Kudos to Mississippi

Great Debates
101

Being a yankee, (and honorary reb, Thanks Reeder!) I really don’t feel that I have a say in what Mississippi does with their flag. No one who lives in any other state does either because you don’t vote for the people who make these decisions. However, like everyone else, I have an opinion.

First, I do not see the CBF as a racist statement. If you check your history (I might recommend the Civil War Journal series from the History Channel - either books or the video - and focus on the episode “Lincoln and Gettysburg”), you will find that until 1863’s Emancipation Proclaimation, most Yankees thought they were fighting for the same thing the rebs were fighting for - which is State’s Rights. Lincoln and much of the north thought that the south didn’t have the right to leave the union, while the southern states thought they not only had that right, but they had that obligation. I don’t want to get that thread started again, arguing if the was was over rights or slavery. Understand that the main reason a lot of northern whites disliked slavery is because 1) they didn’t think if it first, and 2) their economy was not based on the same amount of labor the southern economy was based on. At the time before the War, the north had slaves - some of which were black, and some were white. The northerns did not consider blacks equal in any way - they considered them a seperate race which was vastly inferior! But they were not fighting for or against slavery until President Lincoln, afraid that the north was losing and seeing that apathy and dislike of the war and it’s accompanying draft were taking hold in the northern states which would impede the flow of new soldiers, decided to push for another cause. By making his proclamation, he brought the slavery issue into the ring as a cause, later to be concluded as THE CAUSE of the war. The CBF, symbol of the fight for their rights, adorned places all over the Confederacy. It was only during the Civil Rights Movement that it started becoming a symbol of racism. However, to me, it’s a symbol of some states deciding that they had a better idea on self rule. It was not about slavery - that was an issue that the northerners made out of it.

secondly, it’s not the flag that has the attitude - it’s the people. I think that the people who see this as a racist statement should do what is in their power to convince the ones that use it as a racist statement that their attitude is wrong. This means, in short, that it’s not the flag that should change, it’s the people.

I think that the NAACP is wrong. It is the one pushing the racist stuff on the people. I saw that happen here where I live. A black man died after a scuffle with a white police officer. The officer said that all he did was subdue him after the man attacked a prisoner in the car. The NAACP demanded explainations about the man’s death knowing that it would take the medical examiner a while to get back lab samples; they even held a “hearing” despite the fact that they were not a part of the state government. They accused the cop of brutality, despite the fact that the ME observed no bruises or lacerations. They stirred up the black community with racist statements to the degree that one black woman was quoted in a local paper that she was teaching her children and the neighborhood children to disrespect the police and even throw rocks and insults at them. When the ME’s statement said that the man had died because of cocaine and alcohol abuse, the NAACP demanded that there be an independent autopsy on the man. Every man or woman holding office in the NAACP did their best to incite riots here - which didn’t happen because of the way the white police chief handled the situation. Now they are making a big thing because a white cop had the audacity to wave at someone in the Hannah family. (I guess they don’t know that cops can be friendly too.)

If the NAACP wants to have the flag changed in MS, perhaps they should pay for all the changes to be made - all the flags to be produced and distributed. Money that the Mississippi government should spend on education in that state.

102

The Texas state flag is not related to the Bonnie Blue, spoke-.

http://alamo-de-parras.welkin.org/history/republic/flags/troutmanflag.html
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/flagsandmaps/flag-design.html
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/FF/msf1.html

The first two links have pictures of the early designs, as well as some of the history behind them. The third link is a pretty comprehensive guide to all the flags that have flown over the state, both before and after the Revolution. Although the last link mentions one proposed flag that sounds like the Bonnie Blue, the committee considering it first heavily modified it (a freakin’ rainbow?) and then rejected it altogether. Besides, the Bonnie Blue did not become entangled with the cause of slavery for another 20 years, so I fail to see how the Texas flag could possibly be construed as a symbol of racism when the design you claim it was based on did not become associated with slavery and racism for another two decades. Moreover, the only resemblance between the Lone Star flag and the Bonnie Blue is superficial fact that each design features a star. Big resemblance, eh?

But even if the Texas flag could somehow be linked to the Bonnie Blue, there are still two giant differences between the Texas flag and the Confederate battle flag. First, absolutely nobody is complaining that the Texas flag is racist. Second, the Texas flag represents the history of this state right on back to the days of the Republic. That’s 165 years of history, good, bad, and indifferent. In that regard, it is much more like the U.S. flag, which has flown over every good and bad thing that’s happened in this country for more than two centuries. The Confederate battle flag, on the other hand, is inextricably tied to a four-year period of Southern history in which the overriding goal of the Southern government and most of its citizens was the preservation of their right to enslave a race of people. Because of its wholly shameful goals, I will have no part in glorifying that rebellion, and neither should any state in this country.

103

Trust me on this, MS will waste more money on dumber things that it takes to hold a special election for a flag. Money isn’t a big deal. And wouldn’t make a dent in the educational problems anyway.

No, the one problem is (and I’m sticking to the flag issue), that the Anti-CBF side didn’t get the vote out like they should have. The NAACP and others didn’t go to work like they could have. They didn’t put it in terms everyone could understand. And the Pro_CBF had the old “they are attacking Christianity/families/small sheep” line going. Hard to argue against that dreck.

The Other problem (if you want to call it that) is that there is a good portion of blacks who aren’t offended by it. They voted for the old flag! While I’m grateful that they at least didn’t follow the will of the NAACP like brainwashed lemmings, I’m dissapointed they voted for the old flag.

So, it’s a little more complex than it seems.

104

Take it easy, minty green, I was only needling you. (Please note the winking smiley in my last post.) But hey, I know how emotional these flag issues can be.

On the other hand, the site you linked earlier does make a connection between the Bonnie Blue and the Lone Star, thusly:

Nothing in links you just posted casts doubt on that history.

And I agree. Which is the point I was making all along. The Bonnie Blue Flag is a good substitute for the Confederate battle flag because it is a symbol of the South which pre-dates the Confederacy. When I made that point yesterday, you replied by saying, and I quote:

So then may I assume you’ll be marching on the state capitol in Austin to demand the removal of the BB from the Texas flag?

**minty green[/g], the Texas state flag is nothing more than a Bonnie Blue Flag with a couple of bars tacked onto it. White star on blue background. Seems pretty clear to me.

105

Stop being ridiculous, spoke-. :wink: If a white star on a blue background anywhere on a flag qualifies it as a Bonnie Blue knock-off, then we’re going to have to do something about Nevada too.

You’re also missing my point on the BB and its pre-Civil War origins. The BB was not, prior to the war, a symbol of slavery and racism. Thus, anything that derived from the BB during that period would be untainted by the negative associations the flag later collected in spades during the War for Southern Slavery. (Hey, if the apologists can rename the war to suit their biases, so can I ;)) In other words, pre-1861 BB good. Post-1861 BB bad.

When it comes to whether the BB was ever recognized in Texas, I think I’m going to go with the University of Texas and its highly detailed account, complete with bibliography, over anyflag.com and it’s unannotated attempt to sell flag memorabilia. As the UT site says:

106

Those are some mighty fine hairs you’re splitting, there, minty green.:wink:

Now where do you suppose those Texans (many or perhaps most of whom had immigrated from the former “west Florida”) got their idea for a white star on a blue background? Hmmmm… I wonder…

So if I display a Bonnie Blue Flag today, how is it exactly that you figure out which one I’m flying?

107

2001 is post-1861, rightspoke-? I’ll just let you draw the proper conclusion about what I think of displaying the Bonnie Blue today.

As for “West Floridians” in 1836 Texas, I’m sure there must have been a handful. It definitely was not “most” of the Texas settlers. The largest group of early American immigrants–including Houston, Bowie, and Crockett–were from Tennessee and Kentucky. For instance, take a look at this list of Alamo defenders and see where they were born. And kniz, take note of the significant number of Mexican names on that list.

108

Well minty, you may be one of those folks to whom I alluded earlier, who are hard-headedly determined to be offended.

Sorry, but if someone goes to the trouble to fly a Bonnie Blue Flag because they don’t want to offend others by flying the battle flag, I think they have “gone the extra mile.” Anyone offended by the Bonnie Blue, given its long history, is being hyper-sensitive. (IMHO.)

109

I agree with DebiJ that folks who don’t live in MS ain’t got no business telling them what kind of flag they should have or where they ought to stick it, but like her and everyone else in this thread, I also have an opinion on the matter. Now I’m a Southerner and damn proud of it even though the South has got mad problems–but that’s for another thread or ten. Still it’s where I got my roots, and I think that entitles me to say my piece.

What I don’t understand about all this Confederate mess is if it’s a symbol of a time when states in the South seceded from the union, then why keep it on the flags of states that are a part of the UNITED STATES right now? I understand representing the past and being proud of one’s history and all that, and I’m not saying folks in MS or any other state for that matter should not have symbols of the past. However, by keeping the Confederate emblem on a state flag that now is flown at the sites of government buildings that operate within the larger structure we call the US, that is a slap in the face of what the United States is supposed to be all about.

Symbols of history are all well and good, but as part of the United States’ past, the Confederate flag and any Confederate emblems on state flags belong in museums or certainly at sites that are not affiliated with government. I personally find the Confederate emblem offensive because it glorifies a time where due to the apathy of the citizens of the United States, the atrocities of slavery were perpetuated on people of African descent, but I appreciate it for that very reason. I bet the majority of Americans now have no conception of how awful life was for enslaved black Americans because it is not taught in schools as part of American history, and since the horrors of slavery are not taught, it is so convenient to forget or not really understand the injustice this country’s citizens thrived off of for centuries. I think the citizens of MS f*ucked up by not voting for the new version of the flag, which I personally found more aesthetically pleasing. But that’s MS’s business. What I think we should take away from MS’s actions, is that whether you view the Confederate emblem as a Southern thing to be proud of; as a memorial to those who fought and died in the Civil War; or as a symbol of racism, hatred and IGNORANCE, at least we can use it as means to NOT FORGET the very real holocaust that happened in America.

And on a lighter, but not less serious note, I can’t believe ya’ll are sitting up in here talking about Southern food and ain’t mentioned fried chicken as something Southern to be proud of. And while you at it, put in some Creasy greens. Mmmm.

110

Just to flagellate this Eohippus one more time:

No, the North didn’t go to war right off the bat to free the slaves; the North went to war to preserve the Union. However, the South did secede in order to preserve slavery, and for precious little other reason.

As the Mississippians very forthrightly put it in A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery”. The entire rest of that document is a list of grievances intended to show that the wicked Northerners were hostile to slavery, that the North was hell-bent on depriving Southerners of their “property”, and that Northerners were guilty of advocating “negro equality, socially and politically”.

The Confederacy was founded upon slavery–it was a government of slavery, by slavery, and for slavery. Slavery was the Southern cause; and the Southerners’ “better idea on self rule” was the idea that the white people of the South needed to to separate themselves from the North in order to preserve the institution of slavery for themselves and their posterity.

Whatever anyone feels the Confederate Battle Flag stands for, it surely must stand for the Confederacy. The Confederacy was founded to preserve slavery and the political and social supremacy of the white race over the black race. Therefore, there is no way to disentangle the Confederate flag from slavery and white supremacy.

111

Just wanted to second MEBuckner’s rendition of a historical fact so ridiculously obvious a whole lot of Confederate apologists have apparently gone blind from staring at it.

Nobody starts a real live war over an abstract political principle* such as “state’s rights.” Principles only become worthy of bloodshed when they ae realized in the form of a concrete threat (or actual attack) upon a group’s interests.

Southerners had been bitching about the abstract principle of state’s rights for seventy years before they seceded. So what what was the concrete threat to Southern interests that impelled them to secede?

And before somebody shows up to argue abstract economics, what is the common thread in every economic complaint that the South had against the Union?
Just keep staring at it.

[sub]*Abstract religious principles are a whole different thread.[/sub]

112

The southerners had slaves and grew cotton, the cotton was then sent north to the cotton mills in New England. So the south directly relied on slavery, but the north relied on it just as much, but could criticize the south because their dependence was indirect. This has been pointed out in this thread and then someone said well why didn’t those in the south get off their dumb butts and start manufacturing.
The reason has to do with geography which neither the north or south had control over. I believe it is called the “fall line”, but in any case it is where you find waterfalls. What does that matter, well it is where you can put a water wheel, which in those days was how you powered the looms that used the cotton. In New England the “fall line” is close to the sea and rivers. In the south the “fall line” is far away from navigatable water. I lived in Georgia and you found the waterfalls in north Georgia. That’s where they are in Mississippi and Alabama. Anyway the point is that the south had good flat areas near the water (navigation) to grow the cotton, the north had the energy near the water to run the looms that used the cotton.
There is one other factor and that is why the south is progressing today. In the south it is hot during the summer and it wasn’t until air conditioning came along that it was possible to do anything except just survive during the summer.

113

[Some folk’ll never eat a skunk, but then again some folk’ll–like Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel]

Ah wuz jus’ thinkin’ ‘bout freein’ mah nigrahs, ‘cause that whole slave thang seem downraht un-moral. But then Ah got tah thankin’ 'bout how come rivers don’t flow 'roun here ‘n such, an’ how it might be troublesome if Ah had tah pick muh own cotton 'n t’bacco. So I just figgered them nigras ‘re stuck ‘cause we don’ got no good rivers, an’ that means we should fight them yankees what wanna take 'way ahr nigras.

[/Some folk’ll never lose a toe, but then again some folk’ll–like Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel]

(Sorry, kniz, but that’s a latter-day rationalization I just couldn’t stay away from.)

114

This is the same as saying that the industrialized world depends on the sweat shops of the Third World in order to keep its standard of living.
An industrial economy could care less where it gets its raw materials, or who supplies them. The only thing it cares about is the cost. It’s a characteristic of supply regions (places that depend for their economic survival on supplying a single raw material to the industrialized world) that they will have highly distorted class structures, consisting of a small elite and a very large poor class. In the case of the South, the poor class consisted of slaves.
As far as the North goes, the economy didn’t depend on slaves. This was proven after the war when the North’s economy exploded. Sans any slaves in the South. There was no complicity, direct or indirect. To state otherwise is to distort the economic relationship that always obtains between an advanced economy and the regions that supply it.

115

I want to thank Needs2Know for bringing up the fact that there are so many reminders of the Civil War in the south. Some of the things that he mentions I find to be part of history in general, such as the antibellum homes. However, he mentions battle fields and monuments. These are two completely different subjects in my mind.
As to the the battle fields, well surprise, surprise they are mostly in the south. Patom pointed out that the one big exception is Gettysburg. Guess what else, they were developed and are run by the Federal Government. We have one in Tupelo (which really was the Battle of Harrisburg because at the time Tupelo was a few miles away). It seems that Needs2Know and several others think that we southerners are the only ones keeping this part of history alive. I personally don’t like the fact that the only graves in the National Battle Fields are those of the Yankees, but I understand the principle.
Monuments are a different story since most of them have been erected by local governments or local organizations. This is also why many people said they were going to vote for the old flag. They felt that if we give up the flag then the next thing would be removing to the monuments. I thought that if I brought this up it would be claimed I made it up. So I thank Needs2Know for saying it first.
We like to brag about our hospitality, but as has been pointed out there are two kind of northerners: 1) Yankees and 2) Damn Yankees. Needs2Know has all the signs of being one of the latter.

116

Pantom, we were one nation and therefore one economy. However, today people are complaining about goods made in sweatshops, etc. half way around the world. It is also the reason that imperialism is such a nasty word today. In other words back then they probably didn’t think they were doing anything wrong today we know they were. This is not a rationalization Misty Green and neither was the thing about the “fall line”.
The second thing I’d like to point out is that after the war the north imposed Restoration. The south was still needed for its cotton and it was sans slaves so what happened it went to share cropping which was probably as bad if not worse than slavery. You have already stated who benefited the most from this type of economy, the north.

117

**kniz[/]:

Upon further reflection, I’m afraid that my prior post may have been unnecessarily snotty. I was going for funny, but the side-effect may have been unintentionally received as mean-spirited. If that was the case, I apologize, and offer this clarification of the thought behind that post.

Given slave labor, I can take any physically-disadvanted area in the world and make it more profitable. With an area as rich in natural farmland as the South, slave labor will enable me to make a financial killing.

But while the ability to profit may explain the historical and economic basis of slavery, it does not in any way provide an excuse or justification for that system.

118

Kniz,

I’m really curious here…you don’t seriously believe those folks who were fighting for the Confederacy weren’t fighting to preserve Slavery, do you?

119

Do I need to find the cite that well over 90% of normal citizens couldn’t even afford a slave? :slight_smile:

120

According to this web page 49% of Mississippi families owned at least one slave.