Photo of Mitch McConnell in Front of a Confederate Flag Resurfaces Amid Northam Yearbook Controversy

Would that include Arkansas too?

 

For those still pretending that the Confederacy was not only racist but ideologically centered on racism, see post #194. Yes, there are still people who wave that flag just because they like Lynard Skynard or because they just intend to express some kind of pride in the South in general. Those people are innocent, but also historically illiterate.

 

Nonsense.

Bigoted nonsense.

 

The flag has meaning wholly separate from the narrow bigoted liberal nonsense attributed to it.

It's no more troubling to rational people that he stood in front of this flag than if he's stood in front of a church, mosque or synagogue.

Flags, like religion, can be used in many ways, and represent many things.

Furthermore, this is part of a hollow circus of distraction; whether VA Donks or Kentucky Heffs, ultimately meaningless.

 

The southern states that seceded primarily did so for the preservation of slavery and he philosophy of white supremacism. I quoted them in their own words saying just that back in post #194. Basic acknowledgment of objective historical fact isn't "bigoted." It is a simple acknowledgement of fact. I can quote them all over again if you don't feel like going back and reading post #194. Just because you don't like historical fact does not mean that playing make-believe is somehow rationally justified. There are two options: confronting the slavery motivation of the south or investing, instead, in a historical fantasy. Most of those who idolize the Confederacy do the later. They aren't being racist; they are just being deliberately ignorant of racism.

 

WOW … first time I've seen that picture of Turtle Face beaming directly in front of a huge confederate flag.

WTF were you thinking, Turtle Face?????

Or were you just ****-face drunk like Barf O'Kavanaugh back in the day???

 

Republicans don't play the politically correct game. Mitch is fine.

If you don't like it, you're just going to have to wallow in your misery.

 

Well that’s one sides reasons for the war. What did the other side fight for(hint: ending slavery wasn’t the reason)?

 

Declare amnesty. #MeToo and racism begins on March 1, 2019.

 

I've answered that question many times on these forums. No, the North didn't fight the war as some campaign to end slavery. The South, however, was convinced that the Union would end slavery and they seceded in order to preserve it. For the North, slavery wasn't the biggest issue. For the South, it was, and it is foolish to try to rewrite history just because we find it offensive.

The South saw the confederacy as primarily about slavery. I've quoted them in their own words. Flying that flag and trying to say it is about anything else is either deception, ignorance, or revisionism.

 

So then the war wasn’t just about slavery. Good to know.

 

The Confederacy was about slavery. Secession was about slavery. The war was about secession. Wars don't have flags. Countries do. This one is a flag of a country founded on slavery and white supremacy.

 

Actually that one was a battle flag for the army of northern Virginia and was never the flag of the CSA.

When someone says the war was just about slavery I’ll call bs. It wasn’t. It was for one side. It wasn’t for the other, at all. That’s reality.

 

THE flag, no. A flag, yes. Of course it represents the CSA. What else would it represent.

Yes, it was. Which is what we were discussing in this thread. I'm glad you agree it was the primary motivation of the Confederacy. That's what we were debating.

No one here claimed it was. We were talking about the motivations of the Confederacy, not the Union. That's reality.

 

Depends on who’s flying it. If it was me, it’d represent being a rebel(Dukes of Hazzard fan here) and the south in general. No racist connotations or anything from me.

I do agree it was the primary motivation for the CSA. I don’t agree it was the sole reason for the civil war(which it really wasn’t. The CSA didn’t want to take over the USA, they wanted to be their own country. A misguided and stupid fight for independence) as the US didn’t care about that.

And? Can’t expand on ALL the causes?

 

Which I also already covered.

Good. That's what we were discussing and what was called "bigotry" for some reason.

No one here is claiming it was.

The discussion was about the motivation of the Confederacy and the motivation behind secession. The motives of the Union have nothing to do with the meaning of Confederate symbolism. If the historical revisionists in this thread could admit to what you've admitted to, then I'd be happy to move on to talking about other issues. Until then, I'm still trying to get them to acknowledge basic historical facts.

 

You can choose to learn what the flag stands for - its many meanings - or you can continue to live in narrow knee-jerk ignorance like an Islamophobe or Russiagater.

Good luck in whatever choice you make.

 

It's actually more complex in terms of the South's reasons, but the North fought so it could dominate expansion into the West, diminishing Southern interference/competition.

 

I did choose to learn. I provided the Confederates in their own words, which of course you completely ignored. Your "interpretation" would require me to shove my head in the sand and ignore history. You are free to do so. I prefer the truth. I'm not sure why you find that offensive.

 

Nonsense.

 

Not according to the South itself. They made it clear the reasons weren't so complex. Their primary reason was slavery. I've quoted them saying exactly that.

 

And yet you can't point out a single thing wrong about it or even so much as address the direct quotes. All you can muster is the intellectual equivalent of "Nyu-uh" and pretend that history simply doesn't exist.

 

Hey come on; it's a great picture of Mitch "I'll never pose in front of a Confederate Flag" McConnell!

 

@Antiduopolist

Here it is again if you missed it the first time:

Alexander Stephens said:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
William Thompson said:
As a people we are fighting to maintain the heavenly ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause . . . Such a flag would be a suitable emblem of our young confederacy, and sustained by the brave hearts and strong arms of the south, it would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized wold as the white man's flag.

Georgia said:
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. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation . . .

The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation . . .

Mississippi said:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

South Carolina said:
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Texas said:
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

Virginia said:
The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

 

No doubt it was a huge concern.