Jerry Tipton asks Cal about confederate flag

[Bill Derington]

Bill, I was AGREEING with you. I understood exactly what you were saying. Tipton's intent was obvious, just as you stated. I can read between the lines in your post. It looks like your "unless you live in South Carolina....." post agrees with me too.

I thought you were, I was just explaining why I had that original long drawn out post.

 

[Bill Derington]

Outrage and heartbreak are all that have been used, and those can easily cross state lines. "Say" is an imaginary issue. Nobody has claimed "say".

It sounds awfully close to "outside agitators" and we really don't need to go there again.

Outrage and heartbreak are all that have been used, and those can easily cross state lines. "Say" is an imaginary issue. Nobody has claimed "say".

It sounds awfully close to "outside agitators" and we really don't need to go there again.

Well the lady that climbed the pole and took it down was from North Carolina.

I'm assuming the outside agitators refers to the south in the 50's and 60's. All I'm saying is let the people of South Carolina choose their own path. I would bet a dollar to a donut there's 50 reporters just waiting for any hint of suppression, quite a bit different times now.

 

[KrownDefender]

I hope this isn't banned. But it is the definition of the meaning of the flag per the designer William T Thompson...

"As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.[4]… Such a flag…would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as THE WHITE MAN'S FLAG.[5]… As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals.[6]"

 

[KrownDefender]

That is not race baiting just quoting the history that so many want to uphold.

 

[UK90]

e

I hope this isn't banned. But it is the definition of the meaning of the flag per the designer William T Thompson...

"As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.[4]… Such a flag…would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as THE WHITE MAN'S FLAG.[5]… As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals.[6]"

Yep. Not only that, but the reason the flag got resurrected in the 1960s was also purely because of racism. A little historical fact not everyone knows is that the flag actually largely disappeared from many parts of the South for quite many years, but then its popularity suddenly came storming back in the early 1960s.

And why the 1960s? Because of the Civil Rights Movement, during which the side opposing equal rights to African Americans adopted it as their de facto symbol, and govt buildings across the South started putting it up as an act of defiance against a federal government trying to force them to give African Americans equal rights.

That's why I find the notion that the flag can somehow be separated from racism to be laughable. It was the symbol of those fighting to preserve slavery in the 1860s, it was the symbol of those fighting to deny equal rights to all races in the 1960s, and its become a symbol used by hate groups all around the world ever since. Racism was the underlying force that created it, and racism was the underlying force that resurrected it a century later. It has ALWAYS been recognized worldwide for an inextricable association with racism to a degree perhaps stronger than any worldwide known flag other than the friggin swastika. It's just absurd to still have that flag flying over government buildings in this country in 2015.

 

[jr40831]

Jerry Tipton of the LHL....Umm...Do like movies about gladiators?

 

[sosoblue]

e

Yep. Not only that, but the reason the flag got resurrected in the 1960s was also purely because of racism. A little historical fact not everyone knows is that the flag actually largely disappeared from large parts of the South for quite many years, but then its popularity suddenly came storming back in the early 1960s.

And why the 1960s? Because of the Civil Rights Movement, during which the side opposing equal rights to African Americans adopted it as their de facto symbol, and govt buildings across the South started putting it up as an act of defiance against a federal government trying to force them to give African Americans equal rights.

That's why I find the notion that the flag can somehow be separated from racism to be laughable. It was the symbol of those fighting to preserve slavery in the 1860s, it was the symbol of those fighting to deny equal rights to all races in the 1960s, and its become a symbol used by hate groups all around the world ever since. Racism was the underlying force that created it, and racism was the underlying force that resurrected it a century later. It has ALWAYS been recognized worldwide for an inextricable association with racism to a degree perhaps stronger than any worldwide known flag other than the friggin swastika. It's just absurd to still have that flag flying over government buildings in this country in 2015.

Bravo you hit the nail on the head. I agree with you on this 100%. Especially about the history of the civil rights movement and the change that was taking place at that time. Good post UK90 I'm feeling you on this one.

 

[Bill Derington]

Maybe The civil rights movement is when people started taking note of rebel flag, but it was always big in the south. Hell, Vicksburg didn't celebrate the 4th of July until WWI.
The reason most see the confederate flag as a symbol of hate is the kkk.
While I agree it shouldn't be flying over capital buildings, the one in South Carolina isn't.

I can see both sides of the argument, I just think we're getting a little carried away is all. In Murray Ky there's a monument to the counties confederate soldiers on the court square. It was dedicated in 1917, very beautiful monument. It's honoring soldiers, do you think it should be removed?

 

[KrownDefender]

I am from a military family and appreciate people honoring their history but I also understand what treason against your home nation is defined as. United we stand..... how can this be true if so many choose division? Routinely people of foreign or minority backgrounds are put down and told to conform or to keep their customs to themselves. I would say those who want to glorify a rogue government should do the same. I had ancestors on both sides of the war and ancestors who were slaves. It was a multifaceted conflict that was as complex as any in our history. I was always raised that when you take an oath to serve and protect the USA that you do just that. I also was raised that all men are equal as we are all in the image of God. Even if one is a non believer it is easy to recognize that all humans are equal it is just our individual character that defines us truly. These ideals were not part of the CSA and never would have been. So I must say that from its genesis it was evil.

 

[Bill Derington]

I can't agree with that Krown, they did not commit treason. They were the side actually following the constitution that all the states agreed too.
Evil played no part in it, they aren't evil people, anymore than George Washington or the other founding fathers that owned slaves, times were different then.
The north didn't invade the south to remove slavery, it invaded to prevent them from seceding.
I also swore an oath to the constitution, and have two biracial younger brothers I love.

 

[katwest]

e

Yep. Not only that, but the reason the flag got resurrected in the 1960s was also purely because of racism. A little historical fact not everyone knows is that the flag actually largely disappeared from many parts of the South for quite many years, but then its popularity suddenly came storming back in the early 1960s.

And why the 1960s? Because of the Civil Rights Movement, during which the side opposing equal rights to African Americans adopted it as their de facto symbol, and govt buildings across the South started putting it up as an act of defiance against a federal government trying to force them to give African Americans equal rights.

That's why I find the notion that the flag can somehow be separated from racism to be laughable. It was the symbol of those fighting to preserve slavery in the 1860s, it was the symbol of those fighting to deny equal rights to all races in the 1960s, and its become a symbol used by hate groups all around the world ever since. Racism was the underlying force that created it, and racism was the underlying force that resurrected it a century later. It has ALWAYS been recognized worldwide for an inextricable association with racism to a degree perhaps stronger than any worldwide known flag other than the friggin swastika. It's just absurd to still have that flag flying over government buildings in this country in 2015.

This argument goes hand-in-hand with those who try to portray the 1950's, especially in the South, as a decade of hate. This approach was popular with "civil rights" groups in Georgia as well as the liberal media. The Georgia state flag, for example, was changed in 1956. Those who want the flag changed today, claim that the current state flag was established as a slap in the face of court ordered integration, even though records indicate otherwise.
Integration was ordered by the courts in 1952. If Georgia legislators were angry over integration, it would not have taken them four years to change the Georgia flag. If defiance had been the reason for the flag's change, it would have been changed the very same day as the court decision! After all, opposing integration in the 1950's was a popular position to hold, and it earned votes for politicians, both in the north and the South.
The formula for providing quality education has always been an illusive one with many variables. In the 1950's, some of those variables discussed by the members of the state legislatures in the north and the South included teacher salaries, improved curriculum, funding for new schools and integration. Any state whose elected officials did not thoroughly debate how court ordered integration might effect quality education was done a serious disservice.
Yes, debates over segregation and integration took place during the 1950's, but the timing of those debates was chosen by the civil rights movement and not by the defenders of segregation who would have preferred that the debates never occur at all. Had the courts ordered integration 50 years earlier or 50 years later, the 1950's would have still been a decade of heritage not hate.