Some things to keep in mind. St. Pius IX condemned the recruitment of Irish by the US in Ireland. He received the Confederate ambassador. He with his own hands wove a crown of thorns for Jefferson Davis during the latter's imprisonment at Fort Monroe. During the conflict liberal opinion in Europe was overwhelming for the Confederacy. The heads of state who supported the Union were generally autocrats. Marx favored the Union side. Many of those who fought the Revolution of 48 came here and fought for the Union. Contrary to what is the opinion of many, the Confederate Flag is not comparable to the Swastika. If you acutally want to know the facts, Hitler spoke admirily of Lincoln in Mien Kampf. I'm reporting this second hand. I've no interest in reading that book. The Confederate Flag represented then and now; states rights, localism, free trade, free markets and tradition. None of which were exactly part of the facist agenda. The confict had many causes; tariffs, internal improvements, access to the new territories, cultural and religious differences and yes to a certain extent slavery. Very few people know that the South paid 75% of the taxes, of which very little was returned to the South. Even less people seem to know that the 13th Amendment as originally proposed would have increased the protection of slavery. This was passed by the Northern controlled Congress after most of the Southern states had left. Lincoln supported the amendment. Lincoln himself repeatedly said that the war was to preserve the Union and not to free the slaves. The WBTS was no more over slavery than the Revolutionary War was over slavery.
As to some black people being offended. I'm sorry but it is no less wrong to be overly sensitive as it is to be insensitive. Is it any less wrong for some black people to subscribe to certain stereotypes and prejudices against those who fly the Confederate Flag than it is for white people to subscribe to sterotypes and prejudices against black people?
I'm a Catholic. I'm a Southerner. I will always love the Confederate Flag. Nothing will EVER change that. If the decision is forced upon me to chose between the Confederate Flag or the US Flag. I would chose the Confederate Flag.
Thanks, Harold. Finally, we got a pro-Confederate flag perspective from a Southerner.
I was gonna mention the story about Pope Pius IX, which I had heard.
Also, it is worth nothing that the North has little basis for thinking it was so morally superior vis-a-vis slavery in the 50 years before the war, since it adhered to the fugitive slave law, whereby slaves who had escaped and gone north had to be returned to their owners. Thoreau thundered against the moral outrageousness of that.
Furthermore, I'm not aware of any pre-war huge boycott against Southern cotton, used in clothing. If Northerners were buying those clothes, they were supporting the institution of slavery.
In large part, the Northern adoption of slavery as a "righteous cause" in the war was because the Northern economy didn't depend on it, so there was little self-sacrifice involved. But subsequent history does not support the notion that Northerners were any less soaked with racism than Southerners.
An argument might actually be made that the reverse is true. Martin Luther King had a hell of a time marching in Chicago (in 1966 or 1967) and was amazed by the viciousness shown there. In my own hometown, Detroit, there were race riots in 1943, 1967, etc.
The city used to have 2 million people. Now it has less than a million, because after the Riots of 1967, hundreds of thousands of whites moved to the suburbs rather than live side-by-side with black people. Granted, there were some legitimate safety and crime concerns also, especially after a riot, and there are many crime-ridden sections of Detroit, in both white and black neighborhoods (though it isn't as bad as the bad press about Detroit would have it), but there was also indisputably a racist reason as well for many people.
Metro Detroit is said to be one of the most highly-segregated regions in the country. Segregation as the South's big sin in the 20th century? Well, it ain't legal anymore, but it sure exists in practice, voluntarily, way up here in the good ole North.
My point in this has been to say that Southerners are in all likelihood no worse than those in other parts of the country, regarding racism. And they are a lot more progressive when it comes to the protection of the smallest and most innocent among us: the preborn child.
Nor do I think that the Confederate flag must necessarily or primarily stand for racism in the minds of those who love it (witness Harold above).
Some additional reading. If posting a link is against the rules, my apologies.
http://www.catholicism.org/catho...cism-
south.html
Not at all; feel free.
Some fascinating tidbits from the above article:
* * *
Outside the South, few today know that Gen. Robert E. Lee freed his slaves before the War Between the States broke out. Even fewer know that Julia Grant, wife of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, still owned three slaves at the end of the war. Two of them were rented out. The third, a female also named Julia, was kept by Mrs. Grant as a maid. When Richmond fell and the war was effectively over, Mrs. Grant traveled down there from Washington, D.C., to visit her husband. She took Julia with her. Thus, at that moment, the only slave in the former Confederate capital who was not freed belonged to the wife of the commanding general of the Union forces!
* * *
The song Dixie, virtually the national anthem of the South, was written by a Catholic, Dan Emmet. [and he was a Northerner, I have heard]
Well, I heard Mister Young sing about her
Well, I heard ole Neil put her down.
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
a southern man don't need him around anyhow.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Christopher, LOL!
I live in NY. Believe me there is racism here & no confegerate flags.
From the above article:
"• The English were responsible for most of the slave traffic into North America, but not all. This was illustrated in the recent hit movie, Amistad. What the movie did not show was that the leader of the slave uprising, Cinque, went back to Africa and himself became a big-time slave-trader. (The misrepresentation of historical reality never stops.)"
From Wikipedia:
"Cinqué and the other Africans reached their homeland in 1842. Once Cinqué returned, he was faced with civil war. His family and village no longer existed. Ostensibly, his family were killed or displaced by civil strife and war. He and his company maintained contact with the local mission for a while, but he eventually left to trade along the coast. Little is known of his later life, but rumors began circulating that he had become a merchant, chief or even a slave trader, [1] but no documented evidence supports this. The latter charge derives from apocryphal oral accounts from Africa and the 20th century author William A. Owens' claim that he had seen letters from AMA missionaries suggesting Cinqué was a slave trader, as well as oral accounts from Africa. Most historians consider the suggestion speculative at best. A dying Cinqué is supposed to have returned to the mission in 1879, where he requested and received a proper Christian burial."
Who is misrepresenting history here?
Can't open your site with IE from multiple computers. sceen freezes with hourglass. posting this from Treo. not able to continue Flag comments. Most important point: racism does not equal slavery. Good peoplle supported Confed and bad people the Union but syllogism stands. Europe did not go to war for the Jews but Nazis still Nazis. Confed rich from slavery.
Revolution not same as War between states. Revol colonies had no vot
martin | 08.30.06 - 1:00 am | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Now its working better
If one wants to make comparisons to WWII.
The "Confederate" Dixie Flag is more like the German Iron Cross which was the symbol of the German Army & rather then the Swastika(the symbol of the Nazi Party).
The WBTS and the Revolutionary War were more alike than you might think. Yes the South had representation, but she was in the minority position and her representation was lessening. What good is a vote, if a majority is intent on exploiting you. One of the first acts that the Northern controlled Congress passed was a doubling of the tariffs. Just as their should be no taxation without representation, nor should their be any representation without taxation. Or to rephrase if those who wield the powers of government are not also those who are burdened by government, governement will know no constraint.
still Treo-ing
...and the german army fought on which side?
Arguments of poor represnt doesn't equal no represent but will concede point. Will try to argue unjust war started by Confed and Slavery interagal to Confed not incidental.
....and since the war the battleflag became synonamus with instutionalisd racism, apartid, in south. different from simple racism elseshere.....sorry, can't spell worth a darn.
Ok, Firefox works but I have to also. Probably last post for the day.
If I understand Harold’s position: The Confederacy was an oppressed minority forced to fight an unjust oppressor for their rights to self rule. Cruelly abused by oppressive taxes and harsh laws they were, overall, a just society with slavery being incidental to the WBTS (thanks for the acronym).
I would argue that they were perhaps maltreated and perhaps not in the best of positions but they were infact represented in a democratic government and had a venue for changing their lives. The heinous war they started was avoidable and thus an unjust war. Also I would argue that unlike the Northern states where slavery was incidental to society not integral as in the South were slavery was a necessity and thus the societal equivenat of a mortal sin.
I would also argue that, having lost the war, the southern states proceeded to formalize the prior slavery into the society in the “separate but equal” Apartheid rules that later, again, forced the Federal government to forcibility intervene. This is gravely more serious than the active racism that ruled society in the rest of the United States.
The Confederate battle flag though could be construed as a symbol of peoples rights fighting an oppressive government (and that is how most whites in the south would describe it) but is simply tied too tightly to the racism and slavery of the day to be casually used. Its history is tied to the WBTS and the failed government, not like the Iron Cross to a long venerable history of bravery, but, like the Swastika, to a society that should not be emulated.
Dave: Little help here; at a glance would you say the Confederacy had a chance at declaring a just war? Keep in mind if you say yes then I would ask if, as an oppressed Catholic, subjected to taxes that support an unjust war in Iraq, an unjust war on the unborn and, with the lawyers salivating at suing the Church up and down for the money, a government that seeks to take my rights to FREEDOM OF RELIGION (big enough caps for you)….could our Catholic society band together and declare a just war on the US? (Ok run on sentence but I’m no author).
Lastly, a minor point. If I searched the net for sites waving the Battleflag how many would eschew racism (the first step towards slavery)?
What’s eschew? Nothing much, what’s eschew with you? (couldn’t resist)
BTW: Harold, if we ever meet I owe you an RC cola and moonpie for implying you’re a racist. (for non southerners this would be the equivent of wine and brie)
"Lillybell, I've seen your black man hanging round,
swear by God, I'm gonna cut him down!"
How long?
Hi Martin,
>Dave: Little help here; at a glance would you say the Confederacy had a chance at declaring a just war?
I think in many respects, BUT for slavery. That is always the bug in the ointment. I agree with Gen. Longstreet, who said (paraphrase): "we should have freed the slaves and then seceded."
>Keep in mind if you say yes then I would ask if, as an oppressed Catholic, subjected to taxes that support an unjust war in Iraq, an unjust war on the unborn and, with the lawyers salivating at suing the Church up and down for the money, a government that seeks to take my rights to FREEDOM OF RELIGION (big enough caps for you)….could our Catholic society band together and declare a just war on the US? (Ok run on sentence but I’m no author).
It wouldn't be inconceivable to me (not including the Iraqi War, which is not "unjust"), but don't ask me how to explain how this would work out in practice!
>Lastly, a minor point. If I searched the net for sites waving the Battleflag how many would eschew racism (the first step towards slavery)?
I have no idea. That is the sort of "sociological data" that I am curious about finding out. If indeed the symbol is almost inevitably associated with racism at every turn, then I think your case would be persuasive and we must renounce this flag.
In any event, I don't see how the American flag can escape similar censure, seeing the sorts of things that it also represents. If the Confederate flag should be disallowed, so should the American, on far more compelling grounds (50 million abortions is a sin almost infinitely more grave than institutionalized slavery).
After all, the American flag flew over the 100 years of Jim Crow and segregation. You could say it was all the South's fault, but the federal government winked at it, and we still had a segregated military and professional sports establishment in the 1940s. Can't blame the South for all that. Nor can we blame the South for the internment of Japanese in California during WWII.
David one last word on this. You write:
So you are maintaining that the Confederacy (or for that matter the South for the last 140 years) had no redeeming qualities to it whatsoever? That the whole effort in 1861-1865 on their part was sheer evil, akin to Naziism? Is that your position, Stephen
No. See my analogy to the Nazi flag again in the context of those who deny a Holocaust even took place. There are too many other referential meanings in the Confederate flag apart from states rights (I listed some) which alone would make it in my opinion a sin against charity to hoist it, especially on public property.
In sum: A sign points to an object, Dave. But a symbol partcipates in the object or reality to which it points. For that reason I consider the Confederate flag odious, whatever positive referential meanings might be asserted by some (all slaveowners have some good points, like Jefferson). As soon as my sisters and brothers in Christ ( Protestants are baptized we will not forget) tell me how much of their tragic heritage (even ranging unto slavery) is symbolized and re-lived in that flag, I have a moral duty out of charity for brethren to weigh that.
With our Jewish friends, they do not share our faith so it different religions, not the abuse and gross distortion of shared values as with the Confederate flag. I do not wear the Star of David---OR spit on it. I respect it. I was not enslaved by it or in its name. No one i know was lynched for it. Apples and oranges then. We see the cross as an invitation to them as for all as it was for my Druid ancestors. They see it as something alien, even apart from cutural clashes which later figured into it and transvalued it in their eyes.
So it seems to me.
Forgot the last paragraph: The Jews were hurt at times (pogroms) not by the Cross but by its defilement by bad men (count clerics in that to the extent they were involved) who knew not what they did. But theSwastika is a defilement of the cross (there are others too) which we DO have an obligation to utterly reject , even spit on. So it depends on the context of the cross.
Shawn and Greg, beliving against the faith of the Church that civilians can be targeted, are Catholics in the same sense as Mussolini or someone like that was. I am not speaking juridically here, but only spiritually.
If I go out and murder a man without remorse I am still a Catholic, if you like. But good luck to me.
Shawn and Greg, believing against the faith of the Church that civilians can be targeted with nuclear weapons, are Catholics in the same sense as Mussolini or someone like that was. I am not speaking juridically here, but only spiritually.
If I go out and murder a man without remorse I am still a Catholic, if you like. But good luck to me.
A Catholic with a baptismal certificate in his pocate can serve antichrist, satan and evil in advocating against the church that whole civilian populations may be murdered with impunity by dropping nuclear weapons (or even big rocks from the sky, etc) on them.
Er, that's "pocket"
I think you have answered well. I'm still mulling this over and quite willing to be persuaded to your position. I would like to see a robust Southern defense of flying the Confederate flag. This issue, like all issues, has two sides, and I don't think I've really heard the full extent of the Southern pro-flag argument. No doubt there is stuff out there on the Internet.
But here is one counter-question: if a black person is terrorized by the mere sight of the Confederate flag, why would he or she not be equally terrified by an American flag, which flew over slavery for 89 years and over Jim Crow and segregation for the next hundred, just as a black South African might not feel all that warm all over in seeing the flag of that country?
Would you ban the American flag on the same grounds? Or if blacks are not having that reaction, why? It's not like Southerners were their only enemies all these years. It was the whole American system until, really, only the last 60 years or so (I would date the big change from Jackie Robinson and/or the integration of the military, leading up to the Civil Rights and Voting Acts in 1964-65).
The Confederate Flag is still used today by neo-nazi groups, skinheads, white seperatists, etc. Not everyone in these groups (surprise) is as well educated or as interested in finding out the truth as the people reading this. For them it does represent what many blacks in America believe it represents - racism.
Sorry- need to finish.
The reason it terrifies blacks is because they KNOW the hate groups use it. It is on their literature, in their yards, their children salute it before the American flag. This is not history, it is today!
The KKK uses the cross, too, though. Every cult appeals to the Bible. Symbols (and the Bible) will always be abused. The question becomes: how do we determine that the degree of abuse has become so great that no use at all of the symbol would be prudent or charitable (seeing as it is so abused)?
I grant that there is a lot of evidence of such use in the present case; it is the degree that I am trying to determine.
Certainly, again, the American flag is used by wacko groups (esp. on the far right) to cover themselves with, too.
In sum: A sign points to an object, Dave. But a symbol partcipates in the object or reality to which it points. For that reason I consider the Confederate flag odious, whatever positive referential meanings might be asserted by some (all slaveowners have some good points, like Jefferson).
Your metaphysical point is self-defeating. The reason that a sign can participatie in reality is that there is an ontological reality in which to participate, while evil is simply a no-thing, a parasite on other existence. By your own argument, there can never be an objective symbol of evil (which is entirely true, nothing created can entirely annihilate the suggestion of God).
The amount of respect we give to fallen things is accordingly a matter of prudential judgment, and I find your judgment on the subject dubious. For example, you suggest that respect for the flag is "near idolatrous," which displays a profound ignorance to the Biblically and Traditionally endorse teaching that sovereigns are established by God and that they accomplish great good in serving this purpose. By choosing to focus on whatever quirky bad acts happen to catch your attention in completel disregard of the good these sovereigns accomplish, you contradict the witness of the Catholic faith. Right respetc for the sovereign is no different than veneration of the saints or icons, because it reflects a holy respect for God's action and purpose in ordering governments. Yes, governments do bad things, and we must never shirk our responsibility to crrect them, but to take this Calvinist line that governments accomplishing serious and significant good can simply be disrespected is absurd.
The Biblical witness on this subject is ample, to say nothing of Tradition. Your own quriky ideas of what stand out in your mind about the government are hardly just cause for treating it as if it is "totally depraved," as if the nature of the inherent goodness of sovereign government is vitiated by particular bad acts. Moreover, you have a greater obligation in this regard to your own local sovereign.
In that respect, anyone who says thst the Confederate government's actions were so serious that there was no significant good that it was defending, particulatly as compared to Nazi Germany, doesn't have his head screwed on straight. The defense of slaveryand racism was unquestionabley evil. The defense of the concept of local sovereignty, particularly in the enactment of Christian values, was noble. The appearance of St. Andrew's cross on the battle flag is no coincidence in that regard; it does have symbolic value.
Moreover, geven with regard to racism,, one can't help but wonder whether having lived with a large number of blacks in the South hasn't made the recent Southern generations significantly less racist than areas like New England, where I heard natives sling around racist slurs far more commonly than I ever did in Texas or Louisiana.
RE: American Flag. . .Same issue as Confederate Flag.
In defense of the American flag, it could be said that while yes, the American flag flew (and flies) over much injustice, the American Flag also represents a country that changed its mind on slavery and abolished it (ditto: jim crow, separate but equal etc.) I don't think you can make a convincing argument that had the South been allowed to secede that slavery would not have conintued under the confederate flag.
Indeed America is not perfect, and the Flag flies over much injustice, but I don't think you will find pro-abortionists placing American Flag decals on their car with the intent of making their "pro-choice" ideas known. When I see a flag, I don't axiomatically think of pro-abortion crusaders.
However, when many (not all) see the confederate flag they are reminded first and foremost of the "old South", and the evils of slavery.
While a purely logical view of the situation would argue that this should not be automatic, for many, many people it is.
For some, this is the intended reaction when they display this flag (of course, not all).
What part of the country are you from, Layne (just for the record)?
Dave,
I am opposed to the flying of the Confederate flag on *government property*; not so much because I think it is racist (I think this is contingent upon motive -- the American flag is still the official flag of the Klu Klux Klan, as far as I'm aware. Doesn't make the Stars and Stripes 'racist.'), but because it is the flag symbolizing an uprising against the very nation the southern states belong to. This would be akin to southwestern states flying the Mexican flag on *government* property because the southwestern portion of the United States once belonged to Mexico. Sure, the confederate flag may be part of southern heritage, but then again, many Hispanics, particularly those of Mexican descent (such as myself), claim the Mexican flag as part of theirs. And I can JUST imagine the uproar conservatives would have if California, Arizona, et al, started flying Mexican flags on government property. . . (and I would be opposed to this, too [this, of course, bars certain circumstances]) "TREASON! RECONQUISTA!!" You get the picture. 
As to the American flag symbolizing the genocide against American Indians, and the enslavement of blacks in colonial and post-colonial America: this is very true. But the American flag symbolizes much more: it symbolizes a nation, its history, its people. And these people aren't all racist, white, slave-owning men. It is as much the flag of the racist Thomas Jefferson as it is the flag of the black patriot who fought for the independence of this nation. It is as much symbolic of the racism on which we were founded as the progress we've made in atoning for our founding sins. It is as much emblematic of the segregation of colored school children from whites as it is of the American brotherhood that now bonds white and black American school children. It is as much the flag of the racist Abraham Lincoln as it is the flag of William Harvey Carney, the black Union soldier who almost gave his before letting the red, white, and blue of his country be tainted by the blood-stained soil on which he was fighting to ensure that our nation remained one, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Confederate flag, on the other hand, represents a past that no longer lives, an entity that was defeated by the nation it pursued aggressions against. Whether one recognizes the validity of the secession or not, the south lost, and it has no right to fly its emblem on GOVERNMENT property.
Very eloquent; thanks. But how about private property? 
I take it that those who oppose flying it don't want to see it anywhere except under a car or rock or sumpin' . . .
People who sympathize with the Confederate cause and/or flag need to carefully consider whether their opinions can be reconciled with any adult understanding of Christianity.
A central precept of Christianity is "Do not do evil, even if good may arise from it." In the case of the CSA, precious little good was likely to arise from the great evils of the South. The continent would've been newly colonized by Europe in time, as the divided US/CSA wouldn't have been able to defend themselves. And of course slavery would have been enshrined permanently in at least part of the former US. Lincoln feared, and he may not have been wrong, that eventually even poor whites would be enslaved.
The rise of the Confederacy had nothing to do with "local sovreignty" as one commenter said above. As part of the US, the South was subject to federal taxes in the same respect as other states. The Supreme Court later ruled that succession was unconstitutional.
For the people who love oppression-consider the Emmett Till case. he was a 14 year old black boy killed in Mississippi in 1955 by people who thought the Confederate flag was the bomb.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/till/
People have the right to fly the Confederate on their private property. However there's a good chance others will think they are racist. (I see a lot of this in Oklahoma) I know I wouldn't take a chance and knock on their door asking for donations to the NAACP!
Edgar - Did you see where a group in Maywood CA flew the Mexican flag on the flag pole at a US Post Office this weekend? (in protest to a protest I think)
>>Edgar - Did you see where a group in Maywood CA flew the Mexican flag on the flag pole at a US Post Office this weekend?
Dave, yes, on private property, you have a right to fly whatever you please. A man's home is his castle. . .
Jacinda, no, I didn't see the group, but if I had been present, I would have climbed up the poll and taken the flag down myself. But just curious: have you heard of similar incidents regarding the Confederate flag, where high school students in the south have taken down the American flag and replaced it with the Stars and Bars?
I think both sides lack consistency, logic, and above all, legitimacy. The conservatives take the same attitude towards the Confederate flag that liberals take towards the Mexican flag: it's okay to fly one, but not the other. I think both have their place in homes, parades, cultural events, etc, but NOT on government property.
To me the Confederate flag symbolizes a lost, pitiful cause. And I see no purpose in flying it other than to honor men who died in a vain attempt to abolish our nation. I don't care if blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Indians, among others, fought for it as well (and they did, much to the dismay of many neo-Confederate racists). The South had no legitimate reason to secede from the Union. The comparisons to the American revolution are ridiculous. The colonies were not England; they were distinct, separated from the British Crown by a vast expanse of sea. There was no unified country; it was an empire.
>>Lincoln himself repeatedly said that the war was to preserve the Union and not to free the slaves. The WBTS was no more over slavery than the Revolutionary War was over slavery.
Edgar
I have seenthat (students putting up the Confederate flag). I agree about the lost pitiful cause bit. Why would you want to remind people you (or ancestors) were on the loosing side of a war. Especially in the country that won!
I was born in raised in Virginia. Some people think VA isn't deep enough South to be Southern which is funny considering the majority of battles were fought there and if I'm not mistaken most of the Southern casualties were from Virginia.
Anywhoo, growning up in public schools in Virginia we had LOTS of civil war teaching in school, fieldtrips not only to battlefields, but also to places like Harper's Ferry where abolitionists attempted an insurrection. We were also educated unambiguously agaisnt racism and saying the "N-word" would get you into a heap of trouble, (Of course we would say it out of earshot of authorities not out of racist motivation, but because it was forbidden, you know how it is with kids and prohibitions).
As I got older I would display confederate flags here and there because I identified myself as someone from the South, wanted to show that identity because I was proud of where I came from.
Now I would not fly the stars-and-bars. Your point about the US flag is right on. It is an irrational prejudice against the confederate flag, but a prejudice it is, and out of a desire not to stir up that prejudice, I won't fly it.
But I'm still trying to find out from Southerners:
1. If we took a poll of Southerners and asked how many think the Confed. flag is almost purely a symbol of racism (in and of oitself, and in practice; how it is used), what would the results be?
I'm trying to get an idea of the demographics on this. How many Southerners, on the other hand, would vehemently deny that it is a symbol for racism? In other words, is it a bum rap, and a minority who abuse it for those purposes?
I think that would be the determining factor for me in how I would come down in my opinion (which is slightly in favor at the moment but with suspended judgment). But no one seems able or willing to answer my question.
Why does it matter, Dave? I say let them wave the Confederate flag all they want. I think we have more important things to worry about as a nation. . .
It matters because if something offends our brothers and sisters we ought not do it. One doesn't drink in front of an alcoholic. One doesn't go on and on about children in the presence of a person who is known to be sad that they don't have any. Etc.
What I'm trying to work through is whether the offense (which is great for many people, no doubt) outweighs whatever positive reasons proponents can give. That will be what determines the issue for me. So far I have nowhere near the amount of information I need in order to rationally draw any conclusions along those lines.
But I know for a fact that there are plenty of liberal bleeding-heart double standards and lots of prejudice against Southerners, which may very well color much thought on this topic (at least when expressed by liberal Northerners).
This (like everything I write about that is "social") is not simply a "legal matter", but about what is good and best for a society, and about the proper function of symbols like flags.
Sorry it took so long to respond, I have been busy.
I currently live in Oklahoma, outside Oklahoma City. I grew up in Kansas, but went to college in Texas.
Well there are the usual objections and arguments made. I'll try to address some.
1) Those who fought and supported the Condederacy were traitors. Well that is merely conclusion jumping. The underling question is whether the country was a federal union in which there was divided authority between the States and the Federal government or a national government? Now of course a nationalist would say that the Federal government is supreme in all things. In deed Lincoln, Webster, Story said that the Union preceded the States. Though how the whole can be older than its parts escapes me. But if the powers of government were divided and the States and Federal governments were supreme in their own spheres, then there could be causes for which an individual state or a group of states could secede. One of those causes which I have pointed out if the federal government (or more accurately a collection of interest controlling the federal government) were to use the powers of the federal government, taxation, for improper purposes then states could secede if there were no reasonable means to resist or correct the wrong within the Union. An honest examination of the facts will reveal to anyone that ours is a federal government. It was the States that won their independence from Great Britian. It was the States that form the Articles of Confederation. And it was the States that ratified the Constitution that brought the Federal government into existence. It did not even require that all the States ratify the Constitution, only nine would have done. After nine states ratified the US government came into existence. Those states that had not yet ratified the Constitution, were not part of the United States. With divided authority, loyalties were divided. There came a point in which one was either a "traitor" to the US or a "traitor" to your state. The Federal government being the instigator of a long line of abuses, they were released from their obligations to the Federal government. Thus they were not traitors. Just so you might know, my first loyalty is to North Carolina.
2) The South attempted to destroy the US. This one is similar to the first. The argument depends very much upon how one defines the United States. Is the United States much like other countries or is it alone among all countries throughout the entire globe and throughout all time. Now of course we may very well agree that without the South that the United States wouldn't be worth having. (Just a little humor.) But just to point out the obvious, that the United States very much continued to exist during the WBTS. There were no Southern Senators or Congressmen sitting in Congress. There were no tax revenues coming from the South. The United States quite continued to exist during this time. It was even a time of expansion. The CSA attempted to defeat the US Army and Navy. They did not attempt to conquer the United States. There were short lived military incursions into the North, but they were not accompanied by wide scale destruction or loss of civilian life. I believe that the Church has spoken against the heresy of American exceptionalism. The United States is not exempt from international law. The United States is a mortal creation. Though it has much wisdom, it does not have all wisdom. It is not the Church.
3) The Confederate Flag represents slavery, racisim, etc, etc ad naseum. Well it can't represent only racism. I love the Confederate Flag and I try very hard to not hate anyone, even when they insult me by calling me a racist. I know a great many people who fly the Confederate Flag and who aren't racist. Part of the problem is when people make unwarranted assumptions. People see the Confederate Flag and make an assumption based on sterotypes and prejudices. Then they interpret the actions of Confederate Flag flyers on thoses assumptions. When you look for something don't be surprised when you find it.
Harold, please: tell me a rough percentage, in your estimation, of Southerners who:
1) favor flying or displaying this flag
2) which percentage of #1 would you say do it for reasons other than racism?
3) And how many would you say do it for good and bad reasons both (as certainly there still are racists to be found everywhere)?
Just a rough estimate based on your observations, would be very helpful. But then I suppose someone could say that is only one state, so it is still not representative of overall Southern opinion.
4) Connected with the third is that the Confederate Flag offends people. This is very likely. Part of the problem is that there seems to be a mantra, "The Confederate Flag is racist". Once something is repeated enough, many people believe it. There is a legal maxim (I'm an attorney.). That those who seek equity must have clean hands. When you have people who have been spreading this notion that the Confederate Flag is racist producing people who are offended by the Flag as evidence the Flag is racist there is a problem. What would you think of someone who says that black people don't play basketball as well as white players (humor again) repeating this until people start to believe it. Then pointing to the "common knowledge" that black people don't play basketball as well as white players as proof that of the proposition. Is this particularly honest? What is the solution proposed that Southerners, white and black, who revere their ancestors are to cease flying the Confederate Flag and marking Confederate observances in order to not offend the sterotypes and prejudices of those who condemn the Confederate Flag.
A few years ago, there was a move to change the flag of Mississippi. The Mississippi flag has a Confederate flag canton. Well it went down in considerable defeat. The flag had substantial support among black Mississippians. Also the NAACP boycott of South Carolina for flying the Confederate Flag on the Capitol grounds is not popular among black South Carolinians. So perhaps you shouldn't jump to the conclusion that all black people are as prejudiced as one.
It is hard to estimate. If we are talking about all Confederate Flags, a good idea could be seen by the number of flags, decals, license plates, etc that you see on the roadway. Considering that there has been a considerable amount of immigration of Northerners into my area, probably about 20% of the vehicles you see have some sort of Confederate symbol. But then you have to consider what percentage don't fly them but don't due to pc, peer pressure, or simple fear. That is hard to know. I used to work for this firm, I had an SCV license plat on my truck. The SCV logo has a Confederate Flag in it. My boss let his thoughts be known that we didn't like it. He is from out west somewhere. I didn't remove it.
There is a survey put out by one of the schools at UNCCH in which they ask participates if they thought the South should have won the War. The usual number is a little less than 20%. So I would think that the number who merely revere their ancestor and wish to honor their memory would be multiples higher.
As to what percentage fly it for nonracist reasons, that is hard to say. But I have been active in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and racists jokes or comments simply aren't something that is tolerated. Now as to whether this is widespread, I simply can't say.
5) The WBTS is in no way similar to the Revolutionary War. Well the Confederates certainly thought differently. They saw themselves as fighting the same fight that their fathers fought. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a represented minority should not have to accept oppression merely because they are out voted. Again as in an earlier post, the South through the protective tariff was paying 75% of the taxes. Plus becasue of the tariff, they had to pay higher prices for goods. Then on top of that the revenues were spent on corporate welfare (internal improvements) in the North. Lincoln was a railroad lobbyist during his private life. The Colonies wanted to be free from British mercantilism, and the South wanted to be free from Northern mercantilism. This should not be a novel thought, but just government relies on the consent of the governed. If government turns oppressive and you do not have the right to revoke that consent, then consent of the governed is an absurdity. What on earth could the Declaration of Independence have been about.
6) As to whether a Christian can sincerely honor and revere the Confederate Flag and other symbols? Well I think a Christian can. And I doubt that anyone posting here is Bishop Jugis or the Holy Father,, so as to whether a Christian can or not, you have no say in the matter.
Harold, it is sad that your "first loyalty" is to North Carolina. It's sad that in our country, we divide ourselves by race, religion, ethnicity, geographic location, and what have you. I wonder if there will ever be a day in which can all simply be Americans, plain and simple. No hyphen, no adjective, nothing, nada. Just good ol' Americans.
Nothing wrong with state pride. I love Arizona (despite being a California native), but my loyalty is first and foremost to the United States, to the AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Calling Confederate soldiers "traitors" is not jumping to conclusions. It is accurate, just like calling Americans of Mexican descent who fought for Mexico traitors is also accurate. Or calling the soldiers of the St. Patrick brigade traitors. Traitors to the United States, of course. Depending on your view point, they may be heroes. If your loyalty isn't to the nation under whose flag you live, then of course the claim of "treason" becomes dubious, if not outright absurd. But to those of us who pledge loyalty to the United States, it is quite accurate.
When you say America, you are talking about a lot of places that I have never been and many people who hold me in disdain if not outright contempt because of who I am and where I'm from. I can't love what I don't know. It wouldn't be real love, I would only be loving what I imagine those places to be.
I can't say what you believe or love, I don't know you. You may be widely travelled and know many people from many walks of life from all over. But what I'm fairly certain of is that often when people say they love America, they conflate their little corner of it into the whole. So when they say America, they mean their town or county.
Harold... then I guess every square inch of South Carolina that you do not know, you truly do not love? I've been to several states in the Union, and almost everywhere, people are the same. Sure, there are minor differences in speech and daily custom, but overall, I see it the same everywhere.
In sum: A sign points to an object, Dave. But a symbol partcipates in the object or reality to which it points. For that reason I consider the Confederate flag odious, whatever positive referential meanings might be asserted by some (all slaveowners have some good points, like Jefferson).
Your metaphysical point is self-defeating. The reason that a sign can participatie in reality is that there is an ontological reality in which to participate, while evil is simply a no-thing, a parasite on other existence. By your own argument, there can never be an objective symbol of evil (which is entirely true, nothing created can entirely annihilate the suggestion of God).
You miss the point of my first paragraph there JP. Reality here is the referential meanings the sign (i.e., confederate flag) points to, becoming symbol. In other words the flag is more than "just" a flag in this case. It is a reality or combination of realities (referential meanings of an historical root) which offends our sisters and brothers most grievously, just as the Swasitika cross is no longer a cross for us despite its historical connections, for its meaning has been transvalued by horror.
Harold, please: tell me a rough percentage, in your estimation, of Southerners who:
1) favor flying or displaying this flag
2) which percentage of #1 would you say do it for reasons other than racism?
3) And how many would you say do it for good and bad reasons both (as certainly there still are racists to be found everywhere)?
The vast majority do it for strictly military-historical reasons without any reference to slavery. The most common usage is probably in public schools with the nickname "Rebels" or those names after Robert E. Lee, Thomas Stonewall Jackson, and the like. Racists are a miniscule percentage of Southerners in my experience, declining every day as the previous generation reaches the end of their lives.
I believe that those who take the flag as Mr. Hand described are simply hypersensitive. They have placed that meaning on the flag themselves, when it is not what is objectively intended. Such subjective quirks of meaning do not demand a change in objectively defensible behavior. That was actually why I mentioned the objective meaning of signs in a metaphysical symbol. A particular person might be traumatized by any number of things, but whether it is reasonable for them to take other people's behavior as connoting what offends. And whoever said that the Confederacy wasn't about the defense of local sovereignty simply doesn't know the history of the matter; read John Calhoun's writings in the nullification controversy with Jackson to dispel yourself of the delusion that states' rights weren't an issue. Slavery was an issue, and the Confederacy likely would not have gone to war without it, but you can't ignore the other factors involved.
Harold and Jonathan's recent remarks have been more or less decisive for me to maintain my position that this flag should be allowed to be displayed without all the incipient prejudice against Southerners entering into it. The very extremity of the anti-flag case (equating it with Naziism, etc.) demonstrates, I think, that it is not fact-based, but almost entirely emotions- and stereotype-based.
As I have seen this tendency again and again in (particularly) liberal social commentary, I strongly suspected that it might be in play here too. But this also underscores my very strong belief that both sides of any given issue (esp. in proportion to how controversial or emotional something is) need to be fully heard, and their cases understood, before someone can make up their mind in a sensible, reasonable, fair-minded manner.
But to those of us who pledge loyalty to the United States, it is quite accurate.
They considered themselves an independent country. That is not ordinarily perceived as treason.
I'm rather surprised, Dave. But you certainly have the right to join any extremist club you wish. Again, I urge you to consult your priest, and bishop on this one and trust not your own analysis which is clearly flawed and one-dimensional. Do your editors know of your views?
This illustrates one of the pits the apologetics crowd on the internet can fall into: assessing by "analysis" something as allowable or good, and not evil, even when the assessment so clearly militates against Christian charity (e,g, against our Afro-American sisters and brothers) and which takes counsel from combox people rather than from one's priest and bishop (though this option remains open to david)
If we have the faith to move mountains and have all possible knowledge so-called, if we have not love for the weakest of our brethren we are nothing (1 Cor 13). In this case the sign opted for represents slavery, lynchings, apartheid, and Dave, on the basis of a little comb box chatter comes all but to a conclusion. Very sad.
Mr Hand, let me ask you a question. You claim that the Stars and Bars is racist, because it stands for a nation that condone such a brutal act. Fine.
But here's something that you didn't know. The "bars"of the cross actually are based on the cross of St. Andrew. Now my question is this: Is the cross a "racist symbol"?
Hi Stephen,
I think your extreme rhetoric here is what is atrocious and sad, etc. It's you who insist upon dividing people on this issue when it doesn't have to be the case. You can't stand something simply because of the prejudices attacked to it that you can't get over. You can't disagree with the Southerners who want to fly this flag without equating them with Nazis. Yet you want to lecture about charity, my friend?
This is the type of talk that divides people. You attack prejudice by being prejudiced yourself. You want to talk Bible and Catholicism and act like some sort of Catholic pseudo-prophet: thundering against all the evils of the Confederate flag? Okay, I can match you line for line (I can play that game): Jesus said a ton about hypocrites who self-righteously condemn others. And Paul said quite a bit about those who cause unnecessary factions and divisions (I've seen you cite those passages yourself).
But above all, it is this nauseating tendency to put everyone in a box (that they usually don't fit in) and judge them on that stereotypical basis, rather than on the merits of their case, that is so objectionable. Just because I come to this conclusion, you immediately do or conclude the following things:
1) You attack my profession (why is this so common today: why does everything seem to come down to apologist-bashing?). Why is that relevant to anything? You disagree, and so I must be doing this because of "the apologetics crowd." It's asinine.
2) You imply that I must consult my priest and bishop on everything. Catholicism doesn't require that. I'm not a baby that has to go get my "milk" from the priest every time there is some discussion like this. He has far better things to do. God gave me a mind and spiritual discernment to use, not put on a shelf. And that is not Protestantism; it is common sense and wise stewardship of the gifts that God gave us. Catholics aren't a bunch of idiots who can't figure out anything on their own at all and have to ask the priest what pair of socks to put on or if they can blow their nose.
3) You fight supposed lack of charity with obvious lack of charity, shown in your extreme judgmentalism.
4) If you think "combox chatter" is so worthless, then don't participate in it. Why are you here? If it's all worthless, then would that not include your own participations? I think it is an excellent mediium. The two people who convinced me the most are both attorneys and not some kind of dummy barefoot racists. Jonathan even went to Harvard, so he was educated up in your neck of the woods.
5) I am an "extremist" now.
6) My analysis "is clearly flawed and one-dimensional."
I think you can do much better than this. We don't have to lose a friendship because we disagree (we both understand that and will never act so stupid and childish as Shawn did, I trust), but I won't sit here and be judged on such an idiotic basis by anyone: friend or foe. If you can'
(cont.)
. . . can't do any better than that, then you can expect to get an earful back from me.
I will always attack extreme manners of speaking and the hair-trigger urge to judge others (which is no act of charity at all): whether it comes from the anti-Catholics or fellow Catholics like you and Shawn, or feminists or pro-aborts, or pro-homosexual advocates or atheists. It's wrong and unhelpful no matter who does it. People need to LISTEN and TALK to each other before launching into the stratosphere with another fire-and-brimstone jeremiad.
David Armstrong: Before and After this Blog
...you can expect to get an earful back from me
I am looooong since used to (and bored by) zealots who trust their own "logic" and distort the warnings of others mouthing off and giving me an "earful". Only extremists tend to. I tried to warn you as a brother, that's all from the beginning. You suprize me. Sure we're still friends. I have no ill feelings even for Shawn, who said i should have" learned" from my son's calamity, if you can imagine someone getting lower than that, much less you my good brother.
But you are already dug into a self-made caricature and shadow of your former self.
There was David Armstrong before his blog: largely noble, helping all. Then, with the advent of this awful blog, we saw you drop into the shadows; punch drunk by the likes of the theologically demented until you begin to reflect them.
I for one tried to warn you and warn you still. You are going down the drain (not as being Catholic, but as being wise).
Go back to your former self and work which made you once noble and ditch this agrumentative blog in which you allow your enemies to bring out the worst in them and in you. That's all they are trying to do. I've said this to you ptivately first as a friend should.
An "earfu"l from you about me will only hurt you again, not me. It will only show you as mean as well as unwise.
You are wrong about not seeking out counsel on such matters from your priest or bishop. I have never ceased to seek input from them.
Pc,
Steve
PS. I mean it. You should delete this entire blog and go back to your earlier website. You could recover then, Dave. But pride seldom listens. Please surprize me yet again. You are a good man being led into a deep quicksand by parasites sucking your vitals.
You stilll haven't answered my question, Mr. Hand. Is the cross a racist symbol or not?
I think from now on I might no longer answer people who hide behind pseudonyms which is more appropriate to chat room peepers and predators than forthright Catholics, but let me this last time, answer you brother sly:
You write: You stilll haven't answered my question, Mr. Hand. Is the cross a racist symbol or not?
I have already answered that with regard to the Swastika which has historical connections to the cross. The Swastika is no longer a Christian cross of ANY sort because of how Naziism transvalued the meaning of it. So it depends on the context.
Same with the Klans flag burning or Condeferate flag which has deep referential meanings related to slavery, lynchings, apartheid, Jim Crow, etc, etc and which so frightens our Afro-American brothers and sisters. People were still being lynched in the south in the dacades before I was born. The Condfederate flag flew high as Strange Fruit dangled from the polar trees.
I meant to say the Klan's CROSS BURNING not flag burning
...and Strange Fruit dangling from the "poplar trees"
So I guess the Scottish should stop flying their flag as well, given that it is based upon the same design. (being a racist symbol, and all ya know)...
I question the juridical Catholicism of no one at this website, but insist that those who argue for the moral allowability of nuclear weapins to target and destroy civilian populations are servants of Satan and antichrist, Catholic or not, and I pray for such most sincerely.
Amen and Amen.
"But you are already dug into a self-made caricature and shadow of your former self."
"There was David Armstrong before his blog: largely noble, helping all. Then, with the advent of this awful blog, we saw you drop into the shadows; punch drunk by the likes of the theologically demented until you begin to reflect them."
"You should delete this entire blog and go back to your earlier website. You could recover then, Dave. But pride seldom listens."
Stephen,
You get two warnings for these two posts, filled with nonsense and sheer personal attack. One more and you'll be banned too. I've had enough of these sorts of silly, stupid posts (not just from you) which have no reasonable basis at all and consist of simply extreme language; no moderation, no common sense. For heaven's sake, man. Did you write these drunk or something?
Needless to say, this tripe is completely ridiculous. I'm the same as I've always been (it's funny; my wife and I were talking just the other night about how some people think I have undergone this amazing transformation, when I have been doing the same thing for 25 years. It's called apologetics). I've always done debates, including with you yourself back in 1999-2000, when you were a "traditionalist" and spouting all sorts of bilge that you yourself now retract.
You obviously don't understand that apologists sometimes have to get into what others perceive as "fights." For the most part it is cordial (depending on the other guy). Sometimes it gets ugly if the other side decides to take it personal and start a mudfest. You saw that with Shawn. Was that my fault too?
But I got into far more acrimonious encounters before I ever started this blog (in James White's case, before I was online at all: that was by US mail in 1995), with the anti-Catholics and "Traditionalists" and sometimes Orthodox. I stopped dialoguing with all three categories, so that is a net gain in your opinion: and that has been either before or while I have had this blog.
You said idiotic things about me before I ever had my blog: four years before, when we were wrangling over "traditionalism"; such as that I was supposedly comparing myself with C.S. Lewis and Chesterton because I had my photo by theirs on my website.
So you thought I had pride then, and couldn't figure out that I wasn't in my early 20s for a long time (i.e., you would try to dismiss arguments of mine simply because I was supposedly a young whippersnapper, when in fact I was 41 or 42 when you first encountered me. So for you to make out that I was purely "noble" in the old days and now I am increasingly corrupted to such an extent that I should delete my entire blog is mythical nonsense, divorced from reality.
I am who I am: take me or leave me: but I haven't changed at all, all these years. Dialogues will always be a part of what I do, because I am a Socratic. Some of them will not be all peaches and cream. But that's not up to
You can't ban me, dave. I quit.
But, please, enjoy this going away present. Funny and tragic at the same time. Maybe he'll take on the A-Bomb and Confed flag too...
http://holyoffice.livejournal.co....com/
86877.html
http://holyoffice.livejournal.co....com/
76234.html
God love you good man. You are still my friend though we part ways!
Px,
Steve
Seriously, Dave. No hard feelings. See ya.
i've lived in augusta, ga nearly all of my life and i really no longer *want* the battle flag to fly over a south that has little spirit of the fight left in her. i suppose dixie was the last gasp of the genuine american revolutionary spirit, the "don't tread on me" ideal, but that is no more. so you yanks go on and wring your hands over our black-white relations and what flags fly where: your closeted racism makes you little more than hypocrites (the klan marches in detroit and indianapolis and cincinnati these days, not in augusta or savannah, because no one gives a *damn* about the klan down here); i find no better, frank, and open race relations in the country than i do in the south, even if we southerners still admit that we aren't perfect. but we'll be your 'racist' whipping boys just the same, because you haven't the courage to look in the mirror.
more worrisome to many of us true sons of dixie is that the Patriot Act passed without a murmur, when it alone would have been a casus belli 100 years ago. that and the fact that some fool in the white house whose father was a carpetbagging new england blueblood poses as a southerner and gets away with it. the southern spirit of washington and jefferson and davis, LIVE FREE OR DIE, is dead.
First and foremost I must say that the notion that the Civil War was about slavery is akin to those that believe the Iraq war is about oil. It's simply absurd. What ticks me off more than anything is immebiately labeling anyone brandishing a Confederate flag as racist. Despite what many have been spoon fed about the war, it's depth extended well beyond slavery. Of all issues of note, one could assert that slavery was bottom of the list. Primarily the war was about States rights and a more loose affilitation with the Federal government, which if I do recall, was how this country was initially designed. Let us not forget that we are a Republic of independant states. The Federal government conveniently forgets this all of the time and consistently imposes itself upon us. The problem is just as inherent, if not worse, today as it was back then. I have been a US soldier for almost 7 years now, twice deployed to combat (with another one coming in a couple of months) and once deployed for 1 1/2 year tour in support of the Armistace in South Korea. Of the 4 years I have been married I have only enjoyed less than a year of it with my wife. For all my sacrifices for this country it makes me sick each time I come home and see just how much my home has changed in the past few years. Largely as a result of a crooked liberal judicial system attempting to usurp power over what was originally designed to be a "checks and balances" system. While I was away fighting for my country I had to bear the Ten Commandments being pulled from my home state capital (Montgomery, Alabama) without my being able to be there in protest. Each time I come home I see more wickedness imposed on my state, and my country, force fed by the Federal government. I'm very proud of being a Southerner. Dave, hits the nail on the head when discussing the South. Morality, Spiritulaity, and Justice shines brighter here than anywhere in the states. We resist as best as we can the laws and morality the secular/humanist left attempts to force on us. Abortion nuimbers are lower, churches are more populated, etc. While there are those who indeed use the Confederate flag as symbols of racism you can't just turn around and lump all of us who stand by it into one crowd of "white, ignorant, racist, and/or fundamental nutjobs." That's the moral equivalent of saying all young black people are "thugs and hooligans."
As far as symbols go, just because one small element carries a certain symbol and portrays itself as a racist entity does not coat the rest of us. If this were so then we should be ashamed of displaying the Cross. Wasn't the church bearing this symbol during the Crusades and the Inquisition? Or even the Protestant church during the Salem and like minded witch trials? Should we be so ashamed and put them away? No, of course not. That is not what the cross stands for, nor does the Confederate flag stand for slavery. This whole logic of "it might offend somebody" is ludicrous and
Oh, I should have also included the Klan uses the Cross in acts of racism more prevalently and visibly than it does the Confederate flag. Which begs the question mentioned concerning puting it away as well
Commenting by HaloScan
