Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Giuliani Pro-Choice on the Confederate Flag

Or at least believes that flying it is a matter best settled on a state-by-state basis. Sharpton demands that he make it clear that he’s not pro-choice on secession too. Who’s going to tell these boys from New York City that the flag issue ain’t big down here anymore, and only certain blogsters are still bitter over that war over slavery and/or states’ rights? There is a silly argument in Georgia over whether the legislature should officially apologize for slavery, but just about everyone really is very sorry about it. Same with segregation, which is universally regarded as an unjust residue of slavery. Everyone also knows air conditioning and integration were indispensable for the South reasserting its regional superiority and achieving financial dominance. So we in Georgia easily let our partly Confederate state flag go, and nobody much misses it. The Republican governor complicit in keeping it gone got re-elected by a huge margin, with the tiny pro-flag vote going to some anonymous libertarian who still stayed solidly in the single digits percentage-wise. Giuliani has a lot of work to do on knowing when to be pro-choice and when not to be, and similar words could be written about federalism. (I know I’m going to feel a bit of outrage here, but that’ll prove nothing much.) (Thanks again to Ivan the K.)

Discussions - 41 Comments

Do you know of Father Abraham Ryan? He was a Catholic priest, a chaplain in the Confederate army and a poet. Sometimes one will hear him called the "poet laureate of the Confederacy." He wrote a poem on the subject of the battle flag that I like. It ends like this:


Furl that banner, softly, slowly!

Treat it gently--it is holy--

For it droops above the dead.

Touch it not--unfold it never,

Let it droop there, furled forever,

For its people`s hopes are dead!

I should also add that the current Georgia flag looks, to my eyes at least, like a homage to the first Confederate flag. Do you think this choice was intentional?

It is amazing how much of the Confederate heritage slips under the radar just because people like Sharpton are too stupid to see it. I mean the largest military base in the country is named after a confederate general. Why doesn`t Sharpton complain about that? Maybe because he knows better than to try and boss the feds around.

Regarding the Imus controversy, Sharpton has said that he doesn`t care about Imus as a person. Rather, what Sharpton cares about, and he comes right out and says it, is that the federal government should control the airwaves and make sure that no one is allowed to say racist things on those airwaves.

Beneath this rather silly culture war and the many overheated exchanges about the power of the federal government there exists a very real threat to human liberty. I hope you see that.

Now, one wonders why, if the confederate flag is a states' rights perogative, why abortion would not also be such a perogative. A matter of civil rights to Rudy? I think he's really painting himself in a corner here.

As for your opinions about how sorry the South is, Peter, I suspect you run in select circles...isolated like most academicians (although your group is probably far more religious than your typical academic circle). Regardless, I doubt most white Southerners "regret" it as much as you let on.

AND WHEN THE HELL WILL SOMEONE FIX NLT'S PROBLEM OF PUNCTUATION?

I doubt most white Southerners "regret" it as much as you let on.

Of course that assertion is based on ... well ... nothing.

This post troubles me. I wonder if Peter really thinks that there should be a federal law banning the display of the Confederate Battle Flag.

Dale, how would you know? You never read anything...I grow tired of the way you "shoot from the hip." I sure hope you don't do that on the job!

Read Question 20.

Well, dain, that response still does nothing to back up your claim.

You put forth an opinion. Nothing factual.

In other words, your assertion was clearly shooting from the hip.

Oh, by the way, the only thing in that search results directory are zip files for births and divorces.

Actually, the link is not working at the moment, but I was citing a survey by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that showed a full 60% of respondents thought the Confederate Flag was a symbol of "Southern Pride," and not a symbol of white supremacy. There were other interesting questions that clearly showed that Southerners are not "sorry" or "ashamed" of their past. I don't know why the link is not working today.

The bottom line is, of course, that as usual I have evidence to support my position, whereas you have zilch.

To Brutus: I wasn't doing anything more than mocking G's ridiculous attempt to suck up to the South. You can be sorry about slavery and racism and all that and ok with surrendering the flag and still have southern pride and take pride in your flag of the past.
Again, read Tocqueville, who explains how the southerners were both much better and much worse than the middle-class northerners.

So, dain, were the people of the south ignorant? Were they so willing to be led by anyone that wasn't affiliated with the North that they believed anything they were told?

The official reason for the creation of the Southern Confederacy, slavery, doesn't jive with the mythical ones.

However, I believe the southern population was intelligent and, for the most part, completely understood the importance of slavery to the south and to the 'cause'.

So, continue with the pathetic ad hominem attacks, but, really, you have real argument.

Correction ...

So, continue with the pathetic ad hominem attacks, but, really, you have no real argument.

Nothing ad hominem about it, sir. Why can the assertion "Most people are sorry about..." stand without evidence, but my counter-assertion cannot? Regardless, I have posted evidence, you have not. This has been your typical pattern...no evidence at all, or evidence that is inappropriate to the argument (no evidence at all). It is not my fault you cannot sustain a reasoned argument.

dain, you really cant be serious with this line of thought.

You put forth an opinion which wasnt backed up with anything and I noted it as such.

You get angry, attack me personally with a clumsy attempt at disparaging my character as a police officer, which is the very definition of an ad homimen attack.

You state that the opinion is based on a survey which right now is not verifiable and I am not in the mood to attempt to look up the survey and establish its veracity, but, yet, you claim that you have established your support for the opinion, which is ridiculous and not evidenced by anything on this thread.

Again, you cant be serious with this.

You know what, dain, I lied ... I am in the mood to research your survey.

I went to the Atlanta Journal-Constitutions website and searched for you survey. (Note, I am not going to pay for access to full articles, so I am only going to give the headlines with the excerpts that were provided)

The only surveys that stated anything close to your assertion were from the early 1990s during another Confederate Battle Flag controversy. The most recent article regarding this topic from the website deals with 10 years of research done by Vanderbuilt.

Southern identity grows less assertive
Date: November 29, 2003 Publication: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The (GA) Page Number: F2 Word Count: 1484

"Im Southern and proud of it" has slowly evolved into "Im Southern and Im feeling a bit guilty and a little ashamed."

A decade of research distilled by Vanderbilt University suggests the number of proud Southerners is declining, with some rejecting the label of "Southerner" while the idea of what a Southerner might be is being diluted by newcomers.

So, you assertion may be assumed correct, but very dated.

However, you initial assertion had no such backing. Heck, even with backing, dated as it is, it is still just an opinion.

But, then again, I dont read, I dont have evidence ... whatever.

Excerpts from research paper completed in 2005 using surveys of Georgia population ...

"Most importantly, we find that both southern pride and opposition to interracial marriage are significantly associated with support for the Confederate battle flag"
- "Heritage or Hate? Race, Gender, Partisanship & the Georgia State Flag Controversy", Vincent L. Hutchings, Hanes Walton, Jr. Andrea Benjamin, University of Michigan

"And, lastly, whatever else Confederate symbols represent, for many southerners they are inextricably linked to the politics of race."
- "Heritage or Hate? Race, Gender, Partisanship & the Georgia State Flag Controversy", Vincent L. Hutchings, Hanes Walton, Jr. Andrea Benjamin, University of Michigan

Listen, for some the Confederate flag is symbol for pride, for others it is a symbol for hate.

However, the fact remains that the symbols for the Confederacy are linked to the Confederacys official reason for leaving the Union - slavery.

Thusly, the flag is attached to that official reason and consequently becomes a symbol of oppression, bondage, and racial hatred.

Sorry, but you can not dodge that fact no matter how much regional pride is being reflected in the flag.

What is ironic in this mess is that even slave-owners like Thomas Jefferson knew instinctively that slavery could be the ruin of this country and would have lasting unforseen effects of which we are still experiencing as evidenced by the controversy over Confederate flags and the Confederacy herself.

Now, let the attacks on my character begin anew and let my comments go barely touched just as before on this thread and on many others.

You are shooting from the hip, my lad. The reason the link is not working is because it is a download. So, here is something more limited. As for the numerous posts, that is all spin...when you ask people straight questions they give you straight answers. 70 percent? Seems odd that this somehow indicates a slipping of Southernness.

And Dale, where did you learn to hate your own people so much? Of course, you will deny that you do, but your sense of shame is palpable. In my opinion, such shame is misplaced. Southerners engaged in slavery when it was still pretty common. As Brutus, myself and others have clearly demonstrated, Lincoln did not go to war over slavery, and most Americans were not fighting over that issue. So why are you so ashamed of your people? Did they not fight bravely? Did they not suffer with dignity? And, on balance, did they not act more honestly towards black folks than Northerners did?

I don`t want to get into another shouting contest about the war, but I would like to say one thing about the flag controversy.

In the late 1990s three southern states, South Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi, had lengthy public debates about whether to keep the flag flying publically. But only in Mississippi did the question actually go before the people. And the people spoke. A clear majority voted to keep the battle flag as part of the Mississippi state flag.

Now you can interpret that fact anyway you like.

To love the South, one must love the Southern Confederacy and its attempt at keeping slavery alive by breaking up the Union.

What a load of b.s. This argument is used when you have nothing else to use. It is a pathetic attempt at making your opponent appear to be full of hate.

Regarding your link ...

That was from 1992, which I noted above in my reference to surveys from the early 1990s.

You will not find such high numbers on more recent surveys, moreover, depending upon the race of the person taking the survey and depending upon how the survey is structured, the results will be much different from the one did in 1992. Even attempting to take race out of the survey, which the 2005 research I used above attempted to do, the results and conclusions make the trend extremely clear ... more people, black and white, are not believing the logic that dain and Brutus put forth.

You can be from the South and proud of it, but not be proud of the Southern Confederacy and its attempt at keeping slavery alive.

That is not hating your own people. Get real.

Here is the 2nd sentence from Georgias declaration of secession ...

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

2nd Sentence no less!

Here is Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederation States of America, in his Message to Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution) ...

"As soon, how ever, as the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in the Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated and gradually extended. A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves."

However, this was not about slavery and, even if it was, I should be proud of this because it is our Southern heritage and it demonstrates that Southerners were truly more honest in her relations with the black people.

That is what I am suppose to believe ... correct?

You can not disconnect the reason for leaving the Union, slavery, and support for the any Confederate flag. Sorry, but it just does not work if you being honest with yourself and with the Southern Confederacy.

Yeah we know. You fantasize about shooting people in gray uniforms and freeing slaves. Blah, blah, blah. Go cut and paste some more speeches. I enjoy ignoring you.

Brutus ... what?

He enjoys ignoring you...seems pretty clear to me. And, do you not never have any fresh material? Some statements of secession included explicit references to slavery, others did not. And a clear third of the States left because of Lincolns actions...you have never dealt with that, just as you have never dealt with the legality of secession (and slavery does not invalidate that legality).

As for hating your own people, I think you do. Nothing could have been a purer expression of Southern identity that the attempt to create their own nation (slavery or no). You despise the attempt, you really despise them. And fella, that is EXACTLY the way they would feel about it.

And, yet, dain, there is nothing on this thread that states or suggests that I hate Southern people except for you assertion, which, like many others, have no basis in fact and is nothing more than your own opinion.

It is called logical inference...you might try it sometime.

So ...

To love the South one must love the Southern Confederacy.

Hate the Southern Confederacy, one must hate the South.

Yeah ... good logic (heavy sarcasm).

Clarification, dain, ...

All declarations of secession (4 of them, mind you) explicitly mention slavery.

When last I looked, there were 11 States in the Confederacy, so you have direct evidence of slavery as the primary cause of secession for only about a third, that that's only if you accept the politicians' view of secession. Notably, the 4 States that made declarations are all in the Deep South (SC, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas) -- the border States left for quite different reasons. Do you deny it?

This is Dale: I love the South, and I'm glad it was ground under the boots of the Northerners. I'm glad most of its best families were exterminated, its lands were bought up by Northerners, and its people, both white and black, were turned into serfs for the better part of a century. I'm glad that the South was punished unto death...yes, I'm a loving son of the South.

With such love as this, who has need of hate?

This is Dale: I love the South, and I'm glad it was ground under the boots of the Northerners. I'm glad most of its best families were exterminated, its lands were bought up by Northerners, and its people, both white and black, were turned into serfs for the better part of a century. I'm glad that the South was punished unto death...yes, I'm a loving son of the South.

This would imply that there is no longer any South to love, or that there is some unchanging idea of "Southern-ness."

Put it this way--might not one be partial to homo sapiens without having any great love for homo erectus, while recognizing that the former descended from the latter?

By the same token, dain, isn't it at least conceivable that a German might love Germany, and German culture, but still be glad that the country was defeated in World War II, its government eliminated, and its territory occupied?

Only if you "loved" it in the abstract, John. Would a real German be happy that every major city was leveled, every 2nd man killed, every young woman raped? You might well regret the Holocaust and hate Hitler and Co., but no true German could celebrate (or even be mildly 'glad') that Germany was defeated given the price.

As for the South, what rose up after the war was permanently scarred. This was not a "pruning" but an uprooting. The South played very little role in American politics until FDR's time, and even today it is at best a counterweight to an American culture that is speeding toward oblivion. No, if you loved any part of the antebellum South, surely you could not be gladdened by its utter defeat.

And let's turn this around. Let's say that you "love" America but detest our invasion of Iraq. Would you be gladdened if we lost, if our soldiers were stripped bare and dragged through the streets of Baghdad, if we lost pride of place in the world order? Such "love" is punitive and vindictive, and certainly does not deserve the name.

This is dain: I make up facts. I am very angry. I hate everyone, especially minorities, libertarians, and everyone who disagrees with me. Especially Lincoln. Lincoln is a socialist. I like Germany and the antebellum South. I will attack the troll for sniping, even though it is a parody of my own immature response to Dale. The irony is lost on me.

Well, powers of Ashland, who will erase this troll?...I call on you to do so. The post above is nothing but pure ad hominem...there is no argument here.

I apologize to "the powers," but the point needed to be made. Comment 33 is not all that different from comment 29. It is a little odd that the guy who wrote the first one demands censorship of the second.

There is a distinct difference, doof. I have clearly designated who I am, and I'm addressing another known poster. I don't hide behind retarded names like "this is not x." Also, unlike yourself, I am not a liar. What facts did I make up? What minorities do I "hate?" You are a classic sniper...assign yourself a real name, make an argument, and then I'll gladly show you the error of your ways.

As for my post #29, I was simply showing Dale the inconsistencies of holding two contradictory beliefs -- loving the South while celebrating its subjugation. Now, go clean those naasstyy fingernails...ugh...and STOP LEAKING ON THE CARPET!!

I am in no way celebrating the ravages that the Civil War brought upon the Southern Confederacy or the South.

What I am saying is that I don't like, rather abhor, what the South did to cause the Civil War and believe the Southern Confederacy to be an abomination.

That said, I do like the South.

That is NOT being inconsistent.

dain, you are turning the argument bass-ackwards.

To love the South does not mean you have to love, condone, tacitly approve, or mildly recognize the Southern Confederacy as something legitimate and noble.

Do you have children dain?

If so, did you love or condone everything think your child did?

I realize that this isn't a perfect analogy, but I believe it, for the most part, applies.

OK, Dale, let's talk children. Let's say you desperately love your kid, but she runs away from home and becomes a drug addict...and of course you do not approve. Even though you really hate what she has done, would you want to see her raped, beaten, murdered? This is what happened to the South, and if you approve of it, then you are saying that they deserved it because they disobeyed your sense of propriety.

I have never approved of the blight of slavery, but I deeply care about who Southerners were (and are). For that reason, and because a clear reading of the law indicates they had a right to make their own mistakes, it saddens me that the Civil War was ever fought, it saddens me that the Conferacy was not left to its own devices, and it saddens me that Southerners were conquered and mistreated. In all honesty, I can't see how anyone who claims to care about the South could feel otherwise.

dain, again, you have everything backwards and it is that way to make you appear as if you truly give a darn.

IF you truly cared, then you would not be lamenting the Lost Cause or the Southern Confederacy and its addiction on slavery.

Moreover, your assertions dictate that not only can a state leave over policy differences with the federal government, but they should because it is the right thing to do. The Southern Confederacy itself could then be splintered at some point and who would suffer then? Yep, the very same people you claim to be saddened over.

No, dain, if you truly cared you would be saddened over the fact that the people of the South were lead into an abyss and it did not have to be this way.

The federal government was in no way abridging anyone of its Constitutional rights. No one. The sentiment of the country was turning against slavery and THAT is what the South could not stand.

So, due the soon-to-be demise of slavery, the South, with slavery as an engrained way of life, decided that slavery was more important than being in the Union.

The result ultimately was war, but that did not happen till the South started physical aggression against federal troops.

Again, dain, you, along with all the other Southern Confederacy apologists, have twisted the logic, the truth, the facts, and history to make it appear as if the South was the victim.

No, sir, the South was not a victim, but the aggressor, which history substantiates.

There are so many distortions in your last post, I'm not going to bother. I will say that every last assertion has been countered in previous posts. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall...adieu.

And let's turn this around. Let's say that you "love" America but detest our invasion of Iraq. Would you be gladdened if we lost, if our soldiers were stripped bare and dragged through the streets of Baghdad, if we lost pride of place in the world order? Such "love" is punitive and vindictive, and certainly does not deserve the name.

You should pose that question to Dan Phillips or one of the other paleocons who comment at this site. I imagine that their answer would be that, inasmuch as failure in Iraq would lead future administrations to shy away from global crusading, they would indeed welcome it. It's not a position I agree with, but it's not an obviously ridiculous one, either.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/10229