Petitioners protest Confederate flag [flown by homeowner]

[SilentLi89]

What I see, as the others on this thread do not, is that the slavery existed and was endorsed under the stars and stripes flag from 1790 - 1860, and after as well in the form of segregation. The people protesting the rebel flag cant see the similarity either, they protest that flag yet happily call the stars and stripes their own, a flag much more symbolic in their historic oppression.

It's not like the American atrocities against black people haven't been noted, so much so that people take it too far sometimes.

Regardless, it is our own flag, whether we like how they behave under that flag or not does not change that. We are Americans and that flag represents the country that we live in. The Confederate flag however, for many blacks it is a reminder of a not so long ago nasty past (my grandparents families were victims). Crazy Southern Americans may have been under the "stars and stripes" but they still waved their Confederate flag high when then went out hanging black people and setting their houses and families aflame. The other crazies elsewhere in America weren't known for flying the US flag at their "string 'em up" parties. It was the behavior of those in the South that gave their flag a bad name and led it to represent something beyond it's original intentions. It originally didn't really stand for slavery, but it did come to stand for racist hate and prejudice because they wanted it too.

People who fly the US flag now, when they go harass Mexicans, for example are trying to do the same thing. It doesn't have to make logical sense, but you can see where the association comes from. Because of that association I'm naturally leery of people who fly the Confederate flag until I know why they do so (usually being Bible thumping, black/Mexican haters is the most common reason that I've come across). People who fly the US flag just don't have the same stigma attached to them (for blacks at least) and thus do not offend.

 

[Brian Foley]

Regardless, it is our own flag, whether we like how they behave under that flag or not does not change that. We are Americans and that flag represents the country that we live in.

I dont see it as such, the same stars and stripes flag today 200 years ago represented slavery. I see it as the victors history, which has demonized the Rebel Flag and glorified the Stars and Stripes as a symbol of freedom, when it blatantly never was. I am simply amazed at how people are completely kept in the dark about history.

 

[adoucette]

I dont see it as such, the same stars and stripes flag today 200 years ago represented slavery. I see it as the victors history, which has demonized the Rebel Flag and glorified the Stars and Stripes as a symbol of freedom, when it blatantly never was. I am simply amazed at how people are completely kept in the dark about history.

The flag represents the union of the 13 original Colonies which grew to the current 50 states.

As in United States of America.

The flag never represented slavery any more than it represents emancipation.

Apparently if it was up to you, we'd replace it every couple of years so the flag would always have a "clean slate".

Arthur

 

[Pandaemoni]

What I see, as the others on this thread do not, is that the slavery existed and was endorsed under the stars and stripes flag from 1790 - 1860, and after as well in the form of segregation. The people protesting the rebel flag cant see the similarity either, they protest that flag yet happily call the stars and stripes their own, a flag much more symbolic in their historic oppression.

That is true in a sense, but it's also not entirely relevant because when these people look at the U.S. Flag they (and most people) do not immediately associate it with slavery. It's true that they *could*, in that it is a conceivable reference that one could draw out and associate with the flag, but they do not.

With the confederate battle flag it seems to me that for many people, their primary association is with something other than slavery--say southern pride. The issues are (1) while the number of people who see the U.S. flag as a symbol of slavery are small, the number of people who see the confederate flag as a symbol of slavery are large and (2) even amongst those who see the confederate flag as a symbol of pride...even they must be aware that a lot of people see it as a symbol of slavery. The use of the symbol knowing what others think may simply be just a bit obstinate, but it also may be that those people relish upsetting the sort of people who see it as racist or even that they relish the implied insult against non-whites the flag afford them. It is very hard to distinguish the real motivations of those involved.

Symbols matter not because of their "objective" meaning (they have none), and certainly not based on what we wish them to mean, but based on what individuals subjectively interpret them to mean.

Here in the U.S., the confederate flag is caught in in the middle of two large groups, one that wants to see it as a symbol of pride (and who may or may not be using it for other reasons), and one that sees it as a symbol of racism. The struggle for what that flag "really means" will be decided when one of those two groups wanes in its enthusiasm for the symbol. My best guess is that the "flag-as-racist" crowd will win, because I don't see taking pride in one's ancestors' treason as a position that will last forever, especially given the mobility of the U.S. population. That said, I could be wrong, and I would not expect either side to functionally win within my lifetime.

 

[Brian Foley]

The flag never represented slavery any more than it represents emancipation.

Im just making a parallel that if they believe the confederate flag is racist and represents evil, then why dont they extend this to the stars and stripes.

Apparently if it was up to you, we'd replace it every couple of years so the flag would always have a "clean slate".

I really dont care what flag you fly, I live in a country with a flag with a Union Jack in it, and many Irish were sent here against their will, and I am myself of Irish stock, it doesnt bother me in the least.

The issues are (1) while the number of people who see the U.S. flag as a symbol of slavery are small, the number of people who see the confederate flag as a symbol of slavery are large and (2) even amongst those who see the confederate flag as a symbol of pride...even they must be aware that a lot of people see it as a symbol of slavery.

Agreed 100%, Im just forwarding an observation on these events, you say it is seen as a symbol of slavery, I am just saying that slavery existed for 70 years under the stars and stripes.

The use of the symbol knowing what others think may simply be just a bit obstinate, but it also may be that those people relish upsetting the sort of people who see it as racist or even that they relish the implied insult against non-whites the flag afford them. It is very hard to distinguish the real motivations of those involved.

Its just a matter of skewered history courtesy of the victors distorted interpretation of events.

 

[Tiassa]

The Southern Stain

Most of those leftwingers whom support the building of the victory mosque in NY, suddenly take this tack when the subject has to do with a Confederate flag.

What is the victory mosque? Oh, wait, is that the name a bunch of frightened, nationalistic supremacists have bestowed on the construction of a community center in New York City? Well, let's consider the parallels, or, I suppose, the lack thereof. If this was just a matter of some people signing a petition and the developers going ahead anyway, your point might actually be valid. I haven't heard this becoming the sort of issue that reporters are checking in with the White House on. Indeed, I haven't heard senators and representatives from the several states that Summerville is not located in making public statements about it.

I do, however, see that the town council looked into the petition and decided they had no grounds for action against the display of the flag.

Oh, hey, something else I don't see:

They want the woman beaten and the house burned down to make her an object lesson no doubt.

Where did you get that bit?

How about they march against people flying the Mexican flag?

Because it wasn't the Confederate States of Mexico that started a war to preserve slavery in the United States? I don't know, man ... seems pretty damn obvious to me.

... you say it is seen as a symbol of slavery, I am just saying that slavery existed for 70 years under the stars and stripes.

In this particular context, though, there is a difference about the comparative symbolism. The Stars and Stripes represents not only those years of slavery, but also the will of the people and the republic to evolve past that. By comparison, the Battle Flag of the Confederacy is a haunting symbol of a nation that lived and died to keep people in bondage.

And it should be noted specifically that the Confederate flag in question was a battle flag that never represesnted the Confederacy as a whole. Those flags were, alternately, "Stars and Bars" (a circular arrangement of stars in a blue field, with two red and one white horizontal stripe), the "Stainless Banner" (battle flag in the upper corner of a field of white), and the "Blood Stained Banner", which was the Stainless with a vertical red stripe covering the outmost quarter of the flag.

The Battle Flag, which is the most popular symbol of the Confederacy, is specifically representative of the armed struggle to preserve slavery.

 

[quadraphonics]

Who says that is what it is a symbol of? Shouldn't those who create symbols be the ones to define their meaning?

Not sure about "should," but regardless: when the Confederacy marched under that battle flag into the most devastating war in America's history in order to defend slavery, they seem to have pretty decisively defined their own symbol in exactly the way that it is now perceived.

The issue you are speaking to is a matter of people who did not create the symbols in question trying to arrogate the power to redefine them. Or, not even that: they don't want to actually change the definition. They just want to escape accountability for it when it is not convenient for them.

The confederacy's objection to the union was one of freedom.

Specifically, they objected to the idea that black Americans should enjoy the universal human rights and freedoms supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution that they freely signed and ratified. They wanted the "freedom" to declare entire classes of Americans as subhumans that could be owned and disposed of as property.

They believed the people in the industrial parts of the country had no right to exert their will over those in the farming industry.

Then they shouldn't have freely signed and ratified a federation empowered to do exactly that in cases such as the one in question.

They basically believed state's rights trumped the "United States" claims of control

And yet, they freely signed and ratified documents establishing the power of the United States and explicitly stating that such trumped states' rights in such situations.

In that respect, the confederate flag basically symbolizes states freedoms.

The freedom to arbitrarily and systematically deprive millions of Americans of the basic, universal rights and freedoms guaranteed to them by the founding documents the states freely endorsed, that is.

Pretty much any polity, no matter how nefarious, can be said to have been "defending its freedoms." Applying that rhetoric to a situation where the "freedom" being "defended" is the freedom to systematically trespass against the rights and freedoms of others doesn't impress anyone. All it does is rob the term "freedom" of any worthwhile meaning.

 

[adoucette]

Specifically, they objected to the idea that black Americans should enjoy the universal human rights and freedoms supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution that they freely signed and ratified. They wanted the "freedom" to declare entire classes of Americans as subhumans that could be owned and disposed of as property.

Ah, the Constitution guaranteed blacks no such rights.

It does specifcally stop their IMPORTATION, 25 years after it is signed and the Constitution specifically clasifies them as NOT FREE and only worth 3/5ths of a White person when determining representation in Congress.

And it most definately classifies them as property, that if by chance they escape to a State where owning them as property is not allowed, that does NOT set them free, but indeed the Constitution commands that the power of the State be employed to return the person to his OWNER.

Indeed, it was the OVERT acts by the Northern States to subvert the Constitiution of the United States and the unwillingness of the Federal Government to make them obey the Contstitution of the United States that caused South Carolina to conclude that the contract that the Constitution represented was voided.

U.S. Constitution
Article 4 Section 2
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Article 1 Section 2
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ”

“ Article 1, Section 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

And yet, they freely signed and ratified documents establishing the power of the United States and explicitly stating that such trumped states' rights in such situations.

They did no such thing. Indeed, there is nothing in the Constitution today that deals with the issue of Secession, either prohibiting it or allowing it. Prior to South Carolina Seceding, they sent an Offical delegation to Washington to find out directly from President Buchanan, what would happen if they Seceded. President Buchanan told them that though he thought that no State should Secede but that he had no power to force them to stay in the Union.
When asked if force would be used he said no. When Lincoln was asked if force would be used he said:

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.

He then proceeded to BE the agressor and start the war.

So, I ask you, if Hawaii decides to Secede from the Union, do you suggest bombing them back into submission, or will strafing the beaches suffice for you?

Arthur

 

[Brian Foley]

What is the victory mosque?

Its the term the US media uses, your the American.

The Stars and Stripes represents not only those years of slavery, but also the will of the people and the republic to evolve past that.

Evolve? Under the stars and stripes Blacks had to endure 100 years of segregation.

 

[adoucette]

Evolve? Under the stars and stripes Blacks had to endure 100 years of segregation.

So sue us.
Evolution is slow.
Takes a LONG time for a people to go from slaves, with no property, no education and few skills to be freeman able to compete equally in this country.

It would have been MUCH better if we hadn't fought a war over it and instead spent a fraction of what the war cost on setting the newly freed slaves up in some of the rich, but mostly empty land we had acquired via the Louisanna Purchase and buying the farmers a tractor to replace every 20 freed slaves. Compared to the cost of the war it would have been peanuts.

But I digress.

As to Segregation, again you miss the point, we are the United States.
Each State is a very separate entity and has its own laws, ultimately those laws can be reviewed at the Federal level to ensure that they fit within the Constitution, and so Segregation was never the law of the land, though it was upheld in states that wanted it by the Supreme Court in 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, saying that as long as the facilities were equal, segregation was ok (the facilities were never equal however), but in any case, it was the law in some states until ultimately the Supreme Court got around, in 1964, to ruling that Separate but Equal was not Constitutionally approved.

None the less, 150 years later, though our laws have outlawed institutional segregation, and we even have elected a black president, our daily lives remain highly segregated.

Arthur

 

[Brian Foley]

So sue us.
Evolution is slow.
Takes a LONG time for a people to go from slaves, with no property, no education and few skills to be freeman able to compete equally in this country.

It would have been MUCH better if we hadn't fought a war over it and instead spent a fraction of what the war cost on setting the newly freed slaves up in some of the rich, but mostly empty land we had acquired via the Louisanna Purchase and buying the farmers a tractor to replace every 20 freed slaves. Compared to the cost of the war it would have been peanuts.

But I digress.

As to Segregation, again you miss the point, we are the United States.
Each State is a very separate entity and has its own laws, ultimately those laws can be reviewed at the Federal level to ensure that they fit within the Constitution, and so Segregation was never the law of the land, though it was upheld in states that wanted it by the Supreme Court in 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, saying that as long as the facilities were equal, segregation was ok (the facilities were never equal however), but in any case, it was the law in some states until ultimately the Supreme Court got around, in 1964, to ruling that Separate but Equal was not Constitutionally approved.

None the less, 150 years later, though our laws have outlawed institutional segregation, and we even have elected a black president, our daily lives remain highly segregated.

Arthur

What in Gods name are you babbling about? The point I am making is that there is no difference between either the Confederate Flag or Stars and Stripes, under both flags Blacks suffered.

 

[adoucette]

What in Gods name are you babbling about? The point I am making is that there is no difference between either the Confederate Flag or Stars and Stripes, under both flags Blacks suffered.

I'll make it real simple for you.
That flag, the one with 50 stars, didn't come into being until 1959 and Segregation never existed in many states that make up the USA. If you want to point to the STATE flag of a state, like Georgia, which legally mandated segregation, fine, but after the repeal of Slavery, legal Segregation was never part of the US Constitution (which is sorta what the US flag represents)
You'll never understand America unless you understand that we are also 50 separate States. Each one has it's own Constitution, it's own Governor, It's own Legislature, it's own Judiciary, it's own police force, manages it's own schools, paves it's own roads, creates it's own set of laws and policies.

Arthur

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

Its the term the US media uses, your the American.

Which US media? FOX News? A delusional right-wing blogger? Which segments of the US media use the calculated and inflammatory misnomer "victory mosque"?

Evolve? Under the stars and stripes Blacks had to endure 100 years of segregation.

Yes, but—

• the flag is different now than it was in 1865.

• the flag's representation is no more static than the nation it represents.​

The Stars and Stripes is at least as much the flag that brought emancipation (and, thus, steps toward national self-correction and reconciliation) as it is the flag that held black people in chains.

Comparatively, the banners of the Confederacy rose and fell on slavery. The Battle Flag is symbolic of the war fought to preserve slavery. It hasn't the same evolutionary course as the Stars and Stripes.

And I'm still curious:

They want the woman beaten and the house burned down to make her an object lesson no doubt.

Where did you get that nifty nugget?

 

[spidergoat]

By the way, the flag often called the Confederate Flag was never the official flag of the Confederate States of America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

 

[Brian Foley]

You'll never understand America unless you understand that we are also 50 separate States. Each one has it's own Constitution, it's own Governor, It's own Legislature, it's own Judiciary, it's own police force, manages it's own schools, paves it's own roads, creates it's own set of laws and policies.

There is nothing to understand, thyats basically the way countries are run from Australia to Germany, America is no more unique in that respect. America has a central police force the FBI which has power in all states, a central Federal Reserve which controls money supply for the entire country, a Supreme court etc,etc which all over ride States. No State can ever leave the Union because there simply is no right of state secession in the US Constitution.

The Stars and Stripes is at least as much the flag that brought emancipation (and, thus, steps toward national self-correction and reconciliation) as it is the flag that held black people in chains.

'Emancipation'!! what is it you cant see? Blacks suffered segregation under that flag for 100 years, slavery was institutionalized under the stars and stripes flag. Slavery and segregation died out because it became superfluous not becuase of any Constitution. For Christsake all I am asking is whats the difference between the flags, thats what I cant understand one flag they despise the other flag which in reality is more representative of their oppression they swear allegiance to it.

Where did you get that nifty nugget?

Growing pickets daily outside her house, and her earlier comments.

“My first reaction was they are going to do what they think they need to do,” Caddell said. “My second reaction was I’m not going to be here.”

Go figure...

 

[adoucette]

There is nothing to understand, thyats basically the way countries are run from Australia to Germany, America is no more unique in that respect. America has a central police force the FBI which has power in all states, a central Federal Reserve which controls money supply for the entire country, a Supreme court etc,etc which all over ride States. No State can ever leave the Union because there simply is no right of state secession in the US Constitution.

Then you should understand that Segregtion was only ever State law (and never a majority of States), not Federal Law, and eventually (granted our system IS slow) our Supreme Court overturned even the last state attempt at Segregation by just a relatively few States, the use of Separate but Equal facilities.

Slavery and segregation died out because it became superfluous not becuase of any Constitution.

FALSE.

Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and the Supreme Court eventually ruled that the Constitution prohibited the States from enacting Segregation laws (pretty much due to the 14th Amendment).

Arthur

 

[quadraphonics]

Ah, the Constitution guaranteed blacks no such rights.

And in that respect it is inconsistent with the other founding documents, specifically the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal"), which the Slave Powers freely signed and endorsed. And this inconsistency was introduced into the Constitution exactly as a political compromise to keep the Slave Powers from dividing the new country and so inviting its demise at the hands of the colonial powers, with the expectation that it would be expunged soon enough. And so it was - that the Slave Powers managed to get some divisive wording into the Constitution and thereby invite an eventual conflict is no excuse. They were evil and wrong, and paid the price for their inhumanity. And in that regard, their treatment was more than fair - evil of that nature and magnitude possesses no sovereignty worth respecting.

He then proceeded to BE the agressor and start the war.

The Slave Powers who systematically trampled the rights of their fellow citizens for decades, in the full knowledge that this was unacceptable to the Free States and the rest of the world, were the aggressors. Your semantics on this are petty politics and excuse-making.

So, I ask you, if Hawaii decides to Secede from the Union, do you suggest bombing them back into submission, or will strafing the beaches suffice for you?

If the reason they want to secede is to enshrine a system of monsterous racial oppression and depravity, then I propose a full-scale land invasion and generations-long occupation. And whatever flag they do so under should be reviled as a symbol of naked evil by all decent Americans in perpetuity.

But that's a silly hypothetical. There's no chance of Hawaiian secession.

It would have been MUCH better if we hadn't fought a war over it and instead spent a fraction of what the war cost on setting the newly freed slaves up in some of the rich, but mostly empty land we had acquired via the Louisanna Purchase and buying the farmers a tractor to replace every 20 freed slaves.

There wouldn't have been any "newly freed slaves" absent the war. The Slave Power wanted to keep slavery, not just the agricultural capacity and profits themselves. This shit was an integral part of the social and political system, not just some business strategy embraced out of cold-hearted economics. It was absolutely central to the operation of the Southern political order and its relations with the rest of the country and world. That's why they're still flying battle flags and electing venomously racist politicians 150 years later.

So you've got the causation backwards. The South isn't irrationally invested in this stuff because we had a war - we had to have a war because the South was always irrationally invested in this stuff.

 

[quadraphonics]

'Emancipation'!! what is it you cant see? Blacks suffered segregation under that flag for 100 years, slavery was institutionalized under the stars and stripes flag.

And then defeated and de-institutionalized under said flag. Hence the respect. Said emancipation did actually occur, and it was an overt political move undertaken by the polity represented by that flag. Hold the US as a whole accountable for whatever of its crimes you like, but you're also going to have to give us credit for the good stuff.

Slavery and segregation died out because it became superfluous not becuase of any Constitution.

LOL

You realize that there are more slaves on the face of the Earth today than at the height of the Southern plantation days? No shortage of segregation to be found either. So where's the superfluity?

For Christsake all I am asking is whats the difference between the flags, thats what I cant understand one flag they despise the other flag which in reality is more representative of their oppression they swear allegiance to it.

You've already recieved clear, complete answers to the stuff you asked. By now, you're arguing against the answers and pushing a position that black people should despise the two flags equally. Which is okay, I suppose, but spare us the "just asking" weaselry. You're taking a position and resisting incompatible perspective and data.

 

[adoucette]

And in that respect it is inconsistent with the other founding documents, specifically the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal"), which the Slave Powers freely signed and endorsed. And this inconsistency was introduced into the Constitution exactly as a political compromise to keep the Slave Powers from dividing the new country and so inviting its demise at the hands of the colonial powers, with the expectation that it would be expunged soon enough. And so it was - that the Slave Powers managed to get some divisive wording into the Constitution and thereby invite an eventual conflict is no excuse. They were evil and wrong, and paid the price for their inhumanity. And in that regard, their treatment was more than fair - evil of that nature and magnitude possesses no sovereignty worth respecting.

Horse pucky.
Thomas Jefferson wrote those lines and he owned slaves.
At the time, they didn't think of blacks as equal to men, that's why they justified OWNING them.

Judging people back then, based on today's moral codes is silly.
It was a different world.
Doesn't make what they did right, but these people, including Thomas Jefferson, were not evil.

Indeed, if you look at the ending of Slavery, it was coming to an end in the world and would have come to an end in the South as well, with or without the war.

BUT

The way it was handled, granting them freedom and nothing else was indeed EVIL, since the consequences of that act were obvious.

The suffering and death toll of blacks following emancipation was horrendous.

But you just go on as if this MAGIC of FREEDOM is the Be All and End All and that the destruction of much of the South and the deaths of almost 700,000 people was a price worth paying for this Magic elixor.

But the fact is, had the North been COMPASSIONATE and actually cared about the Blacks, then they would have worked with the South to find an equitable way out of this for not only the Southerners whose economy depended on their labor, but more importantly, for the Blacks so they could get a fair start at a new life.

We had the money, we had the land, we had the time to do so, and though you might not believe it, conditions in the South were not so bad that we didn't have the time to figure this out.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KW...resnum=10&ved=0CDAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you care to see what freedom with nothing meant to these poor people.

There wouldn't have been any "newly freed slaves" absent the war.

Really, had Southern States seceded and a war not started, you think there would STILL be slavery in the Confederacy?

LOL

Right.

So you've got the causation backwards. The South isn't irrationally invested in this stuff because we had a war - we had to have a war because the South was always irrationally invested in this stuff.

All of the original states allowed slaves, your focus on the South as Evil is ill founded and your moral indignation at this late date is pointless.

Arthur

 

[Tiassa]

Mythopoeia

'Emancipation'!! what is it you cant see? Blacks suffered segregation under that flag for 100 years, slavery was institutionalized under the stars and stripes flag. Slavery and segregation died out because it became superfluous not becuase of any Constitution. For Christsake all I am asking is whats the difference between the flags, thats what I cant understand one flag they despise the other flag which in reality is more representative of their oppression they swear allegiance to it.

The problem you're having is that you're insisting on reserving a dynamic symbol (e.g., "Stars and Stripes") to a static condition in order to justify its comparison to a lost—and therefore static—icon (e.g, "Battle Flag of the Confederacy").

If you take a snapshot of the United States of America in 1850, yes, the Stars and Stripes includes prominently among its representations the institution of and compromises to slavery.

The Confederacy existed for four years (1861-1865), dedicated to a war intended to keep the institution of slavery intact. Its only redeeming grace, as such, is that the war proably brought an end to slavery sooner than civil progress would have.

The United States, to the other, has existed for two hundred thirty-four years. One hundred forty-seven years ago, the republic proclaimed an end to slavery, and formalized that proclamation two years later. Over half this nation's existence has occurred under the auspices of the Thirteenth Amendment for over half its existence. Meanwhile, its people have, over the course of generations, struggled to recover from the blight of slavery and the impacts of the war.

And part of that recovery is in motion right now: the Stars and Stripes is represented by a man who would have been a slave in 1850, depending on where he was born. He is also a man who would have been relegated to "negro" facilities, despite the Fourteenth Amendment, until 1954. He is a man who only became "not black" in American consideration when he achieved heights unprecedented among blacks.

Two hundred thirty-four years, Mr. Foley. It's a hell of a story. And those fifty stars and thirteen stripes represent every day and person of that story.

And unlike the Confederacy, it is a story that continues to this very day, and will tomorrow as well. The Confederacy is dead. It is today what it was yesterday, what it was one hundred forty-five years ago, and what it will be tomorrow: dead. Over. Done. Finito. Khattam-shud. It will not redeem itself. It cannot redeem itself. The only flux in its definition will be technical matters among historians. It fought and died to keep slaves in bondage. The Battle Flag is, ultimately, a static symbol.

One can certainly propose to restrict their view of an ongoing story to a single chapter, but that does not mean the sixty-three percent of this nation's history that has occurred since emancipation don't exist.

Yes, you're asking; and yes, people are answering. But the answer isn't making sense because you're trying to restrict a living, dynamic symbol to the stasis of another.

Growing pickets daily outside her house, and her earlier comments.

“My first reaction was they are going to do what they think they need to do,” Caddell said. “My second reaction was I’m not going to be here.”

Nothing in those links supports your contention:

"They want the woman beaten and the house burned down to make her an object lesson no doubt."​

Nothing.

Did you invent that just to spice up the topic post, then? You know, give the thread some flash at the outset? Or is this one of those mythopoeic elements required to justify your outlook on the issue?