Restricted Is there an organized effort to get rid of Confederate symbols?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Location
Middle Tennessee
In a court of law, the prosecuter lays out his facts as known to him and the defense does the same. It is up to the jury to sort out all the facts and hopefully come up with the truth. ALL facts are not necessarily the truth. Not really hard to understand this concept.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
I refer to your Number 4 on your list. I stated that ALL facts are not truth.

And I refer you to my statement in introducing the list. "... until lawyers get involved ..." Only when there is an intent to obfuscate the truth does one come up with "all facts are not the truth." Take the lawyers out of the equation and facts are the truth.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
In a court of law, the prosecuter lays out his facts as known to him and the defense does the same. It is up to the jury to sort out all the facts and hopefully come up with the truth. ALL facts are not necessarily the truth. Not really hard to understand this concept.

The prosecutor lays out his interpretation and the defense does the same. Their imprecise calling their interpretations the facts doesn't change the fact (pun intended) that they are interpretations. To paraphrase what a famous politician once said, calling a pig a horse doesn't change the fact that it's a pig.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Location
Middle Tennessee
The prosecutor lays out his interpretation and the defense does the same. Their imprecise calling their interpretations the facts doesn't change the fact (pun intended) that they are interpretations. To paraphrase what a famous politician once said, calling a pig a horse doesn't change the fact that it's a pig.
You are biting your own tail. All facts are interpreted by whomever reads them.
 

Red Harvest

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
You can "agree to disagree" with the history, but the facts of those amendments passed to give voting rights, citizenship, etc. to blacks just after the war speak for themselves...as do the eventually successful efforts by Southerners to use local/state laws to suppress their votes (and those of many poor whites) until further Federal action was taken in the 1960's. Liberation wasn't the cause of the majority of the Union entering the war but it was a primary aim by the end. Views of constitutional equality seem to have evolved during the war and Reconstruction as well. Doesn't mean they weren't tinged with period racism, however, it appears to have been far milder than what one was seeing to the south.

Getting back to the modern era:
The hard thing for some of us to understand is why George Wallace's southern segregationist/oppressionist ideal had such strong appeal within our own lifetime. http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/votetour10.htm shows a rather ugly stain. Not that segregationist sentiment or action was/is confined to the South, not by a longshot as Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka makes clear.

I didn't grow up with segregation, so when I moved to East Texas it was novel to me having coworkers point out what had been the black cafeteria, black theater, black park, etc. While living in East Texas in the early 90's I had some alumnae meetings with older Louisiana residents. I was taken aback by their strident support of David Duke for governor (former Grand Wizard of the KKK.) He took 2nd place and made it into the runoff election where he still pulled 39% of the vote.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Unfortunately for the public they getting closer to a 40 to 50 review of the subject, much of academic review prior to this time has been down played or dismissed outright.

Yes that is true early works have been dismissed because evidence suggests it was faulty. Just as the flat world theory was discarded.


Evidence uncovered by whom?

"To speak positively about any part of the Southern tradition is to invite charges of being a racist and an apologist for slavery and segregation. We are witnessing a cultural and political atrocity - an increasingly successful campaign by the media and an academic elite to strip young white Southerners ... of their heritage, and, therefore, of their identity. They are being taught to forget their forebears or to remember them with shame. Still, we may doubt that many young Southerners believe that Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens, John C. Calhoun and James Henley Thornwell, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were other than admirable men. It is one thing to silence people, another to convince them. And to silence them on matters central to their self-respect and dignity is to play a dangerous game - to build up in their harsh resentments that, sooner or later, are likely to explode and bring out their worst."

Eugene Genovese

Eugene Genovese is one of your historians who did his best to dismiss the scholarship of early historians for most of academic career. Fortunately, Genovese came to recognize the fallacy of much of this political driven revision of his colleagues.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I conclude from this thread there is no organized effort to get rid of confederate symbols.

There has not been enough evidence supplied to support such nor am I aware of any national organization past the NAACP's efforts to remove the Confederate Battle flag from public places.

I see no evidence to organize an effort to destroy Confederate statues.

I have seen no evidence to force the removal of Confederate symbols from private use or display on private property.

If anything, I have seen huge Confederate symbols errected along side freeways in recent times on private property and any and all attempts to have them removed by individuals or organizations, fail to do so.

If any other evidence can be provided to refute my findings, I would appreciate seeing some.

Unionblue
 

Rob9641

Captain
Annual Winner
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Location
Maryland
UB - I think your conclusions are accurate. There's no evidence to the contrary, because there's no evidence to the contrary.
 

Mark F. Jenkins

Colonel
Member of the Year
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Location
Central Ohio
Yup. Feeling like something one cares for is under attack does not mean it's really under organized attack; it's a perception.

I think also, a majority of people would oppose display of Confederate symbols in certain locations and situations, and not oppose them in others; I think for them, it's scenario-dependent. The one who would object to display of a battle flag in a Martin Luther King, Jr. Day parade may not object at all to the display of the same flag at a Civil War reenactment on public land, to cite some perhaps extreme examples.
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
I conclude from this thread there is no organized effort to get rid of confederate symbols.

There has not been enough evidence supplied to support such nor am I aware of any national organization past the NAACP's efforts to remove the Confederate Battle flag from public places.

I see no evidence to organize an effort to destroy Confederate statues.

I have seen no evidence to force the removal of Confederate symbols from private use or display on private property.

If anything, I have seen huge Confederate symbols errected along side freeways in recent times on private property and any and all attempts to have them removed by individuals or organizations, fail to do so.

If any other evidence can be provided to refute my findings, I would appreciate seeing some.

Unionblue
Ostrich-man-head-in-sand.gif
 

James B White

Captain
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
In a court of law, the prosecuter lays out his facts as known to him and the defense does the same. It is up to the jury to sort out all the facts and hopefully come up with the truth. ALL facts are not necessarily the truth. Not really hard to understand this concept.

The judicial system, though, isn't based on the prosecution and defense trying to get at the truth. It's an adversarial system, with both sides acting in their own best interests, even if the result leads the jury further from the truth. Otherwise, if everyone was motivated to get to the truth, every guilty criminal would simply confess, since he would have better access to the truth than anyone else.

So it's hard to draw a parallel. Who are the prosecutor and the defense a metaphor for--the original people involved? Or modern historians?

If they're the modern historians, they'd need to come up with a hypothesis first, before they could even decide what their own best interest was. In theory, they'd start with a clean slate; they might not even decide to study history at all. They might have no personal vendetta and be willing to follow wherever the facts lead. Only after they've staked a lot of ego on a particular viewpoint, would they even have any motivation to distort the truth--though they certainly might at that point.

If the prosecutor and defense are a metaphor for the original people involved, then they certainly might be motivated to prove they were right, just like at a modern trial. But even then, they have no way of knowing for sure how to do that for a jury in the future. The fire-eaters who praised slavery, for example, didn't think they were doing anything shameful that they needed to hide; just the opposite. They thought they were right and were proud of it.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Here's one:


N.A.A.C.P. 1991 Resolution

The 1991 NAACP
Confederate Flag Resolution

VII. INTERNAL AFFAIRS

1. Resolution Abhorring the Confederate Battle Flag on State Flags

Approved

WHEREAS, the tyrannical evil symbolized in the Confederate Battle Flag is an abhorrence to all
Americans and decent people of this country, and indeed, the world and is an odious blight
upon the universe; and,

WHEREAS, African-Americans, had no voice, no consultation, no concurrence, no commonality,
not in fact nor in philosophy, in the vile conception of the Confederate Battle Flag or State Flags
containing the ugly symbol of idiotic white supremacy, racism and denigration; and,

WHEREAS, we adamantly reject the notion that African-Americans should accept this flag for
any stretch of imagination or approve its presence on the State Flags;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the national Office of the NAACP and all units
commit their legal resources to the removal of the Confederate Flag from all public properties.

Robtweb1 was kind enough to provide the above.

I have highlighted in blue and underlined the section of the above where it states that the NAACP have committed their legal resources to removing the CBF "from all public properties."

As far as I can determine from the posts from various forum members, this is the only national organization who is engaged in an organized effort to rid a certain Confederate symbol "from all public properties."

Are there any more national organizations who have a stated aim of an organized effort to get rid of confederate symbols?

Unionblue
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
Case closed. There is no large-scale, organized effort to destroy Confederate symbols, icons, or memorials.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top