• 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!

SC Confederate Flag Taken Down From State Capitol in South Carolina

Well KKK use a variety of flags, however the confederate flag does not stand for racism any less then the expansion of the centralized government

Not just the KKK. The legislature of SC raised the rebel flag onto the state house as a symbol of defiance against Fed efforts to overturn Jim Crow. Georgia incorporated the flag into its state flag in the same era, for the same reason. The segregationist Dixiecrats, George Wallace, etc. When a white person along a civil rights march waved the rebel flag, it was an unambiguous signal to everyone along that route that he or she stood with Wallace and his ilk and against MLK and blacks in the South fighting for equal civil rights.

There were real abolitionists who believed in human rights etc, but that is not the scope of the free soilers and Republican Party.

Perhaps but you were making some overly broad generalizations.

When I say racist expansion is a result of the state I am referring to government in general. A state government enacted Jim Crow laws is the exact concept I am citing. If we had just open free market principles without any government, racism would cease to exist. I am saying the expansion of racism is a direct result of nationalism and centralization even if it is on the "state level"

Maybe, but that world hasn't ever existed, so we're forced to deal with the reality of slavery, followed by a century of Jim Crow in the South, all of it justified with an appeal to "states' rights" of the majority to oppress the minority and deny them basic civil and human rights. And the fact, as it relates to this discussion, is the proponents of Jim Crow and all that meant publicly and privately flew the rebel flag as their symbol of defiance against efforts to end that regime.
 
Not just the KKK. The legislature of SC raised the rebel flag onto the state house as a symbol of defiance against Fed efforts to overturn Jim Crow. Georgia incorporated the flag into its state flag in the same era, for the same reason. The segregationist Dixiecrats, George Wallace, etc. When a white person along a civil rights march waved the rebel flag, it was an unambiguous signal to everyone along that route that he or she stood with Wallace and his ilk and against MLK and blacks in the South fighting for equal civil rights.



Perhaps but you were making some overly broad generalizations.



Maybe, but that world hasn't ever existed, so we're forced to deal with the reality of slavery, followed by a century of Jim Crow in the South, all of it justified with an appeal to "states' rights" of the majority to oppress the minority and deny them basic civil and human rights. And the fact, as it relates to this discussion, is the proponents of Jim Crow and all that meant publicly and privately flew the rebel flag as their symbol of defiance against efforts to end that regime.

1. The symbol of the confederate flag is a symbol of southern heritage it has no intrinsic racism in he definition of the flag. Now I am not a "new-confederate" and I really don't care how people honor flags and etc but the reality is that people assert that racism was a heavy predominant feature of southern values. The confederate constitution put it in the constitution that slavery would be decided on the state level, this means by definition the south was not fighting for slavery. Historically speaking as well it was a major step closer to abolition then any northern political passage. In fact southern blacks had more rights in certain states then certain states of northern blacks! There were black slave owners, this means that black people in Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and other states had more rights then Chicago considering Chicago had laws stati it was illegal for blacks to own property. The people that you are saying Use the confederate flag to promote racism and Jim Crow laws are using the flag as a sign of heritage. It's the exact same thing when an American neo-nazi waves an American flag, or a Chicano in the "la raza" movement waves a Mexican flag, or a black panther has a symbol of the entire country of Africa. The flags hold no bearing intrinsic racist value, and if anyone wants to actually point fingers to the cause of state oppression in terms of race the people need to point their fingers to the nationalists that caused the manifest destiny theory to explode.

Those nationalists are the northern states. There are many heroes of the north and many great abolitionists, in fact Abraham Lincoln arrested an estimated 30,000 of them simply because they believed in the right to secession. But the northern Union army in the civil war was not fighting to end racism or slavery. They were fighting to nationalize the union, and up until that point every state was considered a soveirgn country.

There is no "broad over generalization" the free soilers and he republicans were attempting to end slavery to promote white labor and dismantle cheap competition. It's the same reason why republicans are so opposed to immigration today, not on racist terms, but they think they need to enact political policies to protect American labor.

Look everything and everyone who flew the flag during the civil rights act had different interpretations of the affairs at that time, to simply suggest that it was because they hated black people is assignin. I'll give you an example.

Berry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act, not because he was a racist, but because he thought that the free market had the regulations in twined into its system and that an expansion of centralized government into business would make matters worse and hinder the point of private property.

Today, people who supported berry Goldwater are racist bigots... I am not suggesting that there was no such thing as southern racism or anything to that extent, I am saying however that the confederate flag is only a symbol of racism to the people who don't fully grasp he history of the southern states. The people who wave the flag in acts of racism are just as guilty of this as the new liberals that think we can not have it shown in public
 
Last edited:
1. The symbol of the confederate flag is a symbol of southern heritage it has no intrinsic racism in he definition of the flag. Now I am not a "new-confederate" and I really don't care how people honor flags and etc but the reality is that people assert that racism was a heavy predominant feature of southern values. The confederate constitution put it in the constitution that slavery would be decided on he state level, this means by definition the south was not fighting for slavery.

Sheesh, here's the VP of the CSA:

The prevailing ideas entertained by [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.

[These ideas] rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

I've had enough of banging my head against the wall with Lost Cause types.

The people that you are saying as suit he confederate flag to promote racism and Jim Crow laws are using the flag as a sign of heritage.

The racist heritage? They were adamantly opposed to ending Jim Crow laws. What heritage is consistent with that that shouldn't be condemned?

But he northern Union army in the civil war was not fighting to end racism or slavery. They were fighting to nationalize the union, and up until that point every state was considered a soveirgn country.

That's simply not true. The new nation rejected the Articles of Confederation and replaced them with the Constitution, and part of the whole point of that exercise was to increase the powers vested in the Federal government.

Look everything and everyone who flew the flag during e civil rights act had different interpretations of the affairs at that time, to simply suggest that it was because they hated black people is assignin. I'll give you an example.

I have no idea if they "hated black people" or not, but they sure as hell supported Jim Crow segregation laws.

Berry Goldwater opposed he civil rights act, not because he was a racist, but because he thought that the free market had the regulations in twined into its system and that an expansion of centralized government into the business would make matters worse and hinder the point of private property.

OK, but Goldwater's position perfectly aligned with supporters of STATE sanctioned segregation and white supremacy though voting restrictions and the like and we know this because the states who had laws mandating segregation also voted for Goldwater. So his motives don't much matter in my view if in the reality of the world at the time meant his "free market" principles were a safe harbor for white supremacists hoping to continue state sanctioned oppression of blacks.

Today, people who supported berry Goldwater are racist bigots...

Some no doubt were, others weren't. As an aside, I find it woefully UNimpressive for a (wealthy) white man like Goldwater who hadn't suffered and would not suffer a second of racial discrimination in his lifetime to defend a principle of 'state's rights' and 'free markets' and remain oblivious to the reality of how that works out on the ground for blacks who had been continually oppressed in the South for 100s of years. It's easy to stand on principle when doing so requires NO sacrifice from you and yours, but immense sacrifice from others, in this case blacks in the South.

I am not suggesting that there was no such thing as southern racism or anything to that extent, I am saying however that the confederate flag is only a symbol of racism to the people who don't fully grasp he history of the southern states. The people who wave the flag in acts of racism are just as guilty of this as the new liberals that think we can not have it shown in public

And you also ignore the clear words of Southern leaders who told us the issue was slavery.....
 
Sheesh, here's the VP of the CSA:



I've had enough of banging my head against the wall with Lost Cause types.



The racist heritage? They were adamantly opposed to ending Jim Crow laws. What heritage is consistent with that that shouldn't be condemned?



That's simply not true. The new nation rejected the Articles of Confederation and replaced them with the Constitution, and part of the whole point of that exercise was to increase the powers vested in the Federal government.



I have no idea if they "hated black people" or not, but they sure as hell supported Jim Crow segregation laws.



OK, but Goldwater's position perfectly aligned with supporters of STATE sanctioned segregation and white supremacy though voting restrictions and the like and we know this because the states who had laws mandating segregation also voted for Goldwater. So his motives don't much matter in my view if in the reality of the world at the time meant his "free market" principles were a safe harbor for white supremacists hoping to continue state sanctioned oppression of blacks.



Some no doubt were, others weren't. As an aside, I find it woefully UNimpressive for a (wealthy) white man like Goldwater who hadn't suffered and would not suffer a second of racial discrimination in hisbeen continually oppressed in the South for 100s of years. It's easy to stand on principle when doing so requires NO sacrifice from you and yours, but immense sacrifice from others, in this case blacks in the South.



And you also ignore the clear words of Southern leaders who told us the issue was slavery.....

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. First law of constitution

"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black race" - Abraham Lincoln .

1. If I want to promote white supremacy and wave a California flag while doing so does that mean the Californian flag is racist?

2. When king George signed his peace treaty he signed it addressed to each state in the union. The term "all men a created equal" is referring to all men of the sovereign states are equal just as all men of the states of France and England etc. etc. are equal. This was the terminology until Henry clay redefined it to interpret it as complete democracy. If you read Thomas Jefferson as well as James Madison's writings they talk about this. When asked if Jefferson was worried about the northern secession from the union Jefferson said "God bless them", John Quincy Adams said the same things when the nullification crisis started heating up. The constitution was created as a law for trade amongst the "sovereign states" almost exactly like the e.u. Today.

3. I'm not refuting the fact that there is southern racism, to do so would be nonsensical. I am saying the empowerment of racism comes from government and nothing else, and attempting to end racism through coercion will only create more racism.

4. There is no safe harbor in the free market for white racists! It's like teaching marginal value theory to a door knob, you can not control laws like Jim Crow if you have a free unregulated market place because the law of racial discrimination ultimately lies with the consumer and guess what the consumers historically chose no to racism. Just because Lyndon Johnson enacted the civil rights act does not mean racism was ended in fact it probably hindered racial assimilation.

5. Barry Goldwater was Jewish... I'm pretty sure Jews know what it's like to be discriminated against for being different...

6. Fact -Ulysses s grant was a slave owner. Fact - Abraham Lincoln made more arguments for fugitive slave law and southern slavery then any other president in the history of the United States fact - Robert e. Lee was a strong advocate for abolishing slavery and sought subjectifying a people to racial slavery as morally wrong.

Robert e. Lee was quoted saying something to the extent that, after the civil war, it was no longer the "United States from America, but now the United States of America" which means that they are no longer constitutional free so worn states as outlined in the Jeffersonian tradition, but now it was a strong centralized nation.
 
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. First law of constitution

"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black race" - Abraham Lincoln .

And....? What part of the VP's words do you think he didn't mean?

1. If I want to promote white supremacy and wave a California flag while doing so does that mean the Californian flag is racist?

We're talking about A flag with a very identifiable history. If you waved a Nazi flag, we can pretty much figure you for a racist/bigot/anti-Semite or all three.

2. When king George signed his peace treaty he signed it addressed to each state in the union.

Why does that matter? That letter was in 1783. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. The Constitution is what established the relationship between the states and the Federal government.

The term "all men a created equal" is referring to all men of the sovereign states are equal just as all men of the states of France and England etc. etc. are equal. This was the terminology until Henry clay redefined it to interpret it as complete democracy. If you read Thomas Jefferson as well as James Madison's writings they talk about this. When asked if Jefferson was worried about the northern secession from the union Jefferson said "God bless them", John Quincy Adams said the same things when the nullification crisis started heating up. The constitution was created as a law for trade amongst the "sovereign states" almost exactly like the e.u. Today.

I don't find the word "sovereign" anywhere in the Constitution. And there was much disagreement about the right of states to secede at their will from the union.

3. I'm not refuting the fact that there is southern racism, to do so would be nonsensical. I am saying the empowerment of racism comes from government and nothing else, and attempting to end racism through coercion will only create more racism.

OK, but we had slavery. What other than coercion would have ended slavery? I suppose market forces would have in another 20, 50 years, maybe? Does that work for you? Same with Jim Crow. OK, Jim Crow laws by definition came from government but what ends those laws in the 1960s? Moral persuasion over another generation or two or three or four? You OK with that if you're black in Mississippi?

4. There is no safe harbor in the free market for white racists! It's like teaching marginal value theory to a door knob, you can not control laws like Jim Crow if you have a free unregulated market place because the law of racial discrimination ultimately lies with the consumer and guess what the consumers historically chose no to racism. Just because Lyndon Johnson enacted the civil rights act does not mean racism was ended in fact it probably hindered racial assimilation.

OK, sure, because the century after the Civil War showed just how far race relations in the South had come without civil rights laws..... There is no evidence at all that civil rights laws that merely protected the basic rights whites took for granted 'hindered racial assimilation.' On what possible evidence based on reality at that time can you come to such a conclusion? We didn't have a "free unregulated market place" so relying on an alternative reality never seen in the history of man isn't actually an argument.

5. Barry Goldwater was Jewish... I'm pretty sure Jews know what it's like to be discriminated against for being different...

Actually, no, he was Episcopalian. From wiki: "Goldwater's mother, who was Protestant, came from a New England family that included the famous theologian, Roger Williams of Rhode Island.[6] Goldwater's parents were married in an Episcopal church in Phoenix; for his entire life, Goldwater was an Episcopalian, though on rare occasions he referred to himself as "Jewish".
 
6. Fact -Ulysses s grant was a slave owner. Fact - Abraham Lincoln made more arguments for fugitive slave law and southern slavery then any other president in the history of the United States fact - Robert e. Lee was a strong advocate for abolishing slavery and sought subjectifying a people to racial slavery as morally wrong.

Robert e. Lee was quoted saying something to the extent that, after the civil war, it was no longer the "United States from America, but now the United States of America" which means that they are no longer constitutional free so worn states as outlined in the Jeffersonian tradition, but now it was a strong centralized nation.

I'm not sure the point of any of that, or how most of the response related to the points I raised.
 
And....? What part of the VP's words do you think he didn't mean?



We're talking about A flag with a very identifiable history. If you waved a Nazi flag, we can pretty much figure you for a racist/bigot/anti-Semite or all three.



Why does that matter? That letter was in 1783. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. The Constitution is what established the relationship between the states and the Federal government.



I don't find the word "sovereign" anywhere in the Constitution. And there was much disagreement about the right of states to secede at their will from the union.



OK, but we had slavery. What other than coercion would have ended slavery? I suppose market forces would have in another 20, 50 years, maybe? Does that work for you? Same with Jim Crow. OK, Jim Crow laws by definition came from government but what ends those laws in the 1960s? Moral persuasion over another generation or two or three or four? You OK with that if you're black in Mississippi?



OK, sure, because the century after the Civil War showed just how far race relations in the South had come without civil rights laws..... There is no evidence at all that civil rights laws that merely protected the basic rights whites took for granted 'hindered racial assimilation.' On what possible evidence based on reality at that time can you come to such a conclusion? We didn't have a "free unregulated market place" so relying on an alternative reality never seen in the history of man isn't actually an argument.



Actually, no, he was Episcopalian. From wiki: "Goldwater's mother, who was Protestant, came from a New England family that included the famous theologian, Roger Williams of Rhode Island.[6] Goldwater's parents were married in an Episcopal church in Phoenix; for his entire life, Goldwater was an Episcopalian, though on rare occasions he referred to himself as "Jewish".

1. What part of the "presidents" quote do you think he didn't mean? Just because a political figurehead of an area viewed all the lines of Protestantism and moral racism does not negate the fact that the CSA had an amendment that basically prohibited the transportation of slaves into the region. Have you read Lincolns inaugural address? He says plain and clearly that he is in favor of southern slavery and wants to raise taxes

2. Why do you think the tenth amendment delegates powers to the states? Why do you think treason in the constitution is defined as anyone who levy a war against the states? They aren't saying anyone who levies war against Washington, D.C. Or opposes he federal government they are saying if someone attacks Georgia from South Carolina in a military manner they are commit in treason

3. All men are created equal and sovereign states are in the Declaration of Independence, which by definition was the colonies seceding from England... Why would they hinder that ability amongst states within the republic?

4. England and all of Europe freed slavery without force. If the north uplifted the 50% tariff we would of seen the end of slavery without any military and the loss of 600,000 people.

5. There is absolutely nothing I can possibly do to force people to not think a certain way. A majority of people are now geared at this anti white sentiment in San Francisco and I hear it all the time. I've had people yell at me and call me names and have been threatened with violence multiple times simply because I am Yugoslavian. meaning I hold absolutely no cultural or historical affinity to the slave owners or any American racist group, in fact when my grand parents got here they were targeted by the KKK. I know what it's like to be a target of racism, do I think the government has a duty to force people not to think a certain way? Absolutely not.

6. Have you heard any of the propaganda of why racists are racists? It's because they hate how gov subsidizes the African American community simply because they are African American creates racial division. There is more racism in the United States then any country in Europe at this present time.

7. Barry Goldwater’s Religion and Political Views | The Hollowverse He was raised episcopalian but was still a son of a Jewish immigrant...
 
I'm not sure the point of any of that, or how most of the response related to the points I raised.

You're not raising any points your not validating any counter argument to mine. You are ignoring the point and took the argument completely outside of the scope of the argument.

I am pointing out that the north caused a huge explosion of nationalism and the result was racism. The civil war was not fought for slavery, and the southerners did not all agree that slavery or racism was a "good thing"

Most importantly, my point was without government we can not enforce any racism and all forms of racism in the United States are a effect of state sponsored merchantilism and nationalism. Even on the "state" level this is true
 
1. What part of the "presidents" quote do you think he didn't mean? Just because a political figurehead of an area viewed all the lines of Protestantism and moral racism does not negate the fact that the CSA had an amendment that basically prohibited the transportation of slaves into the region. Have you read Lincolns inaugural address? He says plain and clearly that he is in favor of southern slavery and wants to raise taxes

The same constitution protected the institution of slavery, and extended it into all territories, protected the right of anyone to bring slaves into any state, etc.

And Lincoln's address makes clear that his view is the constitution allows slavery, and that he has no intention to interfere with it in the states, but that the issue of slavery in the territories must be resolved like all other matters through the majority, that the minority cannot dictate matters left unresolved in the Constitution to the minority. And I didn't see him pledging to raise taxes in that first inaugural. If I missed it, please quote the relevant section.

Your history is pretty selective.....

2. Why do you think the tenth amendment delegates powers to the states? Why do you think treason in the constitution is defined as anyone who levy a war against the states? They aren't saying anyone who levies war against Washington, D.C. Or opposes he federal government they are saying if someone attacks Georgia from South Carolina in a military manner they are commit in treason

This is what it says about treason - "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Seems to imply a collective "them" as in one or all of them. Don't see how this supports your point.

3. All men are created equal and sovereign states are in the Declaration of Independence, which by definition was the colonies seceding from England... Why would they hinder that ability amongst states within the republic?

If they anticipated that, why not write the provision into the Constitution? Surely you don't think the Feds could purchase a territory, admit them into the U.S. and the next year the territory purchased by blood and/or treasure could simply decide - "Hey, Thanks GUYS! We'd like to be our own country!"

4. England and all of Europe freed slavery without force. If the north uplifted the 50% tariff we would of seen the end of slavery without any military and the loss of 600,000 people.

OK, and how does the government pay for itself?

5. There is absolutely nothing I can possibly do to force people to not think a certain way. A majority of people are now geared at this anti white sentiment in San Francisco and I hear it all the time. I've had people yell at me and call me names and have been threatened with violence multiple times simply because I am Yugoslavian. meaning I hold absolutely no cultural or historical affinity to the slave owners or any American racist group, in fact when my grand parents got here they were targeted by the KKK. I know what it's like to be a target of racism, do I think the government has a duty to force people not to think a certain way? Absolutely not.

I don't think it can FORCE people to think a certain way, and it certainly has no duty to try. What is should do is protect civil and human rights.

But I talk about Jim Crow and you give me this? I have no idea how it's responsive to any point I've raised.

6. Have you heard any of the propaganda of why racists are racists? It's because they hate how gov subsidizes the African American community simply because they are African American creates racial division. There is more racism in the United States then any country in Europe at this present time.

No idea what your point is. Before the great society, the South had an unbroken period lasting CENTURIES of oppression of blacks without much of that "subsidizing" from whites.

7. Barry Goldwater’s Religion and Political Views | The Hollowverse He was raised episcopalian but was still a son of a Jewish immigrant...

Grandson of Jewish immigrants, and, he was wealthy and white and so sacrificed NOTHING to allow rampant discrimination and segregation of poor blacks in the South, public and private. When it costs you nothing, it's easy to reject the CRA because of public accommodation laws that don't affect you, yours, your friends, business associates, etc. If the Jim Crow laws targeted Jews and his grandfather was a frequent victim of discrimination in his home in Alabama, and he had the guts to tell his father - "I love you but will vote to allow continued, rampant public and private discrimination against Jews like you because of freedom!" I'm impressed.
 
You're not raising any points your not validating any counter argument to mine. You are ignoring the point and took the argument completely outside of the scope of the argument.

Sorry, but I post responses, you block quote them all, and I can't relate any of the numbered responses to any of what I've said. I'm not trying to miss the point.

I am pointing out that the north caused a huge explosion of nationalism and the result was racism. The civil war was not fought for slavery, and the southerners did not all agree that slavery or racism was a "good thing"

Wait, the racism was institutionalized as slavery and had been for hundreds of years. That had nothing to do with the North's "nationalism." It was part of the fabric of the wya of life in the South (and North to a large extend, predating the existence of the U.S.).

And of course it was largely fought "for slavery." Goodness, you Lost Cause types say that but have to ignore the declarations of secession and just countless quotes by CSA leaders at that time. When the VP says the "corner stone" of the new country is slavery, you have to take his word for it. When Mississippi says, "our cause is thoroughly identified with slavery" I take their word for it. Etc. That was the irreconcilable problem.

Most importantly, my point was without government we can not enforce any racism and all forms of racism in the United States are a effect of state sponsored merchantilism and nationalism. Even on the "state" level this is true

OK, but how does that relate to anything we're talking about. We have states and a Federal government. You're telling me what it might be like in a reality never seen in human history, and I don't know how to debate against a fantasy.
 
The same constitution protected the institution of slavery, and extended it into all territories, protected the right of anyone to bringsegregation of poor blacks in the the guts to tell his father - "I love you but will vote to allow continued, rampant public and private discrimination against Jews like you because of freedom!" I'm impressed.

In Lincolns inaugural address he makes the case for southern slavery, and vows to enforce the fugitive slave law. He then goes on to talk about the power of the central authority and then "In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion — no using of force against, or among the people anywhere" this quote he is threatening southern states. This threat on southern states is due to the fact that just a few days prior the tariff rate was raised to 50% and the last time that happened, South Carolina nullified the law and it almost caused a civil war with Andrew Jackson. Lincoln is basically saying that the southerners need to accept the northern tariffs or he will resort to violence.

How could England be engaged in treason if it attacks Virginia? That is not treason to the constitution, however if Massachusetts attacked Virginia that would be considered treason. The reason they invoke the plurality as you say is because they are referring to the states as separate entities. The only other way this would make sense is if they considered Napoleon attacking Georgia as treason. The founding fathers are clear and to the point on what they consider state seveirgnty and in fact there was a whole history of nullification before the civil war, because up until that point the states had final say. There had been a few major times of secession until Lincoln made it illegal, and that view was widely accepted amongst the population. the north in 1814, and South Carolina in 1830. Ohio and other states nullified laws as well as the north etc etc this was all because up until the Lincoln administration the people fealt and acted as if they were in seveirgn states under bassically a trade union.

The government pays for itself by robbery and theft, I am not sure how this correlates to the argument

Im saying Jim Crow only comes into effect as an actual "law" because places like Alabama had a government enforce it. That is the entire point of my argument. Without government there would be no racist legislation ever.

My point is that racists use the fact that government has come in and attempted to give special privileges to a certain race to make up for historical atrocities. Doing so shoves other racial groups out of the "loop" and it makes those groups have animosity towards the "subsidized" minorities. This is what you see now, "I'm white and people won't give me scholarships..." This leads to white racialism because they feel chastised. The subsidies, for the minority populations, do not work in a free market. It makes people who undertake them to tend to not advance through market processes of risk analysis. This hinders the black community to pull out of economic slumps and they blame white people because white people have accumulated more wealth which leads to racism. The fact that the government subsidizes people based on race or ethnicity causes the entire country to view people as belonging to separate categories of people as opposed to all being just humans. This separation causes division which enhances racial tension.

see this is what I am talking about. Barry Goldwater used economic reasoning to suggest that the civil rights act would be a failure and all it would do is grant more state power. This is completely true!!!! but people who do not understand market processes use this moral agenda to attempt to dehumanize anyone who has an actual understanding of market economics. So they will call them racists and anything else. Barry Goldwater, being Jewish, and the son of a Jewish immigrant of he early 1900a is by definition a minority at that time and I guarantee you him as well as his family felt racism.

Barry Goldwater was against the civil rights act because he thought added regulation will hinder economic growth which is completely true. It has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights issues because the entire country was speaking at that very time, that they were fed up of racism. If I say openly that I do not support the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage because I think marriage belongs to the people and the government should have absolutely no say on who can and can't get married, 50 years from now people will take that quote and say I hated gay people... Do you see what I'm saying?
 
Sorry, but I post responses, you block quote them all, and I can't relate any of the numbered responses to any of what I've said. I'm not trying to miss the point.



Wait, the racism was institutionalized as slavery and had been for hundreds of years. That had nothing to do with the North's "nationalism." It was part of the fabric of the wya of life in the South (and North to a large extend, predating the existence of the U.S.).

And of course it was largely fought "for slavery." Goodness, you Lost Cause types say that but have to ignore the declarations of secession and just countless quotes by CSA leaders at that time. When the VP says the "corner stone" of the new country is slavery, you have to take his word for it. When Mississippi says, "our cause is thoroughly identified with slavery" I take their word for it. Etc. That was the irreconcilable problem.



OK, but how does that relate to anything we're talking about. We have states and a Federal government. You're telling me what it might be like in a reality never seen in human history, and I don't know how to debate against a fantasy.

Im sorry I have a very difficult time quoting in sections because of the iPad so I attempt my best to make it clear as to what poi I am arguing against, sometimes it can come off as pertaining to a different argument which could be confusing.

The civil war was mainly fought over the nationalization of the Union. This is why South Carolina seceded from the nation, not because of slavery. When Lincoln made his inaugural address he was saying that to the extent that South Carolina can not attempt to nullify the raised tariffs or he would treat it with violence, read my previous quote. Lincoln bassically fathered the morill tariff and when Lincoln won the election South Carolina seceded from the union. He succession address is reviewed by modern scholars as a nail that south was attempting to expand the slavery institution, however if you understand the context of the history the reason Lincoln was assaulting the southern institutions of slavery was because of the 3/5 compromise southerners had a much higher voting representation.

So the south could bassically block all attempts to nationalize the country during voting cycles because of the institutions of slavery. This is why slavery became such a big deal, and also why places like Kansas and other states who still held slaves were not outlawed from having slaves while Lincoln was still in office. The issuing of the slavery laws was geared directly at eliminating the power of the south, and also the gerrymandering of places like West Virginia which gave extra state power to the north.

The Lincoln administration bassically made a huge power move and nationalized the entire system, and the south made it very clear that they saw the union as voluntary and are no longer partaking in it. After Lincolns address more southern states seceded

Lincoln did not abolish slavery in northern slave states, only southern. The big sentiment against "expansion of slavery" by the Republican Party was due to the fact that if slavery expanded it could cause a huge voting power of southern states, not because it was morally wrong. The southerners saw the election of Lincoln as fraud because the republicans gerrymandered voting blocks and inacted new states to support northern protectionism. Southern states held on to slavery because it was the only thin that gave them the ability to produce agriculture under the high tariff rates.

Racism existed on both sides, and because of the nationalization of the United States we have seen it grow bigger and Lincoln subsidies resulted in the gennocide of American Indians.
 
Last edited:
In Lincolns inaugural address he makes the case for southern slavery....This threat on southern states is due to the fact that just a few days prior the tariff rate was raised to 50% and the last time that happened, South Carolina nullified the law and it almost caused a civil war with Andrew Jackson. Lincoln is basically saying that the southerners need to accept the northern tariffs or he will resort to violence.

And the states had already seceded, before his inauguration and the tariff increases. You lose representation in government when you decide to secede from it.

How could England be engaged in treason if it attacks Virginia? That is not treason to the constitution, however if Massachusetts attacked Virginia that would be considered treason. The reason they invoke the plurality as you say is because they are referring to the states as separate entities. The only other way this would make sense is if they considered Napoleon attacking Georgia as treason. The founding fathers are clear and to the point on what they consider state seveirgnty and in fact there was a whole history of nullification before the civil war, because up until that point the states had final say. There had been a few major times of secession until Lincoln made it illegal, and that view was widely accepted amongst the population. the north in 1814, and South Carolina in 1830. Ohio and other states nullified laws as well as the north etc etc this was all because up until the Lincoln administration the people fealt and acted as if they were in seveirgn states under bassically a trade union.

There had been no other "secessions" and no successful case of nullification. The 'right' to secede was no more than the human right to revolution. There was no right to withdraw from the U.S. - just walk away. And if the Constitution anticipated such a right it the terms surely would have been outlined. Again, if the Federal treasury or Federal troops acquired territory, there could be no "right" for the state to simply secede. It's unthinkable for any country to grant such a right to a political subdivision without express rights outlined and the process for doing so, including reimbursing the "country" for it's property, costs, etc. Nor was there an extra-Constitutional right to choose which national laws applied. The early challenges were resolved through the Constitutional process.

I don't think states can commit treason - that's a crime by individuals. So it's not that Mass. attacks Georgia, it's that a person acts against Mass. or Georgia or the national government, any or all.

And I'm sorry but the country COULD HAVE formed a trade union or mere association of states but didn't. The Constitution wasn't an optional document, with states free to accept or reject laws on their whim. Where in that document does it say, "These provisions are merely suggestive."

The government pays for itself by robbery and theft, I am not sure how this correlates to the argument

LOL. Okee dokee..... sheesh.

Im saying Jim Crow only comes into effect as an actual "law" because places like Alabama had a government enforce it. That is the entire point of my argument. Without government there would be no racist legislation ever.

Sure, but that's not a reality that has ever existed in all of human history and certainly the U.S. government existed in 1960, so wondering whether Jim Crow exists in an alternate reality where there is no "Alabama" is tough to debate.

My point is that racists use the fact that government has come in and attempted to give special privileges to a certain race to make up for historical atrocities. Doing so shoves other racial groups out of the "loop" and it makes those groups have animosity towards the "subsidized" minorities. This is what you see now, "I'm white and people won't give me scholarships..." This leads to white racialism because they feel chastised. The subsidies, for the minority populations, do not work in a free market. It makes people who undertake them to tend to not advance through market processes of risk analysis. This hinders the black community to pull out of economic slumps and they blame white people because white people have accumulated more wealth which leads to racism. The fact that the government subsidizes people based on race or ethnicity causes the entire country to view people as belonging to separate categories of people as opposed to all being just humans. This separation causes division which enhances racial tension.

Perhaps but that is IMO an entirely different discussion. I haven't argued for or against racial preferences. I know racism didn't being with preferences - it was in the fabric of the South etc. for 100s of years. You're arguing why it still persists.
 
see this is what I am talking about. Barry Goldwater used economic reasoning to suggest that the civil rights act would be a failure and all it would do is grant more state power. This is completely true!!!! but people who do not understand market processes use this moral agenda to attempt to dehumanize anyone who has an actual understanding of market economics. So they will call them racists and anything else. Barry Goldwater, being Jewish, and the son of a Jewish immigrant of he early 1900a is by definition a minority at that time and I guarantee you him as well as his family felt racism.

I didn't call Goldwater racist. I'm sure he wasn't. I am not impressed with him standing on principle when the result would have been another generation, perhaps more, of institutionalized black oppression in the South, something that didn't and wouldn't affect him or his, etc.

Again, it's easy to philosophize about the power of "markets" when you and your loved ones are white, and wealthy. Of course the markets have worked beautifully for him, but no so much to poor oppressed blacks in the South.

Barry Goldwater was against the civil rights act because he thought added regulation will hinder economic growth which is completely true. It has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights issues because the entire country was speaking at that very time, that they were fed up of racism. If I say openly that I do not support the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage because I think marriage belongs to the people and the government should have absolutely no say on who can and can't get married, 50 years from now people will take that quote and say I hated gay people... Do you see what I'm saying?

I don't accept the premise that public accommodation laws hinder economic growth. Nor do I accept that if there is some hindrance in "growth" that I must care about that more than we should all expect that each of us has some basic civil right to equal treatment in the market.

And I don't quarrel with the fact that Goldwater by all accounts was not a racist. I've seen no evidence of racism on his part. What I'm saying is I don't care because his policies provided a nice comfy bed for systemic racism in the South, which is made clear by his broad support in the Jim Crow south, and it's because of that that I believe he was wrong, and stood on the wrong principle.
 
And the states had already seceded, before his inauguration and the tariff increases. You lose representation in government when you decide to secede no right to withdraw from the U.S. - just walk away. And if the Constitution anticipated such a right it the terms surely would have been .

1. Yes, and he's saying in his inaugural address, which I quoted, he was not afraid to go to war for the secession. in the South Carolina secession letter it is stated "If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were — separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation" in regards to ratifying th constitution. When Lincoln was inaugurated he stipulated that all men were created equal, I.e. A political measure for majority vote to rewrite the constitution, is a quote of e deceleration of independence, and the Declaration of Independence stipulates that the states were free and soveirgn.

James Madison supported secession, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy adams, pretty much all presidents up until Lincoln. The nullification crisis was a step towards secession, but the south nullified the tariff. The north nullified the embargo, Ohio nullified the central bank, Kentucky and Virginia nullified and "imposed" the alien and sedition act. Other states nullified the fugitive slave law. The act of nullification was when a state no longer practiced a federal law, which happened many times in American history before the civil war. The nullification crisis was because South Carolina was attempting to imprison federal agents who were trying to collect taxes.

If you actually read the constitution the only thing the federal government is implicitly empowered with is regulating trade amongst he states, coinage, and declaring war. Everything else, that has been used by nationalists, has been a result of the Hamiltonian "implied powers". All of this was redefined as soon as Lincoln took office. The Father of the constitution created the Virginia resolution which enables states to interpose federal laws deemed unconstitutional, meaning they had the right to not enforce laws. The Supreme Court never honored it historically, however they never stopped the states from actually practicing nullification.

It's tough because it's beyond your scope of understanding the possibility of human action. Meaning, we sit around and dictate day after day why things in the world are so horrific and it all stems from centralized authority figures as opposed to individual market societies. I disagree with the confederates be cause I believe state nullification is not enough and individual nullification is a requirement to reach the full capacity of human potential. My argument is, when we sit around and blame things for racism, like a flag, we need to blame governments and we need to blame central authority because those institutions are the ones that enacted the law.

I'm not saying that you are arguing for or against anything, I am saying that when government gets involved it makes matters worse no matter what the case is. You said how the civil rights act made racial matters worse and I explained it to you. The reason southern racism existed for hundreds of years is because federal tariffs and anti states rights nationalists forced the south to hold on to slavery as a means to have any political power in the union. Racism existed back then, but slavery was a huge deal for southerners because it was he only thing that gave them any economic foundation against the huge northern tariffs and it was the only thing that gave southern states equality almost elections because there was a growing tide of huge migration and wealth to the north from these tariffs, and southern states used slavery to increase numbers for their purpose of a voting block. Most scholars thought the institutions of slavery to eventually crumble, and Adam smith gives perfect economic theories as to why this would happen. But the fact that the northern states continually increased their tariff rates, gerrymandered northern states into the union and completely over powered the south and seemingly forced the southerners to continue this horrific practice. This is not because I think "northerners are bad and southerners are good" this is because of sheer nationalization. during the reconstruction era racism exploded in the south and that lasted all the way until the 1960s, again another cause and effect of government.
 
Last edited:
I didn't call Goldwater racist. I'm sure he wasn't. I am not impressed with him standing on principle when the result would have been another generation, perhaps more, of institutionalized black oppression in the South, something that didn't and wouldn't affect him or his, etc.

Again, it's easy to philosophize about the power of "markets" when you and your loved ones are white, and wealthy. Of course the markets have worked beautifully for him, but no so much to poor oppressed blacks in the South.



I don't accept the premise that public accommodation laws hinder economic growth. Nor do I accept that if there is some hindrance in "growth" that I must care about that more than we should all expect that each of us has some basic civil right to equal treatment in the market.

And I don't quarrel with the fact that Goldwater by all accounts was not a racist. I've seen no evidence of racism on his part. What I'm saying is I don't care because his policies provided a nice comfy bed for systemic racism in the South, which is made clear by his broad support in the Jim Crow south, and it's because of that that I believe he was wrong, and stood on the wrong principle.

I agree that the Jim Crow laws were state sponsored tyrannical oppression. However, Goldwater did not oppose that aspect, he opposed the fact that it gives the power to the federal government to seize private companies if they practice something that the government does not agree with. This is a complete overstep of the constitutional right of the government and only expanded its scope of authority. That's why he voted against it, he was not even a anarcho capitalist like myself he just thought it was overstepping the power of the constitution, which is very true.

But the accepting of his policies is outside the scope of the thread because the initial reason I brought him up is to show how a misconception of history grows, he did not support racism he supported free market policies and because of that 60 years later people say he was a racist. That was the point when I suggested historical misconceptions always grow because people tend to rewrite history.
 
Indeed, the battle flag was flown over Southern troops who were fighting to defend the Confederate States of America that had seceded from the Union. I agree.

What is there to hold on to such values with such a flag any longer?
 
Native Americans did not want their land taken away. They probably didn't like the idea of being enslaved anymore than Africans or Irish. Britain began systematically settling a wide protective buffer zone of Irish, Scots-Irish and Germans between the wealthy enclaves of Brits along the coastal region and Native Americans inland. It wasn't as if the Brits were hanging out with the local Native Americans.

Who do you supposet was that watched African slaves and indentured Irish as they disembarked from British ships flying the Union Jack? From the mid 1600s to the mid 1700s the British likely exported more Native American slaves to the Caribbean than it import African slaves to what is now America.

In the mid 1600s alone over 100,000 Irish children between 10 and 14 were captured by the British and sold into slavery in the Caribbean. Irish slaves, approximately 40,000 - owned by the British - largely settled Barbados. To a lesser extent it happened on other islands as well. It was no secret. Plantation owners, foremen, slaves re-transported from the lslands to the British colonies in what is now the U.S. certainly knew what the British were doing. Native Americans saw the ships with the Union Jack and they heard the stores. Native Americans shortly after encountering the British had reason to become wary of the them. Their trepidation was later validated.

Those were likely some of the reasons that Native Americans "rebelled" against the British.

A lot of information here Thicket, thanks.

But as I told HorseLover (hope this username is correct?), I meant real Indians, from India when I used the word "Indians," and I did not meant Native Americans when I used the word "Indians."
 
What is there to hold on to such values with such a flag any longer?

Good question. It really isn't about the flag for the vast majority of Americans. Most Southern people I know, family and friends, supported South Carolina to make the decision for South Carolina. Loud mouths and lunatics from the rest of the nation rushed in and demanded all Southerns apologize for the War Between the States. They demanded Southerns apologize for valuing regional culture and everything in between. We've been called treasonous - while historically, including the present, Southern people have volunteered for military service at a proportionately higher percentage than any other region in America. I'm originally from Georgia. I'm not a young man and all the above has been under the surface all my life. The movie Forest Gump is a prime example of Southern stereotyping.

We hear it in so many ways. The media whipped the nation into hysteria over the flag and all the rest came to the surface before South Carolina could even act.

America is just as racist in the other regions as it is in the South. I know, I hear it when I travel to other regions. People hear my Southern accent and assume that I am a bigot and tell me racist jokes or say racist things. Southern people are used to hearing people from everywhere else move to the South because they love it, but can't wait how to tell us how we do everything wrong. That's offensive and Southern people consider it very rude. The flag issue was a reason for a lot of people to be rude and vocal.

Racism and bigotry are wrong. We all know that. Nothing about the flag hysteria is going to end racism. It would in fact have been MUCH better had the rest of the nation given South Carolina the time and support to make its decision on its own. And on its own South Carolina would have voted to remove the flag. That would have been a most positive step.

Less informed and less intelligent people assume(d) the flag is all/only about racism. There are thankfully many people beyond the South who understand that there is much more involved. There is much work to be done to end racism and bigotry. Unfortunately a relatively few maniacs on both sides of the issue want to make it all about hatred and use the flag as a symbol for hatred on both sides.

In the meantime the real issues of inequality continue while people scream about the damned flag. As a good friend of mine who is an African-American said recently, "If we (black Americans) can be treated and respected equally in all things all across the nation. If racism could end tomorrow people can fly whatever flag they want. It isn't about the flag."

No state in the United States, no region, can proudly say that there is no racism, no bigotry. That is the real issue.
 
Good question. It really isn't about the flag for the vast majority of Americans. Most Southern people I know, family and friends, supported South Carolina to make the decision for South Carolina. Loud mouths and lunatics from the rest of the nation rushed in and demanded all Southerns apologize for the War Between the States. They demanded Southerns apologize for valuing regional culture and everything in between. We've been called treasonous - while historically, including the present, Southern people have volunteered for military service at a proportionately higher percentage than any other region in America. I'm originally from Georgia. I'm not a young man and all the above has been under the surface all my life. The movie Forest Gump is a prime example of Southern stereotyping.

We hear it in so many ways. The media whipped the nation into hysteria over the flag and all the rest came to the surface before South Carolina could even act.

America is just as racist in the other regions as it is in the South. I know, I hear it when I travel to other regions. People hear my Southern accent and assume that I am a bigot and tell me racist jokes or say racist things. Southern people are used to hearing people from everywhere else move to the South because they love it, but can't wait how to tell us how we do everything wrong. That's offensive and Southern people consider it very rude. The flag issue was a reason for a lot of people to be rude and vocal.

Racism and bigotry are wrong. We all know that. Nothing about the flag hysteria is going to end racism. It would in fact have been MUCH better had the rest of the nation given South Carolina the time and support to make its decision on its own. And on its own South Carolina would have voted to remove the flag. That would have been a most positive step.

Less informed and less intelligent people assume(d) the flag is all/only about racism. There are thankfully many people beyond the South who understand that there is much more involved. There is much work to be done to end racism and bigotry. Unfortunately a relatively few maniacs on both sides of the issue want to make it all about hatred and use the flag as a symbol for hatred on both sides.

In the meantime the real issues of inequality continue while people scream about the damned flag. As a good friend of mine who is an African-American said recently, "If we (black Americans) can be treated and respected equally in all things all across the nation. If racism could end tomorrow people can fly whatever flag they want. It isn't about the flag."

No state in the United States, no region, can proudly say that there is no racism, no bigotry. That is the real issue.

I see, thanks Thicket,

Perhaps there are other issues that need addressing that are related to a flag that stands for weakening and dividing the USA. But as it is my position was simply: For what values should one hold a flag that stands for weakening and dividing one's country?

I was dealing with the issue mentioned in the thread rather than the attached issues of independent decision making, injustice done to southerners, discrimination, and bigotry which is probably a more global problem.
 
Good question. It really isn't about the flag for the vast majority of Americans. Most Southern people I know, family and friends, supported South Carolina to make the decision for South Carolina. Loud mouths and lunatics from the rest of the nation rushed in and demanded all Southerns apologize for the War Between the States. They demanded Southerns apologize for valuing regional culture and everything in between. We've been called treasonous - while historically, including the present, Southern people have volunteered for military service at a proportionately higher percentage than any other region in America. I'm originally from Georgia. I'm not a young man and all the above has been under the surface all my life. The movie Forest Gump is a prime example of Southern stereotyping.

I'm a life long Southerner and I just didn't see any demands for us to apologize for regional culture. What most of this debate has been about is the history of a particular flag, and in my case its very recent historical connection to states' efforts to fight for continuing Jim Crow throughout the South. The only "demand" that I've seen is for those of us especially in this region to acknowledge the documented history of the flag and how it was used during the civil rights era, and then as a matter of common courtesy and respect for blacks who don't see the symbol as benign, for the STATE to refrain from placing that banner in a position of honor on government property.

You mention that "Racism and bigotry are wrong. We all know that." Well, when we (in the South) embrace a symbol that, right or wrong, means "racism and bigotry" to the rest of the world really and to most of the region's black population, the South is sending the message that while we might think it's "wrong," we don't mind flying a flag historically associated with perpetuating...racism and bigotry. It's a terrible message to send the rest of the world and perpetuates the stereotypes that I also agree aren't fair in 2015. The only racists I know in my little part of the South are obvious losers, dead enders, but the flag allows them to define us, in my view.

Racism and bigotry are wrong. We all know that. Nothing about the flag hysteria is going to end racism. It would in fact have been MUCH better had the rest of the nation given South Carolina the time and support to make its decision on its own. And on its own South Carolina would have voted to remove the flag. That would have been a most positive step.

I agree, and maybe this time it would have been different, but the problem is the flag flew on the State capital for 39 years, then 15 more years at the memorial. It's been controversial for decades of that history, if not since it was first raised. There were existing boycotts of the state by at least the NAACP and NCAA, each in place for over a decade. It's not like the flag's opponents haven't provided the space needed at some point over those 54 years to do the right thing, so maybe you can excuse those who became impatient.

Less informed and less intelligent people assume(d) the flag is all/only about racism. There are thankfully many people beyond the South who understand that there is much more involved. There is much work to be done to end racism and bigotry. Unfortunately a relatively few maniacs on both sides of the issue want to make it all about hatred and use the flag as a symbol for hatred on both sides.

Fair enough, but what you see on this thread is a dedicated refusal to acknowledge that the flag is legitimately in any way associated with racism or the defense of Jim Crow and/or slavery.

And it seems to me if one acknowledges the obvious association of the flag with a defense of Jim Crow - a Google search is evidence enough - then there is no defense for the state to continue flying the flag.

In the meantime the real issues of inequality continue while people scream about the damned flag. As a good friend of mine who is an African-American said recently, "If we (black Americans) can be treated and respected equally in all things all across the nation. If racism could end tomorrow people can fly whatever flag they want. It isn't about the flag."

I agree with that as well, but it seems obvious a divisive symbol like the Rebel flag impedes race relations. The black community in SC has said for decades the flag offends them and for good reason. The legislature has effectively said, "We do not care that it offends the majority of blacks. We'll fly the damn flag!" It's arguably and in the minds of many a middle finger to that population, a sign of disrespect. Removing it is a symbol of respect, and while just a symbol in my view it is an important one.
 
I'm a life long Southerner and I just didn't see any demands for us to apologize for regional culture. What most of this debate has been about is the history of a particular flag, and in my case its very recent historical connection to states' efforts to fight for continuing Jim Crow throughout the South. The only "demand" that I've seen is for those of us especially in this region to acknowledge the documented history of the flag and how it was used during the civil rights era, and then as a matter of common courtesy and respect for blacks who don't see the symbol as benign, for the STATE to refrain from placing that banner in a position of honor on government property.

You mention that "Racism and bigotry are wrong. We all know that." Well, when we (in the South) embrace a symbol that, right or wrong, means "racism and bigotry" to the rest of the world really and to most of the region's black population, the South is sending the message that while we might think it's "wrong," we don't mind flying a flag historically associated with perpetuating...racism and bigotry. It's a terrible message to send the rest of the world and perpetuates the stereotypes that I also agree aren't fair in 2015. The only racists I know in my little part of the South are obvious losers, dead enders, but the flag allows them to define us, in my view.



I agree, and maybe this time it would have been different, but the problem is the flag flew on the State capital for 39 years, then 15 more years at the memorial. It's been controversial for decades of that history, if not since it was first raised. There were existing boycotts of the state by at least the NAACP and NCAA, each in place for over a decade. It's not like the flag's opponents haven't provided the space needed at some point over those 54 years to do the right thing, so maybe you can excuse those who became impatient.



Fair enough, but what you see on this thread is a dedicated refusal to acknowledge that the flag is legitimately in any way associated with racism or the defense of Jim Crow and/or slavery.

And it seems to me if one acknowledges the obvious association of the flag with a defense of Jim Crow - a Google search is evidence enough - then there is no defense for the state to continue flying the flag.



I agree with that as well, but it seems obvious a divisive symbol like the Rebel flag impedes race relations. The black community in SC has said for decades the flag offends them and for good reason. The legislature has effectively said, "We do not care that it offends the majority of blacks. We'll fly the damn flag!" It's arguably and in the minds of many a middle finger to that population, a sign of disrespect. Removing it is a symbol of respect, and while just a symbol in my view it is an important one.

That's a good post and for the most part I agree.

I've been up for 36 hours straight and the only thing I've had to eat or drink is a bag of microwave popcorn and a cup of coffee and water. Give me a day or two to respond. I have a lot going on. I hope to be in bed asleep in 48 minutes.
 
That's a good post and for the most part I agree.

I've been up for 36 hours straight and the only thing I've had to eat or drink is a bag of microwave popcorn and a cup of coffee and water. Give me a day or two to respond. I have a lot going on. I hope to be in bed asleep in 48 minutes.

No problem. We're not far apart on this subject at all.
 
I agree that the Jim Crow laws were state sponsored tyrannical oppression. However, Goldwater did not oppose that aspect, he opposed the fact that it gives the power to the federal government to seize private companies if they practice something that the government does not agree with. This is a complete overstep of the constitutional right of the government and only expanded its scope of authority. That's why he voted against it, he was not even a anarcho capitalist like myself he just thought it was overstepping the power of the constitution, which is very true.

But the accepting of his policies is outside the scope of the thread because the initial reason I brought him up is to show how a misconception of history grows, he did not support racism he supported free market policies and because of that 60 years later people say he was a racist. That was the point when I suggested historical misconceptions always grow because people tend to rewrite history.

Someone who was around then, fighting the good fight, would like to weigh in on the matter:

"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.

All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. ...On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist.

His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand."

- Martin Luther King, Jr
.
[https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/chapter-23-mississippi-challenge ]
 
Last edited:
Someone who was around then, fighting the good fight, would like to weigh in on the matter:

"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.

All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. ...On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist.

His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand."

- Martin Luther King, Jr
.
[https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/chapter-23-mississippi-challenge ]

Please make your point more clear because it seems that you are arguing against my position as to why Goldwater was against the civil rigs act but then posting a quote as to why he was for it which was exactly what I said...
 
Back
Top Bottom