South Carolina Flag Debate

[AthenaAwakened]

BTW

Fighting for the confederacy is in no way joined at the hip with being southern.

Northerners joined the Armies of the CSA and southerners joined the Armies of the USA (they didn't say this was the war fought brother against brother for nothing.)

I have always lived south of the Mason Dixon, and my family has lived in the south since before the revolutionary war. That makes me pretty darned Southern and I will tell you in no uncertain terms, that flag never fly from my front porch or anything else that's mine or in any real sense of the word represents me. Or are black people not southern, or just not southern enough?

As for what white liberals and blacks want, I think I can safely say that what we want is for slavery NOT to have happened, and for apologists for nostalgia of the Old South and all its memorabilia, to deal with the truth of history of the South and not worship at best the images of a Hollywood movie released in 1939 or at worst one released in 1915.

 

[Ford]

NOW in 2015:

The confederacy and the flag for almost all who use the term and symbol are intended to convey a long lasting regional identity.

Apparently the region is quite wide. Where I'm from (Michigan) there are plenty of folks in the more rural areas who proudly display said symbol. Nobody ever mistook the mitten state for being a part of the South, but if you'll look into the history of the place you'll find people who were not all about bucolic agrarian society. The Klan was quite active in Michigan in the 20s, for example, and even today if you get far enough outside the cities you can find people with a distinctly southern-sounding drawl.

Almost no one who displays the flag really thinks it is a support of a new Southern nation or slavery. And most rational people know that.

You must be talking to different people than me, because I've had some nearly heated conversations with individuals who insist that the Civil War should be called the War of Northern Aggression and that nullification and secession are still on the table.

In fact the majority of Americans see it as nothing more than a flag of heritage.

The majority of Americans still have trouble coming to grips with the fact that the land they live on was stolen.

There are only two groups who want to believe otherwise;

Correction. 3 groups. You forgot to include racist apologists who use internet discussion forums and social media to push the idea that the "Confederate" flag is no big deal.

Why would they wish to misconstrue the intent of those who fly it in State capitals ?

That is the real question.

Actually the real question is why allegedly southern folks get so worked up when the flag ostensibly representing a breakaway nation which ceased to exist a century and a half ago is taken down from state capitals.

 

[Mumbles]

BTW

Fighting for the confederacy is in no way joined at the hip with being southern.

Northerners joined the Armies of the CSA and southerners joined the Armies of the USA (they didn't say this was the war fought brother against brother for nothing.)

I have always lived south of the Mason Dixon, and my family has lived in the south since before the revolutionary war. That makes me pretty darned Southern and I will tell you in no uncertain terms, that flag never fly from my front porch or anything else that's mine or in any real sense of the word represents me. Or are black people not southern, or just not southern enough?

As for what white liberals and blacks want, I think I can safely say that what we want is for slavery NOT to have happened, and for apologists for nostalgia of the Old South and all its memorabilia, to deal with the truth of history of the South and not worship at best the images of a Hollywood movie released in 1939 or at worst one released in 1915.

Co-sign.

 

[Arctish]

Max,
Yes the flag as a symbol can stand for many things. Just like the swastika. The thing is the that meaning currently given is one of a Southern White Identity that downplays the oppression and enslavement of others based upon race. The only "state's rights" the South has ever stood for is the right to oppress others.

I know as an actual libertarian you stand against such oppression.

Now let's take a look at the reasons you list:
1) regional identity -- actually regional white identity. The symbol is not inclusive and represents an identity that ignores a large part of it's population.
2) economic security -- you are going have to explain this one. I have no idea why it represents economic security. I've never seen it on a financial website.
3) state's rights -- As pointed out above the only state's rights it signifies is the right to restrict the rights of others.
4) racism and fear of racial retribution -- undoubtedly.

Perhaps some of the confusion with you and others stems from some of my imprecision. So I shall try to be precise:

a) There are two categories of 'meaning' to any symbol...the meaning intended to be communicated by the user, and the meaning received by the observer. Once the observer understands the meaning intended by those communicating it, there is no other meaning, i.e., unless the observer is disingenuous and pretends the symbol's use meant something else.

I disagree. It's not just up to the observer to understand. Understanding is a mutual thing.

Widely recognized flags have widely understood meanings that derive from their histories. For example, consider the rainbow flag. It has historically been flown in support of equal rights for LGBTQ folks. That is what it is recognized to represent. Mary Sue might fly a rainbow flag because to her it represents God's promise after The Flood, but she doesn't get to decide that's what it's going to mean to everyone else. Her own personal take on its meaning doesn't trump the widely understood meaning.

Similarly, the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia has a widely understood meaning that derives from the history of the people flying it as their symbol. It has been flown by an Army fighting to ensure the continuation of slavery in the South, by the KKK, by segregationists, by white supremacists, and by white people expressing pride in their white southern culture. It is indelibly linked to racism and denial of equal rights to all Americans. It might mean something different to individual people flying it, but its widely understood meaning is the one that's going to be widely communicated by those who fly it.

And what WE think is communicated TODAY in 2015 can be far different than what was actually communicated in 1860. What we call "racist" (a concept from the 1930s) has little or no meaning to those of the flag's originating era.

IN 1861:

b) The battle flag of the Northern Army of Virginia, the bars and stars, were derivative of the US Flag (as were several versions of the flag of the South). At the time it's makers and users intended to convey a new unifying national identity: that of a confederacy of states who wished to be free of 'these states of the US' identity and Yankee rule, and who wished to allow slavery on a state by state basis (hence they adopted the then current US constitution).

The battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia identified troops under the command of Gen. Robert E. Lee. It did not represent the Confederacy as a whole. There were other flags for that: the 1861-1863 version based on the Betsy Ross flag, the "Stainless Banner", and the "Blood-stained Banner".

After the war, Lee's battle flag was adopted by the KKK and others fighting to maintain white supremacy and political control of the South. In the late 1940s and 1950s it was taken up by politicians whose platform was the strict separation of the races. In 1956, Mississippi put it on their state flag in response to Brown v. Board of Education. In 1962, South Carolina started flying it in response to the Civil Rights Movement. Since then it has become a widely used symbol of white people expressing membership in a particular strain of white culture.

Nowadays, someone who doesn't know a thing about the history of that flag might fly it for the same reason Mary Sue might fly a rainbow flag - he or she likes how it looks and lots of people do it. But once you know your flag is indelibly linked to a particular cause, flying it means sending the message you support that cause.

If Southerners want to celebrate their history without promoting racism and denying black Americans equal rights, they can find plenty of ways to do it that don't involve Lee's battle flag. That flag comes with a particular meaning based on it's historical use by outfits like the KKK, and ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

ETA: Some people fly that flag up here in Alaska. One man used to display it on his State of Alaska vehicle driving around on the Dalton Highway. And while it's true that the final engagement of the Civil War took place here, the Alaskans flying Lee's battle flag aren't doing it to commemorate the Civil War, or because they think of themselves as southerners.

 

[RavenSky]

Now let's take a look at the reasons you list:
1) regional identity -- actually regional white identity. The symbol is not inclusive and represents an identity that ignores a large part of it's population.
2) economic security -- you are going have to explain this one. I have no idea why it represents economic security. I've never seen it on a financial website.
3) state's rights -- As pointed out above the only state's rights it signifies is the right to restrict the rights of others.
4) racism and fear of racial retribution -- undoubtedly.

But let's pretend, hypothetically, that all those reasons Max listed were 100% correct...

Not one of them is a good reason for the state itself to be flying the flag No northern state flies a different flag at their Capitol building to honor Yankee heritage. What flag, besides the California state flag and the US flag, fly at government buildings in Los Angeles?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My goodness, someone woke up on the wrong side of the Missouri Compromise Line.

Nope. I'm on the side that won.

I have always lived south of the Mason Dixon, and my family has lived in the south since before the revolutionary war. That makes me pretty darned Southern and I will tell you in no uncertain terms, that flag never fly from my front porch or anything else that's mine or in any real sense of the word represents me. Or are black people not southern, or just not southern enough?

I cannot recall ever seeing a black person or predominately black organization adopting the Confederate flag as a symbol or otherwise displaying it prominently. I wonder why that might be?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Myths of the Confederacy

Perhaps most perniciously, neo-Confederates now claim that the South seceded over states’ rights. Yet when each state left the Union, its leaders made clear that they were seceding because they were for slavery and against states’ rights. In its “Declaration of the Causes Which Impel the State of Texas to Secede From the Federal Union,” for example, the secession convention of Texas listed the states that had offended the delegates: “Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa.” Governments there had exercised states’ rights by passing laws that interfered with the federal government’s attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Some no longer let slave owners “transit” across their territory with slaves. “States’ rights” were what Texas was seceding against. Texas also made clear what it was seceding for — white supremacy:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.​

Despite such statements, neo-Confederates erected monuments that flatly lied about the Confederate cause. For example, South Carolina’s monument at Gettysburg, dedicated in 1963, claims to explain why the state seceded: “Abiding faith in the sacredness of states rights provided their creed here.” This tells us nothing about 1863, when abiding opposition to states’ rights provided the Palmetto State’s creed. In 1963, however, its leaders did support states’ rights; politicians tried desperately that decade to keep the federal government from enforcing school desegregation and civil rights.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In Sweden the confederate flag is mostly associated with American cars. People who are really enthusiastic about American cars tend to sport the Confederate flag. It is not evidence of racism here. Not at all. I´d say it has no race connotations at all really. Swedish Nazis wouldn´t be caught dead in an American car. Not that they could afford one anyway.

 

[Horatio Parker]

A bit off topic(but only a bit):

In the earliest years of English colonization, two principal outposts managed to establish themselves. In 1616, the famous Pilgrims sailed their little Mayflower around Cape Cod and settled Plymouth Rock in what we call today Massachusetts. Almost a decade earlier, an officially backed expedition of the Virginia Company had successfully founded Jamestown, about a hundred miles south of Washington, D.C. and near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. Both areas were densely inhabited with native nations unwilling to politely disappear, and both dealt with difficult, hungry early winters. Despite the less-forgiving climate of Massachusetts, though, the survival rates for early Puritan colonists were substantially better than their Anglican counterparts to the south.

It is acknowledged, today, that European superiority over native nations around the world was less racial, philosophical, or moral—it could even be argued that European Christendom was deficient in these categories relative to the indigenous peoples the subjugated and usurped—than it was biological. Europe, crossroads of north and south, sea and land, east and west Eurasia, had a population with great biological redundancy. Blood of all three types were common. New plagues entered from east or south or north every other decade and the survivors were that much more resistant. But Europe, like New England, was largely temperate, and Europeans were unequipped to battle with the myriad microbial life forms that held sway in the torrid zones. In the age of sail, the great scourge of these warmer climes was what they called tertian fever, and we moderns call malaria.

In its first decade, those British (along with a number of Dutch, Germans, and Poles) who secured passage to Jamestown as either full citizens or contracted servants were dying at the amazing rate of almost one-out-of-two within the first year of their arrival. The survivors called the treacherous initial twelve months ‘seasoning’; like other poxes and flus one is largely immune to reoccurrences of malaria after surviving the first. Slowly, the number of landowners expanded into the countryside as the hardiest indentured servants earned their freedom, and a larger population of laborers became eminently necessary. As knowledge of the deadly nature of Virginia’s air spread amongst potential European migrants, these new landowners had nobody to work their hard-won land.

Malaria, a manifestation of the virus Plasmodium Falciparum, was wholly new to the Americas, and was equally if not more lethal to the exposed Native Americans as it was to the Europeans. Their susceptibility to malaria (along with other invasive ailments like smallpox) would eventually drive them from the whole of the Eastern seaboard. The alarming death rate prevented European farmers from utilizing Native labor en masse in those first tobacco, cotton, and rice plantations that came to define the pre-revolutionary South. There was only one population known to be immune to the ravages of the fever: West and Central Africans.

The first slave ship arrived in Jamestown in 1619, and within forty years the African population of Virginia would outnumber the Europeans by whom they were bought and sold. The Africans, well suited to the climate, largely immune to malaria, and familiar with the rigors of collectivized labor, lived longer and healthier lives in bondage than did their captors with whip in hand. As colonies proliferated, the plantation-slavery model found success from central Maryland to southern Georgia, while the industrial-economic-urban complex took hold in the north, forming into great hubs in Philadelphia, Boston, and New Amsterdam.

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/02/02/malaria-and-the-mason-dixon/

I don't recall the specific diseases involved, but another point is that African slaves enjoyed a healthier climate in North America than elsewhere in the New World. The island of Jamaica imported as many African slaves as all of the U.S. I wonder if it wasn't the superior adaptability of Africans that contributed to the harsh brand of race slavery which developed here.

 

[maxparrish]

Now let's take a look at the reasons you list:
1) regional identity -- actually regional white identity. The symbol is not inclusive and represents an identity that ignores a large part of it's population.
2) economic security -- you are going have to explain this one. I have no idea why it represents economic security. I've never seen it on a financial website.
3) state's rights -- As pointed out above the only state's rights it signifies is the right to restrict the rights of others.
4) racism and fear of racial retribution -- undoubtedly.

But let's pretend, hypothetically, that all those reasons Max listed were 100% correct...

Not one of them is a good reason for the state itself to be flying the flag No northern state flies a different flag at their Capitol building to honor Yankee heritage. What flag, besides the California state flag and the US flag, fly at government buildings in Los Angeles?

Nor do I hold a specific position on the issue of a government building flying the historical flag, although one should note that there is no historical "yankee" country flag. However, I imagine other states fly historical identity flags on occasion and other state flags are also rooted an era in which they were a different political entity. California's bear flag is heritage, it contains the same elements in first bear flag flown during the very short-lived California Republic (also brought to an end by federal troop occupation), is flown today as the State flag - in fact, it still retains the single star and declaration on it that it is a Republic:

And be reminded the current Texas State Flag IS the same flag of the prior Republic of Texas:

So yes, States do fly flags that portray their earlier historic identity, under a different political order.

 

[fromderinside]

But let's pretend, hypothetically, that all those reasons Max listed were 100% correct...

Not one of them is a good reason for the state itself to be flying the flag No northern state flies a different flag at their Capitol building to honor Yankee heritage. What flag, besides the California state flag and the US flag, fly at government buildings in Los Angeles?

Nor do I hold a specific position on the issue of a government building flying the historical flag, although one should note that there is no historical "yankee" country flag. However, I imagine other states fly historical identity flags on occasion and other state flags are also rooted an era in which they were a different political entity. California's bear flag is heritage, it contains the same elements in first bear flag flown during the very short-lived California Republic (also brought to an end by federal troop occupation), is flown today as the State flag - in fact, it still retains the single star and declaration on it that it is a Republic:

And be reminded the current Texas State Flag IS the same flag of the prior Republic of Texas:

So yes, States do fly flags that portray their earlier historic identity, under a different political order.

Well since we killed most of the native Americans they aren't really in a position to put up a noticeable fuss. That is except for the Washington Redskins, that revered tribe that is fighting for its pride against the might NFL, foremost brain destroyer after the military in the US Today, which they don't seem to be getting much traction. Otherwise your post is moot as usual.

 

[RavenSky]

Nor do I hold a specific position on the issue of a government building flying the historical flag, although one should note that there is no historical "yankee" country flag. However, I imagine other states fly historical identity flags on occasion and other state flags are also rooted an era in which they were a different political entity. California's bear flag is heritage, it contains the same elements in first bear flag flown during the very short-lived California Republic (also brought to an end by federal troop occupation), is flown today as the State flag - in fact, it still retains the single star and declaration on it that it is a Republic:

And be reminded the current Texas State Flag IS the same flag of the prior Republic of Texas:

So yes, States do fly flags that portray their earlier historic identity, under a different political order.

Except that isn't what I said Both of the examples you gave ARE the STATE flags. The confederate battle flag is NOT a STATE flag of any state. As such, it has no reason to be flying over any state capitol.

 

[fromderinside]

Except that isn't what I said Both of the examples you gave ARE the STATE flags. The confederate battle flag is NOT a STATE flag of any state. As such, it has no reason to be flying over any state capitol.

Just when it looked like you have your ducks in order you go and say the above.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But let's pretend, hypothetically, that all those reasons Max listed were 100% correct...

Not one of them is a good reason for the state itself to be flying the flag No northern state flies a different flag at their Capitol building to honor Yankee heritage. What flag, besides the California state flag and the US flag, fly at government buildings in Los Angeles?

Nor do I hold a specific position on the issue of a government building flying the historical flag, although one should note that there is no historical "yankee" country flag. However, I imagine other states fly historical identity flags on occasion and other state flags are also rooted an era in which they were a different political entity. California's bear flag is heritage, it contains the same elements in first bear flag flown during the very short-lived California Republic (also brought to an end by federal troop occupation), is flown today as the State flag - in fact, it still retains the single star and declaration on it that it is a Republic:

And be reminded the current Texas State Flag IS the same flag of the prior Republic of Texas:

So yes, States do fly flags that portray their earlier historic identity, under a different political order.

Which one of those flags was used in battle as a symbol of treason against the US Constitution?

 

[bleubird]

Was not the California Republic flag suppose to have a pear not a bear?
Bartlett pear.

 

[RavenSky]

Except that isn't what I said Both of the examples you gave ARE the STATE flags. The confederate battle flag is NOT a STATE flag of any state. As such, it has no reason to be flying over any state capitol.

Just when it looked like you have your ducks in order you go and say the above.

I am aware of the state flag of Mississippi. The Williamson County Seal of Tennessee will do it one even better. It has a depiction of the actual confederate battle flag draped over a cannon, plus an open bible in front of a church window. Those states, and any others using a depiction of the confederate flag or the "bars and stars" in an official capacity will, indeed, have to decide what they want to do about it, and that argument may (poorly) use the "heritage" argument.

This thread, however, is specific to flying the confederate battle flag itself - not a representation of one on a different flag - and it that I stand firm on my position. The confederate battle flag is not a state flag, and therefore should not be flown by the state itself as if it were. This is the very very easy issue to resolve. Take it down.

 

[fast]

This thread, however, is specific to flying the confederate battle flag itself - not a representation of one on a different flag - and it that I stand firm on my position. The confederate battle flag is not a state flag, and therefore should not be flown by the state itself as if it were. This is the very very easy issue to resolve. Take it down.

What's the missing premise? I suppose it would not lead one to believe the US flag should not be flown by the state.

 

[RavenSky]

This thread, however, is specific to flying the confederate battle flag itself - not a representation of one on a different flag - and it that I stand firm on my position. The confederate battle flag is not a state flag, and therefore should not be flown by the state itself as if it were. This is the very very easy issue to resolve. Take it down.

What's the missing premise? I suppose it would not lead one to believe the US flag should not be flown by the state.

There is no "missing premise". Did you read my original post?

But let's pretend, hypothetically, that all those reasons Max listed were 100% correct...

Not one of them is a good reason for the state itself to be flying the flag No northern state flies a different flag at their Capitol building to honor Yankee heritage. What flag, besides the California state flag and the US flag, fly at government buildings in Los Angeles?

The confederate battle flag is not a state flag, and therefore should not be flown by the state itself as if it were... a state flag. The confederate battle flag sure as hell isn't the national flag either (except in the warped minds of a few who still refuse to believe the south lost the civil war).

 

[fromderinside]

This thread, however, is specific to flying the confederate battle flag itself - not a representation of one on a different flag - and it that I stand firm on my position. The confederate battle flag is not a state flag, and therefore should not be flown by the state itself as if it were. This is the very very easy issue to resolve. Take it down.

Then the thread is at an end since a battle flag within a state flag is still a battle flag (they are not different) and all it entails to modernity. Take them down.

 

[fast]

What's the missing premise? I suppose it would not lead one to believe the US flag should not be flown by the state.

There is no "missing premise". Did you read my original post?

But let's pretend, hypothetically, that all those reasons Max listed were 100% correct...

Not one of them is a good reason for the state itself to be flying the flag No northern state flies a different flag at their Capitol building to honor Yankee heritage. What flag, besides the California state flag and the US flag, fly at government buildings in Los Angeles?

The confederate battle flag is not a state flag, and therefore should not be flown by the state itself as if it were... a state flag. The confederate battle flag sure as hell isn't the national flag either (except in the warped minds of a few who still refuse to believe the south lost the civil war).

Maybe I should have said, "hidden premise."

For instance, we know it's not, "only state flags should be flown by the state," since you allow exception for the US flag--unless you think the US flag is flown as if it's a state flag.


On a side note, do you think the US flag is flown as if it's a state flag? I don't think the Confederate flag is flown as if it's a state flag. I think it's flown as a flag. And, it's flown as state flags are flown--just as the US flag is flown as state flags are flown--or most any flags for that matter.

I'm not arguing for or against your position--just trying to ascertain the premise. There is something about the US flag that is different than the confederate flag, yet neither are state flags (and both are flown as flags are flown) (and neither are flown as if they are state flags), so it's not the case that no non-state flags should be flown by the state--at least not gleaned as such from your argument with the hidden premise (or missing premise by virtue of it not being explicitly stated).