The Swamp

Probably picked the 2nd losiest. Taking it down would have been the most lossy.

This story is getting surprisingly little traction on my Facebook homepage.

Gunpowder wrote:Wow, this guys name is Dylan as well.


STOP NAMING KIDS DYLAN

I'm going to notify the authorities about the Dylan who played on my Kindergarten tee ball team. Wouldn't surprise me to read his name in the papers for something like this in the future.

My only experience with that state is ten days on Kiawah Island which is about 20 miles outside Charleston. Spent parts of a couple days and nights in Charleston. Lovely places both.

But the mere fact that they still fly a confederate flag over the statehouse would indicate that it really isn't such a lovely place after all.

Pruitt wrote:My only experience with that state is ten days on Kiawah Island which is about 20 miles outside Charleston. Spent parts of a couple days and nights in Charleston. Lovely places both.

But the mere fact that they still fly a confederate flag over the statehouse would indicate that it really isn't such a lovely place after all.

IT'S NOT "CONFEDERATE". IT'S THE STATE FLAG AND IT JUST SYMBOLIZES STATE'S RIGHTS TO TELL THEM LIBTARD JACKASSES IN WASHINGTON THAT THEY CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVES FOR TREADIN' ON THEM.

Typical Northerner.

BSF21 wrote:

Pruitt wrote:My only experience with that state is ten days on Kiawah Island which is about 20 miles outside Charleston. Spent parts of a couple days and nights in Charleston. Lovely places both.

But the mere fact that they still fly a confederate flag over the statehouse would indicate that it really isn't such a lovely place after all.

IT'S NOT "CONFEDERATE". IT'S THE STATE FLAG AND IT JUST SYMBOLIZES STATE'S RIGHTS TO TELL THEM LIBTARD JACKASSES IN WASHINGTON THAT THEY CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVES FOR TREADIN' ON THEM.

Typical Northerner.

It is an embarrassment being on a fucking web community with you, you dumb-ass, son of a fucking bitch! If I see [unintelligible] I will fucking rape you to death!

Charles Pierce: What happened in a church in Charleston, South Carolina on Wednesday night is a lot of things, but one thing it's not is "unthinkable." Somebody thought long and hard about it. Somebody thought to load the weapon. Somebody thought to pick the church. Somebody thought to sit, quietly, through some of Wednesday night bible study. Somebody thought to stand up and open fire, killing nine people, including the pastor. Somebody reportedly thought to leave one woman alive so she could tell his story to the world. Somebody thought enough to flee. What happened in that church was a lot of things, but unthinkable is not one of them.

Pruitt wrote:

BSF21 wrote:

Pruitt wrote:My only experience with that state is ten days on Kiawah Island which is about 20 miles outside Charleston. Spent parts of a couple days and nights in Charleston. Lovely places both.

But the mere fact that they still fly a confederate flag over the statehouse would indicate that it really isn't such a lovely place after all.

IT'S NOT "CONFEDERATE". IT'S THE STATE FLAG AND IT JUST SYMBOLIZES STATE'S RIGHTS TO TELL THEM LIBTARD JACKASSES IN WASHINGTON THAT THEY CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVES FOR TREADIN' ON THEM.

Typical Northerner.

It is an embarrassment being on a fucking web community with you, you dumb-ass, son of a fucking bitch! If I see [unintelligible] I will fucking rape you to death!

+1. Killin' me man.

Reverence for the confederacy is something that should never have been tolerated in this country.

Rex wrote:Reverence for the confederacy is something that should never have been tolerated in this country.

While I agree I'm not sure how you can legislate that. (I'm not talking about confederate symbols like the flag. That shit should be considered as verboten as a Swastika.)

Not talking about legislation--not everything needs to be addressed by the government. Should be part of the national ethos that you don't romanticize treason against the United States in the name of a racist and barbaric way of life. As you put it.

Rex wrote:Not talking about legislation--not everything needs to be addressed by the government. Should be part of the national ethos that you don't romanticize treason against the United States in the name of a racist and barbaric way of life. As you put it.

Again, though. It's only celebrated in a fairly isolated part of the country. The same part that committed the treason in question. Maybe the south should have been made to suffer more in Reconstruction though that hardly seems like the answer.

There is a surprising number of people all over the country who romanticize the confederacy. I read a book about it once. Can't remember the title right now...

It all ties in to the Cliven Bundy right-wing anti-government nut jobs but fortunately I don't think there's a whole lot of those out there.

The Sybian wrote:

Gunpowder wrote:Wow, this guys name is Dylan as well.


STOP NAMING KIDS DYLAN

I'm going to notify the authorities about the Dylan who played on my Kindergarten tee ball team. Wouldn't surprise me to read his name in the papers for something like this in the future.

Y'all need another n

Dylan killed them all, Bronto.

Yep, knew this was coming when I saw the transcript. Isn't this the selective quoting shit those dudes always accuse MSNBC or whoever of doing?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06 ... countries/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are a lot of things that could be reasonably called treason done by people in suits in Washington, all the time. Note that no southern official was tried for treason after the Civil War.

States wanting to secede from the Union doesn't necessarily trouble me.

The reasons that Lincoln and others didn't want the southern states to leave the union might be a bit broader than the simple answer of 'slavery' that is encoded in our US history text books. Questioning this orthodoxy does not require any reverence for the Confederacy.

Not being tried for treason was part of terms of surrender I thought.

Rex wrote:Reverence for the confederacy is something that should never have been tolerated in this country.

I blame Andrew Johnson.

A_B wrote:Not being tried for treason was part of terms of surrender I thought.

The South was thoroughly defeated. How much leverage did their leaders have at that time or for years to come?

But my major point is that I think the notion that the war between north and south was between anti-racist and racist entities that could not agree about the central racial issue of slavery is orthodox dogma. Rarely scrutinized, and not able to withstand much.

Johnson wanted a much harsher post-war treatment of the south. He hated black people, but if he had his way there would've been plenty of trials for treason of the leaders of the confederacy.

I blame Rutherford Hayes.

eta:

the 'leverage' the south had was the attitude of Lincoln, as carried forth by Grant. All that malice toward none, charity toward all bullstuff. Grant's conduct and terms at Appomattox, (and Sherman's much more generous terms for Joe Johnston's surrender, so generous Johnson immediately rescinded some of them), and Grant's huge popularity allowing him to restrain the druthers of Johnson and the more ardent Republicans in the early reconstruction period.

The enduring desire of Lincoln for a soft peace, carried forth by Grant on the strength of his popularity, saved the south from the fate of most losing sides in civil wars. And saved the nation from the other nasty things that usually follow civil wars (like brutal oppression that leads to refighting the war later.)

DC47 wrote: But my major point is that I think the notion that the war between north and south was between anti-racist and racist entities that could not agree about the central racial issue of slavery is orthodox dogma. Rarely scrutinized, and not able to withstand much.

I don't know anyone who has ever read a history book who thinks that.

There are people who write history books that say that.

brian wrote:

DC47 wrote: But my major point is that I think the notion that the war between north and south was between anti-racist and racist entities that could not agree about the central racial issue of slavery is orthodox dogma. Rarely scrutinized, and not able to withstand much.

I don't know anyone who has ever read a history book who thinks that.

By 'that' do you mean my opinion, or the one I claim is now unscrutinized orthodoxy in America?

DC47 wrote:

brian wrote:

DC47 wrote: But my major point is that I think the notion that the war between north and south was between anti-racist and racist entities that could not agree about the central racial issue of slavery is orthodox dogma. Rarely scrutinized, and not able to withstand much.

I don't know anyone who has ever read a history book who thinks that.

By 'that' do you mean my opinion, or the one I claim is now unscrutinized orthodoxy in America?

The latter.

A few months ago I was considering some contemporary racial issue, and my thoughts wandered to the civil war. As a teenager, I was way into history, and this was my favorite aspect of world history. But I hadn't read or even thought much about it in many years. I realized that although I have a pretty good recall of the players and events around that time, in terms of explaining the cause of the Civil War I could only come up with variations on the same theme: "anti-racist and racist entities could not agree about the central racial issue of slavery."

I thought that was pretty striking. It didn't fit what I know now about political behavior or even racism. I have far more complex views of the causes of recent wars.

I wondered if I was perhaps just limited due to my lack of exposure to more complex views. I asked two people why they thought the Civil War had been fought. Both espoused the theory I mentioned above. One was a very smart, highly-educated (attended four excellent colleges and universities) college professor (not history). The other was a very smart high school student who had just taken an advanced U.S. History class.

I asked them why thy thought the Civil War had occurred. They provided versions of the theory I mentioned above. I asked if they had ever heard of another theory. They had not. I asked if they could come up with one. They tried, but couldn't say anything they found at all convincing.

Trying out one variation, I asked if they thought the War might have been about the South pursuing their interests in preserving slavery and the North being motivated by preserving the Constitution that established a federal government or in preserving the sanctity of the nation established by the Revolution. They didn't think this held water, and didn't think this had been part of what they studied in school.

We were each puzzled as to why there seemed to be no debate in the history classes we had taken about the Civil War's causes, even though we were well aware of alternative arguments about the causes of the Revolutionary War.

It's just a sample of three, including me. But we each thought that what we had learned about the motivations behind the Civil War was a simple story, based on race and slavery.

I found that striking. Feeling a bit ignorant about something I once thought I knew well, I later did a bit of thinking and even less reading about alternative theories. I've got some ideas, but don't feel done with this at all. So I'd be glad to hear about any source of insight on the topic. I recall reading a history paper that someone once copied here, and found it really interesting. Perhaps I'll be lucky enough for this to happen again, saving me a lot of work.

I can only imagine what a Black person feels like when he or she sees that flag. Threatened? Intimidated? Angered that there are people who have no problem flying a reminder of a time when Blacks were property?

And 7 or 8 generations later, what kind of an imbecile still feels nostalgia for such a time? When slavery drove the economy, when poor whites were not much better off? When the secession of the southern states led to mass carnage and the destruction of so much.

And you guys know the subsequent history better than I, but that flag should be treated as an object of shame and those who display it should be subjected to derision. The fact that 150 years later, it still flies in front of a statehouse beggars belief.

(And yes, I am speaking from a desk way, way above the Mason Dixon line).

DC47 wrote:

A_B wrote:Not being tried for treason was part of terms of surrender I thought.

The South was thoroughly defeated. How much leverage did their leaders have at that time or for years to come?

But my major point is that I think the notion that the war between north and south was between anti-racist and racist entities that could not agree about the central racial issue of slavery is orthodox dogma. Rarely scrutinized, and not able to withstand much.

True. It was a more gentlemanly time so it may have not been a formal agreement.

Who said the North was anti-racist? Just because one regime is evil doesn't mean that its enemy is pure. Hell, I'm happy that Stalin beat the Nazis.

Pruitt wrote:I can only imagine what a Black person feels like when he or she sees that flag. Threatened? Intimidated? Angered that there are people who have no problem flying a reminder of a time when Blacks were property?

Probably the same as the Seattlers and I would feel if a state flew a "FUCK DAVES" flag and also had a history of lynching Daves.

mister d wrote:

Pruitt wrote:I can only imagine what a Black person feels like when he or she sees that flag. Threatened? Intimidated? Angered that there are people who have no problem flying a reminder of a time when Blacks were property?

Probably the same as me and the Seattlers would feel if a state flew a "FUCK DAVES" flag and also had a history of lynching Daves.

And here i thought a "Seattle Necktie" was just a bolo.

Cool, I couldn't correct my "me and the" phrasing before it got quoted.

brian wrote:

Rex wrote:Reverence for the confederacy is something that should never have been tolerated in this country.

While I agree I'm not sure how you can legislate that. (I'm not talking about confederate symbols like the flag. That shit should be considered as verboten as a Swastika.)

Please don't tell me you think we should be able to legislate against Swastikas.

I believe he's saying, like the swastika, the confederate flag should be considered so awful that no state would consider flying it on government property.


(And yes, if some state thought "hey, this is cool", the federal government should step in and either have it removed or let the state fuck itself into having to remove it.)

Oh, I can get with that. I was thinking on an individual level.

brian wrote:

DC47 wrote: But my major point is that I think the notion that the war between north and south was between anti-racist and racist entities that could not agree about the central racial issue of slavery is orthodox dogma. Rarely scrutinized, and not able to withstand much.

I don't know anyone who has ever read a history book who thinks that.

Rex wrote:Who said the North was anti-racist? Just because one regime is evil doesn't mean that its enemy is pure. Hell, I'm happy that Stalin beat the Nazis.

Did we get a consensus on this?

Here's my take as someone, who like DC, is a history buff with a particular interest in the Civil War, though I don't presume to be a historian:

1. The South absolutely, positively did secede in order to preserve slavery. There had long been a fear that the political balance was drifting to a point where the federal government would be able to outlaw slavery, and the 1860 election was their final tipping point. Any talk of "states' rights" in an abstract sense beyond the one, specific "states' right" to keep slavery legal is bullshit.

2. At the same time, it's equally erroneous to portray the North as launching a great moral crusade to end slavery. Northerners who actively sought the immediate universal abolition of slavery were a minority. Many more did oppose slavery on moral grounds, but weren't willing to start a war for that sole purpose (Lincoln was in this camp, at least at the start). Most other Northerners opposed slavery, but on the grounds of it being economically backward, or small farmers fearful of having to compete with wealthy slaveholders, rather than out of a humanitarian concern for the slaves. The North fought the war first and foremost to preserve the primacy of the federal government over the states, and recognized midway through that abolishing slavery would be a useful way to disrupt the South's war effort. That the South's cause was based on the preservation of an institution any civilized modern person regards as barbaric has retroactively helped the moral judgment of the North.

Right, the abolition of slavery during the Civil War was part of the realpolitik of the time -- a necessary evil to win the war.

I don't claim to be a historian either, certainly not even an amateur one on the level of SL, but I assumed that anyone with even a college-level intro to U.S. history understanding of the Civil War realized all that.

As the great Lincoln once said here in the Swamp, it was a battle between the South who enslaved blacks and the North who merely oppressed them.

(My Civil War knowledge is actually quite lacking)