« The machine broke? | Main | What does this do to Rudy's GPA? »
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Do they really think that's a good point?
As I've noted before, many of the flag defenders think they are terribly insightful students of history, and that the rest of us are just showing our ignorance in saying that flying it on our State House grounds is stupid and wrong.
Welcome to the Bizarro World.
Anyway, there's this one guy who keeps writing to me, and making the terribly profound -- to him -- point that there were American flags flying over some of the slave ships. To him, and the thousands of others who say this with a big, triumphant air -- this is a major GOTCHA! Apparently, it's supposed to cancel out the fact that South Carolina and the other Confederate states seceded in order to preserve slavery.
Seriously. That's what these people seem to think. Human rationalization is a wonderful thing, is it not?
Anyway, he writes and says,
Warthen,
Would you please write a column and explain that NO slave was brought to
America under our Confederate Flags but every one, every-one was brought over
under the glorious stars-and-stripes of that time......the stars-and stripes of that
time was and is still my enemy, the union flag..... The flag of that time............
1860-1865 and on through what you yankees call reconstruction, which was one
hell-of-a-mess for the good folks of the South.Irvin Shuler NEVER ANOTHER APPOMATTOX !!!
So I make the mistake of engaging with him to ask, what on Earth is new about the fact that the slave trade was banned well before 1860? He writes back,
WARTHEN,
There is nothing new in that but please let all "your" reades know they,
those captured overseas and brought here to be sold as slaves, were
brought here on ships flying the damn "stars and stripes" of the glorious
union (of-that-time) and none, not even one, was brought to this country
under the Flag(s) of the Confederacy. Why can't you print this ????
Are you scared to print the truth.....afraid of Hillary or that damn Osama
Obama, whatever he is ?
Afraid you'll have to back it up and can't ........I understand.......you've
been lying to your readers all along.
Thank goodness for those like "Pitchfork Ben Tillman" and Me.
Irvin Shuler
Then, I write back,
Why do you think it's important that the slave trade preceded secession? Of course, it would have to. There would have been no slaves to fight over, otherwise.
The cessation of the slave trade was part of the long, slow movement toward getting rid of slavery. A generation after it ended, abolitionists had set their sights on the next target -- the freedom of those who were already here. After Lincoln, who was their candidate (despite his attempts to reassure Southern voters), won the election, South Carolina -- which since the battles over the Constitution in the 1780s had been one of the two most vehement defenders of the institution in the Congress -- seceded rather than lose those slaves. Other states followed.
This is simple, basic history that everyone knows. Tell you what -- I'll put this on my blog and we'll see if there was anyone out there who didn't know it, or who thinks it means what you seem to think it does.
You know what else? Those ships all had sails! So let's blame the wind for slavery! Only the advent of steamships led to their freedom. That makes about as much sense as what you're saying about flags.
Halfway through, I chide myself for having wasted so much time, and reflect that it won't be so bad if I post it on my blog. Which is why I told him I would.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 10:29 AM in Confederate Flag, History, Southern discomfort
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef00e008c816bb8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Do they really think that's a good point?:
Comments
I don't get how it matters either. If one proclaimed from the Statehouse dome that the slaves imported to South Carolina were brought here on ships that flew the Union flag, how would it change the debate? Besides, I thought the side that wants the flag to stay where it is (or move it back to where it was) thought this whole debate was NOT about slavery. Now it is? Then again, I don't understand why anyone in 21st Century America would assoicate themselves with Ben Tillman. Although it's not fair to expect someone in the 19th Century to have complete 21st Century views, I still wouldn't identify with someone who said things like: "As to his 'rights'—I will not discuss them now. We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be equal to the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him."
Posted by: Gary | Jun 19, 2007 11:48:53 AM
"Slaves came to America on ships flying the American flag" is to "Current Flag Debate"
as:
"9-11 was an act committed by Muslim extremists" is to "Current military operations in Iraq"
Posted by: bud | Jun 19, 2007 12:06:05 PM
So you're saying you agree with this guy, bud? Well, that's disappointing...
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jun 19, 2007 12:37:39 PM
The war wasn’t about slavery and freedom. It was about big government and small government. The north wanted big government, the South wanted small government. Please reread your history.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 19, 2007 5:26:30 PM
Wow. Revisionism doesn't even begin to describe Steve's delusions.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Jun 19, 2007 5:40:23 PM
Well, let's see here now...
"The south seceeded to preserve slavery"...?
Was slavery in fact under some serious attacks? Did the Federal Govt try to eliminate slavery?
No.
In fact, the Corwin Amendment, already ratified by a few northern states proposed slavery forever.
Had the lower tier of Cotton States remained in the Union, I am sure they too, would have ratified said amendment (13th Amendment), if it were really truly totally 100% about slavery and nothing else.
But it wasn't. Not until 2 years into the conflict.
The upper tier of Cotton States left to protect the lower, after Lincoln called for 75,000 more invaders, not "to preserve slavery"
Yes, Mr Warthen. Yankee ships with US Flags brought slaves here from Africa to northern ports. Slavery was here in America for about 230 years give or take. It was enshrined into our culture, our laws allowed it to flourish, and it was NOT the reason for the WBTS.
The CBF at the SC Confederate Soldiers Monument is simply a war memorial.
Posted by: Billy Bearden | Jun 19, 2007 7:17:49 PM
Billy, have you read South Carolina's official causes of secession? You might want to peruse that document and get back to me.
As for the Corwin Amendment -- as my link above testifies, Lincoln himself endorsed it, in his effort to keep the Union together. But Southerners did not swallow it. Nor should they have, given their priorities. He WAS the abolitionists' candidate. Just as everyone knew what the war was about -- particularly if they read the causes.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jun 19, 2007 9:44:38 PM
I am aware of what quite a few of the states' Declarations of Secession read. I will go over the SC version as you suggest again. History is fun and fascinating.
However, the reasons they left and the reason Lincoln attacked were 2 different beasts.
There was nearly what - 2 months of peace after the 7 formed the CSA? Then Lincoln sent a ship to resupply Ft Sumter - an act of aggression and war, forcing the SC Cadets to play thier hand.
Mr Warthen, I would agree with you, if you could just provide the written or spoken words of either the US Congress or of Prez Lincoln from circa April 1861 that says "We are declaring war on the Southern Confederacy because of slavery"
Posted by: Billy Bearden | Jun 20, 2007 5:09:13 AM
No matter what the ordinances of secession say for any of the Confederate states the issue ultimatly was big centralized government vs. Constitutionally protected states rights. Thanks to Lincolns war the states and the people thereof are now the servants of the government (citizen slaves)instead of the other way around - the way the founders intended.
In Mr Whartons (and most liberals) mythical interpretation of the Constitution we endure the Federal governments tyrinnical acts of gun control, tax funded abortion, private property seizures, GODless schools, un enforceable immigration laws, taxation without representation, insane and one sided hate crime punishments and a host of other laws, restrictions and encroachments on the rights reserved for the PEOPLE.
But thats all oky doky with the Wharton ilk because they have swallowed the "living document" thesis.
Please explain to me Mr. know it all why the most advanced, civilized and coveted Country on earth resorted to waging war and killing more than half a million men(not to mention the tens of thousands of Southern civillians murdered by the likes of Sherman and Sheridan)in order to abolish slavery when the rest of the world ended it peacefully.
If slavery was the only reason for the war explain to me why the South did not accept the Corwin amendment and stay in the Union. If slavery was the only reason for the war explain to me why Lincoln never mentioned it untill well after two years of bloodshed.If aboloshing slavery was the intention behind invading and subjugating the Southern states then why was slavery allowed to continue in the states loyal to the Union for the duration of the war.
"I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution then stay in the Union without it" Jeff Davis
Posted by: Rick Uhlig | Jun 20, 2007 7:15:18 AM
Brad must have gotten a new pair of boots this past weekend... because he's started kicking that dead horse again.
Posted by: Bill C. | Jun 20, 2007 7:47:11 AM
Slavery wasn't the only reason for the Civil War-- just the primary, overriding, and underlying cause for the southern states seceding and precipitating the war.
Economics also played an important role. The southern states were dependent on an agricultural economy-- which, in turn, was slavery-based.
It's a tribute to the willful blindness of a few nostalgic revisionists that you can attribute so many "ills" of the USA today to the triumph of the USA in 1865. Personally, I'll take the words of explanation approved by the SC Secession Convention in 1860 over the modern wishful white washing of a cause dedicated to keep fellow humans enslaved.
BTW, who is "Mr. Wharton?"
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Jun 20, 2007 8:51:15 AM
Ready To Hurl - You might want to check out the dates that the industrial revolution began... about the same time as the civil war began. Slavery would have died out naturally since slave owners would have realized it was cheaper to purchase and use machinery than to purchase and use slave labor. Slaves would have been about as useful as a mule or draft horse.
It's bleeding-heart people like you and "Mr.Wharton" who keep this alive more so than the defenders of the Confederate flag, I guess people like the two of you don't have much else going on in your life other than to complain and hope people listen.
Posted by: Bill C. | Jun 20, 2007 9:38:05 AM
Yep, I'm a "bleeding heart" because I think that owning people and appropriating the results of their labor is immoral.
Since you obviously think that slavery is just another unremarkable economic feature of 19th Century capitalism-- like mules or draft horses or child labor-- what does that make you?
What exactly makes you think that slavery couldn't have been adapted to factory labor as well as producing rice, cotton or indigo?
I complain when people like yourself try to make-up history to suit their biases and pet causes. Otherwise some ignorant reader might actually take you seriously.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Jun 20, 2007 10:44:12 AM
Well let's just say at the time of slavery in this country (1600's to 1865), slavery was not illegal. Whether or not it was immoral is irrelevant, some people think drinking alcohol or smoking is immoral, it was legal at the time just like livestock ownership is legal today. Slaves were brought to this country by ships flying the US flag, slave were sold and bought by US citizens from the poor dirt farmer to freed slave (yes blacks also owned slaves) to US presidents up and down the east coast. Yet you try to get people to believe that it was just a "white southern thing" and that the northern states weren't participants.
I guess you think that the industrial revolution just meant farming. Why would slavery have been adapted to factory labor (which it wasn't)? The majority of the industrial revolution was the modernization of factories to replace workers with machines.
You say I'm trying to "make-up history to suit their biases and pet causes". The same thing could be said about ignorant people on the other side (such as yourself) who think they need to re-write history to suit their biases and pet causes. You'd rather sugar coat history than view it as it really was.
RTH - Do you buy anything made in China? Much of their labor force is made up of "slave labor" as you would label it. Do you buy fruits and vegetables in the supermarket? Would hiring illegal aliens and paying them sub-minimum wages with no benefits and house them in shacks on your property constitute slave labor in your mind? You better start planting a garden, raising your own livestock, sewing your own clothes and providing your own entertainment if you're not going to purchase items produced by "slave labor". Because "slave labor" in your sense of the term is not dead by any means... it's just a sugar-coated version.
Posted by: Bill C. | Jun 20, 2007 1:23:30 PM
Every time I see the Confederate flag flying above a mobile home I wince, yet the thought of seeing the Confederate flag on State House grounds doesn't bother me at all.
What strikes me as a racist statement in one context impresses me only as a historical reference in the other.
Why so many people think it's such an important issue, especially when the presence of that flag in its current position at the State House represents a compromise between yeas and the nays, I can't understand.
But one part of the overall argument does come to me crystal clear.
The NCAA's position on the flag just brings up states' rights again.
And somehow, the issue of same-sex marriage is easier for people to stomach as a states' rights issue than a piece of red cloth with a blue X and white stars on it.
What a weird species humans are.
Posted by: Weldon VII | Jun 20, 2007 1:26:37 PM
Every time I see the Confederate flag flying above a mobile home I wince, yet the thought of seeing the Confederate flag on State House grounds doesn't bother me at all.
What strikes me as a racist statement in one context impresses me only as a historical reference in the other.
Why so many people think it's such an important issue, especially when the presence of that flag in its current position at the State House represents a compromise between yeas and the nays, I can't understand.
But one part of the overall argument does come to me crystal clear.
The NCAA's position on the flag just brings up states' rights again.
And somehow, the issue of same-sex marriage is easier for people to stomach as a states' rights issue than a piece of red cloth with a blue X and white stars on it.
What a weird species humans are.
Posted by: Weldon VII | Jun 20, 2007 1:26:38 PM
Once again, Michael Rodgers, we see what a long long way you still have to go in Columbia, South Carolina.
If the Confederacy favored small government and government by the the people, for the people, how do we get to the current paradox where the the flying Confederate Flag at the Peoples' State House represents oppression to a significant percentage of the citizens of the state?
On a related tangent, the continuing tone of the dialog confirms my inference that the Confederate Flag is now uniquely symbolic of perceived oppression by Both its proponents and its opponents.
Posted by: JH MacDonald | Jun 21, 2007 9:59:23 AM
All,
Some people love the Confederate flag and others ... not so much. Let's discuss the Confederate Memorial, which is wonderful except for one thing.
See, the RELEVANT TOPIC FOR DEBATE is, as Billy Beardon stated, "The CBF at the SC Confederate Soldiers Monument is simply a war memorial." The statement is not correct, not because of any symbolism about the flag and not because of any analysis of history. The statement is not correct because the flag is FLYING from a FLAGPOLE on the STATEHOUSE grounds.
Flying the Confederate flag from a flagpole on the Statehouse grounds is wildly inappropriate, to say the least. To say more, I submit that flying the Confederate flag from a flagpole on the Statehouse grounds is A HORRIBLE WAY to memorialize the ENORMOUS SACRIFICE of the Confederate soldiers and their families. Flying the flag says that they DIED IN VAIN because we MOURN FOR WHAT THEY FAILED TO ACHIEVE. SC is still an important state in the US, isn't it?
I think that the Confederate soldiers and their families achieved a lot. We are a more unified nation where, as the historian Shelby Foote said, people say "The United States is ...." instead of "The United States are ...." We debate State's rights, and we stay true to the US Constitution. Also, we now have the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th-15th amendments, and many other things that make our republican democracy great.
Let's get together and get our elected leaders to take the Confederate flag off the flagpole on the Statehouse grounds. We should get it displayed in the State Museum -- doing so will be a great achievement so that everyone can see and remember the historical importance of the flag and the enormous sacrifice of the people who carried it in battle.
Regards,
Michael Rodgers
Columbia, SC
Posted by: Michael Rodgers | Jun 21, 2007 9:06:34 PM
People say this issue (the FLYING flag issue) is a dead horse we keep beating. Really? Who FLIES the flag every day from the STATEHOUSE grounds? Our SC legislature, that's who. So every new day, they are doing something wrong that also offends many citizens they represent and offends many people and governments that us citizens want to do business with. Oh, it's not important, you say, it's just a FLYING FLAG on the STATEHOUSE GROUNDS. In effect you say, "Hey, I just ignore it and go about my life, and we should all just ignore it, except when we remembering our heritage ... well, my heritage. Anyway, you and everyone else should just shut up, because there are more important issues like the definition of the word 'marriage'!"
Let me tell you how important this issue is, by way of an analogy. See, in the area governed by Palestinians, an election was held and Hamas won. Think, is there any amount of good deeds that Hamas can do that will get the world community to support them? No? Why not? Because their charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Hamas says, to the effect, "Oh, let's ignore that for now, it's not important, it's just a few words in our charter, let's just ignore those words because we're really good at all these great things we're doing. We won't retract those words, but we're too busy right now doing humanitarian governance, so you should just ignore those words and give us lots of money, because we have the power we got through the ballot box (and with some gunfire and ....)."
So, is the international community wrong to treat Hamas with disdain? Should we in SC be surprised when nobody wants to deal with us and when all of us citizens spend all our time in shame, stuck in the shadow of the FLYING Confederate flag.
It is incredibly difficult to ignore and to move past DEFINING issues. Words WRITTEN in a charter and flags FLYING from the Statehouse grounds are DEFINING issues. Sometimes these DEFINING issues CAN be ignored. For example, Atlanta was known, and proudly called itself, the "city too busy to hate" -- meaning that the most important color was the green of the money, not the hue of anyone's skin. I submit that we should deal with the FLYING flag issue sooner rather than later. When we truly move past this issue, by getting the flag down from the flagpole on the Statehouse grounds (from where it is FLYING), we can honor the Confederate soldiers and their families, and we can learn from history.
Regards,
Michael Rodgers
Columbia, SC
Posted by: Michael Rodgers | Jun 21, 2007 9:41:30 PM
Y'all
The same things the enemies of the FLYING Flag say now about the SC CBF, they said in Mississippi. Mississippi had a flag vote, it won by 2/3rds, and the enemies were proven wrong. They said the same about the old 1956 Georgia flag - "bad for business, oppression, etc..." Georgia caved and changed the flag. Under the changed flag (Barnes 2001) many huge multi national corporations left Georgia. Mercedes Benz refused to build in Georgia. Schools dropped from 49th to 50th, the economy tanked, and life sucked. The appeasers were 3/4ths removed from office and the Ga Democratic Party self imploded for the next 7 generations. Once again the enemies were totally wrong, but politicians eat that bovine excrement up like it was chocolate cake. Now they sing that same old tired song in SC.
Posted by: Billy Bearden | Jun 21, 2007 10:10:30 PM
To all concerned,
Let it be known, I will continue to fly the Confederate Flag on my car door window, on the clothing I wear and anyplace else I can think of. I wear it and display it unhesitatingly in ALL PLACES without regard for my personal safety. I have been threatened by enemies and warned by faint-hearted friends, but, I will not be dissuaded. I will not be ridiculed or lectured to by individuals who can't keep their pants pulled up or whose piercings would activate every metal detector in the airport. I find this approach to be an effective method for rallying support from people who are too afraid to act on their own. I encourage everyone with similar sentiments to be as brazen as their stomach will permit. It is apathy and cowardice that has allowed our adversaries to gain so much ground. Appeasement will only serve to produce more demands from our detractors. In spite of what Michael Rodgers says he would like to accomplish, there are many others who will not stop until there is no longer any remnant of the Confederacy. I suggest, if the attempts to remove the Battle Flag from the Courthouse grounds are successful, patriotic Southerners should pitch in together to purchase a prominent plot of land in the most conspicuous place in the center of town or along the freeway and erect the tallest flagpole permissable with the largest Battle Flag possible and hoist it high over Columbia. It will then be protected by laws governing private property and therefore beyond the reach of Brad and his cronies.
Stand up and be recognized today or be relegated to the shadows tomorrow.
Posted by: Cowtown Rebel | Jun 22, 2007 2:34:34 AM
Cowtown Rebel,
I will be happy to make a donation to your land purchase plan, and I will be happy to have lunch or dinner with you at Maurice's BBQ -- might I suggest the one across from Sesquicentenial State Park? We can work together to get the flying flag from the public Statehouse property, where its flying is making an offensive and shameful mockery of the honorable Confederate soldiers, to private property, where its flying can be a statement of what you and the private owners want it to be. I will also work to get the flag displayed at the State Museum, so that visitors can see it and remember its importance. Thanks for all.
Regards,
Michael Rodgers
Columbia, SC
Posted by: Michael Rodgers | Jun 22, 2007 7:15:12 AM
Billy Bearden,
Ahh, power and economics, enemies and appeasers. Might makes right, and any attempts to do the right thing (moving the flying flag from the Statehouse grounds) will cause economic and political calamity for SC. Yes, yes, it's interesting, what you're saying.
OK, back to the issue: Should the SC legislature continue the STATEHOUSE FLYING OF THE CBF?
The STATEHOUSE FLYING OF THE CBF is supposed to encourage SC citizens to celebrate and to honor the Confederate soldiers. Does it get us to focus on history and sacrifice? No, it asks us to think about the following questions: Should I salute? Should I pledge allegiance? Is my state government not part of the US? When someone prominent dies, should we lower the flag to half mast? How can it be historical if it's flying? What's the ceremony? Where's the parade on Confederate Memorial Day? Why are the neo-Nazis the only ones parading? If the Confederate soldiers did not achieve the objective of the Confederacy, then did they die in vain?
Is the current situation what you want? You want no parades on Confederate Memorial Day? No fireworks? You want to feel threatened when you wear or otherwise display the CBF? You want the neo-Nazis to be the only ones actually celebrating the Confederate soldiers? You want everyone to shut up about the STATEHOUSE FLYING OF THE CBF? You want a large number of people to feel animosity instead of respect when they view the Confederate Memorial?
If SC would stop the STATEHOUSE FLYING OF THE CBF, we could all celebrate the Confederate Memorial, Confederate Memorial Day, and the enormous sacrifice of the Confederate soldiers and their families. I firmly and sincerely believe that more people would celebrate, remember, honor, and respect the Confederate soldiers and their families if SC would stop the STATEHOUSE FLYING OF THE CBF.
Regards,
Michael Rodgers
Columbia, SC
Posted by: Michael Rodgers | Jun 22, 2007 8:17:11 AM
There is some serious picking of nits going on here, light years away from mainstream thought. But what would you expect when the issue is merely a symbol, albeit an outmoded one?
Posted by: Weldon VII | Jun 22, 2007 9:49:58 PM
My dear Michael Rodgers,
With all due respect sir, you can't be naive enough to believe that if you take down the Confederate Battle Flag from the monument on the Courthouse grounds all of the controversy will subside. Are you going to honestly tell me that you believe once The Flag is taken down, everyone will celebrate the Confederacy and that there will once again be parades and fireworks on Confederate Memorial Day. I don't know who you claim to represent, but, it must be a very confused group of people. I don't say that to be offensive, but, I don't think you have as firm a grasp on this issue as you seem to believe you do.
I would be delighted to converse with you over a BBQ feast, however, distance and a lack of financial wherewithall prevent me from accepting that invitation.
Posted by: Cowtown Rebel | Jun 23, 2007 2:48:37 AM
