Confederate flag: Washington and Lee University removing display (Lee's Chapel)

[DaGoonie55]

I'm not sure I follow you.  Are you asking why I consider the rebel flag issue and the Redskins mascot issue similar, or are you trying to defend the rebel flag?

 

 

Are you saying that because I support history, in this case the continued presentation of a flag (albeit a racially sensitive one) in an appropriate place on campus, that this makes me a racist?

[s0crates]

I refer you to Fredrick Douglas's famous speach / debate, which covers the topic well. Little long but a good read... Douglas covers a half of dozen such passages in his defense of the US Constitution.

 

 

Obviously Frederick Douglas was right in pointing out that the Constitution's protections of people's rights applied to all people. That doesn't change the fact that many people (everybody but white male adults) were not considered persons for a long time, there was language in the Constitution that implied that, and we had to amend the Constitution to fix the oversight.

[JMS]

A person can try to hang their hat on what Virginia said, but far more important is what Virginia did.  ...... I will reiterate that talk is cheap.  .......their actions spoke far louder than their words.

]

So let's examine their actions... If the war was only about Slavery as you say... Why would the Confederacy offer to emancipate their slaves in exchange for European recognition of their nation?

 

President Davis sent Confederate Congressman Duncan Kenner of Louisiana, a long-time advocate of arming slaves, on a secret diplomatic mission in late January 1865. In a last ditch effort to convince Britain and France to issue formal recognition of Confederate independence, Davis was willing to offer emancipation of the slaves.

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/1105.html

So no, it is not a matter of "living in a simple world" to point out that the Civil War was started over slavery, slavery, and slavery.  That is the underlying reason why the war was waged.  The set of variegated lies spun to Confederate citizens, whipping up many to fight for one or more causes that were not actually being contested nor defended, is indeed a chapter of the war's story, but a different chapter from the desires of Confederate leadership.  Their own actions make that clear enough.  And in my opinion it is quite reasonable to condemn a politician who felt it necessary to wage a war over a real threat to the institution of slavery, while refusing to condemn a man who felt it necessary to wage a war over alarming lies he was actively encouraged by that politician to believe.

I don't disagree with you here... That was my entire point... Like WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and both Gulf Wars... The reasons we ultimately went to war were different than the way the war was sold to the American People, or the citizens of the South. I think there were many reasons used to convince the South to succeed.. Some of them were very heart felt... I think to a 21st century eyes if you scratch through the veneer; slavery seems to be shallowly behind all of them... But slavery would not have moved the average southerner to rise up without that veneer.

And as I said above, even the powerful men who picked the fight in order to secure slavery's future, were willing in the end to give it up for victory. Ultimately they and their forefathers had been embroiled in a fight with the abolitionist north for 100 years.. and it's almost like they just didn't want the North to win. So vitriolic had the fight become that in the end they would even give up their central reason for fighting in order to secure victory oveer their hated opponents.

I was reading Mosby's ( Civil War Great confederate leader) memoirs the other night.. He talks about the fervor to succeed very elegantly. Weeks before succession Mosby was a unionist and he describes the arguments and he calls it mass hypnosis which persuaded the south to move.

[s0crates]

Are you saying that because I support history, in this case the continued presentation of a flag (albeit a racially sensitive one) in an appropriate place on campus, that this makes me a racist?

 

I guess it depends what you mean by an "appropriate place." 

 

If by "appropriate place" you mean places like museums and textbooks where they serve to remind us of the horrible crimes of our ancestors, then I'm right there with you.

 

If by "appropriate place" you mean state buildings, schools, t-shirts, and pickup trucks, then I disagree. (I would support the rights of people to fly them in such places, but I would also consider the people who choose to racist, yes).

 

Put it this way: If its displayed as a reminder of a shameful history, then that is good; but if it is displayed as a point of pride, then that is bad.

[JMS]

Obviously Frederick Douglas was right in pointing out that the Constitution's protections of people's rights applied to all people. That doesn't change the fact that many people (everybody but white male adults) were not considered persons for a long time, there was language in the Constitution that implied that, and we had to amend the Constitution to fix the oversight.

? ah, I think you're mistaken. I think you are thinking about the vote, and trying to suggest the US constitution only allowed white men to vote. Which isn't true. There was nothing in the Constitution to keep free men of color from voting and being counted just like everybody else, As Fredrick Douglas notes ...

I think only the house was elected states initially... senators were appointed by governors.. Presidents were voted on by the senators... supreme court well, that's the same today.

[s0crates]

So let's examine their actions... If the war was only about Slavery as you say... Why would the Confederacy offer to emancipate their slaves in exchange for European recognition of their nation?

 

 

I think the phrase "last ditch effort" might be relevant there.

 

The Civil War was obviously about slavery.

? ah, I think you're mistaken. I think you are thinking about the vote, and trying to suggest the US constitution only allowed white men to vote. Which isn't true. There was nothing in the Constitution to keep free men of color from voting and being counted just like everybody else, As Fredrick Douglas notes ...

I think only the house was elected states initially... senators were appointed by governors.. Presidents were voted on by the senators... supreme court well, that's the same today.

 

Anybody ever tell you that trying to discuss something with you is aggravating?

 

Yes free black men could vote. That wasn't the point. In fact I've lost sight of the point in all the nitpicking. Oh yes, the point is that the Constitution did not always protect black people:

 

 

Provisions in the Original Constitution

Article I, Section. 2 [slaves count as 3/5 persons] 

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves]. 

Article I, Section. 9, clause 1.  [No power to ban slavery until 1808]

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. 

Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]

...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.

 

Clearly the Bill of Rights should be interpreted to apply to all people, but it was not always understood that way. The original draft of the Constitution did not make it clear that these rights applied to all people, which is why we had to amend it.

[Jumbo]

 

 

Anybody ever tell you that debating with you is aggravating?

 

Everyone else. You were the last one to go. 

[DaGoonie55]

I guess it depends what you mean by an "appropriate place." 

 

If by "appropriate place" you mean places like museums and textbooks where they serve to remind us of the horrible crimes of our ancestors, then I'm right there with you.

 

If by "appropriate place" you mean state buildings, schools, t-shirts, and pickup trucks, then I disagree. (I would support the rights of people to fly them in such places, but I would also consider the people who choose to racist, yes).

 

I wasn't offended or anything, I was just trying to see this post through your eyes.

 

Me and you are on the same page.

 

I don't know that I posess the writing ability to express my love for all things history.  I am by no means an expert.  I understand that the image of the confederate flag has different meanings to many people.  I do not support public showing of this flag (even though I admit people can display whatever they wish, an institution should be held to a higher standard) Much like my holocaust post earlier, we cannot forget what our ancestors went through, as it would be a great disservice to do so.

[GhostofSparta]

If the war was only about Slavery as you say... Why would the Confederacy offer to emancipate their slaves in exchange for European recognition of their nation?

Because they were left with no other option? Britain and France would not support the South because of slavery. So, in their death throes, the Confederacy had to take drastic measures to try to save their asses. Emancipate some slaves (which isn't the same thing as eliminating slavery, btw) and hope a Hail Mary in the form of overseas recognition/help saved them, or lose them anyway. Not exactly a Sophie's choice for a "country" that couldn't find enough men to win a war they started.

[JMS]

I guess it depends what you mean by an "appropriate place." 

 

If by "appropriate place" you mean places like museums and textbooks where they serve to remind us of the horrible crimes of our ancestors, then I'm right there with you.

 

If by "appropriate place" you mean state buildings, schools, t-shirts, and pickup trucks, then I disagree. (I would support the rights of people to fly them in such places, but I would also consider the people who choose to racist, yes).

The Lee chapel where the remains of General Lee are entombed inside a small University named in his honor?

[Riggo-toni]

The Mormon's revolt, or "the First Civil War" was 1857-1858. Utah came to the US as part of the peace settlement to the Mexican American war of 1847 ten years before the "revolt". 

How can you call it a civil war when Utah was NOT yet a state - hell, it wasn't even called Utah yet.  The territory was named Deseret.  In fact, around half of the Deseret territory was given up by Utah decades later as a concession to gain statehood.  Ohio and Michigan also went to war over territory, as did the now defunct state of Franklin and North Carolina.

 

More importantly though, when was the flag of Utah ever hoisted up as a symbol of defiance against desegregation?  Answer that one, please, before you try one of your usual end-arounds in semantics.  The Confederate flag made its comeback in the 50s and 60s as a protest against ending the South's horrific racist policies, and to pretend anything different is being completely disingenuous (and yes, that's the correct way to spell it.)

[JMS]

Because they were left with no other option? Britain and France would not support the South because of slavery. So, in their death throes, the Confederacy had to take drastic measures to try to save their asses. Emancipate some slaves (which isn't the same thing as eliminating slavery, btw) and hope a Hail Mary in the form of overseas recognition/help saved them, or lose them anyway. Not exactly a Sophie's choice for a "country" that couldn't find enough men to win a war they started.

They did have another option..  They could have surrendered... they could have fought on to the end for slavery...  

 

 

You basically had me until the bolded phrase... Yes when push came to shove and the end was near... The south offered to give up slavery, emancipate all their slaves in exchange for European recognition. It was everything you said, a Hail Mary.. an attempt to save their bacon... but it could also be interpreted as giving up something they ultimately could live without, in order to keep alive  something which they couldn't live without.

[TradeTheBeal!]

112 posts about Washington & Lee.  Gotta love it.

[s0crates]

The Lee chapel where the remains of General Lee are entombed inside a small University named in his honor?

 

This probably won't be well-received, but I'm not sure Lee is somebody we should "honor."

[JMS]

Clearly the Bill of Rights should be interpreted to apply to all people, but it was not always understood that way. The original draft of the Constitution did not make it clear that these rights applied to all people, which is why we had to amend it.

 

I think we are discussing whether the US Constitution is a racist document,   You made the point that it was because of the 3/5th clause and Fredrick Douglas disagreed with you.     Then you made the point about it denying all but white men the vote, and again Fredric Douglas disagreed with you... then you made the point that the US Constitution's fugitive slave provision was racist... and again Fredrick Douglas rose up like Dikimba Motumbo and rejected you then wagged his finger in your face..  

 

And now you are making the point that because the Bill of Rights could be interpreted to be less inclusive as we understand it to be today that that infers that it's actually still a racist document...   To which I would respond, well Fredrick and I;  where what clause do you point to in the constitution to show it being racist..

 

I am being obstinate on this matter,  not just because it's my nature and my habit, but also because I think it's important...  The bill of rights was written by James Madison a slave holder who was vocally opposed to slavery.   Do you think he left out the pro slavery stuff, and racist phrases on purpose or by accident?   I think the lack of such passages in the Constitution given when and where it was written are nothing short of miraculous and hints to the great thought, reflection, and beliefs of southern leaders in revolutionary times which were sadly absent from the political arena in the south in the 1860's..  but which brings us back full circle to General Lee.  Because General Lee was such a leader.   He was a opposed to slavery publicly,  he was a big picture guy related to five delegates to the continental congress which wrote and signed the constitution but also related to Madison himself.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

This probably won't be well-received, but I'm not sure Lee is somebody we should "honor."

So honor him without a flag that symbolizes racism.  Put the original flags in a museum where they belong.  Case closed.

[JMS]

This probably won't be well-received, but I'm not sure Lee is somebody we should "honor."

 

Really...   Well their is no doubt that his decision to give his loyalty to his state and not to his union ultimately prolonged the war by years, and cost many thousands of lives on both sides.

 

It is interesting though he offered to stand aside and not take sides in the conflict at all.   And it was the fellow Virginian and commander of the Union Army at the start of the war General Winfred Scott who would deny him that avenue.  Channeling George Bush from 2003,  Scott told Lee if you are not with the Union,  you are in revolt;  there is no middle ground.

[s0crates]

 

I think we are discussing whether the US Constitution is a racist document,   You made the point that it was because of the 3/5th clause and Fredrick Douglas disagreed with you.     Then you made the point about it denying all but white men the vote, and again Fredric Douglas disagreed with you...   

 

And now you are making the point that because the Bill of Rights could be interpreted to be less inclusive as we understand it to be today that that infers that it's actually still a racist document...   To which I would respond, well Fredrick and I;  where what clause do you point to in the constitution to show it being racist..

 

I am being obstinate on this matter,  not just because it's my nature and my habit, but also because I think it's important...  The bill of rights was written by James Madison a slave holder who was vocally opposed to slavery.   Do you think he left out the pro slavery stuff, and racist phrases on purpose or by accident?   I think the lack of such passages in the Constitution given when and where it was written are nothing short of miraculous and hints to the great thought, reflection, and beliefs of southern leaders in revolutionary times which were sadly absent from the political arena in the south in the 1860's..  but which brings us back full circle to General Lee.

 

Let me try to be very clear:

 

1) I think the U.S. Constitution does indeed show "great thought, reflection, and beliefs." In fact I wish we had more respect for the document and its meaning then and now.

2) I think Frederick Douglas was right to interpret it the way he did, although I don't think his interpretation was consistent with that of southerners in his day.

3) I think you need to stop ignoring the following:

 

Article I, Section. 2  

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves]. 

Article I, Section. 9, clause 1.  

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. 

Article IV, Section. 2. 

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Article V 

...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.

[RFKFedEx]

Similarites...  like almost unanimously black people in this country view the rebel flag as a symbol of racial hate, whereas in the Redskins name, a small minority of Natives think it's offensive?

 

~Bang

I think you dehumanize the opposition more than anybody here at ES. People have a natural tendency to do that with their enemies. 

 

Within your lifetime Bang, a vast majority of the country didn't care about that flag; and the people who did care were passionately in favor of it. The small minority of people opposed to the flag didn't matter. They were dehumanized and faceless, living in the shadows of tradition, heritage, and pride of the majority. A majority who was going to honor and celebrate and they pleased. 

 

I'll bet most people flying the flag would tell you they didn't mean harm by it. Who didn't love the Dukes of Hazard? The Confederate Flag on the roof of the General Lee (in the 1980s) is akin to Bob Hope's blackface routine in the 1950s, also on tv. Borderline acceptable at the time, unacceptable a decade later. The intention of harm is debatable, but the actions are certainly regrettable.

 

Fortunately, things have evolved for the better through education.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'd also like to apologize to TheGreatBuzz for not debating the topic in a more civil (no pun intended) fashion last night.  I sometimes go a little overboard on the topic of racism and was not trying to call you out or go after you directly, but after re-reading my posts today, I could see where one might interpret my intentions differently.

No worries. Discussions like this hopefully at least raise awareness that there is more than just racism behind the flag. And discussions like this with differing opinions is why I fly an American flag outside my house.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

This probably won't be well-received, but I'm not sure Lee is somebody we should "honor."

Couldn't agree more. I actually think it's pretty sickening to be honest.

[JMS]

That (which not only called slaves 3/5 of a person, but also specifically mentioned "Indians") and the bit about fugitive slaves.

There is a reason we had to amend the thing specifically to address race.

I did quote the two passages I had in mind.

 

I didn't see your bit about fugitive Slaves in the US Constitution...  

 

 

No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

 

 Let's see what Fredrick Douglas has to say about  Art. 4, section 9,  of the US Constitution which "allows for fugitive slaves to be recovered" as you say...   Again... long but well worth the read.

 

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-is-it-pro-slavery-or-anti-slavery/

 

This is called the “Fugitive Slave Provision.” It is called so by those who wish to make it subserve the interest of slavery in America, and the same by those who wish to uphold the views of a party in this country. It is put thus in the speech at the City Hall: — “Let us go back to 1787, and enter Liberty Hall, Philadelphia, where sat in convention the illustrious men who framed the Constitution — with George Washington in the chair. On the 27th of September, Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney, two delegates from the State of South Carolina, moved that the Constitution should require that fugitive slaves and servants should be delivered up like criminals, and after a discussion on the subject, the clause, as it stands in the Constitution, was adopted. After this, in the conventions held in the several States to ratify the Constitution, the same meaning was attached to the words. For example, Mr. Madison (afterwards President), when recommending the Constitution to his constituents, told them that the clause would secure them their property in slaves.” I must ask you to look well to this statement. Upon its face, it would seem a full and fair statement of the history of the transaction it professes to describe and yet I declare unto you, knowing as I do the facts in the case, my utter amazement at the downright untruth conveyed under the fair seeming words now quoted. The man who could make such a statement may have all the craftiness of a lawyer, but who can accord to him the candour of an honest debater? What could more completely destroy all confidence in his statements? Mark you, the orator had not allowed his audience to hear read the provision of the Constitution to which he referred. He merely characterized it as one to “deliver up fugitive slaves and servants like criminals,” and tells you that this was done “after discussion.” But he took good care not to tell you what was the nature of that discussion. He have would have spoiled the whole effect of his statement had he told you the whole truth. Now, what are the facts connected with this provision of the Constitution? You shall have them. It seems to take two men to tell the truth. It is quite true that Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney introduced a provision expressly with a view to the recapture of fugitive slaves: it is quite true also that there was some discussion on the subject — and just here the truth shall come out. These illustrious kidnappers were told promptly in that discussion that no such idea as property in man should be admitted into the Constitution. The speaker in question might have told you, and he would have told you but the simple truth, if he had told you that he proposition of Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney — which he leads you to infer was adopted by the convention that from the Constitution — was, in fact, promptly and indignantly rejected by that convention. He might have told you, had it suited his purpose to do so, that the words employed in the first draft of the fugitive slave clause were such as applied to the condition of slaves, and expressly declared that persons held to “servitude” should be given up; but that the word “servitude” was struck from the provision, for the very reason that it applied to slaves. He might have told you that the same Mr. Madison declared that the word was struck out because the convention would not consent that the idea of property in men should be admitted into the Constitution. The fact that Mr. Madison can be cited on both sides of this question is another evidence of the folly and absurdity of making the secret intentions of the framers the criterion by which the Constitution is to be construed. But it may be asked — if this clause does not apply to slaves, to whom does it apply?[/size]

 

I answer, that when adopted, it applies to a very large class of persons — namely, redemptioners — persons who had come to America from Holland, from Ireland, and other quarters of the globe — like the Coolies to the West Indies — and had, for a consideration duly paid, become bound to “serve and labour” for the parties two whom their service and labour was due. It applies to indentured apprentices and others who have become bound for a consideration, under contract duly made, to serve and labour, to such persons this provision applies, and only to such persons.

[mjah]

So let's examine their actions... If the war was only about Slavery as you say... Why would the Confederacy offer to emancipate their slaves in exchange for European recognition of their nation?

 

 

Others answered that already, but the problem with that question is that it uses failed desperation bargaining tactics circa 1865 as a means to supposedly question motivations for launching elective warfare circa 1861.  The same leaders, yes, but with a completely different mindset upon staring at a suddenly nearly-empty set of options.  The groveling decrepitude of the late stage does not invalidate the sincere and despicable aims of the early stage.

 

And the Confederacy only pursued that path of emancipation once it became obvious that no available avenue would yield their primary goal of keeping slaves.  Only then did they pivot (in vain) to what anybody would want upon learning that their fundamental aim was already lost: some kind of notional victory to validate the massive sacrifice of blood and treasure, to avert the terror of unconditional surrender, and to improve the yet-unknown fates of those traitors who caused the deaths of over 600,000 Americans.  None of that calls into question the overwhelming truth that the war was waged over slavery from the beginning.

 

While your suggestions keep shifting around in the specifics of their alternate hypotheses, they consistently assert generally that the south wanted something from the war that was even bigger than slavery.  There is no well grounded evidence for that whatsoever.  In fact, for the region's future as seen from within, nothing was considered bigger at the time than slavery.  Had the south gotten their way in Congress -- had they secured not only the presence but also the expansion of slavery within the growing US -- it is incredibly unlikely and in fact practically impossible that any real notions of secession ever would have taken root.  There would have been absolutely no point to it.

[JMS]

How can you call it a civil war when Utah was NOT yet a state - hell, it wasn't even called Utah yet.  The territory was named Deseret.  In fact, around half of the Deseret territory was given up by Utah decades later as a concession to gain statehood.  Ohio and Michigan also went to war over territory, as did the now defunct state of Franklin and North Carolina.

Because the Mormons were all United States Citizens residing inside US Territory. Because Brigham Young who lead the Mormons in revolt was the Governor of that US Territory and chose to succeed.

what would you call it? an invasion? It was a civil war.. citizens of the United States decided they wanted to be their own country and rose up and got smacked down...

[sacase]

As a black man, I really don't care about the confederate flag. Freedom of speech and all that. It really doesn't affect me and besides, it gives me a way to spot potential idiots. If  you want to fly it, fly it. Just don't fly it above the American flag.