A Thread For Posts About The Confederate Battle Flag...

[wesw]

Powderfinger-Rust Never Sleeps-Neil Young
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 2980,d.b2w

[wesw]

come on meade, you gotta listen to Amos Moses, at least.....

I have a little commemorative plate, in my shed, from the new York world s fair, it says "peace thru understanding" and has the Unisphere on it.
(my god, when I think about the pounds of weed that have crossed that little tin plate since I was a boy....)

anyway, just as we should understand the black folks feelings about the Stars and Bars, we should understand the Rebel outlook, it ain t about racism... it s about "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

to many of us , happiness is a skeeter ridden swamp or marsh, or a god forsaken mountain, or the frozen tundra, or the redwood forests...

we ain t all that different. we ain t the enemy.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Why don't you communicate coherently to some point? Why do you insist on this rambling vacuous rubbish? I'm not listening to your music links - I will read your posts to see if you ever say anything worth reading (it's a form of self-flagellation). I don't give a flying squirrel about a so-called rebel outlook (as you present it) which is just so much empty wind.

The CBF is a symbol of a racist slavocracy established by traitors to the USA. It should not be allowed on public property held by the government, other than in properly constituted museums. I don't give a damn if you fly it at your house or stick it up your heritage.

[wesw]

apparently you haven t been reading my words either.....

I have in no way supported the flag, I have called it that "stupid flag" I would never fly it. no one I know flies it. I wasn t raised with it. I don t like the flag.

I think that the people who do fly it should reflect and reconsider. I definitely think that it has NO place in the Peoples govt or on the properties used by their govt.

I do support country folk and their lifestyle and belief system.

now, should we start on the racism within the black community? there s aplenty of it......

[Econoline]

I haven't clicked on many of your links, wes, so I don't really know if you've posted this one...but it seems like one that you'd like and one which expresses quite well, and quite humorously, the viewpoint you seem to have.

I guess I'll stay in the South, it's the land of the free
It lost the only war it ever fought in history
But I love the South, it's the land of the free
It's the land of hush your mouth, 'n Joe South
And that's home to me...

[Econoline]

Over on The Big Book O'Faces, Jim Wright posted a challenge to his minions, and this seems like something that (1) might fit in well with this thread and (2) I for one would like to see some of the posters on Plan B attempt to answer.

Here's a link to the Facebook thread, if you want to look at the comments there (258 responses so far--some of them pretty good, but a lot of them ignoring Jim's rules and not so good):
https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle/po ... 0580770013

And here's his opening post, quoted in full. NOTE: if you're going to respond here, please please *PLEASE* read this all the way through--*ALL* of it, not just the beginning:

Preface: READ THE POST ALL THE WAY THROUGH, READ THE RULES. ADHERE.
_________________
Let's talk about the Confederate Flag.

The KKK announced they'll be holding a rally at the South Carolina Statehouse next week in support of the Confederate flag.

The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan also said they thought Dylann Roof, the white supremacist Charleston shooter who murdered nine black people in cold blood in their place of worship, was "heading in the right direction."

“He was heading in the right direction; wrong target. He should have actually aimed at the African-American gang-bangers, the ones who are selling the drugs to white youth, the ones who are robbing and raping every chance they get.”

Robert Jones, leader of the SC Klan, is vehemently opposed to the growing nationwide demand to take down the Confederate Battle Flag. “If you can't tell, they are trying to wipe us out of the history books,” Jones says in a post on his organization's website. “People seem to forget that black people and even the Cherokee Nations fought for the South. Tell this Marxist government they better not dishonor our ancestors graves.”

Dishonor our ancestors graves.

Over the last week, prompted by some of the things I've posted here and elsewhere, I've gotten some ... passionate, shall we say ... email about the Confederate battle flag. Mostly, I suspect, because I called it a "stinking banner of treasonous bigotry." I've been told I'm ignorant, that I "don't get it," and that the flag is about "Southern Pride" and "Southern Heritage."

Now, I'll be honest, I hate that goddamned flag. I hate it. To me, that flag represents a betrayal of the Union, a betrayal of every ideal this country is supposed to represent. To me that flag shouts treason and oppression. Every single time I see it, the "culture" and "heritage" and "pride" I see is toothless, dimwitted, sister-humping, cheap-beer guzzling, red-necked racism driving a shitty pickup with a pair of plastic Truck-Nutz dangling from the trailer-hitch on its way to a Klan sponsored book-burnin'. And quite frankly, a bunch of toothless dimwitted sister-humping Klansmen shouting about white power and waving that banner on the South Carolina Statehouse lawn in support of a racist murderer isn't going to do a lot to dissuade me of that opinion.

HOWEVER, given my background, I admit that my opinion may be biased.

So, here's your chance to change my mind.

Now attend closely, there are rules and you will adhere to them, period:

Describe the "culture" and "heritage" represented by the Confederate Battle Flag (CBF)

1. The culture and heritage must be represented ONLY by the CBF. Specifically, the CBF was the war banner of the Confederate States of America, a defunct nation that existed for a little less than four years. As such, describe in detail the culture and/or heritage represented SOLELY by the CBF as embodied by the CSA that is not ALSO represented by the American Flag itself.

2. The culture and heritage must be ONLY positive and representative of the American values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL citizens. No bigotry of any kind. No oppression. No culture or heritage built on the backs of slavery. Describe ONLY the positive cultural influences and heritage represented by the CBF that are not ALSO represented by the American Flag.

3. NO NEGATIVES. In other words, I already have a negative opinion of this symbol, I don't need any more help in that direction. So, I don't want ANY comments about the negative things the CBF represents. Not even snide remarks. Describe ONLY positive cultural traditions represented by the CBF that are not ALSO embodied in the American flag. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SOUTHERN PRIDE, WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? BE SPECIFIC.

3a. IMPORTANT: And on that note, this discussion will remain focused on target, this is NOT, REPEAT NOT, the place to air your opinion of the American Flag and what it might represent. That's a different discussion. Get your impulse firmly under control.

My page, my rules, adhere to them or have your comment deleted. Be a dick about it, get unfriended.

Enlighten me. Please. Explain the unique "culture" and "heritage" of the Confederate Flag.

ADDENDUM: Folks, there is enough knee-jerkery going on over this subject. Those of you with commenting privileges, you people were included in this forum because you're supposed to be a cut above reflexive outrage. Regard this as a challenge. Think. THINK. Do some research. Find me a single positive cultural item unique to this symbol.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's a good challenge - to name positive things that CBF represents that are NOT represented by the US flag.

There are some that can be ruled out right away. Positive things like freedom, rebellion against tyranny, love of country, respect for founding fathers etc. are all (already) represented by the US flag. The US flag represents Southern leadership - Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc etc. It represents Southern military accomplishments - Lee, Jackson, Jefferson Davis, etc. in the war against Mexico and a certain battle near New Orleans from an earlier time. Culture? Well it's the same culture in the South that was there in 1860 and 1855 and 1835 and... all represented by the US flag.

So what does the CBF represent that is not already encompassed by the flag that waved over states both north and south when a truly new and great nation was created and sustained?

[Big RR]

I would think it represents the rights of people to rebel against what they view as tyranny, and the rights of people to leave the Union should they desire to. The war settled that militarily and said the right did not exist so long as the remaining union was strong enough to put it down--the Supreme court subsequently concurred. And the US said you can check any time you like, but you can never leave.

That is not represented by the US flag; indeed, since that flag was the one that was of the side that quelled the rebellion, it states just the opposite.

[MajGenl.Meade]

You don't think Old Glory points to the struggle against tyranny? And a right to leave the established government?

And why is that peculiarly "Southern"?

[Big RR]

Meade--Struggle against tyranny--perhaps; but permitting a people who believe the government no longer serves them to throw off the government and establish their own? No; at least presumably unless the government in question approves. It is not a particularly southern viewpoint, but in our history this is the only dispute that wne this far, and it was answered by force.

Face it, regardless of what you think was at the base of the complaints, the southern states that seceded saw the union government as not serving their needs and sought to leave the "club". The remaining states did not consider the complaints or the reasons therefor, but insisted that those states could not leave and would be compelled to remain by force. This is part of what Old Glory stands for, like it or not.

Guin--I would think that Lincoln's having cannons aimed at the Maryland state house and threatening to bombard it if they dared to entertain a motion for secession settled the matter of secession for many legislators.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Struggle against tyranny--perhaps; but permitting a people who believe the government no longer serves them to throw off the government and establish their own? No; at least presumably unless the government in question approves. It is not a particularly southern viewpoint, but in our history this is the only dispute that wne this far, and it was answered by force

.

I'm not sure what you mean by "permitting". The CBF does not represent any "permitting" and nor does the US flag.

But the US flag does represent a people throwing off the government and establishing their own. The question remains: what uniquely Southern culture and heritage does the Confederate Battle Flag represent?

And you are barse-ackwards - the Union did not resort to compelling by force until after South Carolina started the insurrection by firing on Sumter. At that point, Lincoln called for troops to put down the unlawful combination that made war on the US.

You are also barse-ackwards on Maryland. The legislature voted against secession April 29, 1861. It was not until May 13 that Ben Butler set some artillery in place when he "secured" Baltimore. The scene was then set for a lot of rather unconstitutional declarations of martial law, unlawful imprisonment of southern sympathizers and so on, suspension of habeas corpus being key.

[Big RR]

And you are barse-ackwards - the Union did not resort to compelling by force until after South Carolina started the insurrection by firing on Sumter. At that point, Lincoln called for troops to put down the unlawful combination that made war on the US.

No, it's you are backwards. Fort Sumter was on SC land; land used by the federal government without any contract or other claim to it. After the secession, the US contingent in Fort Sumter refused to leave. SC sent a contingent of commissioners to Washington to discuss the vacating of the Fort, but Lincoln refused to receive them or have anyone else do so. Lincoln stubbornly refused to see the secession as a legitimate act of an aggrieved people, and pushed the matter to where violence erupted. He then had his excuse to march into the southern states and quell the rebellion.

Now as to whether the Fort was properly the property of the US or South Carolina or the Confederacy, let's not forget that SC citizens paid taxes to equip and build the fort (as well as other US forts elsewhere. In any breakup, property must be divided, but Lincoln refused to acknowledge the break up and to discuss property division.

Re Maryland, I will look when I get the chance, but you are referring to the securing of Baltimore, while the state capital is in Annapolis and I believe this city did have cannon targeted on the state house--so much so that the legislature moved to Frederick for the vote (which was no doubt influenced by the threats of violence against the legislators. your point about Baltimore is correct however, as were the union actions you mention.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I await your concession:

Fort Sumter was covered by a separate cession of land to the United States by the state of South Carolina, and covered in this resolution, passed by the South Carolina legislature in December of 1836:

(See: United States Military Reservations, National Cemeteries, and Military Parks, Title, Jurisdiction &co By United States. Army. Office of the Judge Advocate General, Jason F. Defandorff)

“The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

“Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

“Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

“Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.”

The other Federal forts around Charleston were similarly ceded to the United States by SC Statute in 1805. Note that these were evacuated to Sumter under the threats of South Carolina which then illegally took possession of US property

[Big RR]

Concession? No; while I didn't realize that the land was ceded (thanks for that information), the cession provides specifically that

Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law;

Somehow I doubt those remaining in the fort were subject to the then current law of the State of South Carolina or service of process. Indeed, before the attack South Carolina demanded that the contingent leave but they were rebuffed. That would seem a breach of the cession by the federal government (although I imagine some may dispute it), and grounds for SC to repossess it.

And I still maintain that SC had some claim to some of the forts after the breakup, much as a spouse has a claim to part of ones home or a business they contributed to.

[Sue U]

Concession? No; while I didn't realize that the land was ceded (thanks for that information), the cession provides specifically that

Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law;

Somehow I doubt those remaining in the fort were subject to the then current law of the State of South Carolina or service of process. Indeed, before the attack South Carolina demanded that the contingent leave but they were rebuffed. That would seem a breach of the cession by the federal government (although I imagine some may dispute it), and grounds for SC to repossess it.

And I still maintain that SC had some claim to some of the forts after the breakup, much as a spouse has a claim to part of ones home or a business they contributed to.

The state process reservation in the cession is part and parcel of the "federal enclave" doctrine under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution, which empowers Congress “to exercise like authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and needful Buildings.” Notwithstanding the federal government's exclusive control of such properties, criminal and civil cases arising from incidents within the enclaves could be prosecuted in state courts -- hence the necessity of authority for process. (I don't think Article III jurisdiction even exists for ordinary criminal and civil cases with no connection to the parties' exercise of federal authority in the federal enclave.)

[Big RR]

Absolutely sue, and SC was seeking to evict the persons from the fort pursuant (I presume) to some SC law. The parties were commanded to leave and present themselves to the civil authority which they refused to do. I would think a case could be made for a breach because they failed to do so, and SC's actions in forcibly taking the fort to evict them.

Now clearly, the cession did not contemplate secession on either side and is probably not applicable, but as Meade is trying to characterize the actions of SC as totally unjustified, I am trying to make the best case possible for those actions. Face it, in relations between sovereign states (and one can dispute whether SC qualifies as one), strength rules far more than the rule of law. Indeed, I think this was the main thing that the Civil War taught; we can debate whether secession was legal or not, but the issue was settled by combat, not laws.

eta: I have said it before but, FWIW, I do think that the Civil War was a big waste of money, other resources and lives. It was a war of conquest that was fought not to free people from enslavement, but to force one group of people to remain affiliated with another group that they did not want to be affiliated with. It inflamed an animosity that was present at the time and exists to this day, and has forcible joined together groups that might be better off apart. If instead of marching intot he south to reunite the states the US entered into negotiations in earnest to divide up properties, maintain territorial integrity, and allow the countries to coexist as separate entities, we would have saved a lot. We could have enacted the 13th amendment in the Union in the early 1860s and freed the slaves we had jurisdiction over, and could even have refused to return fugitive slaves who came to the US (as Dred Scott was predicated on the slaves running from one US state to another).

Yes, we would have had a little problem with westward expansion, but it could have been handled and contained, and we could have annexed states who were amenable to the US/union way of doing things.

As for the CSA, I think they were headed for an economic collapse and an eventual end of slavery. having no manufacturing base, they would have had no choce but to trade with us. and after the collapse they might well have been knocking on the door and asking to come back. But even if they didn't, I don't think a US without those states (key components of the bible belt) would be all that bad even today.

But that wasn't even considered by Lincoln, who was willing to, and did, anything he felt necessary, constitutional or not, to keep the "union" intact.

[Sue U]

Absolutely sue, and SC was seeking to evict the persons from the fort pursuant (I presume) to some SC law. The parties were commanded to leave and present themselves to the civil authority which they refused to do. I would think a case could be made for a breach because they failed to do so, and SC's actions in forcibly taking the fort to evict them.

Yes, but in such a case the occupants of Fort Sumter were acting in their capacity as agents of the federal government, exercising its authority over the property, and therefore not subject to such "eviction" proceedings, whether by constitutional doctrine or the express terms of the cession. I think Meade has the better end of this argument by far.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm just gobsmacked. South Carolina fired f***ing cannons at Federal troops lawfully occupying Federal property. They took this action exactly to precipitate armed conflict with the purpose of causing non seceding states (read "Virginia") to secede. I'd hate to be getting a divorce where you reside if shooting the spouse is regarded as a legitimate way to serve papers!

Anyway - sorry, we're off topic. So far, no legitimate answer to explain what particular peculiarities of "southern culture and heritage" are not equally symbolized in the flag of the United States.

[Big RR]

Maybe, but I'd still be willing to make mine. Especially since SC did not recognize the authority of the constitution over them after leaving the union, leaving us with just the terms of the cession. And the cession specifically says that the occupants are subject to the process, and the jurisdiction, of the state. And if we made that argument in a SC court at that time, I'd bet they would reach the opposite conclusion of you; if it were in a federal court (assuming jurisdiction could be had) I imagine I would be arrested and imprisoned by the executive if there was even a small chance of my argument being successful (after all, the executive was not subject to the courts--Lincoln could suspend habeas even if the court said he couldn't).

I'd hate to be getting a divorce where you reside if shooting the spouse is regarded as a legitimate way to serve papers!

Ha, ha! But you're conveniently ignoring that a delegation was first sent to the fort to order them to leave peacefully, and offering safe conduct to union territory, but they refused. Locking yourself in a house to avoid service a process or arrest usually is followed by breaking the door down--remember Waco?

So far, no legitimate answer to explain what particular peculiarities of "southern culture and heritage" are not equally symbolized in the flag of the United States.

well Meade, you have my answer, but keep searching if you must.

[MajGenl.Meade]

But just to make it clearer:

By [the Articles of Confederation], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

74 U.S. 700 (1869)

Lincoln said the same thing in his first inaugural, March 4, 1861

"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union."

Now, if a state thought there was a valid argument to be made that this was incorrect, the way to resolve the discrepancy was not to open fire on US soldiers and the flag which symbolized the joint struggle of the several states to form that "more perfect Union".