The Confederate Flag

Ouroboros said:

Nonsense. The false assertion that polls represent hard data-- and that's the reason I don't resort to such absurdities-- doesn't eradicate the fact that you're trying to present a defense of people you don't know and can't really vouch for.

Click to expand...

"Second, I share those views (who see the flag as a symbol of white supremacy) and so have argued throughout the thread based on a view I hold, and that I demonstrated IS held by others."

If you can't read and acknowledge the most simple of statements, I'll quit here....

charliebrown said:

Good to know there is a mind reader on the boards.

Click to expand...

No need for mind reading. Everyone who defends the Confederate flag says the same thing; heritage, respect for ancestors who fought and died for the Confederacy, yada, yada, yada.

None of those beliefs change the fact that the Confederate flag represents support of slavery and treason.

charliebrown said:

The Confederate Flag Is a Matter of Pride and Heritage, Not Hatred - NYTimes.com

mind reader gone bad. Here is one person who does not agree with you and was able to get it published at the NYT. Please stop being so prejudice!!!!

Click to expand...

I remember reading “Cooters” defense of the Confederate flag several years back, and I’m no more swayed by it than I was then.

“To those 70 million of us whose ancestors fought for the South, it is a symbol of family members who fought for what they thought was right in their time, and whose valor became legendary in military history. This is not nostalgia. It is our legacy.”

Others can, and have said the same things about this flag;

Are you as supportive of them?

RaleBulgarian said:

No need for mind reading. Everyone who defends the Confederate flag says the same thing; heritage, respect for ancestors who fought and died for the Confederacy, yada, yada, yada.

None of those beliefs change the fact that the Confederate flag represents support of slavery and treason.


I remember reading “Cooters” defense of the Confederate flag several years back, and I’m no more swayed by it than I was then.

“To those 70 million of us whose ancestors fought for the South, it is a symbol of family members who fought for what they thought was right in their time, and whose valor became legendary in military history. This is not nostalgia. It is our legacy.”

Click to expand...

The problem with that defense is it ignores the civil rights era, George Wallace and the Dixiecrats, all of them rallying under that flag as a symbol of their support for segregation and Jim Crow. So it's not just a symbol of the Civil War but the "war" fought by his perhaps living "ancestors" AGAINST civil rights for blacks in the south. There was no valor in that fight, nothing legendary at all, just a bunch of bigoted white people fighting for state-sponsored white supremacy for them, and second class citizenship for their black neighbors.

I know you know this, but the defenses that downplay that are offensive to me. Here's how Cooter phrases it:

"It is obvious that some racists have appropriated and desecrated the Confederate battle flag for their pathetic causes, but those hateful folks also commonly display the Christian cross and the American flag."

It wasn't limited to "some racists" like the fringe kooks in the KKK and scum like Dylan Roof, but the Governor of Alabama, the STATE of Georgia who incorporated the Confederate flag into the state flag, and more. All that is why the racist kooks adopted that flag to symbolize white supremacy. The KKK and related didn't invent the white supremacy meaning of the Confederate flag - that was done by people like George Wallace. The fringe kooks took their cues from the governing elite at that time. Cooter is asking us to pretend that didn't happen.

Kerry Won Ohio said:

Dude, I'm done with you. You have the idiotic position that the South's defeat was inevitable. The South was defending an area the size of Western Europe with a large, well-equipped army. Lincoln had to win re-election fighting an unpopular war. Yet, the South's defeat was inevitable. Got it, dude.

You think the North would have adjusted and fought a "smarter" war, whatever the **** that is supposed to mean. Which you can't explain, because you don't know what the **** you are talking about in the first place.

Lincoln fired sorry generals like crazy during 1861 - 1863, yet you just assume the North would have adapted to a smarter, defensive strategy by the South. What a stupid, idiotic assumption to make. Only a total dumb ass who knows nothing about the Civil War feels this way.

But please keep posting more irrelevant horse **** about Cold Harbor from Wikipedia and keep pretending you know something when you don't. You actually thinks this proves something. How stupid. Everyone knows the ****ing war was already lost for the South in 1864 - 1865. Yet you think this Cold Harbor Wiki bull**** "proves" your stupid position.

And the South never ran out of guns or ammo. More fallacious bull**** from you.

Click to expand...

“Dude, I'm done with you. You have the idiotic position that the South's defeat was inevitable. The South was defending an area the size of Western Europe with a large, well-equipped army. Lincoln had to win re-election fighting an unpopular war. Yet, the South's defeat was inevitable. Got it, dude.”

Despite the South having a “large, well-equipped army”, the Union’s army was more than twice the size and was better equipped with practically endless resupply, while the South simply did not have the resources to last. Regardless of the land area of the South, IT WAS CONQUERED. In fact, Sherman BLAZED through the South in lightning speed. Lincoln overcame two yrs of nothing but losing battles and won reelection easily, so your argument fails there. The North had nearly all the mfg, money and trade. The South had practically no mfg, cash-poor and were blockaded. They had no internal resources to last. They’re defeat was inevitable. And proved so by their defeat.

“You think the North would have adjusted and fought a "smarter" war, whatever the **** that is supposed to mean. Which you can't explain, because you don't know what the **** you are talking about in the first place.”

It’s YOUR argument that the South could have won if they’d have fought a smarter war, dude. That your saying Lee was incompetent says that. All I said was if the South was capable of fighting smarter, than why wouldn’t it be that the North could’ve fought smarter in response?

“Lincoln fired sorry generals like crazy during 1861 - 1863, yet you just assume the North would have adapted to a smarter, defensive strategy by the South. What a stupid, idiotic assumption to make. Only a total dumb ass who knows nothing about the Civil War feels this way.”

Lincoln smartly fired those generals, though there is some argument amount the firing of McClellan. And, as I’ve already explained, the North did adapt to enough extent to win battles and the war. Did you know that the North won? My dumb ass and know-nothing self has completely disemboweled your claim.

“But please keep posting more irrelevant horse **** about Cold Harbor from Wikipedia and keep pretending you know something when you don't. You actually thinks this proves something. How stupid. Everyone knows the ****ing war was already lost for the South in 1864 - 1865. Yet you think this Cold Harbor Wiki bull**** "proves" your stupid position.”

YOU’RE the one that cited Cold Harbor as an example of your proposition of how the South could have won the war. YOU’RE the one that thought Cold Harbor was relevant. Not me. I just said you can’t extrapolate from one battle a winning strategy for an entire war.

“And the South never ran out of guns or ammo. More fallacious bull**** from you.”

Talk about "fallacious". I never said they ran out of ammo. In fact, I agreed with you on that point. I just said they had a problem supplying guns of their own. They had no manufacturing of their own, nor way of importing them. The South had to get them from battlefield, from the North.

Kerry Won Ohio said:

My God. If there was one general more incompetent than Lee, it was McClellan. McClellan could have forced Lee to surrender at Antietam if he had been more aggressive at the end of the battle when Lee was pinned on the Potomac River. McClellan simply wasn't aggressive enough.

If Lee had fought a purely defensive strategy, it would have worked great against McClellan, because McClellan was not aggressive enough and always reluctant to attack. That's why Lincoln fired him!

You simply know nothing.

Click to expand...

“My God. If there was one general more incompetent than Lee, it was McClellan. McClellan could have forced Lee to surrender at Antietam if he had been more aggressive at the end of the battle when Lee was pinned on the Potomac River. McClellan simply wasn't aggressive enough.”

I guess your not done with me like you said you were.

I agree McClellan failed to take the obvious advantage and pursue Lee at Antietam. He was a flawed commander. I wouldn’t say that his failure at Antietam, though he won at least a strategic victory, is as much as a failure as Lee’s at Gettysburg, though.

“If Lee had fought a purely defensive strategy, it would have worked great against McClellan, because McClellan was not aggressive enough and always reluctant to attack. That's why Lincoln fired him!”.

I agree McClellan was reticent, downright pusillanimous as I once thought, and thus the reason for his rightful firing. He sat on his ass with the Army-Parked-on-the-Potomac for too long. So, it wasn’t like the South was the only side having to suffer bad generalship. Yet the North adjusted, and won.

“You simply know nothing.”

I know who won the war, the North. I know who lost the war, the South. I know who had resources stacked twice as high and more that could not be overcome by any strategy of your unproven imagination. You said “If the South had fought a defensive strategy the entire war, like they did in 1864 & 1865, the South would have won handedly.” Well, the great majority of class A (vital strategic objective achieved, impacting the war) and class B (important strategic objective achieved of an ongoing campaign, impacting the campaign) battles fought in 1864 and 1865 were won by the North. The North. That makes your “would have won handedly” claim inept. Your entire argument is an inept, fragile, fantastical, unicorn theory unsupported by anything real.

You’ve been disarmed of any defense of your position and defeated in your attempt to attack my own position. You have no body of evidence to support your impotent claim. You should quit while you’re still a head.

bluesmoke said:

“My God. If there was one general more incompetent than Lee, it was McClellan. McClellan could have forced Lee to surrender at Antietam if he had been more aggressive at the end of the battle when Lee was pinned on the Potomac River. McClellan simply wasn't aggressive enough.”

I guess your not done with me like you said you were.

I agree McClellan failed to take the obvious advantage and pursue Lee at Antietam. He was a flawed commander. I wouldn’t say that his failure at Antietam, though he won at least a strategic victory, is as much as a failure as Lee’s at Gettysburg, though.

“If Lee had fought a purely defensive strategy, it would have worked great against McClellan, because McClellan was not aggressive enough and always reluctant to attack. That's why Lincoln fired him!”.

I agree McClellan was reticent, downright pusillanimous as I once thought, and thus the reason for his rightful firing. He sat on his ass with the Army-Parked-on-the-Potomac for too long. So, it wasn’t like the South was the only side having to suffer bad generalship. Yet the North adjusted, and won.

“You simply know nothing.”

I know who won the war, the North. I know who lost the war, the South. I know who had resources stacked twice as high and more that could not be overcome by any strategy of your unproven imagination. You said “If the South had fought a defensive strategy the entire war, like they did in 1864 & 1865, the South would have won handedly.” Well, the great majority of class A (vital strategic objective achieved, impacting the war) and class B (important strategic objective achieved of an ongoing campaign, impacting the campaign) battles fought in 1864 and 1865 were won by the North. The North. That makes your “would have won handedly” claim inept. Your entire argument is an inept, fragile, fantastical, unicorn theory unsupported by anything real.

You’ve been disarmed of any defense of your position and defeated in your attempt to attack my own position. You have no body of evidence to support your impotent claim. You should quit while you’re still a head.

Click to expand...

I have plenty of evidence. There are many historians who agree with me, as I pointed out to you yesterday and you have ignored. After the war, even some Confederate generals agreed that they had a chance to win the war if not for Lee's bad decisions. I pointed that out to you yesterday also.

And you're contradicting yourself about McClellan. If Lee fought a purely defensive strategy, McClellan would NOT have adjusted. He was too reticent, as you yourself stated. Hence, Lee would have prolonged the war and his army would have had fewer casualties. And the North would have had fewer victories. And then potentially Lincoln loses re-election and the South wins the war. It's not nearly as far-fetched as you pretend it to be.

JasperL said:

"Second, I share those views (who see the flag as a symbol of white supremacy) and so have argued throughout the thread based on a view I hold, and that I demonstrated IS held by others."

If you can't read and acknowledge the most simple of statements, I'll quit here....

Click to expand...

You also said:

Why are you responding to me with "person obsessed with eradicating the display of flags or statues?" I've never suggested we eradicate anything. I

Click to expand...

And yet you also claim to be agreeing with people whose polling data shows that they always associate the flag with white supremacy.
So are you seriously claiming that none of the people in those polls want to eradicate the display of Confederate icons, or do you simply part company with those who knock down statues or tear down flags, while still validating their attitudes?

ecofarm said:

You don't give a **** about racist flags and monuments built to intimidate black people. We got it.

Click to expand...

Not a fact, but an interpretation only.

charliebrown said:

The Confederate Flag Is a Matter of Pride and Heritage, Not Hatred - NYTimes.com

mind reader gone bad. Here is one person who does not agree with you and was able to get it published at the NYT. Please stop being so prejudice!!!!

Click to expand...

Good essay, though a little too short to bring much to the table.

bongsaway said:

I was born and raised in a large northeastern city where I lived for thirty six years. I now live in florida for over thirty years. Yesterday at a pizza place I spoke to a man with confederate flags on his truck. I asked him what does the confederate flag mean to him? He told me he was born in alabama and it was his heritage, not a racist thing like most people think. He said he was proud of his southern heritage. Unless I'm mistaken birmingham was once called bombingham for a reason and it wasn't for southern hospitality. I wondered to myself how he could he be proud of his heritage when his heritage was lynching and blowing up black folks?

When you see someone flying or displaying a confederate flag, what thoughts come to your mind?

Click to expand...

There are blacks who still observe black heroes from days gone by. American Indians should be free to honor their ancestors. We even allow Muslims to celebrate the deaths of Americans at the hands of Muslim jihadists. We can allow southerners to remember their ancestors as well. They are not hurting anyone that is not unreasonably intolerant and overly sensitive.

Ouroboros said:

You also said:



And yet you also claim to be agreeing with people whose polling data shows that they always associate the flag with white supremacy.
So are you seriously claiming that none of the people in those polls want to eradicate the display of Confederate icons, or do you simply part company with those who knock down statues or tear down flags, while still validating their attitudes?

Click to expand...

I think we've hit the end of this one. I don't know if anyone wants to "eradicate" the display of all Confederate icons or not, and can't speak to them, or about them, because I'm not aware of them, or what they believe. And the problem with you bringing up a position I don't hold is this - how about I ask YOU about those who fly the flag and clearly want to eradicate all n****rs? Why would I do that? You don't want that or believe it, so asking you to speak for them isn't fair to you, and is pointless.

JasperL said:

The problem with that defense is it ignores the civil rights era, George Wallace and the Dixiecrats, all of them rallying under that flag as a symbol of their support for segregation and Jim Crow. So it's not just a symbol of the Civil War but the "war" fought by his perhaps living "ancestors" AGAINST civil rights for blacks in the south. There was no valor in that fight, nothing legendary at all, just a bunch of bigoted white people fighting for state-sponsored white supremacy for them, and second class citizenship for their black neighbors.

I know you know this, but the defenses that downplay that are offensive to me. Here's how Cooter phrases it:

"It is obvious that some racists have appropriated and desecrated the Confederate battle flag for their pathetic causes, but those hateful folks also commonly display the Christian cross and the American flag."

It wasn't limited to "some racists" like the fringe kooks in the KKK and scum like Dylan Roof, but the Governor of Alabama, the STATE of Georgia who incorporated the Confederate flag into the state flag, and more. All that is why the racist kooks adopted that flag to symbolize white supremacy. The KKK and related didn't invent the white supremacy meaning of the Confederate flag - that was done by people like George Wallace. The fringe kooks took their cues from the governing elite at that time. Cooter is asking us to pretend that didn't happen.

Click to expand...

By the logic expressed here, the American flag would also be implicated in "segregation and Jim Crow," given that the North defeated the South, abolished slavery, and then turned around and allowed Jim Crow to go on so as to normalize relations with the South.

Flags mean nothing in themselves. They are icons on which any number of interpretations can be projected.

Ouroboros said:

Not a fact, but an interpretation only.

Click to expand...

False and stupid. You are confusing things that are symbols by association and symbols by creation. The racist flag was created as a symbol of racists. It's not my interpretation, it's the symbol's creation.

JasperL said:

I think we've hit the end of this one. I don't know if anyone wants to "eradicate" the display of all Confederate icons or not, and can't speak to them, or about them, because I'm not aware of them, or what they believe. And the problem with you bringing up a position I don't hold is this - how about I ask YOU about those who fly the flag and clearly want to eradicate all n****rs? Why would I do that? You don't want that or believe it, so asking you to speak for them isn't fair to you, and is pointless.

Click to expand...

Since we're winding this down, I'm not questioning your right to hold your own views. But I can question the logic that you use to justify them, as anyone else on the board can question justifications.

ecofarm said:

False and stupid. You are confusing things that are symbols by association and symbols by creation. The racist flag was created as a symbol of racists. It's not my interpretation, it's the symbol's creation.

Click to expand...

Flags mean nothing in themselves. They are icons on which any number of interpretations can be projected.

Ouroboros said:

Flags mean nothing in themselves. They are icons on which any number of interpretations can be projected.

Click to expand...

It was created as a symbol of racism. Not my interpretation, its creation. That will never change.

Ouroboros said:

By the logic expressed here, the American flag would also be implicated in "segregation and Jim Crow," given that the North defeated the South, abolished slavery, and then turned around and allowed Jim Crow to go on so as to normalize relations with the South.

Flags mean nothing in themselves. They are icons on which any number of interpretations can be projected.

Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised a Confederate apologist is blaming the north for the actions of a bunch of white supremacist dirtbags in the former CSA? BOTH SIDES!!!

Ouroboros said:

Since we're winding this down, I'm not questioning your right to hold your own views. But I can question the logic that you use to justify them, as anyone else on the board can question justifications.

Click to expand...

Of course, and I haven't in any way suggested otherwise. It's the entire point of a "Debate" politics forum. My point was I cannot defend the logic of someone else whose views I do not share.

Kerry Won Ohio said:

It's not "alternative history" to point out the egregious errors that Lee and Davis made prosecuting the war.

If Lincoln and Grant were running the Confederacy, the South would have won. They were both much better strategic thinkers.

The South was in an excellent position to outlast the North and ensure Lincoln's defeat in the 1864 election. They simply blew it.

Click to expand...

Nope. Grant had the luxury of a large superiority in numbers, weaponry and all the other supplies necessary to wage war. His strategy didn't have to be all that special. He simply wielded vastly more power.

veritas1 said:

Nope. Grant had the luxury of a large superiority in numbers, weaponry and all the other supplies necessary to wage war. His strategy didn't have to be all that special. He simply wielded vastly more power.

Click to expand...

Nope, the South had many strategic advantages and they had an excellent chance of winning the war. Many accomplished historians agree with me, as this link discusses:

Could the South Have Won the Civil War? - History

As I've been telling you:

The war was winnable if Southern resources were husbanded carefully. But Lee’s strategy and tactics dissipated irreplaceable manpower. His losses at Mechanicsville, Malvern Hill, Antietam, and Gettysburg and his costly “victories” at Gaines’s Mill, Second Bull Run, and Chancellorsville— all in 1862 and 1863—made possible Grant’s and Sherman’s successful campaigns against Richmond and Atlanta in 1864 and produced a sense of the inevitability of Confederate defeat that contributed to Lincoln’s reelection.

Click to expand...

Kerry Won Ohio said:

Nope, the South had many strategic advantages and they had an excellent chance of winning the war. Many accomplished historians agree with me, as this link discusses:

Could the South Have Won the Civil War? - History

As I've been telling you:

Click to expand...

The South had virtually no advantages other than fighting in their home states. That wasn't enough to overcome the lopsided advantages enjoyed by the North who could simply bleed them white and starve them into submission. Far fetched theories are OK as an amusing exercise but to claim that they were in any way inevitable or even likely, doesn't pass muster.

JasperL said:

Why am I not surprised a Confederate apologist is blaming the north for the actions of a bunch of white supremacist dirtbags in the former CSA? BOTH SIDES!!!

Click to expand...

Are you then absolving the North from all responsibility? I mean, they did win the war. Why *couldn't* they force the South to do the right thing?

You will no doubt be fascinated to learn that some Northerners wanted to keep black people poor and underfunded, so that they wouldn't have any means of moving to non-Southern states. I've got a quote somewhere from a Northern politician of the time who promised his constituents that the western States would be open to "white labor only."

JasperL said:

Of course, and I haven't in any way suggested otherwise. It's the entire point of a "Debate" politics forum. My point was I cannot defend the logic of someone else whose views I do not share.

Click to expand...

But the same principle you apply to hypothetical Flag-wavers-- that they will be implicated in white supremacy no matter what their actual beliefs may be-- applies, by the transitive function, to you as well. You say you're not in agreement with people who advocate violence, but if some of them take part in these polls you mention, you may get implicated in their beliefs by your stated logic.

Ouroboros said:

Are you then absolving the North from all responsibility? I mean, they did win the war. Why *couldn't* they force the South to do the right thing?

You will no doubt be fascinated to learn that some Northerners wanted to keep black people poor and underfunded, so that they wouldn't have any means of moving to non-Southern states. I've got a quote somewhere from a Northern politician of the time who promised his constituents that the western States would be open to "white labor only."

Click to expand...

The responsibility for the segregation and Jim Crow lies with those states that imposed it, and those politicians who voted for those laws, and the voters who put and kept them in office and who obviously supported those laws. That's how it works.

A separate question is whether or not the 'north' should have brought the bigots in the former CSA to heel sooner than they did, and of course they should have, and shame on the country for that. But the "north" does not share in the responsibility of what the SOUTH did for those nearly 100 years. Their states, their votes, their policies, all done with the approval of white voters.

Ouroboros said:

But the same principle you apply to hypothetical Flag-wavers-- that they will be implicated in white supremacy no matter what their actual beliefs may be-- applies, by the transitive function, to you as well. You say you're not in agreement with people who advocate violence, but if some of them take part in these polls you mention, you may get implicated in their beliefs by your stated logic.

Click to expand...

You've got a serious failure in logic there, but it's not worth debating.