The Cross and the Confederate Flag

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

While I personally would say take it down.........It is a piece of cloth. Clinton had campaign badges with this flag on it in the early 90's. That flag is flying because the dems in SC made the choice to put it there.......While well meaning folks would REALLY like to see it gone because of the history, make no mistake, this is setting up as the usual political "football" for 2016. JMHO

The "Democrats" put it up there? :-\

Were you aware that the Democrats who did so are now Republicans?

But you are correct that the issue does split along party lines, with Republicans generally supporting the flag remaining and Democrats virtually united in opposition.

So are you saying that originally the Democrats who ruled the South in the vast majority of the states Capitals, didn't put the flags up? So Gov Wallace didn't try to stop segregation of schools? And you are saying he was a republican? Seriously? The democrats who originally did these things are not now your present day republicans. The democrats who brought in Jim Crowe laws and separate but "equal" are now republicans? Give me a break. Please support these allegations. That is the problem with the far left. Change the narrative and attack using different methods instead of honestly attacking the problem. But of course you like to blame republicans for everything but yet stick up for the democrats who do things wrong.

[cptau 169]

While I personally would say take it down.........It is a piece of cloth. Clinton had campaign badges with this flag on it in the early 90's. That flag is flying because the dems in SC made the choice to put it there.......While well meaning folks would REALLY like to see it gone because of the history, make no mistake, this is setting up as the usual political "football" for 2016. JMHO

The "Democrats" put it up there? :-\

Were you aware that the Democrats who did so are now Republicans?

But you are correct that the issue does split along party lines, with Republicans generally supporting the flag remaining and Democrats virtually united in opposition.

So are you saying that originally the Democrats who ruled the South in the vast majority of the states Capitals, didn't put the flags up? So Gov Wallace didn't try to stop segregation of schools? And you are saying he was a republican? Seriously? The democrats who originally did these things are not now your present day republicans. The democrats who brought in Jim Crowe laws and separate but "equal" are now republicans? Give me a break. Please support these allegations. That is the problem with the far left. Change the narrative and attack using different methods instead of honestly attacking the problem. But of course you like to blame republicans for everything but yet stick up for the democrats who do things wrong.

I remember when Shelby Co, Alabama went majority Republican in 1984. The old democratic office holders got defeated and never changed to being Republican

Some younger democrats may have switched to the Republican party, but most of the older ones like George Wallace didn't. George Wallace always ran as a democrat in Alabama and the last time he was elected governor he even carried Jefferson county which he had never carried before. He won Jefferson county because of black voters. And by the way the Interstate highways got finished in Jefferson county. The joke among highway workers in Jefferson county had been, when Wallace gets elected just leave your shovels and come on in, because Wallace will punish Jefferson county for not voting for him.

.

[Weegle777 78]

[homersapien 11,440]

And for those who take pride in the Southern heritage, here's some interesting information from a historian who was an Auburn grad:

(My personal notes)

"Bitterly Divided - The South's Inner Civil War" by David Williams*

*(obtained his PhD degree in history at Auburn University)

Williams shows in this extensively documented work that from the Confederacy's very beginning, white Southerners were as likely to oppose secession as support it. He makes a compelling case that this was basically a rich man's war that was undertaken against the will of the majority of Southern residents, 3/4's of whom owned no slaves. In fact, he makes the case that a major driving force for the secession movement by slave holders was a fear that poor whites would come to realize that slavery kept them poor and an abolitionist movement would arise in the South.

He also describes the acute class divisions in the South. Anyone owning 20 or more slaves were exempted from the draft. Men of wealth could also avoid military service by paying an exemption fee. Meanwhile poor men were subject to conscription, often having to leave their wives and children to fend for themselves on subsistence level farms. And because growing cotton and tobacco were much more profitable the rich planters favored those crops instead of growing food crops. This resulted in outright famine for poor throughout the South.

As a consequence the desertion rate from the Confederate army was tremendous. In 1864 Jefferson Davis admitted that 2/3 if Confederate soldiers were absent, most of them without leave. Many of these deserters went on to serve in the Union army. Southerners, including ex- slaves, who served in the Union military totalled nearly half a million, or about a quarter of federal armed forces.

Large geographical areas of the South resisted secession and supported the Union. Many of these areas were in the mountainous regions of northern Alabama and Georgia and eastern Tennessee and North Carolina.

While I have always known that there was considerable resistence to the Confederacy in the South, I certainly did not realize that this was a war that was brought on by a relatively small minority of rich planters. For someone raised in the South and has had a long term interest in the Civil war, this book was a paradigm shifter. I recommend it highly to anyone with an interest in the Civil War.

It also puts any theories of how the South may have won (militarily) the Civil war into perspective. The Confederacy was destined to be defeated, if not by the North then by Southerners themselves.

Dunno when he wrote this, but it kind of upsets me if he got this knowledge while going for his PhD, when other university's teach this in sophomore classes.

Many in the South who were for secession, because they bought into the state pride deal, or the idea of a new nation petitioned multiple times to abolish slavery within the confederacy, confederate military officers among them. Seeing the slim chances they had of winning, adding a million fighting men to the confederacy by abolishing slavery while also helping engender positive relations with England and France (who were sympathetic to the confederacy, but would not support slavery) would have helped their cause tremendously.

All petitions to abolish slavery were of course shut down as the people with the power in the confederacy were not about to give up what had gotten them to their positions of power (IE: Slaves). In the case of military officers pushing for abolition, their careers were damn near killed by bringing it up (See: Patrick Cleburne)

Not sure what your point is. If universities are teaching it, they are undoubtedly drawing on his research.

Are you suggesting it's not original?

Maybe it was the way I read it, that made me assume this was covered in a graduate level class. I also have no idea if it is original or not, if by the question you mean plagiarism... the scope is not original at all, but as long as it's original thought then it doesn't matter. I feel like I might be over explaining this but... if I wrote a paper and drew on Corbett's Politics of Emasculation works, as long as I give credit and present my own thoughts it would be considered "original" even if my scope was the same as his.

And the "upsets me" part of my post was for Auburn University, not this subject. If other universities are covering this in sophomore classes and Auburn doesn't get into it until graduate classes, that would point towards history being a weaker field of study for the Auburn school. Of course, these are all assumptions made and replied to on a side forum of a football website sooooooo

I meant original as in original research.

And you do understand that the only reason I mentioned Auburn was that the author received his PhD at Auburn. It has nothing to do with this book specifically. As an Auburn grad, it's just something to be proud of.

He's currently a professor at Valdosta State University.

http://www.cwbr.com/...s&Submit=Search

David Williams has authored several influential books on the Civil War, including A People’s History of the Civil War: Struggles for the Meaning of Freedom (2005). In his latest accomplishment, he presents an impressive collection of stories and quotations that reveal cracks and crevices in the façade of Confederate unity dating from early 1861 until the critical last year of the war. He draws his evidence from both published monographs and firsthand accounts, creating an effective synthesis of the Confederacy’s internal conflicts. Bitterly Divided blends the results of recent regional and community studies (including Williams’s own published works) to create a solid explanation for how the divisions within the Confederacy resulted in ultimate defeat. Some scholars have previously critiqued many of these local studies as only representative of a single locality and limited in application to the entire South. But Williams draws all of these studies together and allows us to see the “big picture” of dissent and conflict within the Confederate States. The strength of Williams’s book is its attention to the experiences of people who have been neglected by historians occupied with military strategy and leadership. Williams gives center stage to the experiences of African-Americans, Native-Americans, non-slaveholding whites, southern Unionists, and other common folk often ignored in favored of the planters and southern elite. Further, Williams gives attention to both the upper and lower South, along with the eastern and western portions of the Confederacy.

http://www.accessatl...war-how-/nQxmg/

http://thenewpress.c...ry-of-civil-war

That makes a heck of a lot more sense, as the way I read it was someone with a PhD writing about his learning experiences in a classroom (from the way the paragraphs are written).

I've been on a horrible streak of misreading things lately, I keep this up and I might as well move into WarTims trailer with him:)

Nonsense.

If you were approaching that you would never own up to a simple misunderstanding. You would double down and defend it as the absolute truth in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

You are obviously much better than that.

[cptau 169]

Dunno when he wrote this, but it kind of upsets me if he got this knowledge while going for his PhD, when other university's teach this in sophomore classes.

Many in the South who were for secession, because they bought into the state pride deal, or the idea of a new nation petitioned multiple times to abolish slavery within the confederacy, confederate military officers among them. Seeing the slim chances they had of winning, adding a million fighting men to the confederacy by abolishing slavery while also helping engender positive relations with England and France (who were sympathetic to the confederacy, but would not support slavery) would have helped their cause tremendously.

All petitions to abolish slavery were of course shut down as the people with the power in the confederacy were not about to give up what had gotten them to their positions of power (IE: Slaves). In the case of military officers pushing for abolition, their careers were damn near killed by bringing it up (See: Patrick Cleburne)

Not sure what your point is. If universities are teaching it, they are undoubtedly drawing on his research.

Are you suggesting it's not original?

Actually back when high schools really taught American history all this was taught and discussed in the junior year of high school. The rich farmers with the best land had slaves to work their large land holdings. Poor white farmers living on poor land had none or very few slaves. Most soldiers in the Armies of the CSA had no slaves.

The poorest white farmers lived in the hill and hollers of the South and had no slaves. They turned into Republicans

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I think this goes back to something that's been mentioned before...people who claim to love that flag for "heritage" or "history" without the connotations of slavery or white supremacy, segregation and Jim Crow did a weak job of preventing or wresting back control of the flag's meaning from those idiots. They allowed the KKK, segregationists, Neo-Nazis and such to basically take it over. It wasn't until recently that people even began to really assert a different meaning to the flag (now that segregation is completely out of the mainstream) and it came far too late. Christians on the other hand loudly and repeatedly voiced their opposition to the appropriation of their symbols as symbols of racial prejudice and hatred. And the Bible and the Cross had a much longer history prior to the white supremacy and the Confederacy without those connotations attached to them. Thus they were able to survive and be disassociated from that band of mental midgets in ways the Confederate flag never will.

[homersapien 11,440]

While I personally would say take it down.........It is a piece of cloth. Clinton had campaign badges with this flag on it in the early 90's. That flag is flying because the dems in SC made the choice to put it there.......While well meaning folks would REALLY like to see it gone because of the history, make no mistake, this is setting up as the usual political "football" for 2016. JMHO

The "Democrats" put it up there? :-\

Were you aware that the Democrats who did so are now Republicans?

But you are correct that the issue does split along party lines, with Republicans generally supporting the flag remaining and Democrats virtually united in opposition.

1) So are you saying that originally the Democrats who ruled the South in the vast majority of the states Capitals, didn't put the flags up? 2) So Gov Wallace didn't try to stop segregation of schools? 3) And you are saying he was a republican? Seriously? The democrats who originally did these things are not now your present day republicans. 4) The democrats who brought in Jim Crowe laws and separate but "equal" are now republicans? Give me a break. Please support these allegations. That is the problem with the far left. Change the narrative and attack using different methods instead of honestly attacking the problem. But of course you like to blame republicans for everything but yet stick up for the democrats who do things wrong.

1. No of course not. I am arguing that Democratic majority evolved into the Republican majority of today. Many became Dixiecrats on their way to the GOP.

2. Of course he did. And he was a Democrat at the time.

3. No, he was a Democrat. This was prior to the mass conversion triggered by the Democratic president Johnson passing the Civil Rights Act.

4. Well most of them are probably dead now, but generally and philosophically speaking, yes.

Are you really not familiar with this political phenomenon?

You have never heard of Nixon's "Southern Strategy"?

You didn't know that black people were once solid for the GOP?

https://en.wikipedia...thern_Democrats

The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a significant event in converting the Deep South to the Republican Party; in that year most Senatorial Republicans supported the Act (most of the opposition came from Southern Democrats), but the Republican Party nominated for the Presidency Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who had opposed it. From the end of the Civil War to 1960 Democrats had solid control over the southern states in presidential elections, hence the term "Solid South" to describe the states' Democratic preference. After the passage of this Act, however, their willingness to support Republicans on a presidential level increased demonstrably. Goldwater won many of the "Solid South" states over Democratic candidate Lyndon Johnson, himself a Texan, and with many this Republican support continued and seeped down the ballot to congressional, state, and ultimately local levels. A further significant item of legislation was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which targeted for preclearance by the U.S. Department of Justice any election-law change in areas where African-American voting participation was lower than the norm (most but not all of these areas were in the South); the effect of the Voting Rights Act on southern elections was profound, including the by-product that some White Southerners perceived it as meddling while Black voters universally appreciated it. The trend toward acceptance of Republican identification among Southern White voters was bolstered in the next two elections by Richard Nixon.

Denouncing the forced busing policy that was used to enforce school desegregation,^[4] Richard Nixon courted conservative Southern whites with what is called the Southern Strategy, though his speechwriter Jeffrey Hart claimed that his campaign rhetoric was actually a "Border State Strategy" and accused the press of being "very lazy" when they called it a "Southern Strategy".^[5] In the 1971 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education ruling, the power of the federal government to enforce forced busing was strengthened when the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had the discretion to include busing as a desegregation tool to achieve racial balance. Some southern Democrats became Republicans at the national level, while remaining with their old party in state and local politics throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Of the known Dixiecrats, only three switched parties becoming Republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind, Jr. In the 1974 Milliken v. Bradley decision, however, the ability to use forced busing as a political tactic was greatly diminished when the U.S. Supreme Court placed an important limitation on Swann and ruled that students could only be bused across district lines if evidence of de jure segregation across multiple school districts existed.

In 1976, former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter won every Southern state except Oklahoma and Virginia in his successful campaign to win the Presidency as a Democrat, but his support among White voters in the South evaporated amid their disappointment that he was not the yearned-for reincarnation of Democratic conservatism. In 1980 Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan won overwhelmingly in most of the South.^[6]

Losing the south

In 1980, the Southern Strategy would see fruition when Ronald Reagan announced that he supported states rights and that welfare abuse justified the need for it.^[7] Lee Atwater, who served Reagan's chief strategist in the Southern states, claimed that by 1968, a vast majority of southern whites had learned to accept that racial slurs like "n****r" were very offensive and that mentioning "states rights" and reasons for its justification had now become the best way to use the politically valuable race card and appeal to southern white voters.^[8] Later Republican candidates were accused of using racial appeals similar to Reagan. For example, George H.W. Bush faced accusations of racism with the Willie Horton ads, while Newt Gingrich faced similar criticism in 2012 by calling Barack Obama a food-stamp president.

The South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal. Democratic incumbents, however, still held sway over voters in many states, especially in Deep South. Although Republicans won most presidential elections in Southern states starting in 1964, Democrats controlled nearly every Southern state legislature until the mid-1990s and had a moderate (although not huge) amount of members in state legislatures until 2010. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control began to implode, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. By the mid-1990s, however, the political value of the race card was evaporating and many Republicans began to court African Americans by playing on their vast dedication to Christian conservatism.^[9]

Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South. Southern Democrats of today who vote for the Democratic ticket are mostly urban liberals. Rural residents tend to vote for the Republican ticket, although there are sizable numbers of Conservative Democrats.

A huge portion of Representatives, Senators, and voters who were referred to as Reagan Democrats in the 1980s were conservative Southern Democrats. An Interesting exception has been Arkansas, whose state legislature has continued to be majority Democrat (having, however, given its electoral votes to the GOP in the past three Presidential elections, except in 1992 and 1996 when "favorite son" Bill Clinton was the candidate and won each time) until 2012, when Arkansas voters selected a 21-14 Republican majority in the Arkansas Senate.

http://nymag.com/dai...vil-rights.html

The mainstream, and correct, history of the politics of civil rights is as follows. Southern white supremacy operated out of the Democratic Party beginning in the nineteenth century, but the party began attracting northern liberals, including African-Americans, into an ideologically cumbersome coalition. Over time the liberals prevailed, forcing the Democratic Party to support civil rights, and driving conservative (and especially southern) whites out, where they realigned with the Republican Party.

I could go on....

[homersapien 11,440]

There is no comparison between the flag as a symbol of racism and the bible.

The flag was originated as a symbol of white supremacy.

This is a specious comparison - a very weak argument on the part of Mr. Williams.

He also misrepresents the role of blacks fighting for the confederacy. Most who did had no choice or real understanding. It's completely illogical to think otherwise.

[cptau 169]

There are symbols used by hate groups past and present that are on or near our government buildings.

This symbol was used by American Indians and Asian Indians for centuries

Should they be removed or covered up?

The Jefferson Co AL, court house was built in 1931 before the Nazis came to power in 1933.

Penobscot Building in Detroit, Michigan

San Francisco

Navajo Carpet

This the Navy's "accidental" barracks building design from 1967. They are spending $600,000 to change it.

[alexava 6,973]

Man, Facebook is blowing up with unrealized ignorance. I am almost ashamed to be friends with some of these people.

[Weegle777 78]

Yes, every symbol of the Nazis should be removed, even the Navajo stuff. It represents Jewish oppression.

[AUDub 11,182]

Man, Facebook is blowing up with unrealized ignorance. I am almost ashamed to be friends with some of these people.

Been following it on Al.com. There are some jackasses out there,

[AUUSN 823]

Yes, every symbol of the Nazis should be removed, even the Navajo stuff. It represents Jewish oppression.

It. Is. Not. The. Same.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Yes, every symbol of the Nazis should be removed, even the Navajo stuff. It represents Jewish oppression.

Eh. I could understand it being removed in some contexts...Germany, heavily Jewish areas, etc. But that symbol predates Nazi Germany by at least 5,000 years, being the Sanskrit symbol or word for "good fortune" or "well-being." To this day it is still a sacred symbol in Buddhism and Hinduism.

The Confederate battle flag has no such prior history. I don't see an exact analogy between the two.

[AUUSN 823]

[Weegle777 78]

Yes, every symbol of the Nazis should be removed, even the Navajo stuff. It represents Jewish oppression.

It. Is. Not. The. Same.

To Jewish people it is exactly the same. Did you have relatives that were gassed in a chamber?

[AUUSN 823]

Yes, every symbol of the Nazis should be removed, even the Navajo stuff. It represents Jewish oppression.

It. Is. Not. The. Same.

To Jewish people it is exactly the same. Did you have relatives that were gassed in a chamber?

Put down your red herring and read slowly... It. Is. Not. The. Same.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

There is no comparison between the flag as a symbol of racism and the bible.

The flag was originated as a symbol of white supremacy.

This is a specious comparison - a very weak argument on the part of Mr. Williams.

He also misrepresents the role of blacks fighting for the confederacy. Most who did had no choice or real understanding. It's completely illogical to think otherwise.

Yes. This is such an egregious misrepresentation that I can not understand what motivated him to propose any of it.

[Weegle777 78]

Yes, every symbol of the Nazis should be removed, even the Navajo stuff. It represents Jewish oppression.

It. Is. Not. The. Same.

To Jewish people it is exactly the same. Did you have relatives that were gassed in a chamber?

Put down your red herring and read slowly... It. Is. Not. The. Same.

Please. If I wanted to divert this thread, I would post something else. The sad thing is that you are so arrogant that you can't see the similarities between the two. I believe the flag should be gone, always have, but the swastika and the rebel flag are symbols of oppression. That is a fact. Was the swastika meant for that purpose? No, and neither was that flag.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

The flag was essentially meant for that purpose. It was to represent a nation whose primary reason for seceding and coming into being was the "state's right" to not just keep but to promulgate slavery in future territories. After that, it was adopted by disgruntled white supremacists who couldn't let the South's loss in the Civil War go and had to manufacture a revisionist version of events that came off as more honorable and palatable.

The swastika symbol has a far longer history that had nothing to do with Nazism and is still a sacred symbol in multiple world religions. I do agree that in some contexts, it might be best to not use it or replace it if it is in use. But not all. It does not have the same problem overall as the Confederate battle flag.

[AUUSN 823]

Yes, every symbol of the Nazis should be removed, even the Navajo stuff. It represents Jewish oppression.

It. Is. Not. The. Same.

To Jewish people it is exactly the same. Did you have relatives that were gassed in a chamber?

Put down your red herring and read slowly... It. Is. Not. The. Same.

Please. If I wanted to divert this thread, I would post something else. The sad thing is that you are so arrogant that you can't see the similarities between the two. I believe the flag should be gone, always have, but the swastika and the rebel flag are symbols of oppression. That is a fact. Was the swastika meant for that purpose? No, and neither was that flag.

Are you messing with me? Seriously?

[AUUSN 823]

[AUUSN 823]

[AUUSN 823]

[AUUSN 823]