Confederate flag will fly along I-95 (Richmond VA)
Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 08:20 PM - Edit history (2)
Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch
The flag will fly on a 50-foot pole, and will be visible from the northbound lane, said Susan Hathaway, founder of Virginia Flaggers, the group behind the flag. Its tentatively scheduled to go up Sept. 28.
Basically, the flag is being erected as a memorial to the memory and the honor of the Confederate soldiers who sacrificed, bled and died to defend Virginia from invasion, she said.
Hathaway accused Richmond and state officials of excluding Confederate history from their PC sesquicentennial celebration of the Civil War. The flag will provide recognition, she said, for the pride many in Richmond feel for the citys rich Confederate history.
The group is perhaps best known in Richmond for its frequent demonstrations outside of the Virginia Museum of Fine Art and, more recently, the Museum of the Confederacy. The group feels neither institution pays due respect to the Confederate flag.
Read more: http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/city-of-richmond/confederate-flag-will-fly-along-i/article_14dcfb38-3535-5016-a110-7e786b8817e2.html
Like this city wasn't already littered with enough second place trophies.
From the most popular local TV station
http://downtown.nbc12.com/news/news/147733-group-plans-fly-huge-confederate-flag-i-95
"Slavery was on the way out. I mean, it was on the way out," said Jennings.
"It was about the entire people of the South fighting for their freedom from the federal government, just as in the American Revolution," said Karen Cooper, who also has African American roots.
"The whole country practiced slavery. It was a legal institution. If I'm not offended by the U.S. flag, why should I be offended by the Confederate battle flag?" continued Cooper.
BTW- if you want a treat check out the comments on the newspaper link by the guy holding a shotgun.
elleng
(130,156 posts)Looks like I won't be heading in that direction anytime soon.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)yes INDEED
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Yes INDEED!!!!
Socal31
(2,484 posts)This really takes the "It is history, get over it" prize.
Edit: And of course I mean that towards the idiots trotting out the flag, not the OP for posting this.
Would have never taken your post as against me
BTW- the local RW host's point was "we must remember history". Living here, Richmond especially, I am drown in the re-writing of history industry. Some of these quotes from the TV station were actually new to me and I thought I had heard all of the re-writes a 1,000 times.
WCLinolVir
(951 posts)Friggin retreads.Now we know who reads the Times-Dispatch and comments. Maybe I will retire elsewhere.
I feel a bout of civil disobedience coming on. Look, it's flaming molotov man!
underpants
(182,283 posts)they protested AT the Museum of the Confederacy?!?!?!?
Nay
(12,051 posts)than it already is.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Is there some reason you chose that word?
WCLinolVir
(951 posts)To be retarded is-Occurring or developing later than desired or expected; delayed. It does not necessarily mean mental incapacity.In this sense it delays the social development of the society as a whole.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)lot's of Kraft cheez Barrels there
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)tried to start another country.
This is an outrage.
cstanleytech
(26,085 posts)Just like why people can legally burn the US flag in protest or any other flag and its why the can fly any other flag be it this or be it for spongebob squarepants.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)is how to retire one, and it's how to protest and show great umbrage. *BECAUSE* you can burn our flag, hang it upside down as a sign of distress is the reason no other flag flies first.
Que Lee Greenwood. lol
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)flag of treasonous secessionists.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)to flag-burning doesn't remotely excuse it.
onenote
(42,383 posts)You might want to take a look at the First Amendment and at the Treason clause.
Is flying the Confederate Flag offensive? Yes. Is it protected speech? Yes. Is it treason (today)? No.
I marched against the Vietnam War in demonstrations in which people carried the Viet Cong flag. Would you have called out those demonstrators as traitors?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)That was a bit of hyperbole on my part. But in a moral and psychological sense, I have no problem with considering them traitors to their own country.
And carrying the Viet Cong flag, while in all likelihood I would have personally disagreed with it (despite opposing the war) I would not have considered it treason, and I would not have been unwilling to join such a demonstration, at least not for that reason alone.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)It's a flag that represents treason (and losers).
Its stupid. Its offensive. But it also is protected speech.
I see the Mexican (and sometimes Salvadoran) flag flying.
There's a contingent of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who want to take back what used to be Mexican territory.
Treason? Or subversion?
(It's the kind of view that makes strange bedfellows. What are the names of the groups that vigilante-patroled the Mexican border?)
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)primavera
(5,191 posts)To show pride in a part of the world that is more evolved than ourselves.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 09:19 PM - Edit history (2)
Will they decide to fly Nat Turner's tanned skin from a fifty foot pole, to celebrate the brave militiamen who put down that bloody and completely unprovoked uprising against proper, white Christian authority?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)That's a funny word for "target".
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)I suggest that any person who flies it lose their citizenship and any state that flies it be treated as a hostile foreign country.
onenote
(42,383 posts)Speech that offends (and flying the Confederate flag offends greatly) is precisely the speech that needs to be protected.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)big letters -
"I'm with Stupid" -->
Though I am sure DUers could come up with a thousand better short messages.
Or maybe just drape a big white sheet and hood over the top, turn it in a scareKKKrow.
I wonder if there's a crowd funding mechanism that could pay for an alternative message like that...
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)cstanleytech
(26,085 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)I think they are just asking for it...and there is a creative way to serve it up to them, I'm sure.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Great idea.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Collected up by the US Army at Appomattox
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Best response yet.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)and I recall my parents whispering about the house with a Confederate flag out front.
Boring story, I know, but this article brought back memories.
indivisibleman
(482 posts)You wanted to secede to defend your way of life which included slavery! You lost that right when you lost the war and thank gawd for that or we would have slavery in North America to this day. In fact. If you could I am sure you would happily welcome back slavery you cold hearted bastards.
Aviation Pro
(12,053 posts)...fucking traitors in ole Virginny.
Fuck this ooze.
Nay
(12,051 posts)under the jail....
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)We already have one of these be-flagged monuments to moronity. So, this isn't new to us here in Nashville.
I say let the fuckers have their stupid-ass flag. It shows how desperate they've become for recognition. The last flailings of ''life'' from the shallow end of the gene pool.
It's a loser's flag, first of all. And the X makes a great visual aid. I know, I know, the worst ones are the ones with no flag, but you take what life gives ya. Besides, it makes it easier to identify racists in crowds.
- Which I've always found, quite handy.....
K&R
Chakab
(1,727 posts)declaration of succession issued the Confederate states explicitly mentioned slavery as a proximate cause for their actions?
Skittles
(152,967 posts)cstanleytech
(26,085 posts)however the problem of slavery itself has been known worldwide down throughout history dating back thousands of years on almost every continent.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Modern slavery was unique in that it was predicated wholly on the perception of racial inferiority, rather than on conquered or subjugated peoples.
cstanleytech
(26,085 posts)slavery was instituted by .............Anthony Johnson in Virginia an indentured servant from Angola who after he served his time bought a farm and had indentured servants but refused to release them when their time was up and I doubt he did it because he was a racist but rather I suspect because he was an asshole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
underpants
(182,283 posts)Mississippi had a detailed list of WHY they were committing treason- first and foremost was slavery.
There is a whole industry to literally white wash the past. Old white people eat this stuff up.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Here is the FIRST NATIONAL FLAG OF THE CONFEDERACY (Please read the note at the bottom about the Museum of the Confederacy and this flag):
Here is the SECOND National Flag (1863-March 4, 1865)
Here is the third National Flag (March 4, 1865 till the end, some question if it actually ever did fly given Lee surrender just over a month later):
https://www.moc.org/haversack-store/flags/13-star-first-national-confederate-flag
Here is the Battle Flag, adopted after the Battle of Bull Run to differentiate Confederate Units from Union forces using the US National Flag, Notice it is SQUARE not rectangular for Battle Flags were always SQUARE and only used by actual infantry units (Calvary units used a Pennet instead, but I have NEVER seen a Confederate Pennet, thus it appears Confederate forces used the Battle flag instead of a Pennet).
Here is the Naval Jack, flown ONLY on the rear of Confederate ships, NOT on land. It is the version adopted by the Second KKK in 1905 (Wikipedia repeats they story that some units in the Army of Tennessee used a rectangular flag instead of a Square flag, that appears to be more post 1905 reports based on memories of veterans, who by then had become used to rectangular flags not the square flags of the actual Battle flag).
The sad part of this, this group probally wants the Naval Jack, and it is the version most tied in with the KKK and the version LEAST connected to the Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War (most probally never saw one, seeing only the Various National Flags and the Battle Flag instead).
As to Pennets, the only state flag that is a Pennet is Ohio's state flag. I mention it for I did mention pennets above and it shows the shape of a Pennet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America
After going to the web site of the Museum of the Confederacy, I can see what the Flaggers objections are. The Museum of the Confederacy has basically adopted the FIRST NATIONAL FLAG as its flag, thus avoiding any issue related to using the Naval Jack or Battle Flag.
http://www.moc.org/visit-us?mode=appomattox
bunnies
(15,859 posts)of course. But they're calling it the Battle Flag. Idiots.
http://www.vaflaggers.blogspot.com/
Igel
(35,197 posts)That's kind of an etymological fallacy.
It's currently used by a lot of people with no KKK connections at all as a symbol of the Confederacy in part but also to represent a sort of Southern solidarity and romanticized view of the Civil War. And to show a lot of resentment at how the South was treated after the War. I've been told that we treated the Germans better after WWII than the South.
Slavery would have probably withered in the US within a few decades anyway and the abolitionists would have had a majority, without enough resistance in most of the South to continue the practice.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)than the South."
Well, you've been told wrong.
After WWII German leaders, including German military leaders, were tried for war crimes, with some of them executed, others imprisoned for decades. There was an effort by the occupying armies to "de-Nazify" the schools, universities, courts, and other aspects of civil life. And BTW, tens of thousands of Germans were kept in Soviet labor camps for up to a decade after the war ended, as part of the restitution Germany had to pay for attacking the USSR. How many Confederates were forced to work off the enormous cost of the civil war they provoked? My guess would be: about none. Not to mention the billions in restitution for the Holocaust that Germany paid Israel--which was of course a pittance compared to the damage done, and only just. But how much money was the former Confederacy forced to pay in restitution to former slaves? Nothing. Zero. Nada.
After the US civil war most of the traitors--er, I mean "heroes" of the Confederacy--went right on with their lives. In fact, only one Confederate--the commandant of Andersonville--was tried for war crimes, and he was born in Germany! Others, such as Nathan Bedford Forrest, never saw the inside of a courtroom, even though he was as bonafide a war criminal as you're likely to find. Ever hear of the Fort Pillow massacre? And while pro-Nazi propaganda was prohibited in Germany after the war (still is, as a matter of fact), many Confederates made a lucrative career out of penning pro-Confederate memoirs and screeds in praise of "The Lost Cause."
There was in fact a significant effort to HELP the South after the war, for instance, to open public schools and teach newly emancipated slaves and poor whites to read and write. This ended after enough schools were burned and enough school teachers were attacked or threatened by what can only be described as the original Teabaggers. These school teachers were then vilified as "carpetbaggers" and those southerners who supported emancipation and public education were attacked as "scalawags." So instead of public education (and the land reform Lincoln wanted), you had the infamous post-war "Black codes," and Jim Crow, and lynchings. So tell me again, how were white Confederates "mistreated" after the war?
It is true that the south was largely destroyed during the war, which of course wouldn't have happened if so many southerners hadn't been so eager to use violence, simply because they'd lost a presidential election. But AFTER the war the south got off pretty easy--no trials, no exiles, no masses of refugees fleeing retribution, no mass confiscation of traitors' estates--despite the fact that these men were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of US citizens. In fact, I don't think you'll find another instance in history of traitors getting off so EASY after causing so much death and destruction. But if you can point out such an instance, please do.
As for slavery inevitably dying out, we'll never know. We DO know that the southern elites did their very best to keep and extend slavery as long and as far as possible. Southern leaders were even hoping to annex Cuba, and turn it into another slave state. They dreamt of a "slave empire" "as powerful and gorgeous as ever was pictured" which would include Cuba, Mexico, and Central America. In fact, the term "filibuster" was originally coined to describe pro-slavery southerners trying to overthrow the government of Nicaragua, so the US could annex it and turn it into another slave state (as happened with Texas).
This whole notion of poor, victimized white southern slave owners being crushed under the heel of northern tyranny is about as fact-based as contemporary Teabagger nonsense about Obama being a Kenyon socialist. It's BS, pure and simple, and the fact that so many Americans buy into it demonstrates how successful Confederate revisionists have been in distorting the actual history.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Thanks for taking the time to debunk the neo-confederate version of history. I'm sick and tired of their fairy tales and the incessant pining for the antebellum way of life.
Paladin
(28,204 posts)WCLinolVir
(951 posts)What about the people in Virginia and in the south who did not support slavery?? Do you think they were treated well??? They were killed, harassed and driven from their homes. And how about all of the horrific violence that was a daily part of slavery?? Read a book on the reality of living with slavery and what it really meant. I bet there were more sadistic sociopaths in the south than anywhere else in the states.
The "romanticism" is called denial. They treated humans like garbage and then whined when they lost the war. They aren't victims. They're perps.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)As in "what's a few more decades of slavery on the off chance it would have just faded away"?
Seriously? You really want to be on record saying that?
And etymology is the study of word origins and evolution the meanings of words. So what are you referring to as an etymological fallacy?
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)... is because they actually wanted to expand slaveholding into western territories. Yeah, it makes me shake my head when folks contend that slavery would have just faded away. My ass. Hell, look what it took to abolish segregation!
happyslug
(14,779 posts)You have to understand, slavery was on the way out in the 1780s and early 1790s. Even in the south, it was found slaves would escape and defect to any invader (in the case of the American Revolution, the British). Then the cotton gin was invented, and having slaves became VERY PROFITABLE.
In the period from 1795 and 1865, importation of slaves continued (yes, slaves were being imported into the South as late as 1865). Unlike almost any other Slave culture in history, the rights of slaves actually DECLINED between 1795 and 1865 (in some states it became illegal to free your own slaves for example, something the Romans did not even adopt).
The main reason is that is how profitable Cotton was in that period. It almost completely replaced linen, it was over 50% of US exports during that period (and that continued during the Civil War).
After the Civil War, efforts were made to continue slavery in all but name, but reconstruction ended that, but starting in the late 1870s, after reconstruction had ended, southerns adopted some harsh rules as to African Americans share cropping (which many whites ended up also doing) AND criminal charges of not paying debts (that crime permitted the owner of the debt to take the debtor into custody and work him like a slave). This was ruled to be peonage and illegal, but continued till after WWI.
As to Share cropping, it kept families tied in with their landlords generation after generation. It was almost the same as slavery but had the appearance of NOT being slavery. A child ended up owning the debt his parents incurred and had to work it off before he could leave the area (and such people just could not work it off). If the African Americans objected, it was not unusual to pull guns on them (during the 1927 Mississippi Flood, African Americans were ordered at gun point to work on the levies in the state of Mississippi. While working on the levies, that did NOT protect their homes, they were held on the levies in the driving rain by men and boys with rifles, all with orders to shoot any African American who tried to leave the levy (This was a job the Boy Scouts of Mississippi fully participated in).
The three point hitch was not invented to 1939, with out that hitch, any work in the fields AFTER the crop had been planted had to be done by horses. The Three Point Hitch permitted something more then plows to by pulled by tractors.
Now the Cotton Picker was invented in 1937, but problems with the design made it still more cost effective to pick cotton by hand till those problems were solved in 1943. WWII was on, so the improved Cotton Picker was not available till 1947. IT took off like hot cakes for it was now cheaper to pick cotton by machine then by hand. Hand picking survived till the early 1960s but became more and more marginal as you went through the 1950s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_picker
The significance of the Cotton Picker in this discussion is that before the improved model of 1947 went on the market, Slavery would still have been profitable. With the Cotton Picker, slavery would have ceased to be profitable some time in the 1950s and most slave owners would have then either freed their slaves (or more likely demanded that the Federal Government pay them to free their slaves, we are taking about "Property" here).
Share Cropping and chain gangs both died out in the 1950s for the same reason Slavery would have died out. The Cotton Picker and the three point hitch made it cheaper to use those machine to get crops planted and picked then it was to keep share croppers on those same fields.
Thus Slavery would NOT have died out till the 1950s, for it would have remained profitable till then. Share Cropping almost reduced African Americans to being slaves, but not quite for they could educate themselves, something slaves could not legally do. Some African Americans were able to get out of the Jail system, chain gang and share cropping system of the south, mostly due to being able to read and write. It was illegal to teach slaves to read and write and thus it was harder for them to escape and thus cheaper then the share cropping system adopted in the late 1870s and 1880s.
GERMANY AND THE SOUTH RECONSTRUCTION:
As to the treatment of the South AFTER the Civil War. If you look at African Americans, we did treat them better then we treated the Germans after WWII, they had AIDED the cause of national unity and viewed as reliable allies, unlike the majority of white southerns who the north viewed as rebels,. In at least two states, Mississippi and South Carolina, the majority of people in those states were African Americans and when the North insisted on majority rule, African Americans out voted the white population in both states. This was viewed as unacceptable treatment by many white southerns, white southerns expected to rule their states NOT African Americans. How dare the NORTH impose Democracy and majority rule by African Americans on WHITE SOUTHERNS.
Thus if you view the rights of White Southerns to rule the South as a right the north took away, when the North permitted African Americans to vote, yes the North did treat such Southern Whites worse then we did the Germans. The North took their state away from White Southerns and gave those states to the larger number of African Americans that lived in those states. We did NOT do that to the Germans, they could still rule Germany after WWII, but then the majority of people living in Germany were Germans.
Now Virginia, North Caroline, Tennessee, and Texas had larger white populations then African American Populations after the Civil War. Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Arkansas appear to be more evenly divided between the two sets of populations. Thus you do NOT hear of much problems on race relations in Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee (when compared to the rest of the ex-Confederacy). Texas seems to be on its own for it had a long history after the Civil War of repression of African American and Hispanics, including taking lands from both groups. Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Arkansas along with Mississippi and South Carolina is where you hear a lot about repression by the North during reconstruction (also Texas but to a much lower degree).
The reason for this was simple, Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee had always had the lowest number of slaves in the US among slave owning states after 1800. Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee had been viewed as to far North to do extensive up land Cotton crops. Slaves were most profitable in the Cotton Belt, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and East Texas. Slavery was also profitable in the Sugar Cane States of Louisiana and North Florida (Both of which also planted Cotton). South Carolina was on the edge of the Cotton Belt but its indigo plantations supplemented its reliance on Cotton (Artificial Dyes were invented during the Civil War, but in Britain and would take another 20 years to take off, but when it did South Carolina switched to more Cotton).
Thus the states with the greatest number of Cotton Plantations came to view Reconstruction in the worse light, for given the huge numbers of ex-slaves in those states, African Americans could out vote White Southerns, especially given the 14th amendment's second section which gave CONGRESS the right to determine when a person who had participated in a rebellion against the US could vote. During Reconstruction Congress was slow to restore voting whites to such ex rebels, thus strengthening African American power in the ballot box.
The Long Depression, 1873-1897
http://www.politonomist.com/history-of-economic-recessions-00273/4/
This was all made worse by the Economic Crisis of the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s. The GOP controlled Congress during this time period and wanted to restore the pre Civil War value of the Dollar to $20 to an ounce of gold. Government spending was cut, the economy suffered from the rapid withdraw of the money the Federal Government had spend in the national economy during the Civil War and that lead to what is now called the "Long Depression" (at the time it was called the "Great Depression" but that name was later given to the 1930s). In many ways the North decision to end reconstruction in 1877 was more to do with how bad the economy was and the GOP solution then is the same as it is today, austerity. It was the wrong prescription then and it is the wrong prescription today but it was the one that was embraced.
This austerity did NOT end the Long Depression, it continued into the 1880s. It became so bad that a new party came into existence, the "Free Silver" Party, which advocating increased federal spending by abandoning $20 to a ounce of gold, by printing Silver dollars (in 1857, when the Silver Dollar, as it was set between 1857 and 1964) the Silver in a Silver Dollar was about 99 cents. By the 1880s, due to massive silver mining in Nevada, the value of the Silver in a Silver Dollar had dropped to 55 cents. Same amount of silver but the price had dropped. The Democratic party adopted it as their platform in 1896. Outspent something like 15-1, the Democrats almost won the election that year (and at least one commentator observed that the Democrats lost the election through voting fraud for it was only the second election where people voted with a secret ballot, the first had been in 1892, Secret Ballots opened all types of frauds possibilities including changing ballots).
The Long Depression finally ended after the election of 1896. New Gold Fields were opened in Alaska, Australia and South Africa. This brought into the market more gold, which lead to a drop in value of gold and the inflation people had been demanding since the 1870s. In the 1900 election, the economy was no longer the big issue due to this inflation, thus "Free Silver" was not a big issue after 1896, but it started the Democratic Party to become a party for reform instead of a me to party to the GOP.
The effect of the Long Depression on the South was terrible, value of land DROPPED from the 1870s till 1900, prices of crops DECLINED during the same time period (as did wages). Social unrest became the norm (including the General Strike of 1877, through the further south the General Strike went was Baltimore and St Louis). Unrest existed in the 1880s and the early 1890s (Massive strikes and the repression of those Strike by President Cleveland was one of the reason the Free Silver Democrats were able to take over the Party in 1896, Cleveland was a "Gold Democrat" .
In the Cotton belt South, more and more small farmers, both black and white, ended up losing their lands to the rich and agreeing to stay on as share croppers during this time period. Downward pressure on crops and wages, both black and white, lead to social unrest and in the South that became anti-African American lynchings.
While technically the Long Depression started during Reconstruction (1873) it lasted long after Reconstruction was done (it really did not stop till just before the 1900 elections as the effect of those Gold Fields and the inflation caused by those gold fields came into play). Many White Southerns blamed their economic problems on reconstruction NOT on Congress's rush to restore the Gold Standard. In many ways this rush to return to the Gold Standard was the second punch to the South, the first was that African Americas were no longer slaves and could vote, the second was this general economic decline of the 1870s. This second punch meant even where whites were able to stay in charge, they lost money.
In the case of Germany the US did not require it to return to the Gold Standard, and what the US had set the price of the US Dollar in terms of Gold was while within the ability of the US to control (i.e. sell gold if the price went to high, buy gold if the price went to low, this continued till the Cost of the Vietnam war and Nixon's refusal to raise taxes ended that ability and the US left the dollar to float in relations to gold).
Thus in economic terms Germany was treated better the the South was during Reconstruction, but the South suffered NOT from any attack on its Economy, but the Congress of the period wanting to return to the gold standard, no matter who suffered when that occurred. In the case of Germany the US knew by 1945 HOW to prevent recessions by then, spend money when one occurred, and reduce spending during booms. In the 1870s Congress was NOT willing to do that even for the North let alone the South.
Lets remember in 1945 Germany could participate in the Marshall Plan, where Germany could get money from the US to rebuilt itself, something the North refused to due when Andrew Johnson was President from 1865 to 1869 and refused to do when Grant became president in 1869 for Congress wanted to return the US to the Gold Standard. This hurt the South extensively but it also hurt the North for the GOP of that time period had the same view on economics as the GOP of today.
It is hard to say the US treated the South in the 1870s then it did Germany in the late 1940s, when you understand in both situations the Congress of the US applied the same rules to each as it was applying to the US at the same time (austerity in the 1870s, spending like a drunken sailor in the late 1940s). On the other hand the effect of this Austerity can NOT be under played in the world view of Southerns to this day. That it hurt the North as much of the South is forgotten, all that is remember is the North freed the slaves, gave them the Vote, left them run State Governments while wages, land prices and crop prices all declined. That such declines continued AFTER the end of Reconstruction is unimportant to this view, what is important it is the view of many in the South, even if false once you look at the historical record and understand the main objections of white Southerns was their loss of complete control over the politics and government of the South.
WCLinolVir
(951 posts)As in previously written. My carpal tunnel aches just reading it.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I try to be accurate, but sometime history is complex, thus reconstruction has to be viewed both as an attempt to resolve the issue of freedom for the ex slaves AND the effect of the Long Depression of 1873-1897. For example, while some aspects of segregation occurred right after the Civil War, it was mostly separate churches and troops (African Americans had made up almost 20% of the Union Army by 1865, at a time where almost all African Americans lived in the South).
Real segregation only gets started in the 1890s, and thus why Plessy vs Ferguson, the case where the US supreme Court upheld separate but equal is a 1897 case. After Plessy segregation gathers steam and peaks under President Wilson. Between Wilson and FDR no real changes good or bad occurred (through the NAACP started its policy of slowly attacking Separate but Equal in the 1920s)
FDR did nothing as to segregation till WWII, when under pressure from his wife he made some small attempts to end segregation in some federal projects. This was accelerated by Truman. In 1954 the US Supreme Court ruled Separate but Equal unconstitutional, but no real effort to end segregation occurred till LBJ was President and you had the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voters Rights Act of 1965. The big blow to segregation was the final passage of Federal Aid to Public Schools in 1974 (by the post Watergate congress) which included a ban on such aid to any segregated students by race.
History can be fun reading and writing about and I enjoy doing both.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)Have you read David Blight's "Race and Reunion"? If not, I think you'd like it.
What books would you recommend on Reconstruction? I'm eager to know.
Thanks and best wishes.
Maeve
(42,225 posts)At least it has a decent song to go with it...
happyslug
(14,779 posts)As to the First National, it is the flag used by the Confederacy Museum and the VA FLAGGERS protested that move. It was a good choice for the Museum, it is a Flag flown by the Confederacy BUT one that does NOT look any where near the flags used by the KKK.
The Bonnier Blue Flag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_Blue_Flag
Maeve
(42,225 posts)But I really like the tune! Especially when sung as "The Irish Volunteer". (lyric sample)
Now when the traitors of the south commence their warlike raid,
I quickly laid down my hod, to the devil went me spade!
To a recruiting office I went, that happened to be near,
And joined the good old sixty-ninth like an Irish Volunteer.
Then fill the ranks, and march away! No traitors do we fear;
Well drive them all to blazes, says the Irish Volunteer.
.........
Now if the traitors in the south should ever cross our roads,
Well drive them all to blazes, as Saint Patrick did the toads,
Well give them all short nooses that come just below the ears
Made strong and good from Irish hemp, by Irish volunteers.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)These are people who are LEAVING the South. Might be better for the Southbound lanes as a reminder to those from the North going South of what they are entering.
underpants
(182,283 posts)I would guess.
dballance
(5,756 posts)Talk about proving the point that the Union should have really tried all the Confederate generals and leaders for treason and hung them. Instead they were allowed to be honored as heroes and still are.
They were traitors and every Confederate soldier who took up arms against the Union was a traitor. Those men wouldn't have had to fight and bleed for VA if they hadn't been traitors and insurgents against the US.
Not that long ago people were proposing a Flag Amendment to make it illegal to burn or desecrate the US flag. Fortunately that went nowhere. What we really need is a flag amendment that makes all forms of Confederate flags illegal to display. The people of Germany were appropriately embarrassed by Hitler and the Nazis so you won't see Nazi flags in Germany. The losing traitors of the South are not at all embarrassed they went to war to protect their right to own other people. They're still proud of being traitors.
love_katz
(2,562 posts)love_katz
(2,562 posts)"the official flag of gun humping racist cowards".
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)I wish the South would finally get the fuck OVER IT.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Karen Cooper: Richmond Tax Day Tea Revolt, 2010
Uploaded on Apr 16, 2010
The Cooper Express runs right over the Progressive agenda.
I suspect that those who stayed home in 2010 didn't see this coming,. but some of us did. The cynics won the day, tho'. I found it here:
Karen Cooper Speaks Out
Posted on August 3, 2012 by Brooks D. Simpson
That page notes that she was interviewed here:
http://missouritenth.com/2012/08/02/karen-a-proud-defender-of-liberty-in-her-community/
And the article itself says:
...I found what Cooper had to say to be very interesting and revealing. For example, when she declares that if she was a southerner in 1860, she would have supported secession, I wondered what sort of southerner she would have imagined herself to be in that year. She explicitly links her interest in a state rights interpretation of the coming of the Civil War with her interest in the Tea Party, suggesting that her interest in the past was shaped by present concerns. Of course, secessionists saw state rights as a means to an end, but on that issue Coopers silent. Shes also silent on evidence that white southerners were not always so interested in state rights when it came to protecting their own interests, especially slavery. Nor does she allude to the mixed record of the Confederacy when it came to state rights. Finally, she doesnt seem to understand that the South did not speak with one voice far from it. But shes not alone in those beliefs.
Cooper also shares her understanding of what the Founders believed: If I dont like what is happening in my state, I must work to change it, or I vote with my feet by moving. This is what our Founders wanted us to do to keep our State Sovereignty. This displays a curious understanding of the Founders. I know of no Founder who said that the way to defend state sovereignty was by moving out of state. Nor do I know which Founders she references. Surely Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Adams would not have embraced her explanation, and both Washington and Madison were Virginians. Nor does this explanation address the issue of secession. Oddly enough, I do know of an American who said that if white southerners did not like to stay in the United States, they could secede by moving elsewhere. That man was William T. Sherman.
In short, Coopers grasp of history is unsure and incomplete. Shes rather selective in her understanding of the past, picking (and warping) only that which supports her political philosophy.
Cooper is a proud southerner. What I love about the Southern way of living is that we dont care what you do up North, but you will not change how we do things down here. Things like God, family, our Statehood and capitalism. Im unaware of any efforts by northerners to change God or family in the South; if anything, while issues of family and religious values sometimes divide Americans, they do not do so along a neat North/South axis (I have no idea where the transMississippi West, Alaska, and Hawaii fit in this scheme). The term statehood remains undefined; capitalism is one of those words often invoked and rarely understood, and for years there was a vigorous debate over whether the Old South was capitalist, with that icon of southern heritage defenders, Eugene Genovese, arguing against that notion. Perhaps Cooper needs to take this up with Genovese. She clearly disagrees. I dont have much hope for the American people today and that includes Southerners because of how reconstructed they have become, she says (is that an attack on Rainbow Confederates?). In order for Southerners to live peacefully together, they must understand the principles that the South fought for. Things like States Rights, Capitalism, Christianity and simply the Southern way of living...
Another video from there:
Black woman attacked for carrying Confederate Flag
Uploaded on Oct 30, 2011
On Friday, October 28th, Virgina Flaggers gathered on the Boulevard in Richmond, Virginia to protest the VMFA's forced, illegal removal of Confederate Flags from the Confederate War Memorial/Pelham Chapel. Most conversations with pedestrians were very good. This one was a bit challenging. The first minute or so are missing, in which this woman berates Karen for carrying the Confederate Flag. The conclusion is also missing...basically, the woman gets a phone call and walks off in disgust.
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/karen-cooper-speaks-out/
I found this too.
http://downtown.nbc12.com/news/news/147733-group-plans-fly-huge-confederate-flag-i-95
And this. but I'm not sure it's her. She does not look the same in the images, so it may be wrong:
?w=500&h=500
I posted the writings of the Vice President of the Confederacy here on DU a long time ago. Yes, the Confederacy was about slavery. They thought that the Founding Fathers were wrong in their belief that in time, all people would be treated equally. Here is their Confederate Philosophy:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014260932#post149
I listened to this drekt growing up, thankfully not in my home, but had to associate with people who believed just what that says. That was the old States' Rights that finally got such a bad name they had to change the name of their system.
Since then, we have been hearing thsoe who insist the 10th Amendment to the Constitution gives each state the right to eliminate the human and voting rights of others in all sorts of ways, due to States Rights. They just don't call it that.
Those who think it can't spread, or isn't doing so now, are apathic or too proud to admit it. And Libertarians want this state of affairs as what they see as a return to the natural order of things.
You don't have to use racial slurs to be against those who are poor or not of your own blood. You can use other terms, and they do. Despite the disdain here for the Democratic Party and all elected officials, they do stand for human rights as their voters do.
And every single one of those Teabaggers will vote in every election, no amount of mocking them or name calling will stop them, but it appears to work very well with us. A nation divided up into fifty fiefdoms under the rule of the Koch brothers or their clones, will be our fate is we let this go. And that point, civil liberties will be ended as most of us have known them in our lifetimes.
JMHO.
underpants
(182,283 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)been a very good slave for her masters probably. For one thing Slavery was not legal in the entire United States. Northerners thought slave owners violated their rights , by bringing their slaves into free states. She forgot about the Robert Taney decision.
Blacks were considered only three fifths human, and women nor Blacks were allowed to vote. Even some poor whites weren't allowed to vote. It was a white man's privilege and mostly property owners. Just like many people desire to be rich today, many southerners wanted to own slaves some day, even though many didn't.
There were some Confederate Southern Generals, that was willing to forget the Confederacy, such as Robert E. Lee and his top General Longstreet. In fact General Longstreet became a Republican and before that was placed in charge of Black Union Troops, occupying Louisianna after the War. He was placed in charge to fight against the KKK. Many Confederates who couldn't forget the Lost Cause, ended up calling Longstreet a traitor. He was one of General Grant's best friends.
Robert E. Lee was also very friendly to Grant after the War. They should read the remarks given to his soldiers, about being good citizens. Lee thought it was a good thing they loss, because it ended slavery. He never wanted to leave the Union, but didn't want to fight against his native state of Virginia. There were many other Virginians that didn't make the same choice Lee did. Some were officers in the Union Army too. The General that placed Arlington cemetary on Lee's residence was a Southerner. He hated secessionists and wanted to place Dead Union soldiers in Lee's own yard. It was called the North's Hallowed Ground.
There were General's like Nathan Bedford Forrest who was the first Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan and Jefferson Davis did not forget the War, just like Boothe. Neither did outlaws like Jessie James. These people tried to keep the Lost Cause alive. Their families and children do it through these Memorials. They never accepted their defeat. The North did not treat them worst than Germany.
They accepted them back as citizens. They did not carry out a rehabilitation campaign of Southerners like they did with Germany or Japan. They did not place them on trial for treason. Northerners also helped Southerners change the economy of the South and helped to rebuild it. The South was very poor after the War and many of their white males were dead or crippled. That is why they tried to resort to recruiting Blacks. President Lincoln had a lot to do with that before he was murdered. His speech claimed as much, when he stated with malice towards none. This is the United States of America. The Confederacy is a Ghost of the Past. People honering the Confederacy, are living in the Past. They are not the people that lived and fought that War. General Robert E. Lee and Longstreet moved on a long time ago.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)I'm black and from the South. I will share with my entire family and friends. Thankfully, no one I know supports the Confederate flag and understands fully what it stands for. Nevertheless, your research is impeccable!!!
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)was fought over the expansion of slavery into the West. It was not on its way out. The whole country did not practice slavery. The Confederacy was fighting for the "freedom" to own slaves and was willing to destroy the nation to do it. End of story.
AwareOne
(404 posts)the first Republican president and creator of the overbearing federal government. Three cheers for Delaware, Maryland, West Virgina, Kentucky and Missouri who did not secede and still practiced slavery through the war years. Three cheers for the Emancipation Proclamation which outlawed slavery in the south but not in the north. Three cheers for the GOP who appointed Republican governors and legislators in all the southern states and systematically robbed them into bankruptcy until those darn Democrats kicked them out.
three cheers for ending slavery and defeating the treasonous South!
Did you take a wrong turn somewhere?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)Methinks I smell Troll.
RudynJack
(1,044 posts)Oddly, he's been here for 12 years.
muntrv
(14,505 posts)Wolf Frankula
(3,595 posts)By its actions, the Virginia Flaggers is in insurrection against the United States. You are directed to use all necessary force to put down this insurrection, using the Land, Air and Naval Forces of the United States.
Persons unarmed taking part in this insurrection are to be arrested and held for trial on charges for treason. Persons armed who do not lay down their arms are to be suppressed as quickly as possible. Lethal force is authorized.
You are to begin immediately.
Signed,
B. Obama
President and Commander in Chief.
Wolf
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Marthe48
(16,694 posts)I noticed war memorials honoring rebel soldiers, and I thought it was wrong that the monuments were on American soil. The rebel soldiers who lost had to sign loyalty oaths before they got their U.S. citizenship back. So the people flying a rebel flag are not honoring their dead. The southerners who refused to sign an oath left the country and lived out their lives elsewhere, such as Brazil. So take the rebel flag to Americana, Brazil and see how long it flies before the Brazilian government takes it down.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)flying the flag of a defeated enemy.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)tblue
(16,350 posts)I will continue to avoid that state.
RudynJack
(1,044 posts)that we should've hanged their elected leaders and their generals. That over 150 years later, they claim to be proud of their treason is reprehensible.
daleo
(21,317 posts)But the Confederacy was fighting tooth and nail to keep it going for as long as they could.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)from my own people. Depressing as hell!!
demosincebirth
(12,518 posts)"To the Victors go the spoils, and they get to write history. Get over it.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)That keep on trotting out the usual lies, especially about how this war was not about slavery, but Dat mean ole Federal Gubbermint!
First off, you sure liked Uncle Sam when he got you those lands you took from the Indians. You liked the Yankees when kids from New York and Massachusetts died so that Texans could have big old ranches in what used to be Mexico, or plantations in Louisiana. You point out that the nation supported Slavery in the beginning. Omitting the fact that most Northern states gave up the habit, you sure liked the fact that American Naval might was what enabled your forefathers to safely raid Africa for slaves!
But let's omit all that. You can say that there were ten other causes for the Civil War, many of them quite true. You did not want to have Northern banks dominate your economy. You wanted to keep a more agrarian lifestyle, as opposed to industrial. These causes may have merit. However, you cannot surgically extract the fact that Slavery was, at the very least, one of the issues you were fighting for. I can make a soup with the finest well water, the best meats, the finest spices, the freshest vegetables, and use a fine recipe. If then someone dumped even the smallest amount of cyanide or plutonium, no one would want to eat it, or have their kids eat it. Even if Slavery was not the whole "soup", it was toxic enough to ruin the rest of the pot.
It is tragic, especially because many of the poor whites who fought for the South were enabling the same wealthy scoundrels that would use slave labor to undermine what free people could earn. Why go to John's Blacksmith shop in town when you can buy a Blacksmith slave and keep him on your plantation, and NOT pay him. How many white owned Blacksmith shops would there have been, if not for the fact that it was easy for the wealthier people to buy Blacksmith slaves, or for that matter, any sort of skilled crafter. The Wealthy in Dixie have always tried to ensure cheap, disposable labor, and frankly,as salaries will show, that is still true, but as long as they can point to a Dixie that never was, and make the working class venerate it, attention will be called off from the hard cold fact that Dixie's wealthy think of most working class whites as "poor white trash."
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Why put up this affront to Gawd's plan???
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)There's no way the Constitution was ratified with the idea that states had the right to secede. Granted, a few might have ratified with their fingers crossed, but that's different from saying that the Framers wrote the Constitution thinking that would be legal or viable.
But that's not as bad as the other historical lies these shithead revisionist secessionists are passing off. No, slavery was not on its way out, it had just been spread to other territories. If it weren't viable, they wouldn't be so motivated to spread it to territories like Texas and Kansas. This nation distorted it's whole representative and Constitutional system to accommodate slave states with the 3/5ths rule, among others, and the South still couldn't feel secure that its slave interests would be protected.
The issue of states rights, which is so often cited as the cause of the war, wouldn't have been anything without the differences over slavery. Period.
It's not fair that Bradley Manning is going to serve time while treasonous racists who fly the Confederate flag aren't in prison.
I wish these people would just be called liars and racists and told to read a few history books by reputable historians. That is to say, not the amateurs who want it revised.
lynne
(3,118 posts)- the flag is being installed by a group that purchased that plot of land. They are within their rights to fly a flag on their own property even if others find it distasteful.
The city may need to look at amending their ordinances to avoid this type of situation in the future.
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)underpants
(182,283 posts)Spot on though
hatrack
(59,446 posts)Too bad . . .
underpants
(182,283 posts)we drive right through the battlefields on the way we go to Roanoke (in-laws live there)
hatrack
(59,446 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)agree with this racist bullshit. Shame on them!
I've given up on VA. They did the right thing by electing Obama in 2008 and 2012, but it seems that at the state level, they are regressing more and more each day!!
Disclaimer: I am black.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)My flag is a giant white bed-sheet that simply says:
KILL ALL REDNECKS
I feel that it's a thoughtful commentary on our age, expressing sentiments shared by a million other Virginians. But don't read anything into it! It's not an expression advocating violence or prejudice, at all.
Because I said so.
atreides1
(16,047 posts)Traitors have no honor!
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)as the story says it will be visible from the northbound lanes.
Virginia Rs have a peculiar mix of being mentally ill, easily duped and being extremely vocal about their false beliefs. Of course they're racists too, it fits right in with their complex syndromes of denial and inability to learn.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)broke off form them to avoid being confederates.