Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Could the Confederate Battle Flag become a symbol of freedom ?

    Posted by Michael Kennedy on June 27th, 2015 (All posts by )

    Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg

    The hysteria is in high gear over the Confederate battle flag. The controversy began with the the shooting of nine people in the Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC by a schizophrenic young man. South Carolina is, of course, the first state to secede from the union after Lincoln’s election in 1860. Since the Civil War, South Carolina has been ruled by the Democratic Party until the past few years when Republicans have elected the governor and legislature. In 1962, in an act of defiance, Governor Fritz Hollings (D) presided over the placing to the Confederate flag on the capital building. The flag was subsequently moved to a Confederate memorial on the capital grounds by a Republican governor.

    Meanwhile, Fox News’s Special Report noted this fact during one of the show’s “All-Star Panel” segments with host Bret Baier alluding to it as well as how a Republican was in office when the flag was taken down from the dome and moved to the Capitol’s grounds as a compromise in 1998.

    The shooter appears to me to be a paranoid schizophrenic who lived in appalling conditions with a weird father who seemed to care little about his welfare.

    The hysteria about the Confederate flag seems to be a planned assault on southern states and on conservative politics. The fact that the South was ruled by Democrats until very recently is also an issue for these people who resent the recent appeal of the Republican Party. The cry of “Racism” seems a bit exaggerated when there is a trend recognized even by the leftist New York Times of black families moving back to the southern states.

    The percentage of the nation’s black population living in the South has hit its highest point in half a century, according to census data released Thursday, as younger and more educated black residents move out of declining cities in the Northeast and Midwest in search of better opportunities.

    The share of black population growth that has occurred in the South over the past decade — the highest since 1910, before the Great Migration of blacks to the North — has upended some long-held assumptions.

    Both Michigan and Illinois, whose cities have rich black cultural traditions, showed an overall loss of blacks for the first time, said William Frey, the chief demographer at the Brookings Institution.

    If racism is rampant in the South, why would they do this ? Maybe they recognize something the leftists in the northeast do not.

    In America 3.0 the authors suggest that there may eventually be some realignment of states by preference or affiliation by common institutions. Several states might share a university, for example. I see it possibly going beyond this but only after a major crisis, possibly a revolution.

    The Supreme Court decisions this week have moved that day closer. The Obamacare decision is less important because the Obamacare medical reorganization is not economically viable and will collapse. The gay marriage decision is far worse because, as Justice Scalia put it,

    Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

    There will be a reaction and it is not clear to me what it might be. Perhaps Texas and a few other states will decline to enforce some laws.

    “Renewing and reinforcing that promise is all the more important in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The government must never pressure a person to abandon or violate his or her sincerely held religious beliefs regarding a topic such as marriage. That sort of religious coercion will never be a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and it will never be ‘the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.’”

    “With these obligations in mind,” Abbott continued, “I expect all agencies under my direction to prioritize compliance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I of the Texas Constitution, and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. All state agency heads should ensure that no one acting on behalf of their agency takes any adverse action against any person, as defined in Chapter 311 of the Texas Government Code, on account of the person’s act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief.

    That may set up a conflict between the Obama DoJ and the state or between the state and a federal judge. It may not be the only state to do so. Arizona might decide to do something similar. That was last year.

    The Housing decision is worse. Justice Kennedy has opened the door wide for abuses of the doctrine of “disparate impact.”

    Part of the real estate bubble that collapsed the economy in 2008 was based on the lawsuits that forced banks to make mortgage loans to those unable to repay. That was a consequence of the “Community Reinvestment Act” that appeared in the Clinton administration, was expanded by Carter and reached lunatic status after the Democrats took Congress in 2006.

    The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the Department) has only so many tax credits to distribute. If it gives credits for housing in lower income areas, many families—including many minority families—will obtain better housing. That is a good thing.

    But if the Department gives credits for housing in higher income areas, some of those families will be able to afford to move into more desirable neighborhoods. That is also a good thing.

    Either path, however, might trigger a disparate-impact suit.

    This is not mere speculation. Here, one respondent has sued the Department for not allocating enough credits to higher income areas. But another respondent argues that giving credits to wealthy neighborhoods violates “the moral imperative to improve the substandard and inadequate affordable housing in many of our inner cities.”

    The lawsuits will make things worse as the state cannot satisfy all plaintiffs. I have seen this as a member of the Planning Commission of the City of Mission Viejo. “Affordable Housing” is profitable for developers who build these subsidized projects and then subsidize the “public interest law firms” that fill new lawsuits.

    Even Kennedy recognized the danger.

    Without adequate safeguards at the prima facie stage, disparate-impact liability might cause race to be used and considered in a pervasive way and “would almost inexorably lead” governmental or
    private entities to use “numerical quotas,” and serious constitutional questions then could arise.

    His decision, however, does nothing to solve the dilemma. Maybe the only solution is to move to a red state and hope they are better governed. That may be a trend but we shall see. I could see this doctrine of Nullification taking hold in other states, mostly in the South and West.

    The reductions were too little for South Carolina, and on November 24, 1832, a state convention adopted the Ordinance of Nullification, which declared that the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833. Military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement were initiated by the state.[6] On March 1, 1833, Congress passed both the Force Bill—authorizing the President to use military forces against South Carolina—and a new negotiated tariff, the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which was satisfactory to South Carolina. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 15, 1833, but three days later nullified the Force Bill as a symbolic gesture to maintain its principles.

    I certainly don’t see Democrats, infuriated because southern voters have abandoned them, agreeing with this but something like this could happen at some level.

     

    33 Responses to “Could the Confederate Battle Flag become a symbol of freedom ?”

    1. Sgt. Mom Says:

      I can definitely see that flag representing a present-day rebellion against the vampire squid nanny state and the PC-addled coastal elite. The sudden and wholly out of left-field demands that such flags and anything displaying it be dropped from sales venues like Walmart and Amazon argue a deliberate and coordinated effort.
      I’m not the only commenter who didn’t give two pins for the Confederate battle flag three days ago; on Tom Knighton’s blog, there are a whole series of us saying “nothing makes us want something so much as some authority figure with an overdeveloped sense of their own importance telling us that we can’t have it.

      http://tlknighton.com/?p=7237

    2. Mike K Says:

      The idiots trying to rename Lake Calhoun in Minnesota probably don’t even know when he lived. The Nullification crisis had nothing to do with slavery.

      It is a war on the South because the South has rejected them and is thriving. I see all these items in leftist sites about how the South is illiterate and stupid and has poor health. That was when it was run by Democrats !

      I was in Charleston three weeks ago and it is booming, believe me. My daughter moved there a few months ago and loves it. The kids call it “Chucktown.”

    3. dearieme Says:

      “appeared in the Clinton administration, was expanded by Carter and reached lunatic status after the Democrats took Congress in 2006.” ‘W’ rather than Carter?

      Is there any point in complaining against rule by judicial putsch? The Constitution introduced no effective constraints on the Supreme Court so this is the inevitable outcome. It’s remarkable that it’s taken so long to become so uninhibited.

    4. Ginny Says:

      I don’t especially like a part of my heritage that is pretty quick to say, “What gives them the right to point their righteous fingers” – it sometimes leads to cutting off your nose to spite your face. But I’ve always understood the lines in Sawyer Brown’s “The Other Side.” My husband, whose people come from a more ironic and accommodating tradition, doesn’t have as much patience with a song like this. But that’s what has worked – some of us respond, some of us don’t, and we all try to live together. My people, I believe (we’re not big genealogists)fought on both sides. His were more interested in getting out of the thumb of the Austrian empire.

      I feel, lately, that a big chunk has not been trying to live together – and underlying that is a complete unwillingness to face complexity, a complexity not kind to Democrats and blue state governance.

      Well, FDR may have done good things, but my mother, raised by southern Democrats, became a Republican when he tried to stack the court and joined the Navy in 1941. She returned to the Democrats after my father died – these were the late 70’s. I doubt she’d vote for Hillary.

      And I came south; I like many in the Republican field, but my heart understood Cruz – on C-span he described how 9/11 changed his play list. He’d liked rock before, loved concerts he still remembered. But Alan Jackson, with his great response, and the fighters like Toby Keith spoke to him – represented what he felt. So his list became country.

    5. Mike K Says:

      An example of why getting rid of the flag will not be enough for those determined to be offended by everything. Yes , the author is black and a New Yorker.

      The idea of the Confederate flag as a symbol of Southern pride presumes that there was some universally accessible virtue associated with the circumstances under which that flag came into existence. The more honest assessment would preface the word “Southern” with the adjective “white.”

      I agree but they are changing that.

      Less easily overlooked, however, is the massive memorial to Benjamin Tillman, the former governor and avowed Negrophobe who spoke proudly of having led lynching parties in his youth. When I spoke to Hall, the attorney and filmmaker, after the rally, he pointed out something that few critics of the flag have observed. “It’s not just the flag. The entire Capitol grounds are basically a tribute to white supremacy.”

      It will never be enough. No mention, of course, of which party built all those monuments.

    6. Veryretired Says:

      No. Next question.

    7. Will Says:

      You can’t wish for something, work incessantly toward the goal, and then when you get the desired effect, feign outrage and indignation (ok, you can) The calls for the removal of the flag were instantaneous and let the cat out the bag, right quick. I don’t think it’s a symbol of freedom. While the flag may mean one thing to some, it has varied meanings to others. But, the agitators know this well, and have a plan for the region, as well as the rest of the non-compliant nation. Bottom line, you’ll see more flags than ever real soon.

    8. PenGun Says:

      You want respect for the flag of people whose economy lived and died on the backs of slaves.

      Nice. Respect … ROTFLMFAO.

    9. Sgt. Mom Says:

      It’s become a complicated matter of late, Penny – do try and keep up. Although I do fear that the history of it all is just too nuanced and complicated for a simple Canadian to fully grasp.

      Emphasis on ‘simple’.

    10. Mike K Says:

      ” a simple Canadian to fully grasp.”

      They lost their freedom years ago. Ask Mark Steyn.

    11. Mike K Says:

      Diplomd and company are expressing a few thoughts that I agree with.

      In the end, of course, if we are lucky that is, those guys in the pick up trucks will have to suit up and save us all, again. Yes, the hated villainous “rednecks” of progressive scary fairy tales will have to get out of their Ram trucks and fight the Ramadan goons. It will be the hard young men of our armed forces who will need to save the soft prancers and dancers from the evil Islamists.

      But maybe not.

      However, I’d urge the bedrock Americans of any ehtnicity, when Uncle O or Auntie Shrillary calls, to answer back with a loud, “Hell, no! We won’t go!”

      I, for one, am d–d sick and tired off puffed up old poltroons in black finding “rights” in the penumbra of the Constitution which are apparently allowed to nullify rights actually spelled out in the black and white text.

      Dip, you seem upset that you lost your job at the State Department. Maybe you ought to consider that you were mercifully spared the disgrace of serving under Shrillary Shroooooo. I know that had I stayed in our beloved Department, had the time come when I would have had to remonstrate with Singapore or Uganda or Jordan over unwillingness to recognize queer marriage, I’d have broken and said, “You know, you guys are right; we’re wrong.” The wisdom of our founders was that they understood that the state has its limits–including a divine and natural law, violation of which may rightly cost a king his head.

      These guys are retired State Department folks.

    12. grey eagle Says:

      Soon a priest or Christian reverend will refuse to marry 2 men or 2 women. A SWAT team will storm the altar arrest the priest or reverend. And churches across America will be shutdown and the clergy imprisoned. The Supreme Court has established the gay religion as superior to all others. Churches should adopt the confederate flag.

      On the other hand now multiple marriages will be legal and divorce will no longer be required before a man or woman marries a new spouse.

    13. Ginny Says:

      Not to be nit picky but isn’t reverend a title?

    14. Mrs. Davis Says:

      I have to admit to being appalled by much of the commentary on this subject. That flag is not and never will be the flag of freedom for anyone except one who could see the swastika being the flag of tolerance. Not only did that flag stand for slavery and lead to the death of 600,000 Americans, it lead to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments; the death of America as it had been founded. Keep in mind that the validation of homosexual marriage was based on rights enumerated in the 14th amendment. It will continue to be used as an Alinskyite gift for the purposes of the left.

    15. Grurray Says:

      I have to agree with Mrs Davis. Despite all the historical revisionism regarding Lincoln’s compromises and his wartime actions, here in Illinois it has always been an unambiguous article of faith that he was acting to save the United States and free the slaves. The Confederacy was the enemy of freedom and liberty, and that flag was the symbol of their oppression.

    16. Mike K Says:

      I agree about the history but do wonder if the all out attack on the South by the left will change the image. That was the point.

      Why is black migration back to the South so significant ?

    17. grey eagle Says:

      Blacks are headed south because heating bills are lower. Electric and gas charges have skyrocketed – thanks to enviroNazis. Electricity is no longer penny-cheap!

      Further northern ghettos are just too violent. It is almost impossible for a back to walk the street without being shot by another black. In the south a black can carry a gun for self defense without being tasered.

      Further a black can keep a small garden to the south year round. In the north its general illegal or gets trampled by SWAT raids.

    18. Grurray Says:

      One reason is something like 1/4 of all black employment in Rust Belt cities is (or was) with some federal, state, or local government organization. Now that budget cuts and fiscal crises are hitting, many of those workers are forced to head for private sector jobs where they are most abundant.

    19. PenGun Says:

      “It’s become a complicated matter of late, Penny – do try and keep up. Although I do fear that the history of it all is just too nuanced and complicated for a simple Canadian to fully grasp.”

      It’s only complicated because of your prevarication. Look it up.

    20. Mike K Says:

      ” Look it up.”

      Says the expert on American history.

      We”ll see how the all-out attack on the South goes for the left. If there is a landslide for the GOP next year, we might see a bit of revision. The deep blue states are in trouble and some, like California, don’t realize it yet. I don’t know how this will resolve itself.

      Let’s see if there is a big terror attack next weekend or later in the summer. As a friend of mine used to say, “The ants are all dancing and ignoring the anteater that is coming.”

    21. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      First, let me stipulate that I am not what modern PC, post-Rule of Law, post-Constitutional society would consider a “nice” person.

      Let’s see if there is a big terror attack next weekend or later in the summer. As a friend of mine used to say, “The ants are all dancing and ignoring the anteater that is coming.”

      If there is to be a terror attack next weekend or later, I admit that I am less than panicked about it. It will either be WMD or not, and it will be in a major urban area or not.

      I live in a small town in the mountains. If it is not a WMD attack, knowing our town and our people, it will be met with overwhelming force from the local civilian population. None of this watching the lone gunman with an AK kill 30+ civilians. And after the terrorists are down, I’m pretty sure that there will be bacon to see that they don’t get their 72 virgins.

      If it is a WMD attack outside an urban area, the odds are pretty small that it will be in my area. If it is another rural area, it will be avenged to the extent that the Federal government allows, which is to say not at all. Which will continue to lower the legitimacy of that government.

      If it is an attack in an urban area, there is a similar, but slightly different dynamic.

      First, if it is a major urban area; it is almost surely well over 50% Leftist, and TWANLOC. That limits my concern to if I have family or friends there. The targeted locals voted in the regime that invites, allows, and enables such attacks.

      If it is a medium to small urban area and conventional, it will probably be resisted by the locals; but not to the extent as in small town America. If it is WMD, there is nothing to be done for now.

    22. Mike K Says:

      If the terrorists are smart, they will avoid Texas as their last effort did not end well. I see New York City or DC as probable targets. I do worry about Los Angeles harbor but it is farther from the middle east than New York.

      Major Hassan was successful because Fort Hood was a “gun free zone.”

    23. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      My father’s family settled in Pennsylvania off the boat (into Philadelphia) in 1724. By the 1850’s they were spread across the east coast. I had ancestors fighting on both sides of the war. I don’t take anything personal from it either way. It’s history.

      That flag doesn’t belong on a government building because of what it represents. But as part of our history it shouldn’t be erased either.

    24. Sgt. Mom Says:

      The swastika emblem was once and for a good few centuries a popular motif in American southwest Indian art, and as (IRRC) a popular symbol in various Indian/far Eastern religions calling down good luck … the use of it for that goes down to pre-history. So the Nazis used it (or miss-used it) and made it an emblem of terror for decades. Noted. Most of us in the West still get a bit of a shock, seeing it in ancient art, or woven into historic blankets or some such.

      Symbols are mutable, depending on time and events, which is the point that I am getting to. So the Confederate battle flag was first an easily recognizable battle flag during the war, then, almost a century later taken up as the rally-point/signaling device by Southern Democrat Party racists fighting desegregation. I have wondered if, since then – as that was more than half a century past – it has mutated into something else among a significant proportion; a means of signaling cheerful non-conformity and rebellion against inept and corrupt authority, as it was used in The Dukes of Hazzard to popular effect. Nothing is more energizing among rebels than taking a symbol calculated to give offense and kicking the general public in the teeth with it. Epater la bourgeoisie; this is the red-neck and flyover country version.

      So, OK – there are southern states which have the Confederate battle flag as part of their state flag. Honestly, no skin of mine. If the residents/voters want to change it, considering history, that’s OK. It will actually cost a bit to change all that – but if the good citizens want to change it, that’s their project and their expense.

      What really gets up my nose is the sudden — and suspiciously well-coordinated call from every quarter to ban that flag entirely. From being sold in all sorts of venues, banned in national parks, and on video games. It all smacks of Big Brother and the memory hole, and that’s the part that I hate, and object to. Oh, yes – the Lords of Political Correctness demand that certain images and issues should be gone … and … then they are. Is there much of a difference save in degree and the quantity of explosives from ISIS destroying ancient monuments and demanding that the Confederate battle flag be consigned to the memory hole?

    25. Grurray Says:

      Right. As much as I loath the symbolism, banning it is stupid and silly. I would hope any sane, responsible adult would feel the same, but obviously that is mostly not the case.

    26. Xennady Says:

      My ancestors arrived in the United States when I was four, from an obscure and disliked Canadian province, so I don’t really care much about this particular Confederate flag, or any other.

      But as far as I’m concerned isn’t really about the flag. It’s about “otherizing” the conservatives in the South, declaring their viewpoints beyond the pale and illegitimate, and tarring them as vile scum who deserve no sort of respect.

      If, or when, they succeed, they will of course move on to attempting to de-legitimizing yet more of their enemies, for any reason they can invent or no reason at all.

      Believing that, I say yes, this particular flag can take on a new meaning, becoming a sign of resistance, and perhaps freedom, because the targets of the left are figuring out their game.

    27. Mrs. Davis Says:

      Maybe this site should be renamed Sweet Briar Personz.

    28. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      >>If, or when, they succeed, they will of course move on to attempting to de-legitimizing yet more of their enemies, for any reason they can invent or no reason at all.

      I have no doubt. It’s what they do. However, you need to pick your battles. Defending a flag of slavery (as it is seen) is a losing proposition. Something like the Gadsden flag is a much better bit of historical symbolism for libertarian leaning folks like me. I like the Stars and Stripes too. I don’t want to have to defend a flag of the Confederate South.

    29. Xennady Says:

      “I have no doubt. It’s what they do. However, you need to pick your battles. Defending a flag of slavery (as it is seen) is a losing proposition. Something like the Gadsden flag is a much better bit of historical symbolism for libertarian leaning folks like me. I like the Stars and Stripes too. I don’t want to have to defend a flag of the Confederate South.”

      I don’t disagree with any of this, and I make no claim to know what will happen with this flag in future.

      But in the same sense as soldiers might be forced to defend inopportune ground against an attack, this flag may- I emphasize may- become a symbol of resistance against leftist wannabe tyrants.

      For example, I see that NASCAR has now decided that it doesn’t want the stars and bars at events. Since the flag had previously been popular and common, I wonder what the reaction of NASCAR fans might be.

      Perhaps it will not be meek acceptance.

    30. ErisGuy Says:

      [i]The idiots trying to rename Lake Calhoun in Minnesota[/i[

      It takes idiots to do the work of of a moral transformation and cleanse society of error. Its not as if this sort of thing hasn’t happened in the past.

    31. ErisGuy Says:

      And to answer your question directly, “no.” The Left flies may flags, all of which are new (or were new when invented). The same will be true for liberty.

    32. ErisGuy Says:

      “You want respect for the flag of people whose economy lived and died on the backs of slaves.”

      In 2008, the Democrat Party in my town flew a Cuban flag in their HQ. I assume by your statement that you and all good people have wholly and completely rejected the Democrat Party as a consequence.

      Is this the Confederacy or any of numerous socialist states being addressed here? Few are really opposed to slavery and no one on the Left: the Left approves of the USSR and the PRC. Our president admires slave states. His advisors admire slave states.

    33. PenGun Says:

      “Maybe this site should be renamed Sweet Briar Personz.”

      Not many people know that briar patches work both ways.