Dean Slammed Over Confederate Flag Comment (gun related)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to hand it to you gburner.

That was one impressive post.

One thing to add that was a big part of the War of Northern Aggression ;) is that it had more to do with equal representation in the forming government. Industry was typically concentrated in the North and so were the majority of people. Southern lands were less densely populated and therefore would have been left with little voice in the matters of the nation which was unfair and unconstitutional.

I always love to hear the "slavery as the reason for" the war arguement. As soon as I see someone bring that in I know immediately that they know dangerously little about the history of the United States of America during that time and probably all the way up until now.

I read about the regiment battle flags during the war about 12 years ago. I was shocked to find out that what I'd been taught in public school history was a bit incorrect :) The flags were used to identify the regiments sos not to shoot the wrong people and for commanders to know which troops as well as officers were in the area for correspondence purposes.

Oh well, those that know, know and those that don't can live in the dark.

Take care and again good post.

DRC
 
Yeah the Civil War was about states rights and fundamental limits on the federal government. But in specific it was about how these concepts related to slavery. The right that the south was fighting for was the right to be a slave state and keep people as property. You can't get around the specifics and just look at the generalities because it makes the picture prettier.

Conceptually yes the South had a point (conceptually Communists have a point too), but specifically they were fighting to keep something abhorrent in existence. As Gen Longstreet said to the British officer in the movie Gettysburg, "Maybe we should have freed the slaves and then seceded from the Union." But they didn't and its very telling why.
 
Then how telling is it that the slaves were not freed by Lincoln until 2 years after the war started
 
What the war was about and why people fought, I guess should then be discussed. Most of the people in the south, didn't own slaves. Also there were states that fought with the North that were slave states. So "and I don't think anyone has said it, but to get the point across first" MOST people were not fighting for slavery. This country was founded by Seceeding from England when England didn't recognize our voice. The Decleration Of Independance and the Constitution both agree to that. They also state that when the government of the people doesn't represent the people, thay have the right and duty to form a new government. So the South left. Of course they had to fight to leave, and they lost, so they came back. And that is for the better. But they had a right to leave, and the United States had a right to Fight to keep them. The war is over, and has been for 138 years. The only way that people can know the real reasons the south Seceeded are to read what the people in the south wrote. History books are for the most part written by the Victors of wars. They have their opinions of why the South did what it did. But to know the truth you must go to the source. I'm not saying slavery had no part to do with it. I'm saying it was a minor part. With Eli Whitneys cotton gin, slavery was already on the way out in the south in 1860.
 
What state's right had Lincoln abridged then? The Secession began because of Lincolns election, but started before he even assumed office (South Carolina seceeded in Dec 1860). The only one I can think of that was in jeopardy was slavery since he was a Republican Abolitionist.

Was it about states rights? Yes. Was it also about regional economic differences and a ton of other little things? Yes. Which states' right was it really about? Slavery, the right to have people as property. Most people fought because of regional and state loyalty, but the reason the war started was the election of an Abolitionist president. The rest really is semantics.
 
Dean makes a good point. The Dems do need white souhterners to vote their way. It's not gonna happen, but he can wish for it. By the location of some of our posters and their words, it sounds like they racially identify with certain parties. That's a shame but divide and conquer is the rule of the 2 party system.


The Confederate flag is a powerful symbol. We must never forget that. It means different things to different people. Pres Bush beat McCain in the SC primary over the issue of the flag and stopped his surging candidacy and went on to win the nomination. If Bush's team had not been able to mobilize those voters he would not be president.

If Dean goes on with this theme after the primary, every mention he makes of the CF will be used against him, regardless of what context he uses it in.
 
Yeah the flag issue is a two edged sword. Lots of southerners were brought up to respect and revere that flag, but a bunch of others were brought up to detest and fear it. Dean would be wise to shut up about it, but lets hope he doesn't.
 
It just seems to me that this highlights the Democrats' bigotry and prejudice. It doesn't reflect very positively on them at all. If they're hoping to garner votes that way, IMO this is the wrong strategy.
 
What it demonstrates is the utter ignorance of what the south really is. Forty years ago you couldn't find a republican in state government and only occasionally in the federal level. Coincidently at that time the south was still laboring under the psychology and economics of reconstruction.

Then for a number of reasons the south began to develop economically, culturally and politically. Since that time the south has contributed mightly to the election of serveral presidents of both parties. Economically the south has exploded to the point that the old confederacy today constitutes the third largest economy on the planet. Culturally the south has digested integration and moved far beyond.

Problem is the Democrat party has a caricature of the south that is at least 40 years out of date. And what is so sad I don't think Democrats know it. Everyone benefits when we have at least two healthy and competitive parties. Not so in today's south.
 
so what changed Waitone? was civil rights really the breaking point? federal intervention on behalf of CV? was it the flow of more capital to the south? air conditioners or cheap labor? combination? I'm a Yankee but have old family ties to southern agarians and I think i got their libertarian blood. Interested in your opinion.


never seen that the old Confederacy is the third largest economy, where did you see that? The south is still heavily subsidized by the northeast, i.e. you guys get more tax $$ than you produce while the north recieves less $$ than they produce but there's nothing wrong with that. Same thing with the midwest but they are the breadbasket.
 
Here's some reading and history for you.

I'm posting this in hopes that people will read all in order to put it in clear context. The sad part will be that many will read only one or two of these documents and say "See! It says in this one that the war was about slavery." You cannot garner a full historical picture from one or two pieces of information and these are only a few to get you started.

The intent of the documents was to show the unlawful and unfair manner in which the Northern governement was attempting taxation without representation. Strangley enough, the governement was taxing slaves (predominantly found in the South) as property for revenue. The myth that the North was against slavery was just that, a myth. They profitted by it in taxation and when the South said "No" via secesion the federal government got a bit upset with the confederacy.

In a nutshell the South seceded because of taxation without representation and the North declared war to bring them back into the Union. The final compromise? The abolishment of slavery so the South couldn't profit by their labor and the North couldn't profit by the taxation thereof. Government representation and money is what the war was about, slavery, or slaves rather, were the arguing point (read "issue" for the politicos) and little more.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/index.html

Take care folks and enjoy the information. The War of Northern Aggression is an intresting subject and I wish they would teach it in public schools, but with fact rather than the revisionists historical depictions. Then people would actually know what the Confederate flag was historically and not just what it's been made up to be. History is a wonderful thing and we can learn so much from it, but not with inaccurate depictions and fiction.

Take care,

DRC
 
This pathetic effort to portray Dean as racist
Click to expand...

I don't believe for one second that Howard Dean is a racist, the real revelation here is that he keeps saying stupid stuff that's going to come back and bite him (going back to the famous Tim Russert interview where he got all flustered about past statements).

I'm no Bush fan, but if Dean is the best the Dems can do, no thanks.

I know he's their best on guns, but no leftists need apply as far as my vote goes...
 
I'm with you, greyhound.....

"I know he's their best on guns, but no leftists need apply as far as my vote goes..."
************************************************************

And the fact that he's their best on guns merely demonstrates how bad the policies of the Democratic party are for gunowners:eek: .

As president, Dean would have little if any influence on his party when it comes to their anti-gun stance, and the anti-gun democ-rats would be in a position of enhanced power to conduct their agenda.:mad:

Moreover, Dean's generally leftist bent would encourage the democ-rat left to further damage the nation.:(
 
More thoughts...

In the election of 1860, Lincoln won in a 4 way split between Bell, Breckenridge, Douglas and himself. Lincoln was, at the outset, no abolitionist, nor, like many of his contemporaries, did he consider Blacks to be the equal of Whites. In fact, he had advocated sending both slaves and freed men back to Africa in order to keep America a wholly white country. Lincoln's calling for volunteer's to put down the fledgling insurrection caused the infant Confederacy to double in size almost overnight...not because of slavery, but because of Lincoln attempting to use illegal and unconstitutional means to hold the Union together by duress.

Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation Proclamation was a bone thrown to the Abolitionists to ensure their support for the war and to get them inside the tent for his re-election campaign in 1864. He, himself, considered it a strictly political gambit. It also had the effect of giving moral justification to the unconstitutional Federal aggression against the southern Confederacy and likewise painted the South as being villianous and morally inferior for fighting for such an abhorrent cause...great propaganda. It's also a lie.

The nations of France and Great Britain (who were actively considering intervening in the war as late as the summer of 1863) having themselves signed onto international treaties prohibiting and criminalizing the slave trade, could not throw their weight to a country that had been painted with that brush.

This also serves to explain the timing of the Proclamation, October of 1862, just after Lee's army had fought to a tie at the battle of Antietam and showed the world that they may indeed make the Confederacy a success.

Consider, if you will, the 'moral' high ground taken by the Federal government, fighting a war to free an oppressed race of African slaves, sold into bondage to the highest bidders in
indolent, self consumed, southern aristocracy. Some light here, please.

The vast majority of Southerners owned no slaves nor did they benefit from the system in any direct way.

There were slaves still held as chattel in several northern states during the war.

After all of the murder and mayhem over whether Kansas would be free or slave, the 1861 census there reported fewer than 5 slaves in the population.

Freed blacks with money in cities such as Charleston, SC and Savannah, GA are reported to have owned their own slaves.

While the Federal Government prosecuted the war against the south, using vast numbers of conscripted Irish and German immigrants as cannon fodder, they put former slaves,freed by the fighting and called contraband,
to work harvesting crops, digging fortifications, clearing swamps, burying the dead and performing menial tasks for the army for little or no money. Further, regiments of Black
soldiers were raised that earned half of what white soldiers did, were commanded by white officers and often were given the worst assignments in the field.

And finally...while the Federal government fought this glorious, 'morally superior' war to free the slaves, it continued it's genocide of native Americans west of the Mississippi, establishing a reservation system and slaughtering those who would not abide by it.

The color that mattered most in the War Between the States was not Black nor White, blue nor grey...it was green. It finalized the ability of the Federal Government to uproot and displace the power structure in any given area, replace it with one of their own choosing and in doing so, ensure that the riches and resorces of that area was completely controlled by them. The 'freeing the slaves' jive was just chrome plating for the turd.
 
fine post, gburner!

"The color that mattered most in the War Between the States was not Black nor White, blue nor grey...it was green. It finalized the ability of the Federal Government to uproot and displace the power structure in any given area, replace it with one of their own choosing and in doing so, ensure that the riches and resorces of that area was completely controlled by them. The 'freeing the slaves' jive was just chrome plating for the turd."
************************************************************

And as one who had great-granpas on both sides during the fight, whose descendants pretty much concur with your conclusion....

I'd say you've got it down pretty well there.:D

Besides, that ANV flag is downright purty :)
 
AMEN Brother gburner!

This is the kind of thing that if you want to know the real story you have to look for it yourself because the information is not given up or out freely. Revisionists don't want people to know these things, especially now, since it would paint the opposite picture of what has been taught for decades.

Constitutionally speaking, the South was merely excersizing it's rights as sovereign states to protect those rights granted by Constitutional law. It's the same as any of us excersizing our 2nd ammendments right or any other constitutional rights. When something is wrong we say or do something about it.

The War of Northern Aggression was about equal representation in the governing body and money.

Here's something I found to be intresting; granted there were slaves still around but something to remember is that the slave trade ended in 1808 and the War was fought from 1861 to 1865 which was 53 years after the slave trade ended and was made illegal. So we're talking about the second generation, at least, of naturalized slaves most of which weren't even slaves by that time but were free. I do hope people will look into things like this to see what really happened. I think it's important.

As to Dean? He's a loser no matter how you slice it, which will probably explain why he says what he does and still gets the nomination for the Democratic party :)

DRC
 
"Gary, yes, but the South's treason was in order to preserve slavery. Even that epitome of Ol' Virginny, Bobby Lee, admitted to this. How can the Confederate flag be more of a racist symbol than that???"

I see you're still reading them Yankee history books.

John
 
John Nichols: Rebel flag flap shows media failure

If you want to understand just about everything that is wrong with the way American politics is practiced these days - and especially with the malpractice of the media - consider the absurd controversy about Howard Dean's comment that "I want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."
…
What isn't being reported is this reality: Every single presidential candidate who is now expressing concern about Dean's remark has sat in meetings where political operatives, pollsters and consultants have discussed strategies for winning the votes of white working-class males. These voters, whose economic interests would be at least somewhat better served by Democratic policies but who tend to vote Republican for social and cultural reasons, have fueled the rise of the GOP in recent years. And Democrats are obsessed with figuring out how to reach them.

So why has the Dean comment proved to be so controversial? Good question. It has something to do with the desperation of the other candidates, who have had a hard time keeping up with the former Vermont governor's fund-raising juggernaut and highly effective grass-roots campaign. But, in truth, it has a lot more to do with the media.

Too many political reporters practice stenography to power. They simply take down what candidates have to say. This week, the other candidates are trying to paint Dean as the reincarnation of Jefferson Davis, and the media are dutifully reporting it.

More responsible and engaged media would stop to ask the deeper questions: Why do so many white working-class males vote against their own economic interests? Is it because they are racists who really do embrace the Confederacy's legacy? Is it because the Democratic Party has so abandoned populist economic messages that even voters in what were once traditional Democratic constituencies have lost faith in the party and its candidates? The answers to these questions are complicated; but they are at the core of any serious examination of our politics.

Unfortunately, most politicians are unwilling to engage in real discussions about race and economics, let alone the complex zones in which they intersect. And as the current controversy illustrates, most political reporters have lost the inclination, and perhaps even the ability, to demand better of the politicians.
…
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/nichols/60451.php
 
JohnBT, Robert E. Lee's quote about slavery being the reason for the War of Southern Treason comes from Robert E. Lee, not a Yankee.:)

Last night Dean backtracked and called the Stars and Bars a "loathsome symbol" but would not apologize for referencing the flag. May be a non-issue in Iowa or New Hampshire, but do you (second person, plural) think this will save him on Super Tuesday?
 
Regarding the Civil War and slavery, here is my view --

People fight wars for a variety of reasons. Some fight for revenge, some for country, some for a paycheck, etc.

I'm sure that the soldiers who fought in the Civil War did so for many reasons, some of which I mention above. And maybe a few did fight for slavery to continue or be abolished.

However, I don't see how anyone can argue that the issue of slavery didn't help to bring about the war. It was a major issue that divided the nation in that period and helped to draw a line between the country. The people who fought, sure, many didn't fight over this issue. But the cause of the war and what people were fighting for individually are quite different.
 
El Tejon....

Re. your 'Bobby' Lee 'quote', I'm sure that I'm not the only one that would like to see some documentation on the exact 'quote', the context in which it was said and the source.

PS. Southern secession was NOT treason. It was the remedy prescribed by the Constitution for dissoving the bonds of Union with a government that no loger operated under the constraints of that Constitution. The Federal response to secession was illegal, immoral, murderous and extreme in it's cruelty. Heaped upon this outrageous evil was a dozen years of 'reconstruction', in which every manner of indignity was visited upon the South under the heavy hand of a sadistic group of 'radical Republicans'.
 
gburner, sure, I believe the most popular source would be the Jay Winik's "April 1865" (wasn't this a NYT "Best Seller"), I believe it's in the last chapter. When I go back to the FBP late tonight, I'll get it for you. To paraphrase (if that's O.K.), it reads [paraphrased] "we lost the war and the struggle for white supremacy, blacks should have the rights that we whitefolk do." Bunch of other stuff from CSA Administration and Congress as well.

As for levying war upon the United States, I believe that is blackletter treason.
 
Why the war was fought, is not relevant

I don't think it matters. The fact is, there are no simple answers. Most soldiers fought because they had to, or were made to.

The issue with the flag is much much more current than the Civil War. I used to have much more simpathy for the "Southern Heritage" position until I found out that the flag really became a prominently used symbol for protest against desegregation during the civil rights movement. That is when its "rennaissance" as a symbol came about.

On the other hand, I think Dean's comments were appropriate, regardless of how I feel about his policies. He was simply painting a very real picture of a demographic group that he hopes to appeal to. He wasn't saying "I think we need to embrace the KKK".

Sadly, we are still living with many of the effects of the abhorrent racial policies of the South, particularly after the civil war. These have been exacerbated, rather than improved, by many of the policies that were meant to "right old wrongs".
 
Dean did a bad thing to his mess kit when he spoke of the confederate flag. Ignore for the moment his concept of the south being based in firm understanding of Hee Haw. Dean's problem is not what he said. His problem is who he is.

Ya see, the term "Yankee" historically and properly does not refer to anyone above the Mason-Dixon line as many suppose. The term "Yankee" has its historical origins is a particularly obnoxious New Englander who came to the south complaining how the south had it all wrong. Said New Englanders were quite free with advice and criticism. The term "Yankee" arose in honor of the ship which was commonly used, the Yankee Clipper. And the original location from which said obnoxious originated was specifically the New England states.

Mr. Dean is a great reconstructed cartoon of a New England Yankee coming south to help us poor, ignorant, and stupid southerners. I do not give Dr. Dean much of a chance in SC among the political class because that group of people knows southern history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top