Mass Shooting In Charleston

Just hours ago, the mayor of New Orleans called for the removal of all Confederate monuments from public view.

Earlier today, there was commotion in the US House about not allowing individuals to place small Confederate flags at their own expense at the gravesites of their ancestors, inside federal military cemeteries. That appears to be a clear violation of the First Amendment.

It seems to me that mostly white liberals are driving all this, not so much black leaders. Don Lemon, on the other hand, just tonight went all the way to bringing up the removal of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington because Jefferson was a slave owner, but you know Lemon is likely to say just about anything. No filter, no judgment. Of course, he's just a CNN talking head, not a leader of any kind.

Are we headed for a category five hurricane of political correctness? I sure hope not. Just when I thought this was going to be a great week...

 

Well, as long as we are removing 19th Century ppl on the wrong side of history I hope someone in New Orleans mentions that they should rename Jackson Square (Place de Armas) and take out that statue of Andrew Jackson for what he did to Native Americans in the South.

It is getting ridiculous, especially in these old Southern cities where racism and slavery are a part of the history. If having a statue of Robert E. Lee standing on a multi storied Greek column pedestal in Lee Circle, where the remaining St. Charles streetcar goes around bothers someone, then why don't they just raze the Garden District because all those magnificent mansions were built with slave labor. Everybody knows that.

 

Genocide of Native Americans is still apparently okay since they aren't a significant voting block. How is genocide not worse than slavery?

Another thing people are forgetting; under Jim Crow law, the US flag was a flag of racism too.

Also, the White House in Washington.

Very few things from the past are "pure".

 

I used to come to HipForums because of so many people here that had common sense backed up with an education. Then I find the two people I have had in the highest regards, Shale and Karen J, have said some of the most uneducated comments about the South.

The Civil war was not over slaves. The North had them as well. Research the real history of the Civil War (I prefer calling it the Second Revolutionary War, myself).

Attacking the Confederate symbols, if anything, is an attack on the current movement for state sovereignty.

 

But but but... my emotions! I get to shout racism, please don't ruin this for me. When I retreat into my lizard brain I feel so alive. Get out of here with your rationale. Ain't nobody got time for dat.

 

I'm flattered that you group me with Karen J. at the same time I'm insulted that you call my comments about the South uneducated. I am a graduate of the Jim Crow era in Mississippi. I saw the beautiful world of white and colored restrooms, drinking fountains and restaurant seating. I was there when I could not have had a black girlfriend in Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida or any of 15 Southern States. My black wife and I were terrorised in South Carolina. My uncle was a member of the KKK. I was written op on the Harbor Police Dept. in New Orleans for socializing with a black friend on the force.

The civil war was not entirely about slavery - I don't think I ever said that but the apartheid that went on there for over a century after that war ended lets you klnow the mindset of the "Good Christians" of those states (who are currently defying the U.S. Constitution by denying marriage licenses to same-gender couples).

State sovereignty does not allow for the abuse of certain segments of the population stuck in those states. And that is what the South has been about. The glorious "heritage" of that rebel flag was one of slavery in the distant past and de facto slavery of an oppressed black population in recent history - in my lifetime in the South.

 

What Logan is saying is that it was not all about that. He is not dismissing the racism. So why give those examples again if you both agree and acknowledge they were there (even in recent times) but they were not all what the south was about and it is not solely what their flag represents (well I guess it's to point out you're not uneducated on the subject). Maybe it represents bad things for certain people but that is another thing. Maybe people just sound uneducated when they chronically focus on a particular aspect of the south (the slavery and racism), that was (and is) really there and it IS really connected to it but it doesn't mean it's all there is about both the south and their heritage and the confederate flag. When we only focus on that one aspect it often sound like it is only about that and we get a slightly distorted picture (uneducated to some )

 

Just for clarity, it would be good if someone would give us a list of reason why the Confederacy seceded from the Union, and what, other than slavery, and the right of states to maintain that institution were the reasons for the war?

 

Maybe it is still fairly short? Me thinks: power and wealth (as always ). It wasn't primarily about the right to keep slaves but the right to govern yourself as a state and not be governed by a federacy that had conflicting interests. If the rich and powerful ones were afraid of having to conform to the north all they had to do was tricking their fellow state members (the common folks) in rallying against the federacy and secede and form their own confederacy in order to save their economy and states rights.
Common people in the south were not by default more racist or in favour of slavery than people in the north at that time. It has just become intensively connected to the southern heritage. If you look in historic sources you can easily see people in the north were often at least as racist and on a regular basis not in favour of getting rid of their slaves neither. So to say it is solely 'southern heritage' and not america's heritage as a whole seems already kind of dubious.

 

I have thought about this quite a bit, and it seems to me that it all involves a kind of circular process of reasoning.

The interests the North didn't share with the south were because of the different economy. North more industrial (a primary reason they won the war) the South agricultural, and reliant on slaves to make it pay.

The main thing the south wanted was to keep slavery - regardless of the fact that there were some slaves in the north, they needed it to maintain their lifestyle, which in the case of plantation owners was rather grand.

I go round and round with this, but keep coming back to slavery as the main thing.

As Confederate General Longstreet reputedly said 'we should have freed the slaves first and then fired on Fort Sumter'.

Had they done that, it's likely that Britain would have stepped in to help the south at least by breaking the blockade.

 

It is true that the southern economy depended on slavery but that doesn't mean slavery is simply or primarily what the civil war was about. It was primarily about states rights vs. federal rights and money/the economy. That the economy in the south depended on slavery does not make the war primarily about slavery. It does of course not change slavery was an intrinsic part of America, both the north and the south. Southern part of the US at that time didn't industrialize to the same extent, hence why it is now considered and mainly perceived as southern heritage and not american heritage.
Would there have been no civil war/attempt to secede from the north if slavery was abolished before? Not likely as the south and their economy and states rights would have gone to shit then too (but who knows)

 

I go mainly by what Southerners said and wrote to each other in the decades prior to the war, not what they said in public for Northern consumption. Thousands of pages have been preserved. Letters, diaries, memoirs, editorials in obscure small town newspapers... And then there were the theological rationalizations from Southern church leaders, pointing out that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians are supposed to oppose slavery, and claiming that Christian compassion requires them to take charge of inferior races, for their own good. Nauseating. Most Protestant denominations split into northern and southern factions over this. Quakers in North Carolina stood strong against slavery, and opposed the war from beginning to end.

The truth just didn't sound very good to outsiders, so Southern politicians did what politicians always do, find a positive sounding piece of rhetoric that can be polished for public presentation. "States rights" sounds relatively harmless, on the surface. Still does, until you dig deeper and find out what those states want to do.

Without slavery, the Southern economy totally collapsed, as predicted. One big fear that did not come true was the mass murder and rape of whites by freed slaves. That had been talked about a lot, especially within the churches.

Almost trivial numbers. Abolitionist leaders in Northern states were doing very well without any help at the federal level.

The big problem looming in the future for the South was the lack of interest in slavery out west. Cattle ranches had no need for slave labor, and didn't care to involve their new states in a dying institution that was disrespected by most of the civilized world.

Not in 1860.

The rest of your post is circular logic that was typical of official Confederate doctrine.

 

Well, the SC flag is down, and I hope everybody on the political left will take a deep breath before plunging headfirst into history revision and erasure, which is blasphemy to every serious student of history.

 

CONFESSION

Shale once owned a Confederate Battle Flag :unsure:

From Shale's Biography

I got out of the service in 1967 and by 1968 was working in New Orleans on the Harbor Police Dept. as a beat cop. I was 24. ...

I did my police duties with the department ... and didn't socialize with too many of my fellow officers. One guy that I hit it off with was Charles Toussaint, a black cop from an old New Orleans family. Most noteworthy was when I shook Charles' hand for the first time and being aware of his black hand in my white hand. (This was not the standard handshake but the more expressive one the brothers use, with the hands facing up.)

We became friends and hung out together.


He visited me in my one-room apartment on Camp Street and I remember he seemed offended by my Rebel Battle Flag on the wall. He didn't make an issue of it, just pointed out it didn't seem to fit me. Well, I did have a great grandfather, Doc Robertson, who was in the CSA as a sawbones. The flag eventually came down.

We were all young, naive and insensitive - but sometimes, with education from others you learn.

 

states rights = the right to own slaves. I'm really not sure how one can spin it any other way. Asmo, reference secession documents. They all state the primary reason for secession is to keep the negro race enslaved and inferior.

 

To say states rights has any other meaning than the right to own human property is just white washing history.

 

Don't beat yourself up too much. Those flags used to be so common. We didn't give it a lot of thought. Parents gave them to children, to play with. Most of them didn't know any better.

The last thing I want to do is piss you off about anything related to New Orleans, and I honestly don't think the monuments need to come down, but that city really could do just fine without them. I don't associate New Orleans with Civil War history at all. It sat out most of the war as an occupied city, so it was nearly impossible for locals to volunteer for the army or be drafted. Visitors and local history buffs care a lot more about the early jazz era, the French era, and the Spanish period. As some locals like to point out, the national flag flying over New Orleans has changed five times (French, Spanish, French, American, Confederate, and American), so the city is more timeless and immortal than mere countries. I can understand why New Orleans would feel less attached to its CW monuments than other Southern cities do.

If somebody starts talking about removing anything from Richmond, that's an entirely different thing. If they want to remove Lee from Richmond, I may have to chain myself to the foundation.

 

It certainly was not done with the intent to insult. Yet at the same time, I'm baffled. All this preaching I hear of "tolerate tolerate tolerate", but then I see, no tolerance.
We have to tolerate medicinal pot (no biggie for me).
We have to tolerate mixed-race bussing (again, no biggie for me).
We have to tolerate people coming in from other countries, even uf they have no papers legalizing their arrival (that bugs me, illegal immigration, but at the same time we all came from somewhere else).
Then we have to tolerate gay marriage (no sweat, let them do as they wish).
But then I see no tolerance for symbol from my past that really has no effect on anyone.

The flag is not going to beat you up.
Nor will it shoot you.
It will not rape you.
Just as it cannot steal from you.

I could go into all the garbage I have to tolerate (not on the aforementioned list) that nauseates me, but you know something Shale? I tolerate it. Not tolerating it benefits me in no way. Tolerating it...all I have to do is look the other direction. Walk on the other side of the street. Or simply say that I disagree.
But no, the same people that have, essentially, shoved tolerance down my throat throughout my life cannot and will not tolerate my heritage?????

Pardon me Shale, but that is two faced. Not you, as I do not know you. However, the fact remains the same.
What value is learning tolerance when those teaching it themselves show intolerance?

As for the South and racism, I have found more documentation showing my family served more CSA than Union, and the CSA was also officers. And...Cherokee. Full blooded and even a few "halfies". Cherokees. Full or even half-blooded, exhibiting white supremacism. Riiiiight. Tell me more how that works. And yes I have been told that by the liberal crowd.

I figure tit for tat. If I must tolerate, so must others.

 

I have to take back one thing I said before, after further thought. I'd love to see one New Orleans monument go; the one that honors those who attempted to overthrow the local Reconstruction government. Longstreet put together a black militia to put down that uprising. He had to leave town after that, because the locals wanted to kill him. He had been put in charge of military affairs there by President Grant.

Now that I have time to get into a little more detail...

The position that you're taking, when mentioned by modern historians, can almost always be traced back to the works of Douglas Southall Freeman. He presented himself as a historical scholar, but his works were loaded with his personal opinions, including several that can easily be discredited. For example, he was the main proponent of the theory that the South lost the war because Longstreet did not properly and efficiently execute orders on the third day at Gettysburg. This contradicts Lee's published memoirs, as well as interviews with newspaper and magazine reporters conducted during his retirement years, and the memoirs of Lee's personal assistant, Taylor. Biased contributers to Wikipedia have posted that none of Freeman's assertions have ever been successfully challenged.

For more background on the thinking of ordinary people in the years leading up to the John Brown incident, probably the best place to begin is Harper's Ferry. The various museums downtown and the National Park Service visitor's center is loaded with preserved documents from that period, and the NPS historians on site are walking gold mines of information on how to dig deeper.

I researched all this a long time ago, so I'm starting to forget where I found a lot of it. I do remember that Jeffry Wert is one modern author who has done a good job of rebutting Freeman. I read his biography of Longstreet, and checked out a good number of his references in the footnotes.

I've already posted that free speech gives individuals the right to display Confederate flags bought at their own expense, especially on private land. I believe that eventually, federal courts will confirm this.

Damn, this has been a crazy week for me. I started out as a person with a strong interest in a relatively obscure and neglected specialty within American history, and suddenly I find myself in the middle of the biggest political controversy in the US. Strange times, for sure.

[edit: typo]

 

As I read this thread I am perplexed. Maybe it's my California perspective, but I have lived in the North and the South and I see things differently. Someone on this thread brought out the bigoted stereotype about southerners being "inbred", which is pretty disgusting and ignorant at the same time. A hint, most of the inbreeding in the US has occurred where people get snowed in for weeks at a time. The whole thread is riddled with the sort of cheap stereotypes propagated by movies like Mississippi Burning, Deliverance and Ghosts of MIssissippi (this is NOT a poke at Shale, he's a real person).

Maybe there is a point to be made about some of the symbols of the past, but we can't just dismiss them out of hand. Trying to measure people from 150 years ago by today's standards is absolute fallacy. They and the country were very different. The nation evolved and advanced faster than any new nation on earth. Of course mistakes were made. But if the mistakes are wiped from the public record just because they hurt some of today's people's feelings, aren't we setting everybody in the future up to potentially repeat those mistakes?

When Lincoln pushed the Emancipation Proclamation he only freed the slaves in the south, where he had no control at all to free them. It was a political stunt designed to stir up trouble. It worked. But it didn't free the slaves in the north who were seen as necessary to keep the northern war industry going. While the south was indeed primarily agricultural, it had a substantial steel industry as well. But most of the cotton that was picked by slaves in the south went to the north to be turned into cloth by other slaves. How that fact keeps getting squashed is a mystery.

But the biggest mystery to me now is the very idea that somehow we can simply issue "payback vouchers" to "right historical wrongs". This is accomplished today with race-based quotas, set-asides and support that do nothing to actually heal attitudes about the past. Instead they only cause resentment when people who are more qualified are passed up just to avoid being seen as unfair. A total paradox that keeps the nation divided. Again, it's unsettling to see so many stereotypes slapped around about white people when doing the same about black people is decried as evil and worthy of a beating for simply saying the words. That's not fair or equal treatment.

White people in the US have made amazing strides in racial acceptance, not tolerance, acceptance. And in an amazingly short time span when you consider other nations of the planet like the UK in India and the Dutch in Africa. Like it or not, the US is still leading on this overall. And for such a huge nation with so many people, it's almost a miracle it happened so quickly. Another thing I see these days is the claim that Americans kept slaves for centuries. This is patently false. As a nation slavery existed in the US for about 80 years after the revolution. It took that long to fully abolish it, but the effort began when the nation was incorporated. Various other conflicts slowed the transition. Unfortunately the US could not gamble with it's new economy and wipe slavery away overnight. That lesson became very clear in 1812.

In today's world we want it NOW and are willing to scream, protest and even beat people up when it doesn't happen fast enough. That's not how it's supposed to work. The US constitution was a work of legal art. The Oriental Republic of Uruguay was founded with a copy of the US constitution as were a couple of African nations. It's not perfect, but who is? Why is the bar set so much higher for Americans? And why does reconciliation seem so elusive nationwide? It can't all be blamed on "The South".