• 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
The proper context is that Lincoln didn't care one whit about the slaves - he just wanted to keep the union together.

OK, which is why the South seceded before he took office, because Lincoln didn't care about slaves and would do nothing to slow or stop the spread of slavery after he was elected.... Dang, it's too bad you weren't around in that era and you could have told the South that their slave based economy was perfectly safe under Lincoln!

Lincoln thought slavery should not exist, but he did not view blacks as equal to whites. If he could have kept the union together and not freed one slave - he would have been a happy camper.

Here's more "history" for you. Lincoln:

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 yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government — that nation — of which that constitution was the organic law.

It's pretty clear - he was personally opposed to slavery, but acknowledged his oath was to preserve the Union. Your attempts to make that into a negative are laughable.

Those quotes do not back up your assessment that if the average Southerner stayed living in the South that they must have supported racism. I pointed out to you how silly that claim is by citing the Detroit equivalent.

It's not just the quotes, but that those leaders were elected to represent them, in every office from the highest to the lowest.

People can't up and move on a whim, especially poor people. If they have a little bit of land - that's they way they make their living.

What did you expect them to do? Leave everything they owned and become beggars in the streets in the North?

I'm really curious to see how you defend that claim because from where I sit - it's ludicrous.

I assume you mean white people can't just up and move, which is true. But they CAN vote and did vote and they consistently across every elected office from the highest to the lowest for almost a century elected white supremacists who supported Jim Crow and segregation. It's impossible to conclude the average white voter in those states opposed policies imposed at every level by leaders they ELECTED.

It's incredible how reluctant you are to even acknowledge what is the history of this region. You're engaged in a rewrite of what happened to blacks, with the support of the vast majority of the white population (at least those with any power) for nearly a century. No wonder you don't see a problem with a flag that represented that era, as you don't see the era as particularly troubling. A few bad apples.....
 
Maybe that's a tough call for you...since you prefer to debate a meaningless topic...but for me, telling you it's meaningless is an attempt to get you to understand just how pathetic you are being. I see that as a good thing.

Here's the thing - I understand this place is an entertainment vehicle. It's not a place to change the world, but a place to engage in hopefully intelligent debate with those who have different opinions. It's not unlike debating sports or discussing trout flies or rod building or the best bicycle tires for training, which I also do online sometimes. Those are all trivial pursuits.

So I don't actually care if the topic isn't on the top 100 or even 1,000. I happen to think the principle behind this debate is important - I've touched on it in many conversations but it has to do with our unwillingness to acknowledge the deeply racist "Southern Heritage" that for so long defined the area I love, my home. That is important, if nothing else to provide a kind of firewall against those attitudes returning. So the flag is a symbol of that and an appropriate reaction to it is to hold it up, examine what it stood for, centuries of white oppression of blacks, and reject it, relegate it to the museums.

True, it won't solve racism. But embracing a relic of our racist past despite how it offends a large minority of blacks in this region also does nothing to soothe those wounds. It's no more than an act of common courtesy and respect to acknowledge what that flag means to some and take it down off state house grounds.
 
OK, which is why the South seceded before he took office, because Lincoln didn't care about slaves and would do nothing to slow or stop the spread of slavery after he was elected.... Dang, it's too bad you weren't around in that era and you could have told the South that their slave based economy was perfectly safe under Lincoln!
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.

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:

"“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”" ~Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln-Douglass debates, 1858.

He didn't want to let them vote or serve on juries or marry whites and he claimed whites were superior.

Where again is Lincoln's moral high ground again?


It's pretty clear - he was personally opposed to slavery, but acknowledged his oath was to preserve the Union. Your attempts to make that into a negative are laughable.

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.


I assume you mean white people can't just up and move, which is true. But they CAN vote and did vote and they consistently across every elected office from the highest to the lowest for almost a century elected white supremacists who supported Jim Crow and segregation. It's impossible to conclude the average white voter in those states opposed policies imposed at every level by leaders they ELECTED.

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.

It's incredible how reluctant you are to even acknowledge what is the history of this region. You're engaged in a rewrite of what happened to blacks, with the support of the vast majority of the white population (at least those with any power) for nearly a century. No wonder you don't see a problem with a flag that represented that era, as you don't see the era as particularly troubling. A few bad apples.....

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.

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.

And hatred never heals anything.
 
The national government should not exist in any form if it cannot protect the rights outlined in the Constitution for ALL of its citizens. And the states were simply NOT "sovereign to rule over themselves as they see fit." They were bound by that Constitution, including the laws passed by Congress and upheld by the courts. That part just wasn't then and isn't now optional.

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.

I don't know and can't see how it's relevant. The answer to systemic, state sponsored oppression isn't to ask those oppressed to move, it's to end the f'ing oppression and defend the rights of all citizens, not those with the right skin color.

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.



OK, fair enough. I'm glad we've been able to keep this civil. No offense intended in case you read any of it that way. :peace

I'm actually quite pleased with the conversation and applaud your spirited yet civil participation. I intended no offense either if it was taken.

Take Care.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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]
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

Sadly, the Office of POTUS has become more and more like a monarchy. Congress doesn't declare war and hasn't for a long time. Executive privilege has been invoked many times as well. Executive orders are used as well. Most of these actions we don't even hear about. It happens right under our noses. People only care when it is an issue they care about and it is reported in the media. But then there are also propaganda machines who misrepresent facts for their issue. So it has to rise above that "noise" level. It has to get on the 24 hour news cycle and then people will learn about it. Cable news is un-educating our public much of the time.

Regardless, I would look to her as a hero for having the courage to do what is right. It may cause impeachment proceedings, but that is an argument that can be won, IMO. I understand the problem you have with her disobeying the law she is supposed to uphold. Ironically, it is I that is endorsing rebellious behavior.
 
Update: The Flag was removed and then put back up 45 mins later.


Woman removes Confederate flag in front of SC statehouse.....

The Confederate flag was temporarily removed from the front of the South Carolina Statehouse on Saturday when a woman climbed the flagpole and — despite calls by police to get down — removed the banner. Bree Newsome, 30, of Charlotte, North Carolina, was about halfway up the more than 30-foot steel flagpole just after dawn Saturday when officers of the South Carolina Bureau of Protective Services ran to the flagpole and told her to get down. Instead, she continued climbing to the top and removed the flag.

She and a man who had climbed over a four-foot wrought-iron fence to get to the flag were arrested. The flag, which is protected by state law, was raised about 45 minutes later, well ahead of a rally later Saturday by supporters of keeping the flag where it is.

Sherri Iacobelli, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety, said Newsome and James Ian Tyson, 30, also of Charlotte, have been charged with defacing monuments on state Capitol grounds. That's a misdemeanor that carries a fine of up to $5,000 and a prison term of up to three years or both.....snip~

Woman removes Confederate flag in front of SC statehouse
 
The flag did not kill 9 blacks in that church. A mentally unstable racist kid did.
 
Update: The Flag was removed and then put back up 45 mins later.


Woman removes Confederate flag in front of SC statehouse.....

The Confederate flag was temporarily removed from the front of the South Carolina Statehouse on Saturday when a woman climbed the flagpole and — despite calls by police to get down — removed the banner. Bree Newsome, 30, of Charlotte, North Carolina, was about halfway up the more than 30-foot steel flagpole just after dawn Saturday when officers of the South Carolina Bureau of Protective Services ran to the flagpole and told her to get down. Instead, she continued climbing to the top and removed the flag.

She and a man who had climbed over a four-foot wrought-iron fence to get to the flag were arrested. The flag, which is protected by state law, was raised about 45 minutes later, well ahead of a rally later Saturday by supporters of keeping the flag where it is.

Sherri Iacobelli, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety, said Newsome and James Ian Tyson, 30, also of Charlotte, have been charged with defacing monuments on state Capitol grounds. That's a misdemeanor that carries a fine of up to $5,000 and a prison term of up to three years or both.....snip~

Woman removes Confederate flag in front of SC statehouse
1. There was an announced bounty and bail to be paid for such action.
2. The woman who did this is one who participates in activism for such payments.

So basically it was a paid activism stunt.
 
1. There was an announced bounty and bail to be paid for such action.
2. The woman who did this is one who participates in activism for such payments.

So basically it was a paid activism stunt.



Mornin EC. :2wave: Well it didn't work.....they put the Flag Right back up. Do you think she will be given time? Haley had already announced when it will be taken down. So what was the point of the stunt?

The leftwad wants instant gratification? As it doesn't seem like the activist would be one from the Right.
 
Do you think she will be given time?
Hopefully she and the ones offering the bounty get the maximum charge and sentence for the stunt.

shaun-king-tweet-1-confederate-flag.jpg


shaun-king-screenshot-confederate-flag-bail.png


shftwtconfedfag.jpg


https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/614814840893255680

Hopefully he is charged.


Haley had already announced when it will be taken down.
She did? When?
That seems odd that she could announce such, especially as it takes a super majority to pass such legislation.


So what was the point of the stunt?
Money making opportunity for the social activists. The bounty was only $10,000 + bail/bond.
Which was $3,000.


The amount gathered for it far exceeds the amount required.

 
Hopefully she and the ones offering the bounty get the maximum charge and sentence for the stunt.


Hopefully he is charged.


She did? When?
That seems odd that she could announce such, especially as it takes a super majority to pass such legislation.


Money making opportunity for the social activists. The bounty was only $10,000 + bail/bond.
Which was $3,000.


The amount gathered for it far exceeds the amount required.




They mentioned something about the 4th of July.....I am not sure if they settled on that date tho. Be a good time, keep everybody celebrating.
 
They mentioned something about the 4th of July.....I am not sure if they settled on that date tho. Be a good time, keep everybody celebrating.
She has the ability to call a special session. It still takes a super majority to change it.
 
She has the ability to call a special session. It still takes a super majority to change it.

Yep, I haven't been following if they kept their session going or not. Which I thought SC Congress was extending it with their budget session.
 
How stupid the American people are the sheep follow the wind. Questions;
If the Dixie flag is removed from everywhere in the country,
How many black males will stay with on woman and raise a couple kids instead of impregnating six or seven and never spend a minute with any of the women or kids?.
How many will not drop out of school?
How many will not turn to crime?
How many will not turn to drugs?
How many will find and keep jobs?
How many will not be killed before they are 20 years old?
How many will avoid membership in gangs?
The stupid liberals and minorities rejoicing in the removal of that flag guarantee there will never be hope for those it is suppose to oppress because the real oppressors are those that refuse to address the real issues listed above. Strip the Hells Angels symbol off their backs and what are you left with you ignorant fools?
 
Back
Top Bottom