What is Digg?300 Comments
- gronne, on 10/12/2007, -95/+180The Confederate Flag is a symbol of treason and should be treated as such.
- thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -43/+104The Confederate flag doesn't mean the same as a burning cross, it's a symbol of Southern heritage. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're a racist or you're ignorant, and it doesn't even have to mean you're a Republican. My grandfather who lives up in the mountains in Georgia waves a Confederate flag in front of his house - and he's as Democratic as they come. The whole thing seems like a non-issue to me.
- JimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -36/+94A senator from Conn. is speaking out about a flag that is flying in S. Carolina. What does this have to do with government? That's a state rights thing, and ironically, it's the same things that started the civil war to being with.
- Jim - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+64I believe "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" applies here.
- Andronicus1717, on 10/12/2007, -8/+54"It doesn't necessarily mean that you're a racist or you're ignorant, and it doesn't even have to mean you're a Republican."
From Wikipedia:
The Republican Party was established in 1854 by a coalition of former Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free-Soilers who opposed the expansion of slavery and held a vision for modernizing the United States.
When the [civil] war was over, and the Confederacy destroyed, a deep resentment among Southern citizens towards Republicans helped propel the Democratic Party to a majority in Congress by the 1870s and bring an end to Reconstruction. The Democrats were now the party of states rights, the party of the South, and would remain that way until the 1960s.
So you see, the South would have nothing to do with the Republicans for almost a century and the icon of the confederate flag was traditionally a symbol to be flown by the Democrats. Hopefully I have enlightened you to your heritage. - Victor645, on 10/12/2007, -8/+48Pro-slavery party? What the hell are you talking about? If you haven't noticed, party lines and ideologies have changed since 1865.
- Naxr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Letter from President Eisenhower
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower - gronne, on 10/12/2007, -54/+77So does a burning cross but what's your point?
- FrankieB078, on 10/12/2007, -19/+41General Lee would have been branded a terrorist these days.
- jetsetgo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Numerous and articulate.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -14/+33It is pretty damn obvious that Dodd has no concept of what Federalism means. He is a US Senator from Conn. That means he should keep his opinion to himself. No matter what your opinion of this issue, no one can deny that this is PURELY a State issue.
FWIW to those not from SC, the Confederate Naval Jack was removed from the Statehouse almost 8 years ago. The Battle Flag was placed behind (behind mind you!) the Confederate Soldier Monument, a monument which has been there for decades. I guess the monument needs to be removed as well. I'm sure it offends somebody somewhere. - Reap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19And if the Brittish had pwn't us, and we were still flying 'Ol Faithful, they would probably stop us too.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -16/+34He's a politician, Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with it. A politician from another state butting in on the affairs of this state is horse hockey. This is an purely internal affair within the State of South Carolina, and a contentious one at that. A compromise was hammered out 8 years ago, and like all compromises, both sides had to give, and neither side was completely happy. But the compromise DID make sense. It was placed behind a pre-existing historical monument directly relating to the subject. Most African-American state legislators indicated they supported the compromise. It is ONLY the NAACP that has a problem here.
I guess it is much easier to attack a flag than it is to attack REAL problems facing so many blacks in SC such is high drop-out rates, high infant mortality, high rates of incarceration, and extremely high rates of out of wedlock childbirth (one of the key triggers nearly guaranteeing lifetime of poverty). Those problems are hard. The flag is easy.
For a bit of background on the flag controversy and the compromise hammered out, see http://www.usca.edu/aasc/Flag.htm - Reap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War
Slavery was not the main cause of the war, the question of a State's right to cecede was. Before you start defaming historical figures and throwing around emotional and subjective words such as "evil", maybe you should know what you're talking about. - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16If you think that the American civil war was fought primarily because of slavery, you failed history.
- hbweb500, on 10/12/2007, -13/+29@Lyph4
"I believe "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" applies here."
That would be true, but the statehouse is flying this flag, not an individual. It is the same case as with religion: an individual can express their freedom of religion, but the government may not endorse one.
Besides, historically the government has made laws restricting freedom of speech, particularly involving hate speech, in order to balance the wellbeing of the public with the rights of an individual. - armyvet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15"If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also so that"
Abraham Lincoln
His objective was to save the Union - not to either save or free the slaves.
Non-Sequitor: Lincoln used his constitutional powers to issue the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves in the rebellious states. He did not issue it on the border states which were still part of the Union but had slaves. He did this to keep the border states from succeeding from the Union.
It was a political maneuver - not that there's anything wrong with that. - gronne, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19I just said it also means different things to different people.
- Baconn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14""State's rights" in the context of the Civil War is largely, if not chiefly, in reference to human slavery. The dishonest attempt at seperating the two in these arguments is disgusting."
Do you really think Southerners were willing to die so that they could own slaves? - LabThug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"name me one (just one) southern black person who also flies one."
In addition to TheBloom's post, I'd like to point out that once you get off the Interstates of SC, the world down here really changes. While living in Lexington (~15 mins from Columbia) I was passed numerous times by an African American flying a Stars and Bars from the back of his pickup truck. And this wasn't just a teeny little one either, the thing was bigger than most American Flags flown on July 4th. So ... they do exist. - Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Wouldn't a state flag be a better representation of state rights than a flag that was meant to represent another federal government?
- gallagherFTW, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22"The flag may have had historical significance, but its meaning has changed to one of hate and intolerance."
I believe it represents something very important today, and that is States Rights. With the expansion of the executive and subsequently the federal government we are moving farther and farther from what our forefathers envisioned for this country. When was the last time you heard your state passed a huge law about gay marriage or something important for that matter.
I am 19, born and raised in New York, and now go to the University of Kentucky. I can tell you from a completely neutral point of view that when a person has a confederate flag, they are not automatically a racist. It represents something else for those people, and that is States Rights...We need to remember States Rights now more than ever. - slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14 (EDIT: I see "theblooms" beat me to it... But I will leave my comment as I wrote it nevertheless.)
H.K. Edgerton-- An intelligent and respectable "souther black person" who proudly flies the confederate flag in Asheville, NC (He was also the president of the NAACP here for many years.
Here is one article: http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/edgerton.htm
Also, you may remember him from Penn & Teller's "*****" program.
So, at your request, I will say, "it is a symbol of southern brotherhood."
(P.S. The civil war had very little to do with slavery. Almost all academics agree on this matter. "Getting rid of slavery" is just the "feel good" issue we can all look back on ~150 years later.) - uttles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12OK, everyone please think about this for a minute:
In the 1800's, the US Federal government made 86% of it's tax income from tarrifs on agricultural exports from the Southern states. The Northern states received about 75% of those funds which went towards building railroads, cities, schools, etc. The Southern States were fueling the economy but receiving none of the benefits.
Now consider this: The VAST MAJORITY of white Southerners did not own slaves. Slaves were ***** expensive! In fact, most white southerners were poor tenant farmers who struggled just to get by and feed their kids. They couldn't get a good education because... there weren't any schools. They couldn't do other work because all of the industrial infrastructure was being built in the North, and funded by Southern Agriculture.
The Northern States and Lincoln knew all this. They put the screws on the South and they were unapologetic about it. So, the Southern states got pissed the ***** off. They decided to leave the Union because of the unfair taxation and the overreaching power of the Federal Government (sound familiar?) When this happened, Lincoln ***** a brick. Industrial development wasn't far along enough to fund the Northern population on its own, so he knew the Union would fall without the South. When he said "United we stand, divided we fall" the "we" referred to the Northern States. They would have gone belly up without all that tax income.
Why do you think the first move was to barracade the South? Come on, it's simple. European countries were depending on the Southern exports, and if they would have kept coming, those countries would have been quick allies to the CSA.
This is where slavery comes in. It was purely a propaganda issue. If the North really cared about black people, why did it take 100 more years to let them vote and use the same bathrooms? Lincoln outlawed slavery only in the CSA states because he wanted to accomplish three things:
1) He wanted to keep England and France from becoming Southern allies. They had already abolished slavery and if Lincoln could make it a big enough issue, he could keep them from aligning themselves with a slavery loving country.
2) He wanted to garner enough support from the citizens of the Northern States to actually be able to fund and fight a war. It was a recruiting tool as well as a crowd appeasement tool. Sortof like the "war on terror" that digg loves to criticize so much.
3) He wanted to gain states into his union to help him fight the war, and Slavery was a big political issue with some of the western states. Lincoln said "hey but we're going in to fight slavery" and so the ones who's economy didn't depend on agriculture said "oh cool, that's a groovy idea."
So, in fact, the war for Southern Independence was fought for the same reason as the revolutionary war. Unfortunately, the winner writes the history books and they showed no respect for Southerners at all, causing 100+ more years of disharmony and grudges between the states. Use your brains and don't just buy whatever your underpaid, undereducated teacher tells you. - RedbeardUH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Actually, the south broke off from the north, not because of slavery, but because of state rights. The US constitution pre Civil War gave the states the upper hand (see bill of right #10). The US was forcing the south to do things that the south as a whole didn't want to do. It became a power struggle and slavery was more of a side issue than anything. Even Lincoln didn't always think slaves "in their current condition" should be free.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14One might think Senator Dodd was angling to be Presidential material.
Oh wait, he is.
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070112/NEWS01/701120347 - scoot2006, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11This country was founded on treason and rebellion. Think Voltaire.
- LabThug, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18"the statehouse is flying this flag"
No, the statehouse isn't flying the flag. It was removed from the statehouse flagpole a while back. It (actually, it's not even the same flag) is now on a previously created confederate monument on the statehouse grounds - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13hbweb said "Whenever I see someone waving around a Confederate flag, they are spewing racial epithets all over the place as well. The flag may have history, but it most commonly recognizable as a symbol of racism. "
So, since MOST PEOPLE who wave this flag are ALSO spewing hate speech, we should make waving the flag illegal?
By your logic, since people who wear red shirts in the city are often part of a gang, we should ban red shirts. - netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'
It just comes down to one thing: Do you think that a flag is covered under Freedom of Speech? A flag is basically a picture. If you start denying that flags are under Freedom of Speech, that would imply that drawings are not covered by Freedom of Speech. Then what about writing, words are basically just pictures, right? Television broadcasts pictures too.
Defend your right to fly whatever the ***** you like, whether you like it or not. Once you start picking and choosing your liberties, the govornment'll jump on that and soon you'll have none. - LabThug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10If you read the Emacipation Proclamation, you'll quickly realize that Lincoln only banned slavery in a few number of states and not the entire nation like many people claim:
"Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html - Reap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@GeneralFailure
As I said before, I can certainly respect Lee, and can see how others would respect him as well. I'm not looking this up as I type, so it might not be exactly 100% correct, but as I recall the balance between State and Federal rights was nowhere near as clear-cut then as it is now; the South wanted a government much more like the Articles of Confederation than the government we currently have, and the Constitution gave the Federal gov't MORE power than the articles, but it was a living, breathing document then too- exactly how MUCH more power wasn't certain.
Before the Civil war you were much more likely to have someone identify themselves as "I am a Virginian" or "I am a New Yorker" than "I am an American", and that was the reason Lee joined the Southern Secession- he was a Virginian first and an American second. He respectfully declined the position as leader of the North's forces saying as much, and did it in a laudable way. So, while you could make the argument tha Lee was a traitor, you could just as easily make an argument that he was a patriot and just got caught on the wrong side of a Constitutional debate. - gitux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Actually there is no activity named the "Civil War" in American history. It is by act of Congress truly "The War Between the States". It was not a civil war in that it was not a group of people trying to overthrow the existing government. It was in fact a group of states that decided to remove themselves from the union which they felt was no longer serving their best interest. It was indeed a stand for States Rights, which is exactly what is at stake here. Is it the right of a state to determine for itself what might be located on state owned property, or is it up to others to determine this for them?
While admittedly one of the rights that the southern states wanted was the right to maintain slaves, it was due to their economy that the slaves were there. The north was primarily industrialized and could survive without the need of slaves, but the south felt a need for them in their agricultural based economy. However, I have great doubt that the average southern fought for slavery. I can actually say that two of my ancestors fought for the south during the war and neither of them owned a slave, nor did their families.
I can also say that I have seen racism in "the north" that doesn't compare with "the south". My mother is from Illinois (southern Illinois) and blacks were treated worse there when I was young than in the southern town in which I grew up. My wife, from Gettysburg, PA, was not exposed to blacks until she moved to TN in 1976.
The flag has nothing to do with racism from the time of the war. The sad part of it is that it has been used by organizations since that time that do represent racism and have put a bad spin on the flag. Our country would be quite different if it hadn't been for the men both blue and gray that fought that war and gave of themselves. The southern men died that our states would have some powers that remain with the states and the northern men died that our federal government would stand united. If the war had never happened, we might have a federal government today with too much power or that would have collapsed at some other time. If the war had ended differently, we would not have been able to do the things that we have done for the world since. - Birdoftruth, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Victor, slavery was on its way out in the south anyway because It became to expensive (about $30,000 a pop translated to current day currency), it only stayed a little longer because of the Cotton boom and would soon die off inevitably, so it is not as if the Union saved the blacks.
- Victor645, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13The Civil War became about slavery (at least to European nations observing the war) after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. At the start, though slavery was an issue, the war was chiefly concerned with states' rights. On that note, it isn't some Connecticut Senator's business what flag is displayed in an SC State Courthouse.
Now, I think pretty low of the South. But do I think the rebellion was unjustified? No. I of course don't agree with the specific reasons or secession, but the fact is, they felt their rights being threatened and decided they'd be better off independent. Isn't that sort of similar to how the U.S. was formed? They had the right to *try* to secede - it's a good thing the Union won, though. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6834616400884591628
Exactly 11:00 minutes in. And he happens to be the former President of the Asheville, NC chapter of the NAACP. - bjkrautk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Yep....nothing like complaining about the Stars & Bars to reach out to a constituency that Dodd is going to need to appeal to into in order to win a primary (...as though that's actually going to happen). Not to mention, I believe SC is one of the early Presidential primaries (1 week after NH?).
I was going to tag a "Didn't we already have this argument in the past 10 years" onto the comment thread, but I see from reading other people it was only 8 years ago. - chicbicyclist, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16No matter how you dice it, those that represented the Confederate flag wanted to break away from the Union and as such, are considered traitors to the Union. There is just no way around it.
It's not even being racist or not. They wanted out of the state and form their own.
And yes, the American flag is also a symbol of treachery from the British. The only difference is that those it represented won and is no longer part of the British crown. Former confederates are still "Americans", and I will use the same argument most of them do. Use American symbols, not the symbols of the enemy. - Eclipse19, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Heritage, not Hate!
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11What part of, "You're a Liberal Yankee Senator from Connecticut who has no business talking about what flags the STATE of South Carolina wishes to fly over it's capital."
As an individual he can talk all he wants, as a Senator he speaks for Connecticut and should keep his mouth shut! - Jacob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I got a buddy who flew one in his dorm (black guy) Anybody who says that that the flag is bad is ignorant. I am originally from seattle and I go to school in kentucky, that's right a state that didn't even secede.
- thenumber42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Someone tell Mr. Dodd to go back to his state and stop bothering other people in his quest for power. The flag means a great deal other than a black/white issue to a good many people, something someone from outside the south will have a hard time understanding just by virtue of not being from the south. I don't begrudge those people their misunderstanding, but when some yankee wanders down and starts telling a southern state what to do, it is highly insulting. Its just how things are in the south. They don't like being told what to do, they never have, and probably never will. Especially if the person telling them what to do isn't one of them. If a Rep. from the south did this, it wouldn't cause half the stir this is. This is merely a PR move, to make him look good for demographic reasons, and its really an example of everything wrong with politics today. Saying things just so theres a record that you did, which can be pointed to in 2 years as reason why the black community should vote for him is despicable.
- blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Actually they are the government of South Carolina. The federal US government has nothing to do with it.
- PunkRampant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Abe Lincoln did a disservice to the black people when about 5 million died from starvation after the Civil War because they had nothing to do with the Black people."
That would be Andrew Johnson's fault, not Lincoln's. Lincoln was assassinated only a few days after the South surrendered, so when Johnson took control he began screwing up everything Lincoln had planned. Johnson ended up being the first president to be impeached, one of the biggest reasons being the 5 million freedmen that died following the war. - LabThug, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"I guess it is much easier to attack a flag than it is to attack REAL problems facing ... SC"
Ironically, I posted the below to digg shortly before this story made the front page:
http://www.digg.com/world_news/Students_photos_of_decrepit_South_Carolina_schools
Somehow I doubt my post is going to get as much as attention as this one. Maybe you're onto something, TheBlooms. - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Reap - However, while both raised arms against their country, technically, Sherman was the one who started burning down homes and attacking civilians in his march to the sea. Sherman however, is forgiven since he was doing it in the name of the USA, in contrast to Lee was doing it, in his mind, more for the people and going against the USA.
- PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Nice Simpsons' quote, hammydude. It's refreshing since Digg seems to primarily do Family guy quotes.
- Thud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"That would be true, but the statehouse is flying this flag, not an individual."
That is beside the point. It is the U.S. Consitution which simply states that "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" etc etc.
What part of the U.S. Constitution leads you to believe that a state government does not have the right to fly a certain flag? - jsdratm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Anyone who is telling the southerners to abandon their heritage because they think the flag represents hatred is a moron. The confederacy was about a lot more than that, it was about STATE RIGHTS and ANTI-FEDERALISM. Senator Dodd and many of the commentators in this thread need to go read some history books.
- Baconn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Secession is treason like divorce is illegal. Unions persist only through a willingness of the joined parties.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 296 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is