blacks are always the losers in any 'market' competition with whites.

    I'm not accusing you of this, but I see this kind of argument all the time in libertarian outlets. That if the North and black slaves had just been patient, "free markets" would have solved slavery. Perhaps, and that's fine and very easy as a white man in 2010 to opine about how JUST another generation or two or three of blacks might have had to endure being owned by whites and then their grand children or great grandchildren might, if all worked OK, been allowed some freedom. It's an morally offensive argument to me from people who claim to believe in natural rights, liberty, freedom, etc. that an entire race should have been OK to have NONE of those things and wait until their complete and total subjugation by whites was no longer PROFITABLE for their oppressors in this bastardized version of "free markets" before they could expect the process of gaining freedom to begin, and only at the pace at which it was maximally profitable for their oppressors.

  5. #385
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,241

    Re: Gov. Haley to call for removal of Confederate flag from Capitol grounds [W:154]

    Quote Originally Posted by HowardBThiname View Post
    You might not realize it but you just made the point I've been trying to make.

    Just as Lincoln's morality must be judged by the era in which he lived - so must the decisions of the people of the Confederate South.
    But I'm comparing Lincoln to other men making statements in that same era. It's apples to apples. Lincoln versus Texas legislators and the VP of the CSA - all of those statements within a year or two of each other. You compared Lincoln's 1860's era view of the inferiority of blacks to the views of the Jim Crow south 100 years later - that's what is illegitimate.

    And in 1960, we can compare the Jim Crow south to the rest of the civilized WORLD at that time. If we confine it to the U.S. the CRA got nearly 100% support from the entire rest of the country outside the former slave holding states. It got roughly 0% support in those states. Those are apples to apples comparisons of views in 1964.
    Last edited by JasperL; 06-25-15 at 07:35 AM.

  6. #386
    Professor
    HowardBThiname's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    America's Heartland
    Last Seen
    08-19-16 @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,955

    Re: Gov. Haley to call for removal of Confederate flag from Capitol grounds [W:154]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    But I'm comparing Lincoln to other men making statements in that same era. It's apples to apples. Lincoln versus Texas legislators and the VP of the CSA - all of those statements within a year or two of each other. You compared Lincoln's 1860's era view of the inferiority of blacks to the views of the Jim Crow south 100 years later - that's what is illegitimate.
    I meant originally. This has been a long topic and it started with discussing the opinions of those who served in the Confederacy. The sad truth was - back then most people really didn't see blacks as being equal. It's unfathomable to us today, but it happened. The debate here has centered on slavery - but the fact was, while most didn't own slaves, and many did not think anyone should own another human being, the vast majority - both Union and Confederacy did not think blacks were equal to whites.

    When we demonize the South, we put forth the false narrative that only the South was racist. That is untrue as demonstrated by Lincoln's own words. He was every bit as racist - he just didn't think people should own slaves. But he didn't care enough about slavery to make that his reason for the Civil War - he stated so more than once. He just wanted the union together.

    When I mentioned that Lincoln's ideas matched those who opposed Civil Rights - I know that was a different time - but I think people forget where we've come from.



    And in 1960, we can compare the Jim Crow south to the rest of the civilized WORLD at that time. If we confine it to the U.S. the CRA got nearly 100% support from the entire rest of the country outside the former slave holding states. It got roughly 0% support in those states. Those are apples to apples comparisons of views in 1964.[/QUOTE]
    "Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude." ~ Thomas Jefferson

  7. #387
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,241

    Re: Gov. Haley to call for removal of Confederate flag from Capitol grounds [W:154]

    Quote Originally Posted by HowardBThiname View Post
    I meant originally. This has been a long topic and it started with discussing the opinions of those who served in the Confederacy. The sad truth was - back then most people really didn't see blacks as being equal. It's unfathomable to us today, but it happened. The debate here has centered on slavery - but the fact was, while most didn't own slaves, and many did not think anyone should own another human being, the vast majority - both Union and Confederacy did not think blacks were equal to whites.
    The history of the flag dates to the 1860s, but the relevant history in my view is the 1940s through the 1960s when the Confederate flag was embraced as a symbol for those fighting AGAINST civil rights for blacks. It was raised in S.C. on the capital in 1961 - moving the timeline back is just a way to sidestep its modern history.

    And no one is arguing about attitudes in 1860. We are (or at least I have been) talking about attitudes that persisted in the South through the 1960s, my lifetime.

    When we demonize the South, we put forth the false narrative that only the South was racist. That is untrue as demonstrated by Lincoln's own words. He was every bit as racist - he just didn't think people should own slaves. But he didn't care enough about slavery to make that his reason for the Civil War - he stated so more than once. He just wanted the union together.
    Gosh "every bit as racist - he just didn't think people should own slaves" makes no sense. There is a VAST difference between "I think blacks are inferior and should have no rights, their kids, wives, husbands sold out from under them like cattle, with whites free to beat, rape and kill them at their will" versus, "I think blacks are inferior AND obviously they should be free and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

    Also, "But he didn't care enough about slavery to make that his reason for the Civil War" is an attempt to turn a decision to uphold his oath of office and his duty to preserve the union into a negative. If you've read his writings, you know he recognizes that the LAW, the CONSTITUTION, prohibited him from freeing the slaves in the slave holding states, and he repeatedly states that despite his opinions he is bound by the law. What do you expect? Even the Emancipation Proclamation was at attempt to square his duties to the Constitution with his powers as Commander in Chief - the only slaves freed were those in the states fighting against the North and he freed them according to the rules of war. Slaves in the border states weren't freed as they had not declared war against the Union.

    When I mentioned that Lincoln's ideas matched those who opposed Civil Rights - I know that was a different time - but I think people forget where we've come from.
    But what you attempted to do was compare Lincoln in 1860 to George Wallace or Bull Connor et al. in 1960, and Lincoln even wins that comparison. At least Lincoln stated repeatedly that blacks were entitled to the same core Constitutional rights as blacks, but the Jim Crow south routinely denied them those rights. Read some accounts of lynchings in the South, 3-4,000 of them of blacks, and then think about the fact that these were (nearly) all explicitly or implicitly blessed by the state - there was no penalty in almost all cases, no one charged, no one convicted certainly. This was state sponsored/approved terrorism against perhaps 1/3 of the population - all of it OK'd by elected leaders. Can you point to anything Lincoln ever wrote that indicates he'd approve?

  8. #388
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,552

    Re: Gov. Haley to call for removal of Confederate flag from Capitol grounds [W:154]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    It's hard to know what you're referring to, but if you are referring to passing the CRA and VRA and related court cases that forcibly ended nearly a century of state sponsored and enforced at the point of government guns brutal oppression of blacks, in my view that is EXACTLY the primary function of a national government. If it doesn't do that, protect the rights of its citizens, everywhere, then plow that government under and sow it with salt.
    I could be considered a Tertium Quid if that helps you to know where I'm coming from... This goes much further back and is much broader than the issue at hand.


    Perhaps, but it's very easy to sit back 50 or 100 years later and pretend that if you were black and faced oppression, you would have moved. Because of Jim Crow and purposely inadequate schools, many or most would have been at best barely literate, with no skills with which to land decent jobs in the North, ALL of them penniless or nearly so because of slavery, NONE could draw on family support from other former slaves, there were few safety nets, and so no cushion or ability to spend even a few months looking for work. Further, it's not like on one side of the line was oppression (black if you will) and cross over into equality nirvana (white) - all they gained from a trip North was the end of state sanctioned and enforced oppression into the dark gray zone where blacks were still widely discriminated against, but not as completely and systematically disenfranchised, but still forced to the fringes of society in most areas and facing huge racial obstacles.
    Well, I mean, heheh, arm chairing is all we have at this point... but as you say it was a better, albeit slightly, better state.

    And the point was, I think, that "markets" could have solved this. And if that was the point, I don't agree because functioning markets assume that the rights of the participants are equally enforced. There is nothing approaching a 'free market' when some large share of the population has no rights, and others 'competing' in the same space have ample rights protected by the state. It's an evil kind of market distortion, with the government of the South picking and guaranteeing that blacks are always the losers in any 'market' competition with whites.
    No. It was the aversion to being treated as they were treated, and actually taking proactive steps to change their condition, which was my thought. But this takes us back, and forgive the seemingly callus manner in which I speak, but in a purely objective sense, blacks weren't brought here to share in the land and wealth. They were brought here for a very specific purpose. Slavery. Again, we have to go back into history and look at that mindset. They were not equal because they from the moment they touched soil, were considered not men, but property. The more and more rights, the more and more "equality" given to them came and comes at the economic expense of those who at that time were the intended beneficiaries of this country and its resources. There is no other option for them but to oppose such changes, both in the 1860's and the 1960's. It is ingrained.

    I'm not accusing you of this, but I see this kind of argument all the time in libertarian outlets. That if the North and black slaves had just been patient, "free markets" would have solved slavery. Perhaps, and that's fine and very easy as a white man in 2010 to opine about how JUST another generation or two or three of blacks might have had to endure being owned by whites and then their grand children or great grandchildren might, if all worked OK, been allowed some freedom. It's an morally offensive argument to me from people who claim to believe in natural rights, liberty, freedom, etc. that an entire race should have been OK to have NONE of those things and wait until their complete and total subjugation by whites was no longer PROFITABLE for their oppressors in this bastardized version of "free markets" before they could expect the process of gaining freedom to begin, and only at the pace at which it was maximally profitable for their oppressors.
    My libertarian strain for the most part starts and stops at freedom of association.

    Oh, slavery would have no doubt gradually ended. Free Markets I don't believe necessarily would have been the cause, but like in Rome, slaves would have taken all the work leaving a disenfranchised underclass of poverty stricken, white, freemen. This would have forced the hands of change one way or the other. Reform or Revolution.
    Intolerance is the privilege of Truth...

  9. #389
    Educator
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Arizona
    Last Seen
    01-18-17 @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    733

    Re: Gov. Haley to call for removal of Confederate flag from Capitol grounds [W:154]

    Hmm...more I read/hear on the confederate flag, the more I'm tempted to make a proposition/proposal/w.e. to have the flag of the United Mexican States fly in front of the State Legislature in Arizona. After-all it's just a flag, and how dare Arizona deny it's history as part of Alto California! We should honor it, not cowtow to the liberal agenda that wants to destroy the history of our state!

    while we're at it, why aren't the New England states flying the flag of the British Empire? Why do those liberals not respect history and tradition?

  10. #390
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    21,642

    Re: Gov. Haley to call for removal of Confederate flag from Capitol grounds [W:154]

    Quote Originally Posted by coyotedelmar View Post
    Hmm...more I read/hear on the confederate flag, the more I'm tempted to make a proposition/proposal/w.e. to have the flag of the United Mexican States fly in front of the State Legislature in Arizona. After-all it's just a flag, and how dare Arizona deny it's history as part of Alto California! We should honor it, not cowtow to the liberal agenda that wants to destroy the history of our state!

    while we're at it, why aren't the New England states flying the flag of the British Empire? Why do those liberals not respect history and tradition?
    Sure...why not? Heck, it'll help strengthen relations with all those illegal aliens you got there.
    TANSTAAFL
    -I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he's picking my pocket.- Time Enough For Love - Robert A Heinlein
    My avatar created by Feliza Estrada estrada.feliza@yahoo.com

Page 39 of 41 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •