Confederate Flag: Racism and Treason.
The Confederate flag is a symbol of racism and treason against the Union. There is no rational basis behind the argument of some that the flag means anything other than that. It was added to southern flags in the 1950's solely as a sign of rejection of the end of segregation.
The Union was formed by the People, not the States ("We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..."). The States therefore did not have the ability to dissolve the Union, because it was the people, not the States that formed it. And as we know from the argument over the 2d amendment, the People is not the States. And it was "the people of the United States," not the people of individual states, that formed it.
Article 4, which discusses admission of states, says that Congress disposes of territory and property belonging to the US. States did not retain that power and therefore secession does violate the Constitution. It also guarantees to the states protection from domestic violence. Fort Sumter was domestic violence, and an attack on US property, which on the US had jurisdiction over, as agreed to in the Constitution. States could not form a junction of states without the consent of Congress.
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
And the States were not even allowed to make alliances and were specifically prohibited from a Confederation:
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Interestingly, the Articles of Confederation to the US (that preceded the Constitution) does specifically prohibit secession:
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
And the Civil War was clearly about slavery regardless what "states rights" people argue. See the excerpts from the letters of secession below. I don't believe anyone can read those letters and not believe that slavery was the primary cause.
First line in the letter of secession from Georgia:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. 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.
South Carolina:
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
Mississippi:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Texas:
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy…
I do not believe anyone can read those statements in the Letters of Secession and argue that the war was anything other than about slavery, and any symbol that glorifies the war is also about slavery.
posted by Jrudkis @ 3:42 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I'm not so sure that all displays of the Confederate flag are expressions of racism or treason, regardless of the flag's history. I'm sure that some are, and that some, which are said not to be, actually are thinly veiled expressions, at least of racism, if not treason. Those incorporated into the flags of Southern states are likely in one of those categories.
But what never seems to be mentioned regarding individual citizens' displays of the Confederate flag is that the flag is just really cool looking. It's way cooler than the Stars and Stripes, and a bit cooler than the Union Jack. It's a bold, powerful and exciting looking flag.
I would guess that many people who display the Confederate flag on their pick-up trucks, biker gear and bedroom walls wouldn't bother to do so if it were a boring, wimpy flag. Many people, including Northerners, just like it because it looks cool. They may arguably be insensitive for displaying it, but not necessarily racist or treasonous.
If you wear a shirt with the words "I hate America and Blacks," you don't get to argue the meaning is truly benign, and "I like the design." The just like words, flag has a meaning, and regardless what the displayer wants to say, that is what he is saying.
That's a pretty silly comparison. There is no literal meaning in something that does not contain language. The potential for interpretation(or total lack thereof) of a symbol without language, like the Confederate flag, is far more open than that of specific words with plain and literal meaning. You may interpret the flag to say "I hate America and blacks." Someone else might not. The words "I hate America and blacks" mean exactly what they say, period. It's just not the same situation, and to say it is is not only incorrect, it's likely intellectually dishonest.
You can't display a swastika because you like the design, and claim that it has no Nazi meaning to you so it is okay, and you can't display this flag and claim it has no racist, treasonous meaning to you because that is what the symbol means. Words are simply symbols, no different from the flags, and it is dishonest to beleive that somehow words convey ideas in some manner different from symbols, whice are truly a less abstract system than an alphabet and words.
Imagine Bo and Luke Duke on prime time television driving around with a swastika on their car. Imagine an American state flag with a swastika on it. Imagnine someone who can read and write English reading the words "I hate America and blacks" and thinking it means "I'm proud to be from the South." If you're really trying to deny that words have far more specific meanings than symbols, you've lost most of the people who would attempt to read your posts. Words are symbols, but they are systematic. Abstract or not, their meanings are much clearer. What does the swastika mean to a Hindu?
A hindu living in Germany knows exactly what message the swastika conveys, regardless of the original religious meaning. But there are plenty of people in Germany that would still proudly display the swatika but for it being illegal...and I am sure many of them would claim "heritage" as the reason for the display.
An American living here should know exactly what message is being conveyed by the rebel flag, regardless whether he likes the design. It is not by accident that it is used by the KKK, which was founded by General Nathan Bedford Forrest who fought under that flag.
Perhaps 110 years after WWII, there will be a show with people driving around with a swastika on the car. If the swastika is still used to symbolize jewish oppression and murder like the rebel flag still symbolizes treason and racism, then it will still convey that message, even if there is a hot girl in shorts on the show.
Your requirement that someone understand english in order for the words to have meaning is the point. Someone who does not understand english and says the words "I hate blacks" is conveying information in the same way someone who claims to not think the flag conveys hatred of blacks is still sending that message. They may not intend in, but that is the message understood by those who receive it.
Symbols like a swastika of flag are a more powerful and concise means to convey messages than words as well, which is why Hitler was surrounded with flags at his speeches, not signs saying "Nazi," or "Swastika." So you are right that words can convey a more precise message, but it is wrong that they convey information in a different manner than other symbols.
Just let me know if this exchange has grown tiresome for you. It hasn't yet for me, so I'll continue.
If, in 110 years after WWII, there is a TV show with someone driving around with a swastika on their car, the old meaning of the swastika will have lost much of its force.
The problem for me with the argument you are proposing is not so much in the conclusion you are drawing, but that you are basing it on the premise that non-linguistic symbols are the same as words. I don't refute that such symbols convey meaning or that some may convey a very concise message, even moreso than words.
That "it is wrong that they convey information in a different manner than other symbols" is what I find problematic. They may convey information, but they do so in a completely different manner than language. In short, if you are trying to convince me that all displays of the Confederate flag are racist and treasonous, don't do so on the basis that they are the same as literally saying "I hate America and blacks."
Your example of the person who doesn't understand English saying "I hate blacks" is an interesting one. To someone else who doesn't understand English, it would mean nothing. To someone who does understand English, but doesn't harbor such a sentiment, it would be offensive. But what would the person who understands English think of the speaker if he knew the speaker had no idea what he was saying?
Perhaps "an American living here should know exactly what message is being conveyed by the rebel flag." But maybe he doesn't. And maybe, sometimes, it's obvious that he doesn't. As I wrote in my first commentary post, some who display the flag may be insensitive, but not necessarily racist or treasonous. I'll add ignorant to that characterization.
I think there is a thin slice of this issue that we actually disagree on. And whether or not the coolness of the Confederate flag justifies its display, even by the ignorant, the point stands that no one discusses its basic aesthetic appeal when discussing the wrongness of displaying it.
He cupped her, felt the hardened nipples pressing into his palms, as he moved her tits in slow, sensual circles. Several hours later, Michael walked up the street with Julie to the samepayphone at the gas station which Julie had used earlier.
1st time sex stories
teen first sex stories
free gay adult sex stories
hard hairbrush spanking stories
free brother sister porn stories
He cupped her, felt the hardened nipples pressing into his palms, as he moved her tits in slow, sensual circles. Several hours later, Michael walked up the street with Julie to the samepayphone at the gas station which Julie had used earlier.
Post a Comment
<< Home