After the flag

[CMWinkler]

With the Confederate battle flag being removed across the country from official flagpoles, store shelves and nearly every place in between, other symbols of the Confederacy are now under scrutiny, among them Generals Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart, P.G.T. Beauregard

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ns-to-lee-stuart-beauregard-and-d-w-griffith/

 

[Al Murray]

Wow. What I wonder (probably already discussed in another thread) is do they really think they can get them all? We have eight or ten here in a rural (and large) county of about 30,000 people. Multiply that by the whole state and you might have 400-500 monuments in West Virginia (leaving out roads, bridges, schools, etc.). I have said before that I tend to think that the Union had the better of the argument, but 1861-65 was not the sum total of these guys lives, on either side.

Having been away from the computer for a while I must have missed many other threads on this (I've been reading in some of them). Please forgive one more question / thought. Even if they could rename, dig up, take down, or bulldoze all of them where from there? How many schools and libraries are named after Copperhead democrats in the north (I don't know)? Would everything named "Jackson" come down? I'm not kidding (although I can't remember the show or I'd send a link) but a panelist on the radio the other day actually said something relevant to this about Washington. I wasn't listening closely enough to tell if she was suggesting him too, or if she was using that as an analogy against the removals.

If I am beating a dead horse, its because I've been absent. I just can't understand how far some people seem to think this can go. As well as I can (as a WASP) I really try to understand how our African-American and Native-American friends must feel. Even with my moderate Union bias I try to understand how our southern countrymen must feel. But the state will deal with Dylan Roof and that flag will wave in yards, on tee-shirts, bumper stickers and the like long after I am dead.
Thanks for letting me get it off my chest.

(Edit: I see now that my question was answered in the video with the link - I thought it was about the ceremony but should have watched it before I posted.)

 

[Stony]

If the US removed all confederate flags, and all the monuments, "they" would still find something to inflammatory language edited out by moderator JerseyBart about. Change the name of the dorms, classrooms, schools, universities, mascots, roads, streets, parks and everything else in between and "they" would still not be happy. It is inflammatory language edited out by moderator JerseyBart

 

[JaneQuantrill]

If the US removed all confederate flags, and all the monuments, "they" would still find something to inflammatory language edited out by moderator JerseyBart about. Change the name of the dorms, classrooms, schools, universities, mascots, roads, streets, parks and everything else in between and "they" would still not be happy. It is inflammatory language edited out by moderator JerseyBart

They'll probably not let folks with Confederate Battle Flag tattoos show them. Uh-oh, I'll be in the you-know-what!

 

[Mild53]

Edited by moderator JerseyBart

With the Confederate battle flag being removed across the country from official flagpoles, store shelves and nearly every place in between, other symbols of the Confederacy are now under scrutiny, among them Generals Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart, P.G.T. Beauregard

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ns-to-lee-stuart-beauregard-and-d-w-griffith/

Is there anything new to your posts about confederate flags and monuments? You create a new thread with every news story on the subject.

IMHO you clearly have an agenda, fan the flames!

 

[JerseyBart]

Edited by moderator JerseyBart


Is there anything new to your posts about confederate flags and monuments? You create a new thread with every news story on the subject.

IMHO you clearly have an agenda, fan the flames!

Respond to and discuss the thread content and article, not the poster.
Posted as moderator.

 

[CMWinkler]

Can someone tell my why my thread tangentaly related to the CBF was sent to the closed

I have no idea but I'll check.

Is there anything new to your posts about confederate flags and monuments? You create a new thread with every news story on the subject.

There was information about possible targets of new suppression, so I thought it might be new to others, as well" may I make a suggestion? If you do not like the threads or posts I post, please, by all means, ignore them. No one is forcing you to read them and I doubt anyone is forcing you to respond to them.

IMHO you clearly have an agenda, fan the flames!

You mean as opposed to yourself for example? My only agenda is to preserve the history associated with the war and to defend the honor and good name of my ancestors, Union and Confederate. If you don't like that, please refer to my suggestion above. I have begun to come to think of you in the same many as some other folks here who seem to feel their opinions and views are the only ones worthy to be heard. I, frankly, disagree and will continue to post as I please and say what I think.

 

[Mild53]

I have no idea but I'll check.



There was information about possible targets of new suppression, so I thought it might be new to others, as well" may I make a suggestion? If you do not like the threads or posts I post, please, by all means, ignore them. No one is forcing you to read them and I doubt anyone is forcing you to respond to them.



You mean as opposed to yourself for example? My only agenda is to preserve the history associated with the war and to defend the honor and good name of my ancestors, Union and Confederate. If you don't like that, please refer to my suggestion above. I have begun to come to think of you in the same many as some other folks here who seem to feel their opinions and views are the only ones worthy to be heard. I, frankly, disagree and will continue to post as I please and say what I think.

Agreed, the purpose of a forum is discucssion so I accept the challenge to discuss your post.

For many years the CBF was used by those in power in the south as a symbol of resistance to laws granting protection of civil rights to african americans.

Can we agree that this is the reason that the CBF first flew over the SC Capitol building in the 1950's?

This means it's purpose was to "flaunt" resistance to laws AND to send a message to african americans that those in power did not recognize their rights.

It appears that after too many years of this flaunting, many people, white and black, have had enough. Thier reaction has been swift and strong - if you consider it an over reaction, I am OK with that.

This reaction should not be surprising. Simple cause and effect. Don't put your head in a lions mouth, if you want to take it out. If you flaunt your power, you risk such a response.

If we agree on anything perhaps it is this. The confederate solider fought honorably and well. Most fought for reasons other than the preservation of slavery. It is unfortunate that this truth will be lost in the current environment.

 

[K Hale]

There's an old warning directed to those in positions of power which seems appropriate to the social changes we have seen in the last 50 years: Be good to people on your way up. You may meet them again on your way down.

The subset of society who erected these monuments and raised these flags just might be on the way down.

 

[Harrisblake]

U

I have no idea but I'll check.



There was information about possible targets of new suppression, so I thought it might be new to others, as well" may I make a suggestion? If you do not like the threads or posts I post, please, by all means, ignore them. No one is forcing you to read them and I doubt anyone is forcing you to respond to them.



You mean as opposed to yourself for example? My only agenda is to preserve the history associated with the war and to defend the honor and good name of my ancestors, Union and Confederate. If you don't like that, please refer to my suggestion above. I have begun to come to think of you in the same many as some other folks here who seem to feel their opinions and views are the only ones worthy to be heard. I, frankly, disagree and will continue to post as I please and say what I think.

I agree with you. I want history to be preserved. That's my only agenda.

 

[M.Warren]

Can we agree that this is the reason that the CBF first flew over the SC Capitol building in the 1950's?

I don't have a dog in this fight, Nor do I want to. I only want to point out for accuracy's sake, that the CBF didn't fly over the SC state house in the 50's It wasn't until April 12 1961. It was originally raised for the Centennial and its flying had been planned since 1959. March 16, 1962, the flag had been flying for nearly a year. SC Rep. May introduced legislation, he said, for the flag to fly over the state house for One year. The resolution that passed didn't include a time for the flag to come down and, therefore, "it just stayed up", Hollis said.

"May told us he was going to introduce a resolution to fly the flag for a year from the capitol. I was against the flag going up," Hollis said,

Daniel Hollis is the last surviving member of the centennial commission, appointed in 1959 by Gov. Fritz Hollings to plan the state's observance of the 100th anniversary of the War Between the States.



That's all I have to say about this. Have at it.

 

[diane]

There's an old warning directed to those in positions of power which seems appropriate to the social changes we have seen in the last 50 years: Be good to people on your way up. You may meet them again on your way down.

The subset of society who erected these monuments and raised these flags just might be on the way down.

That's absolutely true. Speaking as a minority person who has had many an occasion to be affronted, insulted and ignored or twisted by the dominate society, I would say an over-reacting is occurring. Because, quite simply and like it or no, that history is our history as well. Do I like seeing a statue of a squaw-hunting vigilante who murdered hundreds of my tribe? Nope. Nope I don't one bit. But...that vigilante is part of my history. There is a very strong element of this in here, and I believe only people like myself can understand it, and that is destroying these foul group-memories. I submit that this is not healthy. Cutting out that section by destroying or demeaning another group's history is dishonoring your own, and those who died and suffered under that 'other' history.

 

[E_just_E]

A few things of note

For many years the CBF was used by those in power in the south as a symbol of resistance to laws granting protection of civil rights to african americans.

Actually not for that many years... Organizations like the KKK used to use the good old stars and stripes. The use of the CBF by racists was kinda a result of 2 worlds colliding: a. The centennial of the Civil War and b. the Civil Rights Movement in the late 50s into the mid-60s. From that point on, racists took 1+1 and made 2...

Also, from that point on, there was another collision: a. The Centennial of the Civil War that brought back the history of Rebellion and the CBF as its symbol, and b. the general spirit of "rebellion" against the norm, which was fueled by another war that lasted well into the 1970s. In the popular culture, and not only in the US, the CBF represented rebellion against the mainstream from the 60s on. The Dukes of Hazard display of the CBF, its adoption by bikers etc, are because of this symbolism, and not the racist one...

Can we agree that this is the reason that the CBF first flew over the SC Capitol building in the 1950's?

This means it's purpose was to "flaunt" resistance to laws AND to send a message to african americans that those in power did not recognize their rights.

It appears that after too many years of this flaunting, many people, white and black, have had enough. Thier reaction has been swift and strong - if you consider it an over reaction, I am OK with that.

This reaction should not be surprising. Simple cause and effect. Don't put your head in a lions mouth, if you want to take it out. If you flaunt your power, you risk such a response.

If we agree on anything perhaps it is this. The confederate solider fought honorably and well. Most fought for reasons other than the preservation of slavery. It is unfortunate that this truth will be lost in the current environment.

The thing is this: The CBF is a symbol of more than racism today. The majority of African Americans do see it only that way, which is incorrect. Or at least incomplete. And then, there is the huge leap of faith that goes from the flag to the monuments (and the vandalism etc.) The CBF was in museums for a century or so. No reason not to be there now. But trying to erase history or trying to further divide people is not a cool thing. The civil war happened 150 years ago. Lets learn about it so we can learn from it. If you try to erase its memory, you are doing yourself a disservice...

And, yes, a subgroup of the population finds the CBF and even everything around the confederacy offensive. Another subgroup of the population finds moslems and mosques offensive. Shall we burn and vandalize those?

 

[NedBaldwin]

That's absolutely true. Speaking as a minority person who has had many an occasion to be affronted, insulted and ignored or twisted by the dominate society, I would say an over-reacting is occurring. Because, quite simply and like it or no, that history is our history as well. Do I like seeing a statue of a squaw-hunting vigilante who murdered hundreds of my tribe? Nope. Nope I don't one bit. But...that vigilante is part of my history. There is a very strong element of this in here, and I believe only people like myself can understand it, and that is destroying these foul group-memories. I submit that this is not healthy. Cutting out that section by destroying or demeaning another group's history is dishonoring your own, and those who died and suffered under that 'other' history.

That rhetoric seems like the overreacting to me. Changing names of schools doesnt destroy history.

 

[NedBaldwin]

. Please forgive one more question / thought. Even if they could rename, dig up, take down, or bulldoze all of them where from there? How many schools and libraries are named after Copperhead democrats in the north (I don't know)? Would everything named "Jackson" come down? I'm not kidding (although I can't remember the show or I'd send a link) but a panelist on the radio the other day actually said something relevant to this about Washington. I wasn't listening closely enough to tell if she was suggesting him too, or if she was using that as an analogy against the removals.

People who are reacting negatively to these changes like to make exaggerated analogies.
You ask if everything named Jackson would come down. I think the better question is why is something named Jackson -- if there is a compelling reason to name it that, leave it alone, if not find another name. There are many Jackson's in our history and many reasons to name something.

 

[diane]

That rhetoric seems like the overreacting to me. Changing names of schools doesnt destroy history.

I think you slightly misunderstand. I'm not talking about school names or Boy Scout troops or freeways. I'm talking about the set-in-stone or metal permanent type of monuments and fixtures. It's been noted that there is another side to the history and that there should not be removal of this but room made for the other history. That's why I've been active in a Native American park the town is creating. It's not to compete with the miners and the other folks set in stone, nor does it take away from them. It simply gives room for others. Tearing down the others accomplishes nothing positive. Those are part of the whole history of a united people. They only need to make a little room for the history of others that went along side of these.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I think you slightly misunderstand. I'm not talking about school names or Boy Scout troops or freeways. I'm talking about the set-in-stone or metal permanent type of monuments and fixtures.

Ok; in my opinion changing a statue doesnt destroy history either.

 

[CMWinkler]

Agreed, the purpose of a forum is discucssion so I accept the challenge to discuss your post.

For many years the CBF was used by those in power in the south as a symbol of resistance to laws granting protection of civil rights to african americans.

Some have, yes, used the flag for that purpose, though to the extent you suggest, I'm not really sure. Was there a CBF from every flagpole everywhere throughout the South to intimidate blacks? I don't believe so.

Can we agree that this is the reason that the CBF first flew over the SC Capitol building in the 1950's?

No, it went up in 1961, as I understand it for the centennial.

This means it's purpose was to "flaunt" resistance to laws AND to send a message to african americans that those in power did not recognize their rights.

If your presumption is true, that could be a purpose, yes.

It appears that after too many years of this flaunting, many people, white and black, have had enough. Thier reaction has been swift and strong - if you consider it an over reaction, I am OK with that.

After a hateful senseless shooting, because the killer had photos taken with Confederate flags, the focus was turned from the hard business of dealing with hatred and violence to attacking an inanimate object which had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime. You are though perfectly entitled to your opinion regardless of whether I consider it to be erroneous.

This reaction should not be surprising. Simple cause and effect. Don't put your head in a lions mouth, if you want to take it out. If you flaunt your power, you risk such a response.

Oh, I wasn't surprised. The first photo I saw of his car, I knew that the flag would be attacked even though it had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime.

If we agree on anything perhaps it is this. The confederate solider fought honorably and well. Most fought for reasons other than the preservation of slavery. It is unfortunate that this truth will be lost in the current environment.

On that we can agree.

 

[CMWinkler]

Ok; in my opinion changing a statue doesnt destroy history either.

No, it simply removes it from view so it can more easily be forgotten.

 

[NedBaldwin]

No, it simply removes it from view so it can more easily be forgotten.

The statue will be more easily forgotten, but I suppose that is not what you meant.
Whether a statute itself helps remember history is debatable. A statute certainly promotes a point of view; but is a point of view the same as history?