I feel so much better that Amazon will no longer sell the flag. FWIW you can still purchase Mein Kampf , and The Turner Diaries there.

 

I'm with you. It's certainly not something I would buy but reactionary decisions always baffle me.

 

Again, we are now linking a flag to 9 deaths to a flag. Crazy.

 

We no longer care about the 9 individuals and their families. We just want to USE this as a way to get "our way."

 

Hate this mentality.

To me the issue is about the Flag in Columbia that is flying next to the State Capitol and used to fly on the State Capitol. That is the issue.

 

It was first raised in 1962. It was not raised because someone thought it would be a nice "heritage" statement. Let's be honest about that one.

 

It was moved in 2000 I think to the place on the grounds and on a separate pole of its own. It is beside a Confederate monument that, to this point, no one is asking to be removed.

 

The removal of the flag seems to be both a natural "next step" and the right thing to do. If it is flown above a Civil War Battlefield, fine. But to my knowledge the only battle fought in the State Capitol in Columbia was the one over segregation.

 

Draw your own conclusions.

I'm with you. It's certainly not something I would buy but reactionary decisions always baffle me.

 

Again, we are now linking a flag to 9 deaths to a flag. Crazy.

 

We no longer care about the 9 individuals and their families. We just want to USE this as a way to get "our way."

 

Hate this mentality.

 

Is it reactionary? Surely.

 

But it's also a next step in moving away from the symbols that represent divisiveness. (whether you agree with the confederacy's issues or not, it was the banner of the greatest division in the Nation's history)

I'm with you. It's certainly not something I would buy but reactionary decisions always baffle me.

 

Again, we are now linking a flag to 9 deaths to a flag. Crazy.

 

We no longer care about the 9 individuals and their families. We just want to USE this as a way to get "our way."

 

Hate this mentality.

 

For what it's worth, I think what forced the issue was the imagery of the American flag being lowered to half staff at the state capitol, while the Confederate flag flew high. I know if you zoom out enough it seems like a trivial point. But, for a lot of people their response was "wait, what?" So, I don't think it was Roof's neo-Confederate views that sparked the debate as much as it was the imagery of the two flags at the capitol. The tragedy and the symbolism of the flags can be separate issues.

I'm with you. It's certainly not something I would buy but reactionary decisions always baffle me.

 

Again, we are now linking a flag to 9 deaths to a flag. Crazy.

 

We no longer care about the 9 individuals and their families. We just want to USE this as a way to get "our way."

 

Hate this mentality.

 

If it weren't for reactionary decisions I'd be picking cotton for you right now while you have your way with my wife instead of posting on BGP.

 

 

Just saying.....

For what it's worth, I think what forced the issue was the imagery of the American flag being lowered to half staff at the state capitol, while the Confederate flag flew high. I know if you zoom out enough it seems like a trivial point. But, for a lot of people their response was "wait, what?" So, I don't think it was Roof's neo-Confederate views that sparked the debate as much as it was the imagery of the two flags at the capitol. The tragedy and the symbolism of the flags can be separate issues.

 

 

Had the Stars and Bars been lowered to half mast like the American flag then I bet no one would care at all.

If it weren't for reactionary decisions I'd be picking cotton for you right now while you have your way with my wife instead of posting on BGP. Just saying.....

 

I am certainly not a history expert so I must ask what the reactionary decision was that ended slavery.

I am certainly not a history expert so I must ask what the reactionary decision was that ended slavery.

 

What was the progressive decision that ended it? The desire to win the war against the south by adding blacks to their army to win the war or simply the desire to free blacks from slavery because it was so wrong?

I am certainly not a history expert so I must ask what the reactionary decision was that ended slavery.

 

Probably the Northern Leadership who decided to find some way to redeem the bloody conflict into something worthwhile.

 

I would also add that in many ways the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed out of the sympathy for JFK who had been under the table pushing the reforms.

What was the progressive decision that ended it? The desire to win the war against the south by adding blacks to their army to win the war or simply the desire to free blacks from slavery because it was so wrong?

 

Why didn't General Grant free his slaves upon becoming General or even after the North won?

 

Saying one side fought for slavery and the other fought to end it is disingenuous IMO.*

 

*not saying slavery wasn't a factor for war, specifically in the deep south.

Will it ever be appropriate to remove Thomas Jefferson statues or any other Founding Father who owned slaves from the Capital or National Parks?

 

Despite these people contributing significantly to our "heritage," they did own slaves and can be considered offensive and divisive to many.

 

Where is the balance?

Why didn't General Grant free his slaves upon becoming General or even after the North won?

 

Saying one side fought for slavery and the other fought to end it is disingenuous IMO.*

 

*not saying slavery wasn't a factor for war, specifically in the deep south.

 

You're right, it's probably more accurate to say one side fought for slavery and the other side fought for keeping the union. But, I don't think the secessionists were wrong to interpret Lincoln's election as evidence of the growing winds of abolitionism, which is why the end of the war was also the death knell of slavery.

Why didn't General Grant free his slaves upon becoming General or even after the North won?

 

Saying one side fought for slavery and the other fought to end it is disingenuous IMO.*

 

*not saying slavery wasn't a factor for war, specifically in the deep south.

 

I think that you guys are making the same point. The Emancipation Proclamation feed slaves in the Confederacy. While Lincoln didn't like slavery, he wasn't in a rush to abolish it either. The purpose of freeing those southern slaves was to create havoc in the south. So, like both of you are saying, slavery was abolished to further a political agenda, not out of the kindness of Ol' Abe's heart. The 13th Amendment HAD to come about after the E.P., the war ended, and then Lincoln died.

You're right, it's probably more accurate to say one side fought for slavery and the other side fought for keeping the union. But, I don't think the secessionists were wrong to interpret Lincoln's election as evidence of the growing winds of abolitionism, which is why the end of the war was also the death knell of slavery.

 

Echoing you here, I don't believe that it would have been abolished under Lincoln. It would have been a slow dying out process where Lincoln's Congress prevented the spread of slavery to future territories and, ultimately, admission to the Union. From there, the South would have been underrepresented and ultimately forced to abolish slavery in order to receive certain Federal funding.