• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Should the flag be moved-removed from all State Buildings?


  • Total voters
    70
I'm not totally up on the history of that flag in respect to SC, but it seems to me that the elected officials in SC dealt with the pressure from the Feds around 20 years ago. Since then, it hasn't been an issue and still isn't as far as the Feds are concerned.

That kind of makes the point of your post moot...don't you agree?

I guess you mean nearly 50 years ago, with the passage of the CRA and VRA that pretty much gutted the Jim Crow laws and voter suppression efforts common throughout the South?

But even if so I don't think it makes the observation moot at all. I've been through the history but that particular flag was raised atop the S.C. capitol in 1961 during a time when those raising it (the legislature and/or the Gov) were engaged in a bitter fight AGAINST extending civil rights to blacks. So that flag, that particular design, is intimately associated with state-sponsored efforts to continue the second class treatment of blacks in S.C., and that flag flew continuously over the capitol for 37 years.

Let me ask you this. Say you're invited to attend a black church in S.C. Given that flag's history, are you going to wear your Confederate Battle Flag belt buckle to the service? Unless you're extremely rude you won't because what you should know is most of not nearly all of that congregation will consider your belt buckle a symbol of past oppression by whites including their own government that only ended when the Feds forced its end. It doesn't even matter what it means to you - to those on the receiving end of centuries of state sponsored oppression, that particular symbol has a very definite meaning, and that meaning is enforced every day because that flag on your belt has been adopted by a slew of racist organizations in your state that say a return to white supremacy is their goal, the same goal the S.C. government fought to maintain when the Confederate flag was raised on the state house.

And if you say, well, the flag represents my southern pride, the response from a black congregant could be, "you mean the pride and nostalgia for a time when the state prevented me from voting, from eating in the same restaurants as you, etc. and fought a years long battle using that flag as a symbol to perpetuate that state of affairs?"
 
I dont find the link between the south and the crown all that surprising in 1776. It was the greatest concentration of british influence, there was a greater interdependence on textiles and trade...fiscal realities. Not surprising based on the facts of the day. I also dont find the race riots that occurred in the northern cities from 1900-1930 all that surprising. Its just part of history.

And I think its fine to have discussions on race and racism as historical realities. Great opportunities to learn. Sadly...some ****head will seize on the opportunity to try to capitalize today on the fact that in 1850, Asians in California were treated as slaves, not allowed to associate with non-Asians, couldnt marry, couldnt own proeprty, etc. Modern California doesnt own the actions of historical California. But you know...next thing you know people will be demanding the flag of California be changed...

I'm just a retired Chem/Physics teacher--but I enjoy all kinds of history--like the history of my subjects.

If I taught US history today and had a free hand, I'd go backwards.
With trying to put in plenty of current events discussion without getting in trouble with the admins.

My first unit would be Reagan until now--then Eisenhower to Carter--Roosevelt/Truman/WW2--1921-1933--Progressive era/WW1--
Age of Inventions/Gilded Age--Civil War/Reconstruction--1828 Tariff Act/Whigs/pre-civil war--Industrial Revolution--
Constitution/early Presidents through Monroe--American Revolution/Washington--
French-Indian War/1700s/1600s--1500s/da Vinci/explorers/printing press at least
 
Sure I have - that flag was raised in 1961, and it's not a coincidence that the raising of a Confederate battle flag occurred during a bitter battle over civil rights for blacks. You have to be willfully ignorant to conclude that the events are mere coincidences, and especially given the fact that the same flag was adopted by other states and by white racists opposing civil rights and fighting to maintain white supremacy. Those events are all related, part of the history of that flag.

I'm not surprised you didn't offer proof of history, had you done so - you would have revealed that the flag was put on the State House in 62 - in conjunction with the Civil War centennial. It had been in House Chambers since 1938.
History of the Confederate Flag on Statehouse Grounds - ABC News


The alternative explanation is the flag was raised to honor the Southern heritage or some such nonsense, and that might fly if the Confederate battle flag was raised to commemorate some event and then removed after a week, a month, even a year, but it stayed for DECADES, an historical artifact, flying over the State's Capitol.

Not the "alternate" explanation - the real explanation. Since it was already in the Senate and the House, and everyone seemed happy with it - they left it.

And we have to assume that the white leaders who raised that flag had the support of 'the [white] people' in those states, because they elected white leaders who defended white supremacy and Jim Crow for DECADES. You're asking me to believe that gutless politicians who have always pandered to voters were somehow acting contrary to the will of the majority of their constituents, and there is simply NO evidence that is the case.

We don't have to assume any such thing. Your imagination is running wild with you. Only a handful of people biotched about it - and that was after many years had passed.


I can acknowledge what that flag might mean to some people all day long and it won't change the fact that it was a mostly obscure flag until the civil rights battles started, and that the leaders of the movement against civil rights for their black residents raised that flag as their symbol of protest. That some might honor their dead relatives with it doesn't change that in 2015 that flag has been adopted as a symbol for white supremacists, same as it was the symbol for white supremacists occupying the highest state offices in the 1950s and 1960s.

It was only obscure to you - and to those who have no tie to the Civil War South. You seem to badly want to attribute feelings to this flag that simply did not exist until liberals started making a big deal out of it. You're CREATING the controversy - it wasn't there before. This faux outrage is a production of the Left.


OK, accepting your premise, then as this transformation of the symbol takes place, would you suggest that white, blue eyed, blonde Germans raise the flag and then ask Jewish residents to accept that when THEY raise the flag on the State Capitol, it means peace? Come one. Those Jewish residents would have known friends or family members slaughtered, millions of them in total, under that banner. No one with the slightest respect for Jews and the pain of that recent history would fly that flag and expect them to understand that it no longer means hate and a desire to wipe them off the face of the earth, but peace and love.

And remember that you'd be asking Jews to ignore that white, blue eyed blonde Germans raised that Nazi banner in 1961 while fighting to keep Jews as second class citizens BY LAW, prohibited from attending state colleges, segregated in inferior schools, unable to eat in the same restaurants as Christians, or sit in the same movie seats, Jews only allowed in the back rows of buses, and unable to vote and exercise their rights as Americans, etc. and kept that Nazi banner on the state house continually for another 37 years and only removed it under protest from the Jewish community.

Seriously, I can't believe you believe your own rhetoric. Please, put yourself in the shoes of Jews and ask yourself if you'd buy that nonsense....



What will we have lost? A symbol of a racist past? Good riddance.

I am Jewish. I know what the swastika means to Jews. It didn't have to mean that - but now it does. Now, it's truly an insult. But everytime some skinhead wears it or flies it - it feels like a direct threat. Had the Native Americans reclaimed it and had it never been banned in Germany - it would never have the power it has today. That's what you're missing.
 
This follows on your previous claim that I am ignorant of US history, where upon you delve in current Russian history (!!) in a false analogy of the US Civil War.

My analogy was spot on.

What is to be done is for US state governments to remove a symbol that represents an attempt to dissolve the Union and maintain a system of slave labor. The US is usually a place that does not celebrate rebellious losers.

Gimme a break. The US has become the biggest celebrator of rebellious losers around. We no longer value those who create and make jobs, instead, we degrade them and pander to those who would leech off the system.

The Left has turned into the McCarthiests of the 21 Century.
 
I guess you mean nearly 50 years ago, with the passage of the CRA and VRA that pretty much gutted the Jim Crow laws and voter suppression efforts common throughout the South?

But even if so I don't think it makes the observation moot at all. I've been through the history but that particular flag was raised atop the S.C. capitol in 1961 during a time when those raising it (the legislature and/or the Gov) were engaged in a bitter fight AGAINST extending civil rights to blacks. So that flag, that particular design, is intimately associated with state-sponsored efforts to continue the second class treatment of blacks in S.C., and that flag flew continuously over the capitol for 37 years.

Let me ask you this. Say you're invited to attend a black church in S.C. Given that flag's history, are you going to wear your Confederate Battle Flag belt buckle to the service? Unless you're extremely rude you won't because what you should know is most of not nearly all of that congregation will consider your belt buckle a symbol of past oppression by whites including their own government that only ended when the Feds forced its end. It doesn't even matter what it means to you - to those on the receiving end of centuries of state sponsored oppression, that particular symbol has a very definite meaning, and that meaning is enforced every day because that flag on your belt has been adopted by a slew of racist organizations in your state that say a return to white supremacy is their goal, the same goal the S.C. government fought to maintain when the Confederate flag was raised on the state house.

And if you say, well, the flag represents my southern pride, the response from a black congregant could be, "you mean the pride and nostalgia for a time when the state prevented me from voting, from eating in the same restaurants as you, etc. and fought a years long battle using that flag as a symbol to perpetuate that state of affairs?"

Actually, I was referring to the SC Legislature that moved that flag off their Capitol building to the memorial site where it now resides...and, I'll add, where it has resided for around 20 years.

In any case, your analogy about the black church doesn't fit. In regards to this flag, we are talking about it existing at a location that anyone is free to visit...or not. Therefore, any ill feeling anyone might experience from seeing it can be quickly remedied by not going near it. On the other hand, anyone who DOES want to see it...for whatever reason (maybe their ancestor fought in that war and they want to pay their respects to the sacrifices the ancestor made)...are free to visit the memorial. Unlike your church analogy, nobody is getting that flag shoved in their face.
 
Last edited:
I'll go ahead and repost this since it seems to have slipped past without understanding...

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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.


When you quote something - you need to put quotation marks around it and you need to source the citation. Your quotation comes from a VP of the Confederacy and in that speech he said a great many other things - many about unfair trade and finances.

You've posted that quote a number of times now - each time incorrectly. No one denies there were racists in the Confederacy - heck - until a few years before - Northerners still owned slaves. Northerners also owned indentured servants at the same time who were no more than slaves - they just had a time limit on their servitude. As pointed out by others - the US Flag flew over slavery for nearly a century.

Your quote comes from one very wealthy man. That man was not indicative of the common Southerner.

You might not realize it - but you're doing nothing but creating more racism by acting like an entire region was racist and owned slaves. Perhaps you want a race war - but I don't.
 
The Nazi flag was created for and used by a racist. Now...should those German citizens be shamed to fly a German flag?

The Confederate flag was created an used by a government whose primary reason for secession was slavery. So anyways, are you going to answer the question?
 
Last edited:
The Stars and Stripes, the Flag of the North, flew for over 80 years while Slavery was legal.

Allot longer than the Confederate flag flew. Also the Confederate flag was a Battle flag, not a National flag.

The National flag of the South had a different design.

And yes, the North used slaves. Really, the North never had a problem with slavery until the South wanted to secede.

Come to think of it, Dutch, English and Porteguese Ships brought slaves over to the US.
Should those flags be taken down ?

Maybe if people were more educated they wouldn't be so insulted over a flag.

They definitely wouldn't compare it to the Nazi flag, thats for sure.

That's a silly argument. The Confederate flag was created an used by a government whose primary reason for secession/rebellion was maintaining slavery. I'm guessing you don't want to answer the question?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure. I would have to believe however that violations of the law are grounds for impeachment and likely go against the oath of office. Contrary to what seems to have become the standard mindset of many in America, Executive Branch officers are not Kings that simply can disregard and break the law because they feel like it.

George W Bush and his allies who pushed unitary executive theory disagree.
 
That's a silly argument. The Stars and Stripes wasn't created for the primary purpose of maintaining slavery.

What flag was created for the primary purpose of maintaining slavery?
 
OK, so does a decent Southern person take down the flag or keep it flying high, and offending most of the blacks in that state?

Their decency is not predicated on it one way or another. The point I think your missing is that your sense of morality isn't necessarily theirs.

Right, but this same POTUS was an abolitionist, which is why BEFORE HE WAS INAUGURATED the South seceded in protest. You're trying to draw some equivalency between the person who would free slaves and those who fought a war to keep them enslaved.

No, I'm demonstrating that the idea that blacks were inferior back then was damn near universal and a position held by the very man who set them free. Thus separating the issue of slavery and "white supremecy".




When you made excuses for Jim Crow, blaming it on the North and reconstruction without nodding to an embedded culture of white supremacy that lasted for decades after reconstruction and only ended after equal rights for black citizens was forced on them by the rest of the country.

So you can't tell the difference between an explanation and an excuse. OK.


So, you're pointing to outliers, the 1 in 1,000 or less, as evidence of some broader point?

When said "outlier" was the plaintiff in a decided case that set legal precedent here in the good ole US for the allowing of servitude for life, i.e. slavery? That that individual. that that "outlier" was black? That at that point in time, that moment right there was the exact moment that Slavery became an Institution recognized by the precursor to the US government? Again, I'm separating the issue of slavery and "white supremacy". You're focusing on the outcome, I'm showing you the beginnings.


You're defending racism and the defense of white supremacy, from pre Civil War days through at least the 1960s. We know where they were "coming from" and that era and the romanticizing of it needs to end.

No, you're trying to pigeonhole me into that position. I'm explaining that racism and slavery aren't necessarily -- as has been shown -- tied at the hip. At least not originally, but let me ask you this -- what is your definition of white supremacy?

And I'm not taking one snapshot in time. What I've pointed out is a culture of racism and white supremacy that stretches unbroken from pre-colonial days through my lifetime, and that didn't end until change was forced on the south by the rest of the country. That flag was raised on a flagpole in S.C. in the 1960s in defense of that racist, white supremacist culture.

You are I believe lest you wouldn't be brushing aside my salient points so carelessly and parroting the same old mantra "you're defending racism and white supremacy"

The Federal government, the North once again imposing themselves on the sovereignty of a State, forcing on them that which they do not want, telling them how to handle themselves, just like the time of pre-secession, the reason for secession -- and you think them raising that flag was just about reassuring white people that they're the best?

You couldn't think that the raising of the flag had anything to do with the Federal government's encroachment, once again? That the Confederate Flag was a symbol of defiance of that Federal encroachment?

Nah, it's just cut and dry, black< white with you...
 
Actually, I was referring to the SC Legislature that moved that flag off their Capitol building to the memorial site where it now resides...and, I'll add, where it has resided for around 20 years.

OK, 15 years (moved in 2000) and it wasn't moved in response to Federal pressure as you suggested, and hasn't to my knowledge ever been an issue for the Feds. The opposition came from within the state of S.C., mostly from black residents, who fully understand the history of that flag in their state.

In any case, your analogy about the black church doesn't fit. In regards to this flag, we are talking about it existing at a location that anyone is free to visit...or not. Therefore, any ill feeling anyone might experience from seeing it can be quickly remedied by not going near it. On the other hand, anyone who DOES want to see it...for whatever reason (maybe their ancestor fought in that war and they want to pay their respects to the sacrifices the ancestor made)...are free to visit the memorial. Unlike your church analogy, nobody is getting that flag shoved in their face.

Stand on the steps of the Capitol and the flag is hard to miss. It's a very prominent location. And there is no reason that particular flag with its history and current use as a symbol for white racists has to fly over any memorial to those who fought and died in the Civil War. There are many options to choose from and nearly all of them if not all carry a lot less recent emotional baggage.

SC-Flag.jpg
 
OK, 15 years (moved in 2000) and it wasn't moved in response to Federal pressure as you suggested, and hasn't to my knowledge ever been an issue for the Feds. The opposition came from within the state of S.C., mostly from black residents, who fully understand the history of that flag in their state.



Stand on the steps of the Capitol and the flag is hard to miss. It's a very prominent location. And there is no reason that particular flag with its history and current use as a symbol for white racists has to fly over any memorial to those who fought and died in the Civil War. There are many options to choose from and nearly all of them if not all carry a lot less recent emotional baggage.

View attachment 67186101

So it's been there for 15 years...apparently with no ill effect, nobody killed because of it, etc...but now that some nut-job kills people it's suddenly a cause for this kind of event and people like you will dredge up any reasoning...no matter how outlandish or illogical...create analogies that don't work...basically raise so much of a ruckus...that the Governor and Legislature of that State will have no choice but to remove it.

15 years, it's been okay. A week from a tragedy, it's got to go.
 
The Confederate flag was created an used by a government whose primary reason for secession was slavery. So anyways, are you going to answer the question?

One of many reasons was slavery...though the south maintained the ban on international slavery. There were many reasons. Many (most) of the citizens of the south were not slaveholders. They were more beholden to states rights and objected to the force and dominance of the federal government. As has been discussed before. Slavery...as an institution...was dying.

I think I did answer your question. The Nazi flag is not the German flag. The Nazi flag symbolized Hitlers Nazi party. The German flag symbolizes the whole of Germany. If someone flew a Nazi flag as a means fo honoring their family that served under that flag, they would be honoring the Nazi party. Kinda tough to deny that. The whole of the south were not slave owners and were not committed to the act of slavery. If your belief is that every southerner at the time of the formation of the Southern states was defending slavery, you would be wrong. Just as wrong as you would be if you declared Lincoln was a racist and supported slavery when, as a form of concession, he offered to respect the sovereignty of all slave holding states and to respect their tradition of slavery.
 
Will Mitt Romney announce his candidacy and make Haley his VP if elected? Ironically that could be the GOP's best hope.
 
One of many reasons was slavery.

None of which are cited in their actual secession documents to any meaningful degree. So anyways, are you going to answer the question or not?

The Nazi flag is not the German flag

From 1933 to 1945 it definitely was. Please, stop trying to change history. Anyways, are you going to answer the question?
 
None of which are cited in their actual secession documents to any meaningful degree. So anyways, are you going to answer the question or not?



From 1933 to 1945 it definitely was. Please, stop trying to change history. Anyways, are you going to answer the question?
Are you just not very good at that whole reading and comprehending thing?

"I think I did answer your question. The Nazi flag is not the German flag. The Nazi flag symbolized Hitlers Nazi party. The German flag symbolizes the whole of Germany. If someone flew a Nazi flag as a means fo honoring their family that served under that flag, they would be honoring the Nazi party. Kinda tough to deny that."
 
Are you just not very good at that whole reading and comprehending thing?

All I've read from you so far is evasion.

"I think I did answer your question. The Nazi flag is not the German flag. The Nazi flag symbolized Hitlers Nazi party. The German flag symbolizes the whole of Germany. If someone flew a Nazi flag as a means fo honoring their family that served under that flag, they would be honoring the Nazi party. Kinda tough to deny that."

This has already been corrected so that you are able to answer the post. It was definitely the German flag from 1933 until 1945. So the question stands. Are you going to answer it or not?
 
Their decency is not predicated on it one way or another. The point I think your missing is that your sense of morality isn't necessarily theirs.

I think you're insisting that there is no right or wrong on this issue and I don't agree. I think a decent people, decent elected leaders, do not intentionally offend a great share of their state with the flying of a damn relic of a bygone age.

No, I'm demonstrating that the idea that blacks were inferior back then was damn near universal and a position held by the very man who set them free. Thus separating the issue of slavery and "white supremecy".

But there is a gigantic difference between having some view that blacks were inferior, and allowing them their freedom versus founding a country predicated on their perpetual slavery. And what I mean by white supremacy in this context is in the eyes of the law, the state, enforced with guns and prisons for offenders.

So you can't tell the difference between an explanation and an excuse. OK.

You are "explaining" acts that I find morally reprehensible without any comment on whether those acts are or not. Let me put it this way, if you were black and on the receiving end of Jim Crow laws, do you care that they might have been instituted 70 years prior because of heavy handed Yankees during reconstruction? No, because you know in this reality they're morally reprehensible and ought to end, today.

When said "outlier" was the plaintiff in a decided case that set legal precedent here in the good ole US for the allowing of servitude for life, i.e. slavery? That that individual. that that "outlier" was black? That at that point in time, that moment right there was the exact moment that Slavery became an Institution recognized by the precursor to the US government? Again, I'm separating the issue of slavery and "white supremacy". You're focusing on the outcome, I'm showing you the beginnings.

You cannot separate racism from white supremacy. Read the people from that era, the VP of the CSA - he states the inherent inferiority of blacks as a "natural law." Or the Texas declaration. Slavery was necessarily tied directly to the inherent supremacy of the white race over blacks. It's impossible to square any other belief with the constitution or with any coherent notion of morality. How could anyone justify perpetual slavery of a fellow white man who the Constitution declares was granted inalienable rights by God? They couldn't, and so a line was drawn that declared white superiority by natural law, as ordained (literally) by God.

No, you're trying to pigeonhole me into that position. I'm explaining that racism and slavery aren't necessarily -- as has been shown -- tied at the hip. At least not originally, but let me ask you this -- what is your definition of white supremacy?

Sure they were, for all purposes that matter, at least in this country.

You are I believe lest you wouldn't be brushing aside my salient points so carelessly and parroting the same old mantra "you're defending racism and white supremacy"

Right, you're just explaining where they were coming from.

The Federal government, the North once again imposing themselves on the sovereignty of a State, forcing on them that which they do not want, telling them how to handle themselves, just like the time of pre-secession, the reason for secession -- and you think them raising that flag was just about reassuring white people that they're the best?

But the reason the Feds imposed themselves on the South does MATTER. Goodness, the system entrenched by law in the South in 1960!! was an absolute mockery to any idea of freedom and liberty that you can articulate. So I'm sorry but I really don't give one **** that the Feds were forcing something on the South that the white power structure did not want. Of course not, but it was immoral and a disgrace to this great country that we allowed such a system to persist for so long.

Goodness, it's bringing up a wife beater and you "explaining" that he only beat his wife because she didn't do as he said.

You couldn't think that the raising of the flag had anything to do with the Federal government's encroachment, once again? That the Confederate Flag was a symbol of defiance of that Federal encroachment?

Of course, but the "encroachment" was to enforce basic civil rights for 1/3 or more of South Carolina CITIZENS, entitled to the same God given rights as their white counterparts but who were for nearly a century systematically denied them by white racists at all levels of the STATE.
 
All I've read from you so far is evasion.



This has already been corrected so that you are able to answer the post. It was definitely the German flag from 1933 until 1945. So the question stands. Are you going to answer it or not?
I've answered the question twice.
 
So it's been there for 15 years...apparently with no ill effect, nobody killed because of it, etc...but now that some nut-job kills people it's suddenly a cause for this kind of event and people like you will dredge up any reasoning...no matter how outlandish or illogical...create analogies that don't work...basically raise so much of a ruckus...that the Governor and Legislature of that State will have no choice but to remove it.

15 years, it's been okay. A week from a tragedy, it's got to go.

Goodness, no, the flag has been controversial for decades in S.C. and that didn't end in 2000. Just as one example, the NAACP still has a boycott on the state and has since at least 2000. And the reason the legislature in S.C. might go ahead and remove the constant source of bickering is because it's been a constant source of bickering for DECADES, and there just is no good reason to keep that relic up on state grounds.

And you said my analogy doesn't work because it's not at the Capitol and can be avoided by those who don't want to see the flag. As you see from the picture if you visit the Capitol, you can't miss the flag.

Furthermore, the actual point of the analogy is decent, considerate people don't intentionally offend those they care about - it's a sign of respect, common courtesy. The flag DOES offend blacks and the reason it does is rational, easily explained. So given that there are plenty of alternative flag designs, why insist on one with such baggage, if you respect the black populaton of your state? I don't know, maybe you can explain.
 
Back
Top Bottom