At Rural South Carolina Shop, Confederate Flags Fly Off Shelves

[c.d.]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/at-rural-south-carolina-shop-confederate-flags-fly-off-shelves/ar-AAce8D2

c.d.

[pinkmoon]

The minute you mention the possibility of banning something it becomes popular I think to ban this flag would be wrong people should be allowed to make their own choices however I can see why this flag could upset people.I've been interested in the civil war all my life I've read countless books watched countless films and dvds my favourite been Ken burns excellent documentary and when I play the what if game and consider what might have happened if the south had won the civil war I cringe.

[Harry D]

Freedom of expression should be a basic human right. Banning the confederate flag, or any kind of flag for that matter, is a concept that's entirely lost on me.

[c.d.]

The minute you mention the possibility of banning something it becomes popular I think to ban this flag would be wrong people should be allowed to make their own choices however I can see why this flag could upset people.I've been interested in the civil war all my life I've read countless books watched countless films and dvds my favourite been Ken burns excellent documentary and when I play the what if game and consider what might have happened if the south had won the civil war I cringe.

I am currently reading Mary Chestnut's diary (she being the South Carolina socialite) which was frequently cited in the Ken Burns documentary. Just started it but it is an interesting perspective on the war.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Freedom of expression should be a basic human right. Banning the confederate flag, or any kind of flag for that matter, is a concept that's entirely lost on me.

I don't think anyone is attempting to ban the flag per se but there is a definite attempt to distance oneself from it as some equate it with a support of slavery. Also there will be a presidential election in 2016 and politicians (bless their hearts) don't want to be seen as being on the wrong side of a controversial issue.

c.d.

[pinkmoon]

I am currently reading Mary Chestnut's diary (she being the South Carolina socialite) which was frequently cited in the Ken Burns documentary. Just started it but it is an interesting perspective on the war.

c.d.

I've read all for the union Elisa hunts diary and Sam Watkins company aitch which were both heavily used in the Ken burns series and they are truly horrific but like I said the thought of a southern victory is a more horrific thought.

[pinkmoon]

I've read all for the union Elisa hunts diary and Sam Watkins company aitch which were both heavily used in the Ken burns series and they are truly horrific but like I said the thought of a southern victory is a more horrific thought.

In the last episode of the Ken burns series it actually states that issues concerning the civil war were never really resolved the military side of it was concluded but not the actuall issues .

[GUT]

Limit it and they will come. En mass.

[Pcdunn]

Freedom of expression should be a basic human right. Banning the confederate flag, or any kind of flag for that matter, is a concept that's entirely lost on me.

I think it should be allowed to fly on private property, if anyone sees it as affirming his or her "heritage" (which is an actual argument I've read on forums), but I don't think the Confederate battle flag should fly over state buildings or other government places in any Southern state.
Banning has not been discussed, other than the governor of South Carolina said it should be removed from the statehouse.
Some stores, such as the giant Walmart, said they are removing items with the Confederate Battle Flag design from their outlets.
(Civil War buffs have pointed out this flag was not really attached to the Confederacy headed by Jefferson Davis, but was carried into battle by certain Confederate army units.)

[GUT]

What about the Nazi flag???

Should it have the same rights?

[Pcdunn]

In the last episode of the Ken burns series it actually states that issues concerning the civil war were never really resolved the military side of it was concluded but not the actuall issues .

Very true, Pinkmoon. You should follow up your Civil War reading with some works on the Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws, the novel "The Help", and the documentary series "Eyes on the Prize".

The United States in the 1850s were divided into the industrialized North and the agricultural cotton and tobacco empires of the South, a fedual society built on slave labor. They feared the growing Aboltionist movement would lead to the end of slavery, so they resisted the Federal government and started what the North saw as an "insurrection".

What I don't understand is why couldn't they use free, paid laborers? Was it simple greed? Stubborn pride on the part of the plantation masters?
Yes, General Sherman's March to the Sea destroyed many fine plantations and threw the South into even greater poverty, but more than that it cemented Southern hatred against both Yankees and freed slaves. This is why in the 1950s and 60s young people of both races were marching for civil rights, such as voting and education, that had still been denied to them by the white authorities.

[kensei]

What about the Nazi flag???

Should it have the same rights?

I was going to say that, but I hesitated.

I don't think it's an issue of rights, but one of who in their right mind would actually display the Nazi flag? You don't see it flying just below the German flag just because it's part of their history. Nor do you see the current Japanese Rising Sun flag with the single red circle displayed along with the old one from WWII that had the sun's rays radiating out. I think people who still proudly display the Confederate flag as an expression of Southern pride should technically be allowed to (just as people should be allowed to display the two flags I just mentioned if that's what floats their boat), but they don't seem to fully understand that history has decreed the South to have been the villains of the Civil War. In other words- let them fly it, but look at them funny and shun them when they do.

[GUT]

I was going to say that, but I hesitated.

I don't think it's an issue of rights, but one of who in their right mind would actually display the Nazi flag? You don't see it flying just below the German flag just because it's part of their history. Nor do you see the current Japanese Rising Sun flag with the single red circle displayed along with the old one from WWII that had the sun's rays radiating out. I think people who still proudly display the Confederate flag as an expression of Southern pride should technically be allowed to (just as people should be allowed to display the two flags I just mentioned if that's what floats their boat), but they don't seem to fully understand that history has decreed the South to have been the villains of the Civil War. In other words- let them fly it, but look at them funny and shun them when they do.

But remember the victor writes the history if the South had won they would be the heros and the North the villains.

[Barnaby]

I live in Charleston and suffice to say things have been extremely painful and emotional since the shootings. I'd like to take a moment to remember the victims of this tragedy and highlight the inspiring community response of love.

Deep issues of race, however, remain.

With respect to this thread, I can say that the goal is not to "ban" the flag, but simply remove it from public places, such as the state house. If companies wish to stop selling the flag (e.g., Wal-Mart, Amazon) in my opinion that is great but the government should not force them to do so. Also, the "flags are flying off shelves" phenomenon is not simply due to the fact of a perceived ban. There are many people in this state and elsewhere with deeply held convictions who - at best - view it as part of their heritage and/or - at worst - are overtly racist.

Interestingly, the state park/museum/fort at Fort Sumter has lowered the confederate flag. I have way less of an issue of the confederate flag flying at Civil War memorials than at the capitol building. I was actually surprised that this was done.

I am quickly becoming educated on this topic and did not know the combo of (a) a third of SC men of fighting age died during the Civil War and (b) there was a draft. I do not think it is inappropriate or contradictory to honor the valor of the soldiers even while detesting slavery. The question is how best to do so.

[Mayerling]

In answer to Pat (PCDunn), the southern territories were colonized by the British (and Spanish, and French briefly in 1565) in an age that found slavery perfectly acceptable in society in general. It was also how plantations were run throughout the Caribbean and rest of the globe by all powers. Basically for the upper classes, having slaves made one feel ever so richer and more powerful. For poorer whites, since slaves were considered inferior beings, they got to feel superior too towards them. Racism on this scale is like a mass poison.

A few years back, in New York City, the Portuguese wanted the borough of Queens (Queens County in New York State - where I live) to accept as a kind of minor "Statue of Liberty" friendship gift a statue of one "Catherine of Braganza". If you are up on your Stuart history, Charles II actually had a legitimate wife - Queen Catherine. It was a diplomatic marriage because England and Portugal (despite different religions) had maritime interests in common, and a great of trade. Charles was a friendly man and treated the Queen officially with respect and expected everyone in court to do the same (which they did). Catherine on her part was unable to bear children, so she said nothing about Charles various affairs. Actually the marriage worked.

When New Amsterdam (a Dutch colony at the time) fell to an English fleet in 1665, the names of territories were changed. The city and colony became "New York" after the Duke of York (the future James II) who was head of the British navy. The area the Dutch called "Brooklyn" got renamed as "Kings County" in honor of King Charles. The area called "Staten Island" became "Richmond County") New York City had been New Amsterdam, but the island became New York County (although the locals kept the old Indian name of "Manhattan"). And the area of farms and villages north and east of Brooklyn became "Queens County" in honor of Queen Catherine.

So the Portuguese (around 1997) wanted to present a large statue to Queens of Catherine of Braganza - to be set up in Astoria facing the East River and the Eastern shore of Manhattan. It was not to be as tall as the Statue of Liberty, but it would be noticeable to river traffic and to cars in Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx*,

[*You will notice I did not mention the Bronx and it's name. That borough and county retained the name "the Bronx", because it is named for a Scandavian settler, Johannas Bronck, who discovered the slender "Bronx River" that flows into the borough from the Long Island Sound. Bronck actually lived in Manhattan, but his farm was near the river, and people going that way would remark, "we're going near the Bronx River", and soon, "we're going near the Bronx". The British saw no reason to change the name, as it was not Dutch.]

One would think that getting such an interesting gift would prove irresistible to New Yorkers. No way. African-Americans quickly said they would object. It seems that Catherine and her family made a great deal of money in the slave trade in Africa. To honor any of her family would be a slap in the face of the African-American population. As a result, we never got the statue.

Since the name of the borough and county is "Queens" (plural) there was no need to change the name at all. However in other parts of the country there have been such changes or similar ones. In Washington State, it turned out that a county was named "King" County in the 1850s. Why? For Vice President William Rufus King of Alabama, the Veep of President Franklin Pierce. King was a Senator from Alabama for many years, and had been put on the 1852 ticket as a balance to the Northern candidate Pierce. However King died of tuberculosis in Alabama nine weeks after the term began - in fact he had spent the election and early part of the term in Havana, Cuba where he was hoping to regain his health. He is the only U.S. Vice President sworn into office while abroad (due to special act of Congress). King was a slave holder and defender of the institution. But the County was named for him as an act of respect for the dead Vice President. Then four years back the citizens of Washington revolted on this. How could they have a county of the state named for a man who was a slave owner? They kept the County's name, but changed the "King" from Vice President King to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. So now it honors the late Civil Rights leader and Nobel Prize winner.

Since the tragedy in South Carolina other symbols of the Confederacy are facing removal or being hidden. The Statutory Hall in the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. has statues of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, General Joe Wheeler, and other Confederates around, and they are being moved to less noticeable spots. Every state has two such statues which can be changed if the state insists. Perhaps Davis will be replaced by some other favorite son of Mississippi, such as William Faulkner. Alabama put up one for Helen Keller. They can find alternatives who are less controversial.

One man's hero is frequently another person's villain. In Hungary they think highly of one "Atli" who made the Romans flee around 410 A.D. We know him as "Attila the Hun". Similarly in Rumania, Prince Vlad Dracul (whom we all know is the real "Dracula" or "Vlad the Impaler" for his favorite way of killing his enemies) is a national hero - hey, he helped drive away those bad guys who were trying to take over and spread Islam! So it goes all over the world in every age. Napoleon's name, in the early 1800s, was used to frighten English children to behave themselves or he'd come to punish them.
When the United States thinks of General John J. Pershing, they respect our commanding general from World War I. Mexicans sneer about Pershing, that stupid gringo who tried to chase their hero Pancho Villa for nearly a year illegally on their territory with his men, and failed to catch Villa.

You can go on and on like this. I do feel the South Carolina and Mississippi flags should be changed to fit a different political climate. However, some slack should be given the descendants of the men who died trying to defend what came to be the "Lost Cause". Not that I'd have liked a Confederate victory either, but the South suffered grievous losses from 1861 - 1865, and one has to respect them for honoring those they lost.

Jeff