Started By
Message

re: Bubba Watson to paint over Confederate flag on General Lee

Posted on 7/3/15 at 12:08 pm to
Posted by Whiznot
Albany, GA
Member since Oct 2013
6994 posts
Posted on 7/3/15 at 12:08 pm to
Most people in the South who love the rebel flag aren't racist but I don't understand why anyone would want to display a symbol favored by neo nazis, skinheads and the KKK.

I'm a 66 year old white southerner who loved singing Dixie at HS football games but I've changed with the times.

As I've become older and smarter I've learned that it's best to avoid confrontation. It's just dumb to go out of the way to offend people. There are worthwhile issues to fight for but the rebel flag isn't one of them.
Posted by Jefferson Dawg
Member since Sep 2012
31961 posts
Posted on 7/3/15 at 12:40 pm to







quote:

I don't understand why anyone would want to display a symbol favored by neo nazis, skinheads and the KKK.


Well?
Posted by Jefferson Dawg
Member since Sep 2012
31961 posts
Posted on 7/3/15 at 12:52 pm to
quote:

I've learned that it's best to avoid confrontation. It's just dumb to go out of the way to offend people. There are worthwhile issues to fight for but the rebel flag isn't one of them.

"Groupthink" personified.

LINK.........




The 4th of July feels more like a day of mourning rather than celebration now. We've blown passed the Twilight Zone and I'm not even sure what to call this new place we're in..
Posted by rb
Georgia
Member since Sep 2012
5633 posts
Posted on 7/3/15 at 1:14 pm to
quote:

There are worthwhile issues to fight for but the rebel flag isn't one of them.


What about the countless Confederate Memorials their trying to rip down Whiz ? The ones that the mother's, wives, and daughters erected in the memory of their dead sons,husbands, and brothers. Over 300,000 of em. Should people sit idle on those as well?
Posted by Whiznot
Albany, GA
Member since Oct 2013
6994 posts
Posted on 7/3/15 at 1:41 pm to
I have no problems with the memorials. Some of my ancestors fought for the South. My 90 year old mother in active in both the DAR and the United Daughters of the Confederacy but none of that stuff means shite to me. I'm not waving anyone's flag.
Posted by FaCubeItches
Soviet Monica, People's Republic CA
Member since Sep 2012
5875 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 4:28 am to
quote:

The South fought in defense of this american principle. And the north fought against it.


H.L. Mencken put it best:

"The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — 'that government of the people, by the people, for the people,' should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all."
Posted by PDXDawg
Member since Aug 2013
753 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 8:18 am to
The state of GA put the confederate flag on the state flag in 1956. I'm sure that it's just a coincidence that they decided to honor our history the year after the civil rights movement began.
Posted by rb
Georgia
Member since Sep 2012
5633 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 9:59 am to
quote:

The state of GA put the confederate flag on the state flag in 1956. I'm sure that it's just a coincidence that they decided to honor our history the year after the civil rights movement began.



The state actually adopted the confederate flag as the state flag in 1879. The state changed it in 1956 to the battle flag , because much like today, people are ignorant too it . The official reason for changing it was commemorating the centennial of the war. Little Rock pushed it forward 4 yrs. I'm not naive man. Resistance to the Federal Govt's desegregation mandate was a hot button issue, throughout the country (see Boston ),not just Georgia and the South. The main difference in Georgians then vs now is the 1956 Georgian stood his ground for what he believed , today's Georgian packs his shite and moves north to another sprawling suburb and calls it progress.

This post was edited on 7/4/15 at 10:51 am
Posted by S1C EM
Athens, GA
Member since Nov 2007
11585 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:52 am to
Honest question here....because I've heard all the arguments I can handle on what the main, driving factors of the civil war were - slavery and/or "states rights". If it wasn't slavery, but rather states rights, how do you explain the numerous Articles of Secession and Declarations of Causes from the southern states that pretty much pointed to slavery as the main point of contention? ???
Posted by AllDawg
Evans GA
Member since Jan 2014
1516 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:55 am to
Why not just sell the thing versus defacing it?
Posted by WG_Dawg
Hoover
Member since Jun 2004
86429 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:57 am to
quote:

Why not just sell the thing versus defacing it?


because then that evil piece of machinery the likes of which have not been seen since Christine would still be alive and well in someone else's hands.

Only course of action is to remove the flag from everywhere. Wipe away it's existence.
Posted by rb
Georgia
Member since Sep 2012
5633 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 10:58 am to
Was slavery protected by the U.S Constitution during the secession of states ?












Now ask yourself, how could it be about slavery?
This post was edited on 7/4/15 at 11:06 am
Posted by Remington Dawg
Irmo, S.C
Member since Sep 2012
1457 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 11:24 am to
quote:

No, because most white people choose not to have kids they can't afford


True, and other people have multiple children that they cannot afford and will not raise just so that they can say they have a number of children and use it as a statist symbol while our salaries and bonuses are taxed to high hell to help pay for them. Welcome to Merica!
Posted by S1C EM
Athens, GA
Member since Nov 2007
11585 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 11:27 am to
quote:

Was slavery protected by the U.S Constitution during the secession of states ?


Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that the war was ultimately over slavery (or the states' rights to own them, more specifically). You can say it was over States rights, but it seems as though the primary right in question was their ability to own slaves.

For the record, I think Bubba is an idiot. The car should be left alone or sold to someone who appreciates it for what it is.
This post was edited on 7/4/15 at 11:32 am
Posted by Jefferson Dawg
Member since Sep 2012
31961 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 11:38 am to
quote:

how do you explain the numerous Articles of Secession and Declarations of Causes from the southern states that pretty much pointed to slavery as the main point of contention?

What is there to explain?

Slavery was obviously a hotbed divisive political issue at the time, (not necessarily for the reasons people today think) and the agrarian South's economy was tied directly to the practice and much capital was invested in this "property". Ending the practice abruptly with no plan would mean financial ruin for the South.

So, proponents of secession used the subject to "fire the southern heart" over concerns that the new Lincoln administration was determined to contiually harass them over slavery rather than letting the state's handle the issue on their own. The mentally ill John Brown's attempted terrorist attack in Virginia, which was financially backed by northern interests, was also fresh on the SOuthern mind as well. Conjuring up images of the bloody slave insurrections recently in the Caribean. So, obviously this would be something that concerned all Southerners. Slave owning or otherwise.

But of course, you can't just look at the Southern side of slavery. Lincoln, a lawyer that had represented slave-owners and who was a life-long proponent of deporting all blacks from the country, proposed and supported an amendment to the u.s. constitution aimed directly at relieving these concerns about federal interference in slavery.

It was called the Corwin Amendment. And he speaks of it in his first inaugural address. And it spelled out in clear language that the federal government was forever prevented from touching slavery in the states where it existed.

SO, slavery would have been explicitly enshrined in the COnstitution, but yet, the Southerners still seceded. In fact, ending slavery didn't even enter the picture until two years into the bloodbath when it looked like the South might win her Independence. And it certainly wasn't for humanitarian reasons. The emancipation proclamation was a war measure to free slaves in confederate states. It did nothing to free slaves in states that were loyal to his "union". THose slaves in the north were not freed.

Also, it's important to realize that when the SOuth Carolinians fired on Ft. Sumter, there were more slave states still in the union than had seceded.

shite, there's volumes more, but most have probably stopped reading already anyway because it's turning into a BeefDawg post... Last word though: The states created the federal government. Please notice that there was never any legal challenge to the Right of secession over slavery or any other topic. It is the inherent right of a state to leave the union if it's people choose to. That is called "State's Rights".
Posted by Jefferson Dawg
Member since Sep 2012
31961 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 11:41 am to
quote:

Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that the war was ultimately over slavery (or the states' rights to own them, more specifically).


Wrong.

The SOuth could have dropped their muskets at any time and returned to the "union" and been allowed to keep their slaves.

But, still they fought.
Posted by rb
Georgia
Member since Sep 2012
5633 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 11:48 am to
quote:

The SOuth could have dropped their muskets at any time and returned to the "union" and been allowed to keep their slaves. 

But, still they fought.


Without the first drop of blood spilled.
Posted by S1C EM
Athens, GA
Member since Nov 2007
11585 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 11:56 am to
I totally get what you're saying here, but the idea that slavery was only singled out in the Articles of Secession for the purpose of stoking the southern fire is just that....an idea. I agree that's likely what the motivation was, but unfortunately what they wrote down on paper is what people are citing to underscore their true reason for secession. Anything else we propose is seen as nothing more than conjecture (and kids in public schools are steadily eroding what's left of people in this country who understand what you just stated).

So how do you argue with someone who uses the Articles to make their case that the war was about slavery? You need something concrete (not that even then it would really matter, I suppose).
Posted by rb
Georgia
Member since Sep 2012
5633 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 12:00 pm to
quote:

Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world”.
Abraham Lincoln – U.S. Congress, 1847

A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that, Lincoln, when asked, “Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861


Posted by PDXDawg
Member since Aug 2013
753 posts
Posted on 7/4/15 at 12:38 pm to
quote:

The state actually adopted the confederate flag as the state flag in 1879. The state changed it in 1956 to the battle flag , because much like today, people are ignorant too it . The official reason for changing it was commemorating the centennial of the war. Little Rock pushed it forward 4 yrs. I'm not naive man. Resistance to the Federal Govt's desegregation mandate was a hot button issue, throughout the country (see Boston ),not just Georgia and the South. The main difference in Georgians then vs now is the 1956 Georgian stood his ground for what he believed , today's Georgian packs his shite and moves north to another sprawling suburb and calls it progress.


Changing the state flag to include the battle flag was clearly meant to be provocative and a reaction to the civil rights movement. People can spin it however they want but to me it's obvious. The state of GA used the flag to thumb their noses at black people and now people want to act like it's ridiculous that people have a negative view of it. JMO.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter