U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Mississippi
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-28-2015, 07:23 PM
Status: "I'm an Unmherkun puppy-kicking Socialist" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
4,030 posts, read 2,115,440 times
Reputation: 3778

Advertisements

Regardless of what meaning people put on the "Rebel Flag", it is far too divisive a symbol to serve as an official symbol of a formal governmental or professional body - including sports teams at at least public educational institutions (personally I don't like private schools having it either, but flying it is their prerogative because they are private).

Like most wars, combatants' motivations can be complex. There probably were issues like tarrifs and distrust of the federal government that contributed to the motivation to fight. However, it is beyond question that slavery + white supremacy tagged onto it was the primary reason the war started. In addition to Confederate VP Alexander Stevens' "Corner Stone Speech", the Mississippi secession document also shows that the Southern elites, at least, were primarily motivated to fight to preserve slavery.

Cultural symbols are well and good in themselves. Yet, when its genesis is rooted primarily in a cause to hurt, harm, or degrade other human beings, then that culture should find another symbol. This is the case with the "Rebel Flag". For that reason, I would not object to the USA discarding the Stars and Stripes in favor of another design if Native Americans ever came to see it as a symbol of "Manifest Destiny" (inevitably tied up with dispossessing the natives of their lands). Mind you, I won't go out of my way to call for it, but I won't object to it that much (if at all). Then, we could also say the Union Jack is a symbol of oppression against Celtic peoples (Irish especially), so I compromise by saying "I'll call for change IF the historically oppressed group decries the symbol fervently enough".

As unpopular as it is to say, I'm actually favor, to a degree,of political correctness - meaning treat people in ways that preserve their own dignity. I do draw the line at "Whites are the ice people. Savage and violent because of their lack of skin melanin" and the "kill all white people" that the marginal faction a few black scholars are on record of saying (obviously hate speech right there). Also, I draw the line at Afrocentric interpretations of history, as I find insufficient (at best) evidence their claims are true. That still does not change the fact that there are still a lot of cultural attitudes (even if invisible ones) that do implicitly deem certain types of people "distastefully inferior" (not just about racial/ethnic matters), and those attitudes need to change if we are ever to have a more just and fair human species.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2015, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
3,191 posts, read 4,132,514 times
Reputation: 2104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
Regardless of what meaning people put on the "Rebel Flag", it is far too divisive a symbol to serve as an official symbol of a formal governmental or professional body - including sports teams at at least public educational institutions (personally I don't like private schools having it either, but flying it is their prerogative because they are private).

Like most wars, combatants' motivations can be complex. There probably were issues like tarrifs and distrust of the federal government that contributed to the motivation to fight. However, it is beyond question that slavery + white supremacy tagged onto it was the primary reason the war started. In addition to Confederate VP Alexander Stevens' "Corner Stone Speech", the Mississippi secession document also shows that the Southern elites, at least, were primarily motivated to fight to preserve slavery.

Cultural symbols are well and good in themselves. Yet, when its genesis is rooted primarily in a cause to hurt, harm, or degrade other human beings, then that culture should find another symbol. This is the case with the "Rebel Flag". For that reason, I would not object to the USA discarding the Stars and Stripes in favor of another design if Native Americans ever came to see it as a symbol of "Manifest Destiny" (inevitably tied up with dispossessing the natives of their lands). Mind you, I won't go out of my way to call for it, but I won't object to it that much (if at all). Then, we could also say the Union Jack is a symbol of oppression against Celtic peoples (Irish especially), so I compromise by saying "I'll call for change IF the historically oppressed group decries the symbol fervently enough".

As unpopular as it is to say, I'm actually favor, to a degree,of political correctness - meaning treat people in ways that preserve their own dignity. I do draw the line at "Whites are the ice people. Savage and violent because of their lack of skin melanin" and the "kill all white people" that the marginal faction a few black scholars are on record of saying (obviously hate speech right there). Also, I draw the line at Afrocentric interpretations of history, as I find insufficient (at best) evidence their claims are true. That still does not change the fact that there are still a lot of cultural attitudes (even if invisible ones) that do implicitly deem certain types of people "distastefully inferior" (not just about racial/ethnic matters), and those attitudes need to change if we are ever to have a more just and fair human species.
As far as Mississippi goes, and in light of recent Supreme Court rulings. Phil Bryant would disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2015, 09:59 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,632 posts, read 8,554,879 times
Reputation: 19830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
Regardless of what meaning people put on the "Rebel Flag", it is far too divisive a symbol to serve as an official symbol of a formal governmental or professional body - including sports teams at at least public educational institutions (personally I don't like private schools having it either, but flying it is their prerogative because they are private).

Like most wars, combatants' motivations can be complex. There probably were issues like tarrifs and distrust of the federal government that contributed to the motivation to fight. However, it is beyond question that slavery + white supremacy tagged onto it was the primary reason the war started. In addition to Confederate VP Alexander Stevens' "Corner Stone Speech", the Mississippi secession document also shows that the Southern elites, at least, were primarily motivated to fight to preserve slavery.

Cultural symbols are well and good in themselves. Yet, when its genesis is rooted primarily in a cause to hurt, harm, or degrade other human beings, then that culture should find another symbol. This is the case with the "Rebel Flag". For that reason, I would not object to the USA discarding the Stars and Stripes in favor of another design if Native Americans ever came to see it as a symbol of "Manifest Destiny" (inevitably tied up with dispossessing the natives of their lands). Mind you, I won't go out of my way to call for it, but I won't object to it that much (if at all). Then, we could also say the Union Jack is a symbol of oppression against Celtic peoples (Irish especially), so I compromise by saying "I'll call for change IF the historically oppressed group decries the symbol fervently enough".

As unpopular as it is to say, I'm actually favor, to a degree,of political correctness - meaning treat people in ways that preserve their own dignity. I do draw the line at "Whites are the ice people. Savage and violent because of their lack of skin melanin" and the "kill all white people" that the marginal faction a few black scholars are on record of saying (obviously hate speech right there). Also, I draw the line at Afrocentric interpretations of history, as I find insufficient (at best) evidence their claims are true. That still does not change the fact that there are still a lot of cultural attitudes (even if invisible ones) that do implicitly deem certain types of people "distastefully inferior" (not just about racial/ethnic matters), and those attitudes need to change if we are ever to have a more just and fair human species.
From The Southern perspective:
Phil, one thing you may want to consider is the fact that the only thing The Confederacy wanted was to leave the Union. And, in fact, South Carolina was no longer part of the union when union forces barricaded themselves at Fort Sumpter and refused to leave the foreign country that was, at that instant, The Confederate States of America.
That's it. That was their crime. And for that they were invaded and their towns burned.

For the record, President Buchanan felt that secession was illegal, but also felt that war to stop secession was also illegal.

So it ain't like The Confederacy EVER attempted to overthrow The United States of America. They simply attempted to leave. Tariffs, taxes, intervention - the South was sick of it all.
To the North, it didn't matter what the reason was - The South was going to have to stay and they were willing to kill a bunch of folks to make it so. People forget that basic fact.


People in Texas talk of secession to this very day, and Key West, FL actually seceded and became The Conch Republic in 1982.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic

But I do understand the current feelings about the Confederate Battle Flag.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2015, 01:11 AM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
3,191 posts, read 4,132,514 times
Reputation: 2104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
From The Southern perspective:
Phil, one thing you may want to consider is the fact that the only thing The Confederacy wanted was to leave the Union. And, in fact, South Carolina was no longer part of the union when union forces barricaded themselves at Fort Sumpter and refused to leave the foreign country that was, at that instant, The Confederate States of America.
That's it. That was their crime. And for that they were invaded and their towns burned.

For the record, President Buchanan felt that secession was illegal, but also felt that war to stop secession was also illegal.

So it ain't like The Confederacy EVER attempted to overthrow The United States of America. They simply attempted to leave. Tariffs, taxes, intervention - the South was sick of it all.
To the North, it didn't matter what the reason was - The South was going to have to stay and they were willing to kill a bunch of folks to make it so. People forget that basic fact.


People in Texas talk of secession to this very day, and Key West, FL actually seceded and became The Conch Republic in 1982.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic

But I do understand the current feelings about the Confederate Battle Flag.
While I am quite understanding myself.

I lost what tiny sympathy I had when they started targeting the Dukes of Hazzard and Confederate flags at NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2015, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Chattanooga, TN
2,792 posts, read 3,893,694 times
Reputation: 4296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
From The Southern perspective:
Phil, one thing you may want to consider is the fact that the only thing The Confederacy wanted was to leave the Union. And, in fact, South Carolina was no longer part of the union when union forces barricaded themselves at Fort Sumpter and refused to leave the foreign country that was, at that instant, The Confederate States of America.
That's it. That was their crime. And for that they were invaded and their towns burned.
The problem with this argument is that Ft. Sumter was never owned by South Carolina. It was originally a shallow spot in the middle of the harbor. Shallow, but always covered by water; there was no "land" there. The US Corps of Engineers identified the site and started building the fort for national defense. They imported granite from New England to raise a foundation.

After some construction a local developer filed a lawsuit stating he owned the new island because he had received a grand from South Carolina. The claim was proven false and the suit eventually dismissed. It did, however, raise a valid point; the land did not exist previously, but existed now... with no formal title. Who owned it?
Quote:
On November 22, 1841, all issues regarding ownership of the fort were cleared up as the Federal Government was granted title to 125 acres of harbor "land" recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina.
Ref: A History of Fort Sumter: Building a Civil War Landmark

To summarize the actions at Ft. Sumter:
- The island was created from nothing by the Federal Government using Federal tax money using materials transported from the North
- The land was within the borders of a state, but the state formally granted title and control of the newly created land to the Federal government. That was nice of them, considering that the Federal Government created the land in the first place.
- The fort was designed and built using Federal engineers and federal tax money
- [Edited]At the time of Secession, the fort was still owned and controlled by the Federal Government. Federal troops at nearby Moultrie retreated to the safety of federally owned and controlled Fort Sumter, which was only 90% complete at the time.
- Pres Buchannon attempted to send supplies to the fort in January, but the unarmed merchant ship was fired upon by the shore batteries controlled by the CSA. Arguably, these were the first shots of the war.
- Pres Lincoln announced he was sending supplies to the fort in April.
- The shore batteries surrounding the fort opened fire, quickly overwhelming the fort forcing them to surrender.

The first battle of the Civil War was when Confederate forces attacked and captured a federally owned and controlled outpost. This is little different from how the Afghan war was started when bin Laden's people attacked US Soil and we retaliated.

Last edited by jwkilgore; 06-30-2015 at 09:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2015, 08:42 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,632 posts, read 8,554,879 times
Reputation: 19830
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwkilgore View Post
The problem with this argument is that Ft. Sumter was never owned by South Carolina. It was originally a shallow spot in the middle of the harbor. Shallow, but always covered by water; there was no "land" there. The US Corps of Engineers identified the site and started building the fort for national defense. They imported granite from New England to raise a foundation.

After some construction a local developer filed a lawsuit stating he owned the new island because he had received a grand from South Carolina. The claim was proven false and the suit eventually dismissed. It did, however, raise a valid point; the land did not exist previously, but existed now... with no formal title. Who owned it? Ref: A History of Fort Sumter: Building a Civil War Landmark

To summarize the actions at Ft. Sumter:
- The island was created from nothing by the Federal Government using Federal tax money using materials transported from the North
- The land was within the borders of a state, but the state formally granted title and control of the newly created land to the Federal government. That was nice of them, considering that the Federal Government created the land in the first place.
- The fort was designed and built using Federal engineers and federal tax money
- At the time of Secession, the fort (still owned and controlled by the Federal Government) was staffed by Federal soldiers.
- Pres Buchannon attempted to send supplies to the fort in January, but the unarmed merchant ship was fired upon by the shore batteries controlled by the CSA. Arguably, these were the first shots of the war.
- Pres Lincoln announced he was sending supplies to the fort in April.
- The shore batteries surrounding the fort opened fire, quickly overwhelming the fort forcing them to surrender.

The first battle of the Civil War was when Confederate forces attacked and captured a federally owned and controlled outpost. This is little different from how the first attack of the Afghan war was started when bin Laden's people attacked US Soil and we retaliated.
Nice background. Thanks.

But the Union army was not at Fort Sumter in the beginning. When South Carolina seceded, they were at Fort Moultrie. They abandoned Fort Moultrie and - can I say, "retreated" - to Fort Sumter.

It's all interesting stuff. We'll never know, but the formation of 2 countries may have been a better solution. That way, an escaped slave would truly be a free man. As it was in 1865, an escaped slave was required to be returned because of The Fugitive Slave Act.

Can you imagine: A passport would be required for anyone from New Jersey. And some of them would be denied entry!!

But as has been said, the 'Ol Dukes of Hazard flag is coming down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2015, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Chattanooga, TN
2,792 posts, read 3,893,694 times
Reputation: 4296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
But the Union army was not at Fort Sumter in the beginning. When South Carolina seceded, they were at Fort Moultrie. They abandoned Fort Moultrie and - can I say, "retreated" - to Fort Sumter.
You are correct, and I corrected my post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2015, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Chattanooga, TN
2,792 posts, read 3,893,694 times
Reputation: 4296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
It's all interesting stuff. We'll never know, but the formation of 2 countries may have been a better solution. That way, an escaped slave would truly be a free man. As it was in 1865, an escaped slave was required to be returned because of The Fugitive Slave Act.
Can you imagine: A passport would be required for anyone from New Jersey. And some of them would be denied entry!!
I don't think it would have been possible for the two countries to have split without a massive fight of some sort. Think of all the unknowns... border slave states that didn't secede; control of the western territories; if slave state Maryland had seceded the US capitol would have been surrounded by foreign territory, etc.

Not to mention the fact that significant areas in the south decidedly did not want to secede

Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
But as has been said, the 'Ol Dukes of Hazard flag is coming down.
Eventually, yes, even in Mississippi. But not today. The governor has already stated that he will not call a special session, so the next action will be next year unless a petition gets is on the next ballot... which is unlikely. The current hubbub will have died down by then and the press will have wandered off to examine some other shiny object. Most likely nothing will happen until the next time the flag is the controversy du jour.

Looking at the other state with controversy, as of right now, the majority of South Carolina's legislature wants it down. According to law it would take a super-majority to alter the display itself, but ironically it would only take a simple-majority to repeal the entire law regulating the display. I do think that their copy of the flag will come down soon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2015, 08:14 PM
 
1,448 posts, read 2,145,353 times
Reputation: 2357
Doesn't this say it all?



You really wonder why people find it offensive and representative of hate? Or you enjoy the fact that that's what it represents to basically EVERYONE, even to Southerners who use it repeatedly to intimidate others who have less power in their community?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2015, 08:24 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,632 posts, read 8,554,879 times
Reputation: 19830
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarfishKey View Post
Doesn't this say it all?



You really wonder why people find it offensive and representative of hate? Or you enjoy the fact that that's what it represents to basically EVERYONE, even to Southerners who use it repeatedly to intimidate others who have less power in their community?
Yeah, it's horrible.
Fortunately for us your picture has nothing to do with Mississippi.

Unfortunately for you, the picture depicts a St Petersberg Democrat holding a flag in the 1960's. How can you live in such a horrible state?
St. Petersberg, Florida Demonstrators Support Segregation. Woman Stock Photo, Picture And Royalty Free Image. Pic. 50060707
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Mississippi
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top