Spurrier: Take Down Flag

[OmahaBound]

USC football coach Steve Spurrier called Friday for the removal of the Confederate battle flag from State House grounds, according to a member of the City Year board.

“We need to, as a state, we need to take down that Confederate flag,” City Year board member Kerry Abel said Spurrier told the 350 people attending the service organization’s Ripples of Hope banquet at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center.

WIS-TV reported Spurrier told the group the flag was hurting recruiting.

Spurrier was being honored Friday with a citizen leadership award. Efforts to reach him late Friday were unsuccessful.

[gatorunvrsty]

USC football coach Steve Spurrier called Friday for the removal of the Confederate battle flag from State House grounds, according to a member of the City Year board.

“We need to, as a state, we need to take down that Confederate flag,” City Year board member Kerry Abel said Spurrier told the 350 people attending the service organization’s Ripples of Hope banquet at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center.

WIS-TV reported Spurrier told the group the flag was hurting recruiting.

Spurrier was being honored Friday with a citizen leadership award. Efforts to reach him late Friday were unsuccessful.

That may be true. But, if something like that really hurt recruiting, I don't see how UK could get anybody to come play basketball. After watching "Glory Road", they should call their basketball facility Rascist Arena instead of Rupp Arena. Their history doesn't seem to have hurt recruiting; although you never know who would have considered them, but didn't for that reason. I remember when Tubby was first being considered for the coaching job; and all people could talk about was, "Is UK actually ready for, and considering, an African-American head coach?" There was a lot of pretty ugly fan reaction at the time; and that was in the late '90's, after all. Only 10 years ago, and still thinking that way. It's impossible to know how many players are lost to that; but, it would definitely be a concern if I were a coach. Personally, I think prospects these days are far more concerned with playing for a good coach that gives them the best chance of moving on to the next level. If Spurrier and SC can get them to the pros, they'll go there. If playing at UK can get them drafted, they'll play there.

[CrimsonTide12xs]

USC football coach Steve Spurrier called Friday for the removal of the Confederate battle flag from State House grounds, according to a member of the City Year board.

“We need to, as a state, we need to take down that Confederate flag,” City Year board member Kerry Abel said Spurrier told the 350 people attending the service organization’s Ripples of Hope banquet at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center.

WIS-TV reported Spurrier told the group the flag was hurting recruiting.

Spurrier was being honored Friday with a citizen leadership award. Efforts to reach him late Friday were unsuccessful.

That's a good reason. :headshake

[GatorHunter]

That's a good reason. :headshake

Sounds like a "cop-out" to me. The Confederate Flag is a cherished historical symbol for some. I know this country is currently on the "PC Train"...but removing a historical symbol for the sake of football recruiting sounds ridiculous...IMO.

[Cockfan720]

Sounds like a "cop-out" to me. The Confederate Flag is a cherished historical symbol for some. I know this country is currently on the "PC Train"...but removing a historical symbol for the sake of football recruiting sounds ridiculous...IMO.

Yea, I usually agree with coach on almost everything he says, but not with this. I don't view the confederate flag as a racist symbol at all...just a symbol of the deep south and what great heritage we have as southerners.

[AUChamps]

Yea, I usually agree with coach on almost everything he says, but not with this. I don't view the confederate flag as a racist symbol at all...just a symbol of the deep south and what great heritage we have as southerners.
Reading this thread makes me wonder how many black ppl are on SECTalk. Just something to think about.

[gatorunvrsty]

Yea, I usually agree with coach on almost everything he says, but not with this. I don't view the confederate flag as a racist symbol at all...just a symbol of the deep south and what great heritage we have as southerners.

It's a shame for any group of people to be denied the right to be proud of their heritage. And that's exactly what removing the flag does. The Confederate flag is a symbol of the South's desire to avoid rule by an increasingly powerful federal government. The issue of slavery was merely a sidenote. I've gotten pretty bent out of shape at all the states that have changed their state flags so they don't include any form of the battle flag. After all, it's not the symbol that's offensive; but the extremists that use it as their identity as rascists. Certain groups of offensive people have used it, so now it automatically has an offensive aspect attached to it. I don't see this freight train stopping any time soon, though. It's rolling downhill with certain activists pushing from behind. That's much easier than actually tackling the social problems of the people they claim to be advocates for. God forbid anyone should take responsibility for their own station in life. Who likes to look at themselves when doing a personal inventory, and assessing the causes of their failures and shortcomings?

[OmahaBound]

Certain groups of offensive people have used it, so now it automatically has an offensive aspect attached to it. I don't see this freight train stopping any time soon, though. It's rolling downhill with certain activists pushing from behind.

Exactly...certain groups have turned it into a symbol of racism and that's all it is to some. The government of South Carolina is working for the ~4 million residents of this state, not those that lived 150 years ago. And with that flag flying right on Main St (far more visable than any American flag or state flag) you are horribly offending a minimum 1/3 of the state. It is SC's history, and that's why it should be honored in the state museum.

Oh and to be fair to Spurrier, the news report I posted above was not a direct quote from Spurrier and was a second hand account. I'm sure he mentioned recruiting but I seriously doubt that was the main reason he gave for taking the flag down.

[OmahaBound]

UPDATED:

University of South Carolina head football coach Steve Spurrier has spoken out against flying the Confederate flag on State House grounds.

Calling it an obstacle to recruiting football players from out of state, the head coach said, "If anyone were ever to ask me about it, I would say I wish we could get rid of it."

The ball coach said he was "embarrassed" last season during a pregame show as he watched a fan wave the Confederate flag.

At one point during his speech, Spurrier said "that damn flag needs to come down."

In fact, Spurrier said it twice.

The state legislature ordered a Confederate battle flag removed from the top of the State House dome in 2000, and since then it has flown at a Confederate monument on the State House grounds. The flag's presence there continues to prevent South Carolina from being home to NCAA athletic championship events.

The flag issue, according to Spurrier, is an obstacle to the state's improving its image. Spurrier made his remarks at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center Friday night, after accepting a citizen leadership award from City Year Columbia, a service organization affiliated with the national Americorps program.

The head coach saluted the racial diversity of City Year's corps members and supporters. And he said he would work to try to do more than win football championships here.

Spurrier said he hoped to help the state improve in some of the social and economic areas that have left it near the bottom in national rankings.

"We're going to try to get South Carolina recognized as a wonderful place. We just haven't quite got there yet," said Spurrier.

WIS plans to ask the coach more about his position after Saturday's spring game.

[scunyon]

Reading this thread makes me wonder how many black ppl are on SECTalk. Just something to think about.

*raising hand* I am...

[scunyon]

Oh, and just for the record, as I've said before, I preferred it being on top of the State House because nobody bothered looking into the sun to see it when it was up there. When Hugo hit in '89, it was the only flag that was destroyed... guess they didn't take God's hint.

I could care less... how about all these civic groups worry about something like education or the growing gang problem. Just my two Lincolns.

[larryt4111]

Take the flag down?

OVER MY DEAD MOLDING WORM EATEN BODY !!!

[GatorHunter]

You know, as a kid...watching "The Dukes of Hazzard"....seeing the "Rebel Flag" on top of the "General Lee"....I always just thought it looked cool. It wasn't a symbol of racism to me...when I asked my Dad what it meant...he said it was the flag that the Confederates flew during the Civil War. It wasn't until one of the "civil rights leaders" mentioned, years later, that it was offensive to black people...they described it as a "symbol of slavery"...I think calling a flag "a symbol of slavery" that was flown by the Confederacy during a time of upheaval over Federal Government aristocracy is a little conceded. It was more about the "North" trying to take the South for all they were worth.

[noitall]

It is pretty redneck, glad to see someone that is white and well respected leading the public by good examples. When Sharpton or Jesse call for it, it seems to fall on deaf ears because they are so polarizing.

[Bulldog Bry]

The sad thing is, there is nothing else we have in the south (that's identifiable) that can articulate our regional pride. I hate the KKK for many reasons, but one of them being that they seem to have stolen that symbol. I don't wave the flag for that reason.

But I can also tell you that as a former member of Kappa Alpha, that flag was a magnet for hatred. So I understand the mistrust that blacks have when someone says, "Heritage, not hate".

[OmahaBound]

More Spurrier comments...

Civil rights leaders claim that the Confederate flag hurts the recruiting efforts of the state’s schools. But Spurrier said his stance on the flag has nothing to do with recruiting.

“I mentioned it to hopefully make our state a better place. There’s no gain in recruiting. We can recruit,” he said. “But it would just make our state a more progressive state in the eyes of the nation. People would look at South Carolina in a better light.”

The 61-year-old Spurrier, who grew up in east Tennessee, said he did not know anyone in South Carolina who was in favor of flying the flag, “but I guess there’s a lot out there somewhere.”

“If you had a relative who died in the Confederate war, maybe you’d feel very strongly about it, too. But that’s history,” he said. “If it represents something that angers people, then why do that?”

He also mentioned that he's not planning on making this some big campaign...he was just stating his opinion on the matter.

[OmahaBound]

The sad thing is, there is nothing else we have in the south (that's identifiable) that can articulate our regional pride. I hate the KKK for many reasons, but one of them being that they seem to have stolen that symbol. I don't wave the flag for that reason.

But I can also tell you that as a former member of Kappa Alpha, that flag was a magnet for hatred. So I understand the mistrust that blacks have when someone says, "Heritage, not hate".

It's like the swastika. As far as I know there was absolutely nothing negative about that symbol before the Nazis. Is there anyone in the Western world that doesn't immediately think of hate and cruelty when they see that symbol now?

[lacene]

I agree with Spurrier 100%, and will be glad when the Beauregard Battle Flag is relegated to the Civil War Museum relic it deserves to be.

And I have asked so many of my friends and relatives with no success, but I'll ask it here: just what southern "Heritage" is being referred to when it is suggested that this flag represents it?

[OmahaBound]

I agree with Spurrier 100%, and will be glad when the Beauregard Battle Flag is relegated to the Civil War Museum relic it deserves to be.

And I have asked so many of my friends and relatives with no success, but I'll ask it here: just what southern "Heritage" is being referred to when it is suggested that this flag represents it?

Yeah, I guess one thing the out-of-staters might not know about the situation...the flag is flying beside a large confederate soldier memorial. You get rid of the flag you're still going to be honoring the heritage with a monument that is dead-center in front of the state house right in front of main street for all to see. It's impossible to miss.

I really think there are 2 groups that are adament about the flag remaining. The first group is the racists/nutjobs who wish it was still 1860. The optimist in me thinks they're easily the minority though. I think the majority are just stubborn people that hate to be told what to do. Since the NAACP is pressuring us to get rid of it they'll do the exact opposite since it doesn't personally offend them.

Tell me this wouldn't be honoring the confederate heritage if the flag was removed...
http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/4800/1474307carolinascivilwaid8.th.jpg (http://img76.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1474307carolinascivilwaid8.jpg)

[GatorHunter]

I can agree with Spurs comments...but I can also see the other side...some southerners feel very passionate about the flag...should their beliefs or feelings be ignored to satisfy someone else? If you remove the flag...then they'll just find something else that "offends" them...maybe even the monument. I could care less either way...but in our current society...open-mindedness and acceptance is preached daily...shouldn't these PC-people respect the beliefs of the folks who want the flag to stay?

[lacene]

Yeah, I guess one thing the out-of-staters might not know about the situation...the flag is flying beside a large confederate soldier memorial. You get rid of the flag you're still going to be honoring the heritage with a monument that is dead-center in front of the state house right in front of main street for all to see. It's impossible to miss.

I really think there are 2 groups that are adament about the flag remaining. The first group is the racists/nutjobs who wish it was still 1860. The optimist in me thinks they're easily the minority though. I think the majority are just stubborn people that hate to be told what to do. Since the NAACP is pressuring us to get rid of it they'll do the exact opposite since it doesn't personally offend them.

Tell me this wouldn't be honoring the confederate heritage if the flag was removed...
http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/4800/1474307carolinascivilwaid8.th.jpg (http://img76.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1474307carolinascivilwaid8.jpg)

but that's my point (btw, if the "out-of-staters" comment was for me, I was born in SC, raised in SC, and will die in SC): the confederate soldier fought in the Civil War. Gator-u said that slavery was a "side-note" for the "South's desire to avoid rule by an increasingly powerful federal government". This couldn't be further from the truth. Slave labor was the primary issue that led to the Civil War, and was a powder-keg issue waiting to explode years, even decades, before the thirteen states receded, and started war. The Civil War was fought over slavery, as a driving issue. A statue of a confederate soldier represents a war fought over slavery. We're talking about symbolism, here. What southern "Heritage" do we refer to?

[larryt4111]

but that's my point (btw, if the "out-of-staters" comment was for me, I was born in SC, raised in SC, and will die in SC): the confederate soldier fought in the Civil War. Gator-u said that slavery was a "side-note" for the "South's desire to avoid rule by an increasingly powerful federal government". This couldn't be further from the truth. Slave labor was the primary issue that led to the Civil War, and was a powder-keg issue waiting to explode years, even decades, before the thirteen states receded, and started war. The Civil War was fought over slavery, as a driving issue. A statue of a confederate soldier represents a war fought over slavery. We're talking about symbolism, here. What southern "Heritage" do we refer to?

THAT'S BS. If that were true then only people who actually owned slaves would have been in favor of leaving the union.
The "WAR Of Aggression" by the Northern States, was started by unfair trade practices high tariffs for processed goods shipped to the South after raw goods were shipped north for processing and by issues of state sovereignty. If you were right, which you aren't, certainly the small farmers and merchants who did not have anything to do with slavery wouldn't have wanted a WAR, and wouldn't have signed up to fight.

TAKE A HISTORY LESSON by someone other than a liberal leaning teacher!

[OmahaBound]

but that's my point (btw, if the "out-of-staters" comment was for me, I was born in SC, raised in SC, and will die in SC): the confederate soldier fought in the Civil War. Gator-u said that slavery was a "side-note" for the "South's desire to avoid rule by an increasingly powerful federal government". This couldn't be further from the truth. Slave labor was the primary issue that led to the Civil War, and was a powder-keg issue waiting to explode years, even decades, before the thirteen states receded, and started war. The Civil War was fought over slavery, as a driving issue. A statue of a confederate soldier represents a war fought over slavery. We're talking about symbolism, here. What southern "Heritage" do we refer to?

I'm not sure why you think my post was disagreeing with yours or that I was referring to you with the out-of-stater comment but I was not.

However I will disagree with you somewhat on your latest post. I have no problem with the soldier memorial because as you say, this is all about symbolism. The soldier has never been used as a symbol for white supremacy or hatred. I agree with you that southerners in general minimize the significance of the slavery issue, but you know it was not the only issue. Not only was it not the only issue, but the VAST majority of confederate soldiers were never in a position to own slaves themselves. These young men were fighting for their homes, their families, and their states...not slavery. There's nothing wrong with honoring them.

The flag, unlike images of the soldiers, HAS become a symbol of white supremacy, hatred, etc. One can argue that the flag flying in SC is technically the battle flag but it's close enough to the confederate flag. Basically flag supporters are saying, "I refuse to go to the museum to honor history...it has to be on current government property with all to see even if it terribly offends at least 1/3 of the state and hurts the state's image around the world." Hence my post earlier suggesting this is all about being stubborn and not wanting to let "outsiders" tell us what to do.

[AUChamps]

THAT'S BS. If that were true then only people who actually owned slaves would have been in favor of leaving the union.
The "WAR Of Aggression" by the Northern States, was started by unfair trade practices high tariffs for processed goods shipped to the South after war goods were shipped north for processing and by issues of state sovereignty. If you were right, which you aren't, certainly the small farmers and merchants who did not have anything to do with slavery wouldn't have wanted a WAR, and wouldn't have signed up to fight.

TAKE A HISTORY LESSON by someone other than a liberal leaning teacher!
Even if only 1% of Southerners owned slaves(and that was probably the case), the vast majority of Southerners approved of the concept of slavery(or at least weren't vocal against the concept of slavery). It's just like those that lived in Germany during the 1930s. Sure they didn't kill Jews and were evil like Hitler but what did the common ppl do to rise up against the establishment even if they knew they'd be risking everything in order to support the right thing?

That's the issue that most have with Southern "Heritage" being tied to the flag. Maybe if the common man had risen up against the Plantation Owners to say that ownership of a man is wrong and used the Confederate flag as a banner for rising up against slavery and the powerful Plantation owners, then we'd all look at the stars and bars in a different, more respected manner.

[larryt4111]

I EDITED MY POST IT SHOULD HAVE READ...
"...goods shipped to the South after raw goods were shipped north for processing..."

[gatorunvrsty]

but that's my point (btw, if the "out-of-staters" comment was for me, I was born in SC, raised in SC, and will die in SC): the confederate soldier fought in the Civil War. Gator-u said that slavery was a "side-note" for the "South's desire to avoid rule by an increasingly powerful federal government". This couldn't be further from the truth. Slave labor was the primary issue that led to the Civil War, and was a powder-keg issue waiting to explode years, even decades, before the thirteen states receded, and started war. The Civil War was fought over slavery, as a driving issue. A statue of a confederate soldier represents a war fought over slavery. We're talking about symbolism, here. What southern "Heritage" do we refer to?

That simply isn't true. Not one word of that is accurate. First, no states RECEDED. Eleven, not thirteen, seceded. It increased to 15 shortly thereafter. And the primary issue was not whether or not slavery was right or wrong; but whether or not the Federal Government had a right to tell Southern states they couldn't have it. The South was fighting for sovereignty, and the right to make its own laws. They were at a significant industrial and fiscal disadvantage; and simply felt a government comprised of Northern states, that were unfamiliar with the limitations of the South as primarily agricultural states, had no business telling them how to run their territories. Slavery was certainly one of the issues. One of many. The Civil War was a war fought over State's rights vs. Federalism. What's ironic is that the Federalists at that time were Republicans. Now, Republicans claim there should be less Federal interference in State affairs. And, as far as heritage goes; there's a lot more to a Southern way of life than its history concerning slavery. I won't even begin a list, as I'd be here all night. This forum is a tribute to some of it.

[azamugg]

Sounds like a "cop-out" to me. The Confederate Flag is a cherished historical symbol for some. I know this country is currently on the "PC Train"...but removing a historical symbol for the sake of football recruiting sounds ridiculous...IMO.

this thread is obviously gonna be a battle of opinions where no one concedes but Im southern and white and IMO any argument to continue flying the confederate flag is empty and silly.......I laugh at those saying "the Civil War was about states rights, not slaves"......big fkn deal, and these are people who don't know the three branches of govt, they're just repeating the same old tired rhetoric that racists have repeated for years defending that silly piece of cloth.............cuz thats what it is for christs sake, a silly design on a peice of cloth that now MEANS NOTHING,.......so grow up, find something else to "want to hold onto" and move the frick on

[AUChamps]

I just like how nobody's argued with the post I made(because it's dead-on correct).

[gatorunvrsty]

I just like how nobody's argued with the post I made(because it's dead-on correct).

There's nothing to argue with. None of us were alive at the time; and can't give an honest opinion of how we'd have behaved if we had been. You can't apply what we know now to how we would have acted then. Most Germans abhor what their nation did in the '30's and '40's... now. But they didn't go through it; and also can't say what they would have done. For the record, I'm not interested in the debate about the flag, as such. But, I am interested in seeing that history isn't butchered. As for states displaying the flag; that doesn't really have a place on taxpayer property. Everyone pays for that property; and if it's offensive to a large portion of those citizens, then it shouldn't be there. However, I also don't see any problem with people who want to display it on their own property. Nobody can say what it does and doesn't stand for to any particular person. There were atrocities committed by both sides during the war. If a person's great-grandfather fought to save his family and land from being burned to the ground in Atlanta, who's to say he can't respect that, and show it by flying the Confederate flag. Like someone else said, the majority of people doing the fighting weren't plantation owners, and couldn't care less about slavery. Most of these people were poor farmers defending their families, homes, and land. It's the same in all wars... the poor and disadvantaged do all the fighting for the elite policy makers who start the damn wars. Very few silver spoons fall in battle. They're usually the ones busy sending kids to their deaths. Jim Bob wasn't setting out to kill people so some rich SOB could keep his slaves. He was fighting because some Yankees were invading his space, killing his kin, killing his neighbors, killing his livestock, and stealing or burning his property.

[AUChamps]

There's nothing to argue with. None of us were alive at the time; and can't give an honest opinion of how we'd have behaved if we had been. You can't apply what we know now to how we would have acted then. Most Germans abhor what their nation did in the '30's and '40's... now. But they didn't go through it; and also can't say what they would have done. For the record, I'm not interested in the debate about the flag, as such. But, I am interested in seeing that history isn't butchered. As for states displaying the flag; that doesn't really have a place on taxpayer property. Everyone pays for that property; and if it's offensive to a large portion of those citizens, then it shouldn't be there. However, I also don't see any problem with people who want to display it on their own property. Nobody can say what it does and doesn't stand for to any particular person. There were atrocities committed by both sides during the war. If a person's great-grandfather fought to save his family and land from being burned to the ground in Atlanta, who's to say he can't respect that, and show it by flying the Confederate flag. Like someone else said, the majority of people doing the fighting weren't plantation owners, and couldn't care less about slavery. Most of these people were poor farmers defending their families, homes, and land. It's the same in all wars... the poor and disadvantaged do all the fighting for the elite policy makers who start the damn wars. Very few silver spoons fall in battle. They're usually the ones busy sending kids to their deaths. Jim Bob wasn't setting out to kill people so some rich SOB could keep his slaves. He was fighting because some Yankees were invading his space, killing his kin, killing his neighbors, killing his livestock, and stealing or burning his property.
Then why don't the common poor ppl ever rise up against the 1% that give the other 99% a bad name? You see it all the time.

The South with the 1% plantation owners.

Nazi Germany with the few that truly thought like Hitler.

Iran with the majority that really just want to be like us instead of the Radicals.

And so on...

Just once in history I'd like to see the silent majority not be so silent and stand up and make noise. When you're quiet, you allow for others to paint your reputation in history as a people.

You gotta rattle some cases and write your own ppl's history and not allow the 1% to write it on your behalf(for win or for lose).

[UKat]

USC football coach Steve Spurrier called Friday for the removal of the Confederate battle flag from State House grounds, according to a member of the City Year board.

“We need to, as a state, we need to take down that Confederate flag,” City Year board member Kerry Abel said Spurrier told the 350 people attending the service organization’s Ripples of Hope banquet at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center.

WIS-TV reported Spurrier told the group the flag was hurting recruiting.

Spurrier was being honored Friday with a citizen leadership award. Efforts to reach him late Friday were unsuccessful.The 'ol ball coach is wrong on this one. I understand some people see the flag as representing something negative but thats just not true. People seem to forget that slavery was also represented under the U.S. flag for 100 years before the civil war. The stars and bars don't represent slavery........they represent State's rights.

[gatorunvrsty]

Then why don't the common poor ppl ever rise up against the 1% that give the other 99% a bad name? You see it all the time.

The South with the 1% plantation owners.

Nazi Germany with the few that truly thought like Hitler.

Iran with the majority that really just want to be like us instead of the Radicals.

And so on...

Just once in history I'd like to see the silent majority not be so silent and stand up and make noise. When you're quiet, you allow for others to paint your reputation in history as a people.

You gotta rattle some cases and write your own ppl's history and not allow the 1% to write it on your behalf(for win or for lose).

In a perfect world. There have been cases of it. The French Revolution. The Russian Revolution against the Romanov family. That's the danger of letting a central government get too powerful. There's no way an uprising in this (or most industrialized) nations could ever beat back the Federal Military. That's what the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the drafters of the Constitution were trying to guard against. They foresaw events like this, because they'd already experienced what can happen from a monarch in England. That's the whole point of having a right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. In fact, it would seem the South was doing exactly what they had a right to do in taking up arms in defense of their individual states against a more powerful and over-reaching central government. Here's how that right has been interpreted most recently:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated in 2001 that:

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."

This is basically in response to claims by some that the right to bear arms doesn't include individuals, unless they're in the military. But, what it means is that citizens of those states who took up arms in the defense of their state, were doing what they had every right to do. I don't think anybody would say slavery was right; but the majority of these people were fighting for their state against the same kind of oppression the revolutionaries fought against in the American Revolutionary War. To the people of the South, the North was just becoming the new England. Slavery was wrong, and many people in the South probably agreed. They just didn't think any government centered in the North, who didn't understand their problems, had a right to overrun their state governments and impose their will. I'm sure they feared omnipotent rule.

Some would say that's exactly what we've ended up with.

[AUChamps]

In a perfect world. There have been cases of it. The French Revolution. The Russian Revolution against the Romanov family. That's the danger of letting a central government get too powerful. There's no way an uprising in this (or most industrialized) nations could ever beat back the Federal Military. That's what the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the drafters of the Constitution were trying to guard against. They foresaw events like this, because they'd already experienced what can happen from a monarch in England. That's the whole point of having a right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. In fact, it would seem the South was doing exactly what they had a right to do in taking up arms in defense of their individual states against a more powerful and over-reaching central government. Here's how that right has been interpreted most recently:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated in 2001 that:

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."

This is basically in response to claims by some that the right to bear arms doesn't include individuals, unless they're in the military. But, what it means is that citizens of those states who took up arms in the defense of their state, were doing what they had every right to do. I don't think anybody would say slavery was right; but the majority of these people were fighting for their state against the same kind of oppression the revolutionaries fought against in the American Revolutionary War. To the people of the South, the North was just becoming the new England. Slavery was wrong, and many people in the South probably agreed. They just didn't think any government centered in the North, who didn't understand their problems, had a right to overrun their state governments and impose their will. I'm sure they feared omnipotent rule.

Some would say that's exactly what we've ended up with.
I understand that, but then why didn't the silent and poor majority in the South rise up against the Plantation Owners?

Why the Federal Gov't and not the Plantation Owners that were the cause of the North's issues with the South? It wasn't the common man after all that Washington had a problem with. It was the Wealthy Landowners and Politicians of the South.

[Cianne]

Bah. I come to read our wonderful message board as a break to studying for a Constitutional Law final and I find a discussion on the powers of federalism.

[gatorunvrsty]

Bah. I come to read our wonderful message board as a break to studying for a Constitutional Law final and I find a discussion on the powers of federalism.

:laugh: Sorry.

[lacene]

The 'ol ball coach is wrong on this one. I understand some people see the flag as representing something negative but thats just not true. People seem to forget that slavery was also represented under the U.S. flag for 100 years before the civil war. The stars and bars don't represent slavery........they represent State's rights.

explain yourself: you ask the rest of our country not southern what the Beauregard Battle Flag represents to them, and they will say it represents slavery. You ask the rest of the world - that knows anything about the history of the south in this country, and they say it represents slavery. How does that represent "some"? How is that representation "not true"? And finally, what does the Stars and Bars have to do with what Coach Spurrier was talking about?

[gatorunvrsty]

I understand that, but then why didn't the silent and poor majority in the South rise up against the Plantation Owners?

Why the Federal Gov't and not the Plantation Owners that were the cause of the North's issues with the South? It wasn't the common man after all that Washington had a problem with. It was the Wealthy Landowners and Politicians of the South.

I honestly don't think it was something they concerned themselves with on a daily basis. Slavery was widespread in all the states for over a hundred years. It wasn't as outrageous to people then as it is now. It was easy for Northern states to dispel it, because they weren't as dependent on the labor. They were more industrialized... the South agricultural. What they did was adopt a law with mild repercussions for them, but serious consequences for the South; and try to mandate it for everyone. This is only one of a plethora of disagreements, and perceived and real injustices. In the end, I think the average person got involved when they saw what the Northern soldiers were doing to everyone. Most volunteered after the North overstepped their bounds, in their eyes. In the end, I'd think it was like, "If y'all want to end slavery, good for you. That's a very nice gesture. I hope we do that one day. But, don't be coming down here, telling us what we can and can't do. Slavery may be wrong; but trying to bully us is going to get you hurt.":happy:

To your second question, I'd think that would be a more pertinent question for the Federalists. Why did they feel like they had to dominate all states and control all the people? Why did they take advantage of the agricultural states? They basically adopted the same kind of policies and ideals that they'd killed to get out from under only 75 years earlier.

[AUChamps]

I honestly don't think it was something they concerned themselves with on a daily basis. Slavery was widespread in all the states for over a hundred years. It wasn't as outrageous to people then as it is now. It was easy for Northern states to dispel it, because they weren't as dependent on the labor. They were more industrialized... the South agricultural. What they did was adopt a law with mild repercussions for them, but serious consequences for the South; and try to mandate it for everyone. This is only one of a plethora of disagreements, and perceived and real injustices. In the end, I think the average person got involved when they saw what the Northern soldiers were doing to everyone. Most volunteered after the North overstepped their bounds, in their eyes. In the end, I'd think it was like, "If y'all want to end slavery, good for you. That's a very nice gesture. I hope we do that one day. But, don't be coming down here, telling us what we can and can't do. Slavery may be wrong; but trying to bully us is going to get you hurt.":happy:

To your second question, I'd think that would be a more pertinent question for the Federalists. Why did they feel like they had to dominate all states and control all the people? Why did they take advantage of the agricultural states? They basically adopted the same kind of policies and ideals that they'd killed to get out from under only 75 years earlier.
That sounds like a fancy way of saying that the common folks didn't care for the wealthy plantation owners and politicians but at the same time had a defeatist mentality about rising up against them. The fact that they chose to sit on the sidelines for so long that the common folks would theb only decide to bear arms against the North when the North came in to do the fight that the common Southerner was either too apathetic or lazy to do.

I love the South and always will, but I tell you that the 99% that were just getting by between 1776 and 1861 should have had the 'stones to rise up and rebel against the 1% that controlled the south's majority of wealth and power.

I liken the situation to that of Mexico today. 99% of the population are just barely getting by, if that. Meantime there's that 1% of business owners and the like(like Carlos Slim). Why can't the 99% rise up and demand change against the 1% instead of coming over here? That's no better then retreating and being apathetic toward the greater issue.

Do you understand the greater issue that I'm pointing out?

[gatorunvrsty]

explain yourself: you ask the rest of our country not southern what the Beauregard Battle Flag represents to them, and they will say it represents slavery. You ask the rest of the world - that knows anything about the history of the south in this country, and they say it represents slavery. How does that represent "some"? How is that representation "not true"? And finally, what does the Stars and Bars have to do with what Coach Spurrier was talking about?

On the contrary, that's what the people who don't really know much American History would say. That's what people say who haven't done much in depth analysis of the myriad disagreements between the states. That's what the dumb rednecks think it stands for. White supremacy. And that's what most blacks say it stands for. But, what it stands for is different for many people. To many lifelong families in the South, it stands for the brave defense of their homeland, against an oppressive federal government. That's all a flag is. A symbol. And every one can mean something different to different people. Hanging in a Klucker's house, it's a hate symbol. But, to a family whose forefather was just trying to prevent his state from being overrun and burned to the ground, it's a symbol of honor and sacrifice. Not sacrifice to retain slavery, but sacrifice to save state and family. It's a symbol of allegiance not to a practice, but a home.

[gatorunvrsty]

That sounds like a fancy way of saying that the common folks didn't care for the wealthy plantation owners and politicians but at the same time had a defeatist mentality about rising up against them. The fact that they chose to sit on the sidelines for so long that the common folks would theb only decide to bear arms against the North when the North came in to do the fight that the common Southerner was either too apathetic or lazy to do.

I love the South and always will, but I tell you that the 99% that were just getting by between 1776 and 1861 should have had the 'stones to rise up and rebel against the 1% that controlled the south's majority of wealth and power.

I liken the situation to that of Mexico today. 99% of the population are just barely getting by, if that. Meantime there's that 1% of business owners and the like(like Carlos Slim). Why can't the 99% rise up and demand change against the 1% instead of coming over here? That's no better then retreating and being apathetic toward the greater issue.

Do you understand the greater issue that I'm pointing out?

Sure. But, what I'm saying is it's a great wrong to people today; but was not that unusual or considered that big a deal then. You're comparing how people today would be outraged to a time when no slaves was a brand new idea. My whole point is that it wasn't outrageous to anybody at that time. Many Northerners didn't agree with Lincoln, either, on the issue of slavery. In the South, many people thought it was wrong, but it wasn't such a big deal that anyone was going to go kill their neighbor over it. You keep thinking about it in terms of what people think in the 21st century. You have to put yourself in the 18th and 19th. People in the North had slaves then, too. Even after slavery, many free-men returned to the South because they claimed they were actually treated worse in the North than the South. Freedom doesn't mean much if you can't house and feed your family.

I agree that people should rise up against injustice. What you have to realize is that at that time it wasn't that great of an injustice to most people, yet. If it had been, there would never have been a civil rights movement. Even though slaves were freed, they still weren't full citizens with the same rights as white men. Nobody, North or South, considered them equal. All abolition accomplished was state that people can no longer own anybody. All the things blacks have gotten, they had to fight for; and it took damn near another hundred years. Bottom line is: Nobody, North, South, East, or West felt as strongly about the issue as an injustice, as we do today.

What if 100 years from now Hispanic people aren't allowed into the country. There may be a good reason in a hundred years; but, right now, illegal aliens are just an inconveience. See what I mean? I don't think you're going to see anyone taking up arms in support of either side of the issue. It just isn't a big deal right now. Do you think if the U.S. passed a law prohibiting Mexicans, but Texas still wanted them to come in, that Texas would rebel? Circumstances, opinions, and attitudes change. And they change a lot over a hundred years. Slavery just wasn't so distasteful then as now. Abolishing it was too new of an idea for most to have already adopted an opinion fervent enough to rise up against their neighbor.

[GatorHunter]

What I find so funny about the whole "Confederate Flag" situation...the people that are so "hell-bent" to do away with it....are for burning the American Flag...they're basically saying.."The American Flag is just a symbol...anyone should be allowed to do with it as they please...but rearrange the stars and bars and it becomes something that must be held in regards...it's crazy!

[lacene]

On the contrary, that's what the people who don't really know much American History would say. That's what people say who haven't done much in depth analysis of the myriad disagreements between the states. That's what the dumb rednecks think it stands for. White supremacy. And that's what most blacks say it stands for. But, what it stands for is different for many people. To many lifelong families in the South, it stands for the brave defense of their homeland, against an oppressive federal government. That's all a flag is. A symbol. And every one can mean something different to different people. Hanging in a Klucker's house, it's a hate symbol. But, to a family whose forefather was just trying to prevent his state from being overrun and burned to the ground, it's a symbol of honor and sacrifice. Not sacrifice to retain slavery, but sacrifice to save state and family. It's a symbol of allegiance not to a practice, but a home.

And I say that regardless of such in depth analysis and research, that the battle flag DOES represent slavery to a VAST majority of humans on this planet, and that the ones who still - after all these decades and all this history of racial discrimination and oppression, KKK lynchings, prohibition of equal rights and segregation, and the proud display of the flag as a symbol through all of this - want to portray the flag as symbolic of a past to be proud of, leaves me questioning if the South will ever truly be free of racism.

My problem will always be with the thought process that allows us to forever mourn our forefathers for fighting in the so-called "Tariff War", when we don't even come close to mourning the loss of our forefathers who died in global wars like WWI & WWII as much, yet at the same time we are able to brush under the rug the simple fact that during that time we owned human beings as if they were farm animals. We can say, "yeah, buying and selling people down at the port markets in Charleston was bad, but what about those damn Whip-party Yankees trying to raise our tariffs from 15% to 20%: now, THAT'S AN OUTRAGE!!!!!". It's an embarrassment to the South.

And, the confederacy started the war, you know.....

[lacene]

What I find so funny about the whole "Confederate Flag" situation...the people that are so "hell-bent" to do away with it....are for burning the American Flag...they're basically saying.."The American Flag is just a symbol...anyone should be allowed to do with it as they please...but rearrange the stars and bars and it becomes something that must be held in regards...it's crazy!

If you witnessed a family member being lynched from a tree limb, set on fire, sent to the back of a bus, or told they can't do what other Americans were allowed to do, I have this sneaky suspicion that you wouldn't consider the whole Confederate Flag "situation" to be "funny".


Call me crazy, but it's just a hunch I have.....:dry:

[Crimson Kicker8]

This is a deep subject that is delicate to approach as there are strong feelings on both sides of the fence. I've actually changed my stance on the Confederate Flag being flown on public buildings over the years. I know I'll probably draw some jeers for this but I think Spurrier trying to get the flag removed is the right call, but based on the wrong reason.

Being from Alabama it's hard not to be familiar with the Confederate Flag being flown on public buildings. Here's how I see it. The Confederate Flag should not be synonymous with slavery, as slavery existed in this country long before the flag was woven. However, Southern culture also existed long before that same flag was woven, and thus can be displayed and celebrated through several other medians. When Montgomery was forced to remove the "Stars and Bars", which was the official government flag of the CSA, as a white Southerner I was pretty upset, basically for all of the reasons that have been said so far. But then I settled on the fact that certain parts of history need to be presented in the appropriate atmosphere. Even with all heritage considered, I don't believe that a government building should display a flag, which at the time, was a symbol of rebellion to the United States and is still seen as a hurtful symbol to people today. I do however support the Confederate Flag being displayed at official Confederate memorial sites, museums, and rememberence services, where it can receive the historical respect that it rightly deserves. In the case of Montgomery, as it was the original capital of the Confederacy, it should be allowed to display the Stars and Bars in a historical aspect inside the building.

Back to Spurrier, he may or may not be doing this just to improve recruiting, but I think he should be primarily concerned about the sensitivity of the issue first, then recruiting second.

[GTmorris1970]

For anyone interested, Spurrier made it clear at his post spring game press conference yesterday that he was misquoted on saying that it affected recruiting. He said he never said that, and even pointed at the reporter who printed the article in The State paper. He said there are no excuses here, as he has said since day one. He also said he is no politician, and is not on a mission to make that happen. He said he was simply stating his opinion because he was asked, and said that was certainly his opinion.

[BamaMatt]

Cheap recruiting tactic... "See? I don't want the flag here."

I will now be hoping South Carolina loses every game this season.

Leave history alone. I'm sick of whiny people's feelings being more important than history.

[GTmorris1970]

I will now be hoping South Carolina loses every game this season.

.

Good luck with that. If you read the post right before yours, he made it clear it had NOTHING to do with recruiting, and was simply stating his opinion on A QUESTION HE WAS ASKED. I personally respect someone who will speak their true mind without fear.

[larryt4111]

I believe someone above mentioned state militias. In South Carolina if you are a male you are likely to be a member of the state militia and not even be aware of it? It's true. Check out this link.

Constitution of the State of South Carolina
http://www.iopa.sc.edu/grs/sccep/pdf/SC%20Constitution%20.pdf

ARTICLE XIII.
MILITIA
SECTION 1. Militia.
The militia of this State shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the State between the ages of eighteen and
forty-five years, except such persons as are now or may be exempted by the laws of the United States or this State, or
who from religious scruples may be adverse to bearing arms, and shall be organized, officered, armed, equipped and
disciplined as the General Assembly may by law direct.
------------
In fact the words "the United States or " were only added after the civil war.

[Neo]

The 'ol ball coach is wrong on this one. I understand some people see the flag as representing something negative but thats just not true. People seem to forget that slavery was also represented under the U.S. flag for 100 years before the civil war. The stars and bars don't represent slavery........they represent State's rights.



Correctamundo.


The northern propaganda machine would want you to believe that it was all about slavery and that's just not the case.

Here the south was getting taxed beyond belief and the north was reaping all of the benefits. The south did NOT receive any of those federal monies and felt like they were being exploited.

That's the true reason behind the civil war. Not slavery.

[Crimson Kicker8]

For anyone interested, Spurrier made it clear at his post spring game press conference yesterday that he was misquoted on saying that it affected recruiting. He said he never said that, and even pointed at the reporter who printed the article in The State paper. He said there are no excuses here, as he has said since day one. He also said he is no politician, and is not on a mission to make that happen. He said he was simply stating his opinion because he was asked, and said that was certainly his opinion.

If that is the case then it sounds like a pretty stand-up response on behalf of 'The Ole' Ball Coach', good on him.

[Crimson Kicker8]

Correctamundo.


The northern propaganda machine would want you to believe that it was all about slavery and that's just not the case.

Here the south was getting taxed beyond belief and the north was reaping all of the benefits. The south did NOT receive any of those federal monies and felt like they were being exploited.

That's the true reason behind the civil war. Not slavery.

I wouldn't say there is one true reason why we fought a civil war. I'm not disputing what you're saying here in the example you gave but slavery, State's rights (to include territory and future State's rights), as well as proper voting representation were all factors that contributed to war being waged. Slavery was the issue that caused the most violence leading up to the war, actions of such revolutionaries like Nat Turner coupled with the violent nature of slavery itself provided most of the fuel for the fire.

[GTmorris1970]

Steve Spurrier does not want to be a politician.

But the USC football coach believes the state would be a better place to live if the Confederate battle flag were removed from the State House grounds.

Spurrier brought up the flag issue Friday while accepting a leadership award from City Year at the service group’s Ripples of Hope banquet at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center.

Spurrier said Saturday that he believed he was in an appropriate setting to voice his opinion.

“It would make us a more progressive, better state, I think, if the flag was removed. But I’m not going to go on any big campaign to have it removed. That’s not my position,” Spurrier said in an interview with The State. “But if anyone were to ask me, that would certainly be my position. And I think everyone in there, it was their position, too.”

Spurrier said it was “embarrassing” last year when someone waved a Confederate battle flag behind the set of ESPN’s “GameDay” before the Gamecocks’ home game against Tennessee.

“Some clown or some dude was waving that big ol’ Confederate flag right behind them about the whole time they were on,” Spurrier said.

State legislators have said little about the flag since reaching a compromise in 2000 that moved the flag from atop the Capitol dome to a Confederate monument on the State House grounds.

“I’m not trying to be a politician. I just gave my opinion,” Spurrier said. “I did mention that if our team wins big and wins the conference championship, then I’ll have a bigger voice. That’s just the way life is. If we stumble-bumble around, no one gives a dang what I say.

“If I want to make a change to hopefully make this state better, we need to win big.”

Other South Carolina college football and basketball coaches, including Clemson’s Tommy Bowden and Larry Shyatt and USC’s Lou Holtz and Eddie Fogler, also have spoken out against the flag at various times, according to The Associated Press

The 61-year-old Spurrier, who grew up in east Tennessee, said he did not know anyone in South Carolina who was in favor of flying the flag, “but I guess there’s a lot out there somewhere"

Civil rights leaders say the Confederate flag hurts the recruiting efforts of the state’s schools. USC tailback Cory Boyd, a senior from New Jersey, said other schools mentioned the Confederate flag in South Carolina as a negative recruiting tactic against the Gamecocks.

“That (flag) can turn a lot of people away, for many people that we recruit,” said Boyd, who is black. “But you’ve got to understand once you step inside this arena and get with these coaches and get around each other, you really block out all the other negativity.”

But Spurrier said his stance on the flag has nothing to do with recruiting.

“I mentioned it to hopefully make our state a better place. There’s no gain in recruiting. We can recruit,” he said. “But it would just make our state a more progressive state in the eyes of the nation. People would look at South Carolina in a better light.”

Spurrier acknowledged that he was tackling a sensitive subject, but does not regret speaking up.

“If you had a relative who died in the Confederate war, maybe you’d feel very strongly about it, too. But that’s history,” Spurrier said. “If it represents something that angers people, then why do that?”

[gatorunvrsty]

And I say that regardless of such in depth analysis and research, that the battle flag DOES represent slavery to a VAST majority of humans on this planet, and that the ones who still - after all these decades and all this history of racial discrimination and oppression, KKK lynchings, prohibition of equal rights and segregation, and the proud display of the flag as a symbol through all of this - want to portray the flag as symbolic of a past to be proud of, leaves me questioning if the South will ever truly be free of racism.

My problem will always be with the thought process that allows us to forever mourn our forefathers for fighting in the so-called "Tariff War", when we don't even come close to mourning the loss of our forefathers who died in global wars like WWI & WWII as much, yet at the same time we are able to brush under the rug the simple fact that during that time we owned human beings as if they were farm animals. We can say, "yeah, buying and selling people down at the port markets in Charleston was bad, but what about those damn Whip-party Yankees trying to raise our tariffs from 15% to 20%: now, THAT'S AN OUTRAGE!!!!!". It's an embarrassment to the South.

And, the confederacy started the war, you know.....

That depends on who you ask. Many say the war was started by the North long before the first shot was fired. And, the flag doesn't represent or portray any of the things you listed except to the people who CHOOSE to think of it that way. As I stated before, because it's offensive and does represent hate to a large portion of taxpayers, it shouldn't be displayed on public property. If it's important to someone's family because they lost someone in the war who was an honorable and devoted man, that's not a problem. The whole point is that not everyone who supported the South in the war did so because they agreed with the issue of slavery. I would say most supported the South for the myriad other reasons already listed in this thread.

It's the very people who are offended by a flag who are empowering it. If half as much hot air was spent on educating and informing young people as is spent on complaining about a flag, the flag issue would take care of itself. Attacking the symbol only makes people defensive about their families; especially the ones who don't have a history of racism, then or now, but had someone die in the war while in defense of his state. Hell, blacks weren't treated well under the original American flag, either. And they damn sure haven't been under the current one. It's a flag. Address the problem, not the flag that's flying while the problems exist.

Here are the flags that should be despised, as they are the flags of the countries and regions responsible for the start of African to European slavery. European slavery of course led to the practice here.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Flag_of_Ghana.svg/200px-Flag_of_Ghana.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Flag_of_Nigeria.svg/250px-Flag_of_Nigeria.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Flag_of_Angola.svg/180px-Flag_of_Angola.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Flag_of_Tanzania.svg/250px-Flag_of_Tanzania.svg.png

None of those flags existed at the time; but, they are the flags of the first people to sell Africans. These are the flags of the first people outside Africa to buy them:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Flag_of_Portugal.svg/250px-Flag_of_Portugal.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Spain.svg/250px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png

Those are true symbols of slavery. By the time it came to America, it was commonplace. Slavery would have ended with or without the war. They (the North) could have ended it by boycotting and banning all goods produced by slave labor. That's why I say the war was about much more than slavery. That one issue alone wouldn't have made a war necessary to the people involved. But a flag is just a flag. If someone wants to use a flag to identify who and what to be offended by, the above examples are certainly much more deserving. African slavery was unknown to Europeans until the Portugese and Spanish arrived in Africa, where it had long been practiced. You just can't say the flag means only one thing. It has different meanings to different people. It even has different meanings to people who agree on the issue of slavery. Every person in this forum thinks slavery was deplorable; but, the Confederate flag is not a symbol of slavery to every member. Prior to the Civil War, the American flag was a symbol of slavery.

[sully00]

spurrier should stick to coaching football/recruiting and stayout of politics.

[GTmorris1970]

spurrier should stick to coaching football/recruiting and stayout of politics.

No. We need more people like him with the balls to speak up, and not simply say what people want to hear.

[GatorHunter]

No. We need more people like him with the balls to speak up, and not simply say what people want to hear.

Spurrier could come out today and say, "Anal sex is good...especially with farm animals...and some of you Cock fans on here would say, "You know, he's got a point...maybe it is good...hmmm...if Spurrier said it, it has to be right." :laugh: J/K!!!!!

[GTmorris1970]

Spurrier could come out today and say, "Anal sex is good...especially with farm animals...and some of you Cock fans on here would say, "You know, he's got a point...maybe it is good...hmmm...if Spurrier said it, it has to be right." :laugh: J/K!!!!!


Now that is funny. And, it's not bad!! j/k LMAO!!!!:laugh: :ohmy:

[GatorHunter]

Correctamundo.


The northern propaganda machine would want you to believe that it was all about slavery and that's just not the case.

Here the south was getting taxed beyond belief and the north was reaping all of the benefits. The south did NOT receive any of those federal monies and felt like they were being exploited.

That's the true reason behind the civil war. Not slavery.

This is exactly what I was taught...there are many "opinions" of what led to the Civil War...but in several history classes, both in HS and college, what Neo has posted is basically what I was taught. I had an American History class as a freshman at UF...taught by a very Afro-Centric lady...believe me, we spent a quarter of the semester on the "Buffalo Soldiers"...anyway, her thoughts are mirrored by Neo.

[OmahaBound]

I'll ask again to the flag-supporters....

Everyone mentions honoring history and heritage. Why does this large monument honoring confederate soldiers not accomplish that feat? Take the flag away and you still have the tallest and most noticeable monument on the state house grounds.
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9392/1474307carolinascivilwacx5.th.jpg (http://img337.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1474307carolinascivilwacx5.jpg)

[GatorHunter]

I'll ask again to the flag-supporters....

Everyone mentions honoring history and heritage. Why does this large monument honoring confederate soldiers not accomplish that feat? Take the flag away and you still have the tallest and most noticeable monument on the state house grounds.
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9392/1474307carolinascivilwacx5.th.jpg (http://img337.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1474307carolinascivilwacx5.jpg)

I agree Omaha, but if you "give 'em the flag"...the monument may be next.:ohmy:

[GamecockDieHard]

We beat this horse about twice a year it seems. Everyone has their own perspective and I can't recall anyone actually changing their mind about why the War for Southern Independence was actually fought. I've made it clear that anyone who believes the 4% (of the south's population) that owned slaves convinced the other 96% to lose family, property, and life over 4 miserable years, for the cause of slavery, is being duped. But whatever...

The flag should be removed. It was placed atop the State house to "commemorate" the 100th anniversary of the war (or some such thing). Oh, but coincidentally, around the same time that the Civil Rights Act was passed.:glare: I grew up in the Carolinas and witnessed the race riots in Greensboro as a boy, terrified by the Klan as they lined the streets (and I'm white). Fear of a symbol is very real to those that lived through that era. I'm no liberal by any means, but it's wrong to fly a flag that causes so much division. I don't care who thinks who "wins" if it's removed. It should go 'cause it doesn't belong as a focal point at the end of our Main Street and in front of our State Capitol. The Civil War statue may be the next to be removed. So what? Set up a proper memorial site where those that want to view it can do so in peace and privacy rather than not visiting it at all because of it's glaring location.

Spurrier's comments will have little impact on anyone concerning this issue, IMO. Most in SC don't want to keep fighting this battle, they just want it to go away. History has already been re-written to paint us all as plantation owners raping, killing, and torturing our slaves every day. To have the flag as our rallying point is insane and only validates what many want to believe about us. It distracts from the ability to set the record straight, and that is really what southerners should fight for.

[UKat]

explain yourself: you ask the rest of our country not southern what the Beauregard Battle Flag represents to them, and they will say it represents slavery. You ask the rest of the world - that knows anything about the history of the south in this country, and they say it represents slavery. How does that represent "some"? How is that representation "not true"? And finally, what does the Stars and Bars have to do with what Coach Spurrier was talking about?Spurs is saying it is negative to some people.......history is offensive and negative to some people in anything. As I said in the last of my comment......why do the people that feel offended by the battle flag not feel offended by the stars and stripes as slavery was also represented by it for over 100 yrs. Yes slavery was unfortunately part of why the war was fought....but it was also fought because states didnt want to give up their soverienty to govern themselves. It is a part of history and heritage, this is my opinion and I'm not going to be ashamed of it....as many of us had family in our lineage that fought in that war.

[UKat]

Cheap recruiting tactic... "See? I don't want the flag here."

I will now be hoping South Carolina loses every game this season.

Leave history alone. I'm sick of whiny people's feelings being more important than history.Good Call!

[UKat]

Correctamundo.


The northern propaganda machine would want you to believe that it was all about slavery and that's just not the case.

Here the south was getting taxed beyond belief and the north was reaping all of the benefits. The south did NOT receive any of those federal monies and felt like they were being exploited.

That's the true reason behind the civil war. Not slavery.Exactly! That is why the feds wanted to take control of ALL river traffic on the Ohio River being that it was the major water gateway into the South, imagine that. The feds loved taxing to death the South which flourished in tobacco, cotton, fruits/ vegetables.

[UKat]

Spurrier could come out today and say, "Anal sex is good...especially with farm animals...and some of you Cock fans on here would say, "You know, he's got a point...maybe it is good...hmmm...if Spurrier said it, it has to be right." :laugh: J/K!!!!!Now that son is funny!

[OmahaBound]

I agree Omaha, but if you "give 'em the flag"...the monument may be next.:ohmy:

I believe that monument has been on the grounds since 1879, and it has rarely if ever been mentioned in the flag debate. Will there be some that want it gone once the flag is gone? Sure...but they won't have nearly the voice or influence that the flag debate has and the issue would die quietly with minimal to no national attention. The NAACP is the driving force behind the economic/social/political implications behind this issue and they're only interested in the flag.

[lacene]

I've wondered often if the original intent of the Constitution remained unchanged - if State's Rights were allowed to prevail, and every single state had the ultimate right to veto federal policy, if the state's legislature deemed it unwelcome, and the thirteen states were allowed to SECEDE (you know that's what I meant, gator-u) the Union, along with any other state that felt the federal government was not showing it the respect that it's politicians deemed worthy - what condition would the United States be in today? Would anyone in any state even want to venture beyond their state lines? What kind of government as a nation would we have today? Would we even be considered Americans today?

[OmahaBound]

Another fact that gets overlooked in regards to the SC State House and the confederate flag....the flag wasn't always flying on the grounds. It was placed on the flagpole atop the state house in 1962.

1962, huh? I'm sure racial issues had nothing to do with it.

[OmahaBound]

I've wondered often if the original intent of the Constitution remained unchanged - if State's Rights were allowed to prevail, and every single state had the ultimate right to veto federal policy, if the state's legislature deemed it unwelcome, and the thirteen states were allowed to SECEDE (you know that's what I meant, gator-u) the Union, along with any other state that felt the federal government was not showing it the respect that it's politicians deemed worthy - what condition would the United States be in today? Would anyone in any state even want to venture beyond their state lines? What kind of government as a nation would we have today? Would we even be considered Americans today?

Yeah, I like to think about things like that as well. That's one reason why I hope heaven exists and you really do get to to know/see just about anything you want. I'd love to be able to know what would have happened if the South won or if we lost the Revolutionary War or the Nazis won, etc.

[Cianne]

I've wondered often if the original intent of the Constitution remained unchanged - if State's Rights were allowed to prevail, and every single state had the ultimate right to veto federal policy, if the state's legislature deemed it unwelcome, and the thirteen states were allowed to SECEDE (you know that's what I meant, gator-u) the Union, along with any other state that felt the federal government was not showing it the respect that it's politicians deemed worthy - what condition would the United States be in today? Would anyone in any state even want to venture beyond their state lines? What kind of government as a nation would we have today? Would we even be considered Americans today?

There's a reason the Articles of Confederation was a disaster and that the current Constitution replaced it.

[AUChamps]

Another fact that gets overlooked in regards to the SC State House and the confederate flag....the flag wasn't always flying on the grounds. It was placed on the flagpole atop the state house in 1962.

1962, huh? I'm sure racial issues had nothing to do with it.
That's a very interesting point that I'd like to see be talked about. If anything, it was the racists of the 1960s that helped mold the Stars and Bars into the "racist" symbol that it is today.

Where're those old ppl today that were racists in the 60s? We can't let them die thinking without forcing them to take complete and full responsibility for what they did 40-50 years ago.

[USC66]

I was going to stay out of this debate but a friend of mine sent me an e-mail. I thought I'd share it since it relates to the debate. I am white and my friend is black. We both could really care less what others do to a certain degree but he thought I could get something out of the article since the flag issue has come up a couple of times in our discussions. ( not in mean spirit either).
By the way, I like the flag but I agree it should not be on top of the capitol. I have no problem with where it is now next to a confederate monument which no one seems to have a problem with. I don't know who wrote it but anyway, here is the e-mail. There's some history in this too.



The Confederate Battle Flag

It represents the most devastating treason ever committed against the United States. It mocks thousands of American soldiers who gave their lives in this nation's darkest hour. It's the ultimate display of disrespect for every African American who strives to be a productive citizen. Yet several southern states still have the Confederate Battle Flag billowing right next to Old Glory at their capitol buildings.
Some people who fly the Confederate banner are at least partially aware of the mean spirited legacy it symbolizes. Many are racists for whom the rebel flag makes a social statement. It heralds their opposition to principles of liberty and equality. They enjoy seeing the bitter resentment it ignites in black people. Others have less malevolent intentions; they consider the flag cute and harmless. Seduced by talking heads who proclaim that political correctness is passé, they seek a different drumbeat by which to march.
The Confederate flag expresses an idealism which usually drives a wide wedge between blacks and some whites. African Americans feel menaced by the rowdy rustic cowboy, who whoops it up in the name of guns, liquor and old Confederate glory. However, many white Americans just don't get it. They fail to understand how this "innocent" symbol evokes such passionate indignation. The symbol may be innocent, but those who initially bore it as a battle standard were guilty of murder, treason, insurrection and stupidity. Those who still honor that standard may be guilty of the latter two, at least.
Most people who display the Confederate emblem have little knowledge of the history behind it. They tend to associate it with a noble, romantic period for the South: Dixieland rising to oppose the tyranny of the Yankees. A lot of those same people also believe the reason for fighting the Civil War was to abolish slavery. It wasn't. The Civil War was ultimately about power and money. At the time it was called "States' Rights."
The issues that eventually led to war between the states were hot topics for more than a generation. Federal tariffs that may have negatively impacted agricultural commerce were fiercely opposed by powerful plantation owners. These men dominated social, political and economic life in the South. Their argument was that each state was sovereign and independent, therefore the government had no authority to pass such laws. South Carolina was particularly incensed about the issue. The South Carolina legislature passed a Nullification Ordinance, vowing not to enforce the tariffs or any other "General Government" legislation within state boundaries if it felt those enactments were detrimental to South Carolina's interests.
The issue was so animated by the winter of 1832 that President Andrew Jackson sent additional Federal troops and naval vessels to Charleston. Old Hickory was fortifying his position for what appeared to be an inevitable war. But in early 1833 Washington enacted compromises to the tariff legislation, making it kinder to South Carolina. In return, the Nullification Ordinance was repealed.
The Constitution lent little or no support proponents of states' rights; Article VI. states "the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." Yet the Capitol had been reduced to negotiation with a member state over enforcement of a "supreme Law." This was part of the legacy of coercion and greed that gave birth to the Confederate States of America and its corny flag.
Three decades after the nullification crisis, the institution of slavery had grown into more of a sore point between South and North. The Abolitionist movement was gaining steam and international pressure to end barbaric practice was also growing. In Washington, a cadre of men known as Radical Republicans was committed to achieving freedom for all blacks in America. But presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln repeatedly assured southerners he had no intention to abolish slavery where it existed, but was opposed to its expansion.
Southern orators screamed that Lincoln would destroy the institution of slavery and put the South at the legislative and economic mercy of Negroes and Yankees. A month after Lincoln's election victory, the South Carolina legislature voted to secede. Six other legislatures soon followed suit and the Confederate States of America was born February 9, 1961. The rebel states claimed the right to appropriate Federal property within their borders and on April 12 the first shots of the war were fired on a Union garrison -- in South Carolina, of course.
The Confederate flag represents the power of most contemptible personality in American history -- the rich plantation owner. He was like a deadly spider, weaving webs of exploitation that oppressed the white as well as the black. One of his more contemptuous terms for the poor white was "mud sill." Mud sill also denoted the part of a building half buried in dirt, supporting the superstructure. Irish born traveler E. L. Godkin described this class of people as the "most woebegone, forlorn, hopeless, Godforsaken looking portion of the human race." Many of them endured worse conditions than the slaves.
However, to muster troops for their war, the polished aristocrat turned to these same wretched poor whites he so despised. Playing on provincial loyalties and racial fears, he convinced those unfortunates to rally round his banner and fight. The lower class whites trusted his wealthy patron the way the serf once trusted his feudal lord. The diabolical planters have been noted for keeping their own sons home as marched the poor mud sills into the guns of the Union army.
The Confederate flag commemorates the Old South and its rigid class system. The planters lived in palatial luxury and the mud sill class was near the bottom of the Dixie food chain. Only blacks were considered lower. Yet many slaves were artisans, a source of free labor that left even fewer opportunities for poor white laborers. Ironically, the average guy with the stars and bars license plate on his pickup truck is descended from the long-suffering mud sill class. Unbeknownst to him, he gives tribute to a culture that oppressed his forebears. Sounds like things haven't really changed much.
The Confederate battle flag was one of four emblems used by secessionists during the Civil War. It was adopted after the first Battle of Bull Run, a Confederate victory. Its thirteen stars represented the eleven members of the Confederate States of America, plus Missouri and Kentucky, two pro slavery provinces which didn't secede. The standard was frequently raised in triumph following early skirmishes. Only after the more aggressive General Ulysses Grant replaced General George McClellan did the tables turn. Southern forces were worn down in what gradually became a war of attrition.
After the war ended, Lincoln opposed putting the defeated Confederates on trial for treason, but were they not traitors? They had defied the laws of the land and revolted against their elected Chief Executive. Betraying their oaths of office, congressmen from the South had abandoned their posts and formed a rival government. They had armed their constituents and fired on the U. S. Flag. Damned right, they were traitors!
The Confederate flag hides the mocking grin of the devious, devilish aristocrat, who skipped away Scot free from his deserved finale in the hangman's noose. Its red field is soaked with the blood of countless dead and maimed Americans, victims of a bloodbath that claimed more lives than all other American wars combined.
The American Civil War stands unique in its absence of universal trials and punishments. In Lincoln's mind, the rebels were erring brothers to be warmly welcomed back into the fold. His successor, Andrew Johnson was even more sympathetic to the Southerners. He issued a proclamation that granted amnesty to everyone connected with the Confederate uprising except persons above certain civil or military rank and those with property in excess of twenty thousand dollars. He personally pardoned hundreds of other Confederates who did not meet the initial criteria.


continued....

[USC66]

Johnson's largesse with the recent enemies of the Union led to his unprecedented impeachment and Senate trial in 1868. He was charged with committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." A miracle story product from the mud sill class, Johnson was perhaps bedazzled by his "betters," now come to beg a president's pardon. Having been a distant witness to the aristocrat's fairy tale lifestyle as a child, Johnson was not immune to the planters' charm as Chief Executive. Impeached, he refused to resigned. President Johnson forced the matter to trial and escaped conviction by one senate vote, but he spent the remainder of his sole term in the White House as a political pariah.
The Confederate battle flag represents the unpunished insurrectionist, the traitor who causes catastrophic grief, yet is never made to answer for his crimes. As a result of the amnesty proclamation and the personal pardons, many of the politicos who had steered the Confederacy into the conflict found themselves right back in office after the war was over. Eventually their states regained legislative privilege and the rascals were lawmakers again.
It's no coincidence that the original Ku Klux "brotherhood" was organized by former rebel soldiers. The Klan was intended to act as a guerrilla resistance movement and was devoted to the insurgent cause. The South didn't just roll over and play dead, even after General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Grant. For years there was concern and anxiety that the fighting would resume. Northern forces still occupied the South and groups like the Ku Klux Klan formed up as an "underground" resistance.
The Confederate flag remained their banner as these ex-rebel soldiers blazed a trail of murder and brutality through Reconstruction and beyond. From those seditious origins have evolved the modern KKK -- a gang of insecure bigots and bone headed jerks who gather to worship at the altar of intolerance. Today's Klan welcomes northerners and any other white people with the proper capacity for hate.
After all, hate is the only product a group like the KKK can market. They practice a versatile hostility, with room to hate the Black, the Jew, the Chicano and the Asian American -- anyone who doesn't look, act and smell like them. Because the Confederate flag remains a regular prop when the hate mongers gather, we must accept that the flag is also a symbol of hate.
Let's face it, this emblem basically represented an uprising led by bullheaded lunatics who were unable to awaken from the slumber of a Bronze Age mentality. They were frightened to death of the winds of change heralding the twentieth century and they fought like cornered rats against those changes. Their modern-day Klan and Nazi adorers are determined continue that retrogressive struggle against peace and tolerance.
Among the latest favorites in rebel fashions is a T-shirt announcing, "You wear your X and I'll wear mine." It's an obvious reference to Malcolm X and the tribute many African Americans pay him when they wear the X symbol. But I don't see the connection. Any young black teen knows something about Malcolm X; he might even know the activist's Muslim name was Malik Shabazz. But ask the the average Confederate flag flasher, "Who was Jefferson Davis?" You'll probably just get a blank look in reply.
Unfortunately, we have plenty monuments and memorials to Confederate "heroes." There are more than a few right in our own backyard. An whole slew of Confederate generals have their names immortalized in Jacksonville schools: Lee ... Forrest ... Stuart ... White. Those monuments exist, but they shouldn't. Shameful events shouldn't be glorified; they should be remembered quietly, in shame.
The Confederate flag represents the side that lost the Civil War, militarily. But from a social perspective, it was less than a draw. The institution of slavery was officially ended, but the Black Codes enacted by legislatures throughout the South made it clear that blacks would not be accepted as equals. The codes varied from state to state, but they generally prohibited Negroes from carrying firearms, buying property or following any trade except farming.
Some of the codes were clever enough to ensure the continued availability of slave labor. For example, the Mississippi legislature enacted a law proclaiming any unemployed Negro a vagrant. If he was arrested and didn't have money for the vagrancy fine, he could be hired out without pay to whoever could afford his fine. That's the kind of blind injustice the Confederate flag symbolizes.

The Confederate flag represents nothing but shame and disgrace. Stop glorifying it.

[PuddingTime]

I can't imagine why this is still an issue.....take the flag down already. What is it about folks in South Carolina? They started the Civil War and now this...as well as the comments on the Borat movie (for those who've seen it) I just don't understand why it's such a big issue there than in any other Southern state.

[AUChamps]

I can't imagine why this is still an issue.....take the flag down already. What is it about folks in South Carolina? They started the Civil War and now this...as well as the comments on the Borat movie (for those who've seen it) I just don't understand why it's such a big issue there than in any other Southern state.
2 Words. Strom Thormond.

Nothing dies fast in South Carolina.

Oh and this nails exactly what I've been trying to say throughout this whole thread:

The Confederate flag represents the power of most contemptible personality in American history -- the rich plantation owner. He was like a deadly spider, weaving webs of exploitation that oppressed the white as well as the black. One of his more contemptuous terms for the poor white was "mud sill." Mud sill also denoted the part of a building half buried in dirt, supporting the superstructure. Irish born traveler E. L. Godkin described this class of people as the "most woebegone, forlorn, hopeless, Godforsaken looking portion of the human race." Many of them endured worse conditions than the slaves.

Why the hell didn't the 99% of common southerners rise up and demand change from the 1% of plantation owners that dominated the financial and political power in the South? Oh yeah, and the SAME DAMN THING happened 100 years later with the common southerners that were suckered by the rich and powerful that promoted racism for their own gain. George Wallace said it himself: "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor." You see, the wealthy in the South understand that by remaining powerful, wealthier, and better educated then the 99% masses, they will have nearly invincible power and at the same time have the position wherein the Rich can write the South's history, but they know that it'll be the common man that's painted with it's ugly results.

Why else do you think the education systems throughout the south have been by and large so crappy for so long? Why else is it that even today we see "Political Machines" and "Family Reputations" that are designed to keep outsiders out or at least make it very difficult for them to be serious contenders? Think about all this, and then think about why the common man has never risen up against the rich. It's because the Rich can play off issues so that the masses fight amongst one another and fear outsiders like "Negroes", "Yankees", and whatever other BS boogeymen that the Rich can cook up so that at the end of the day the common man fights against everything BUT the Rich Southerner.

And now you see Blacks using the same damn tricks to exploit their masses. You have that 1% at the top that can pilfer and exploit the city all while making sure the masses(Their so-called Brothers and Sisters) are kept uneducated, killing each other for such stupid issues as drugs and the like. Meantime those at the top don't care. They just want their power while the rest toil in a hole that they'll be lucky if they can successfully crawl out of.

[USC66]

2 Words. Strom Thormond.

Nothing dies fast in South Carolina.

Oh and this nails exactly what I've been trying to say throughout this whole thread:

The Confederate flag represents the power of most contemptible personality in American history -- the rich plantation owner. He was like a deadly spider, weaving webs of exploitation that oppressed the white as well as the black. One of his more contemptuous terms for the poor white was "mud sill." Mud sill also denoted the part of a building half buried in dirt, supporting the superstructure. Irish born traveler E. L. Godkin described this class of people as the "most woebegone, forlorn, hopeless, Godforsaken looking portion of the human race." Many of them endured worse conditions than the slaves.

Why the hell didn't the 99% of common southerners rise up and demand change from the 1% of plantation owners that dominated the financial and political power in the South? Oh yeah, and the SAME DAMN THING happened 100 years later with the common southerners that were suckered by the rich and powerful that promoted racism for their own gain. George Wallace said it himself: "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor." You see, the wealthy in the South understand that by remaining powerful, wealthier, and better educated then the 99% masses, they will have nearly invincible power and at the same time have the position wherein the Rich can write the South's history, but they know that it'll be the common man that's painted with it's ugly results.

Why else do you think the education systems throughout the south have been by and large so crappy for so long? Why else is it that even today we see "Political Machines" and "Family Reputations" that are designed to keep outsiders out or at least make it very difficult for them to be serious contenders? Think about all this, and then think about why the common man has never risen up against the rich. It's because the Rich can play off issues so that the masses fight amongst one another and fear outsiders like "Negroes", "Yankees", and whatever other BS boogeymen that the Rich can cook up so that at the end of the day the common man fights against everything BUT the Rich Southerner.



And now you see Blacks using the same damn tricks to exploit their masses. You have that 1% at the top that can pilfer and exploit the city all while making sure the masses(Their so-called Brothers and Sisters) are kept uneducated, killing each other for such stupid issues as drugs and the like. Meantime those at the top don't care. They just want their power while the rest toil in a hole that they'll be lucky if they can successfully crawl out of.

It does go back to something I've said for a long time. If you want to know why something is the way it is, then look to see who stands to lose the most money. There you will almost certainly find your answer.

[BamaMatt]

Good luck with that. If you read the post right before yours, he made it clear it had NOTHING to do with recruiting, and was simply stating his opinion on A QUESTION HE WAS ASKED. I personally respect someone who will speak their true mind without fear.

I respect someone that will too, doesn't mean I agree with them or won't have negative thoughts once they say it.

It has something to do with recruiting. He can say to black parents and kids "Hey I don't want the flag there, I asked them to remove it" blah blah.

[GTmorris1970]

I can't imagine why this is still an issue.....take the flag down already. What is it about folks in South Carolina? They started the Civil War and now this...as well as the comments on the Borat movie (for those who've seen it) I just don't understand why it's such a big issue there than in any other Southern state.

I agree, and I believe that was Spurrier's point. We have been in the news over this so much for so long it places a black eye on the state. Then, live on ESPN someone is waving a huge one behind the ESPN crew to just confirm what people already thought.

[GTmorris1970]

I respect someone that will too, doesn't mean I agree with them or won't have negative thoughts once they say it.

It has something to do with recruiting. He can say to black parents and kids "Hey I don't want the flag there, I asked them to remove it" blah blah.

Sure it could be used. Whether it is or not I don't know. Just like according to Cory Boyd saturday, he amitted a couple of schools had used the same issue AGAINST South Carolina to try to prevent him from committing here. I am sure you would agree that could work both ways, but isn't right either way.

[cocky4ever]

Cheap recruiting tactic... "See? I don't want the flag here."

I will now be hoping South Carolina loses every game this season.

Leave history alone. I'm sick of whiny people's feelings being more important than history.

It is a part of history....its a flag that was flown during battle by a group that fought against America. Why dont we fly british flags...thats part of history. Should Louisiana fly a french flag, or Texas fly a mexican flag?? It doesnt bother me that its there I just think its stupid.

And if you cant enjoy this "wonderful Southern heritage" that so many people talk about without having a flag flying then you dont really appreciate it anyway. If you respect history that much you dont need a flag to validate your beliefs.

[BamaMatt]

It is a part of history....its a flag that was flown during battle by a group that fought against America.

Fought against invasion by America. In the original Constitution it was legal to secede from the Union. The South took that right and then got invaded for it because of the money brought in by the South.

And if you cant enjoy this "wonderful Southern heritage" that so many people talk about without having a flag flying then you dont really appreciate it anyway. If you respect history that much you dont need a flag to validate your beliefs.

If you don't stand up for your beliefs, heritage or history you eventually won't be able to have them anymore when they keep pushing and pushing and pushing. Same with the forcing of Christian symbols from the public eye.

[GeauxTo]

*raising hand* I am...

I thought you were blue?!
:D

[cocky4ever]

Fought against invasion by America. In the original Constitution it was legal to secede from the Union. The South took that right and then got invaded for it because of the money brought in by the South.

So you think America should've just let itself become Europe v.2.0??

If you don't stand up for your beliefs, heritage or history you eventually won't be able to have them anymore when they keep pushing and pushing and pushing. Same with the forcing of Christian symbols from the public eye.

Are you telling me that if the flag is taken down then pretty soon you wont be able to appreciate your southern heritage? WTF?!

I guess you also think that if Alabama cant display the 10 commandments on a courthouse lawn then pretty soon you wont be able to be a Christian...

[Williams-Brice]

1. The flag needed to come down from the top of the state house. The flag has nothing to do with the body that governs over our state now. I didn't feel this way until just a few years ago. The two flags flying over the state house now are the correct ones.

2. I was still being raised in Georgia when the flag was moved. Maybe someone can give me confirmation of this: Didn't the NAACP agree that the flag be moved to the Confederate memorial? If so, then why did they start attacking the flag's location once it was moved to the spot they agreed on? Can someone clarify this for me?

3. Whether the flag is moved or not, I'm still going to let it serve as a memorial for the people who defended the state way back when. I don't need it on the state grounds. If it ends up one mile down the road in the South Carolina State Museum, then it's still going to be the same symbol to me. It will always symbolize certain people who I will always honor.

4. If the flag is moved, then the monument will be attacked next. It may not be an immediate attack, but I promise it will happen. Regardless of where the flag ends up, that monument needs to stay there to honor the men who died for the state of South Carolina.

[Williams-Brice]

Also, I can celebrate Southern heritage by eating fried chicken and drinking sweet tea. I really don't need to see the flag at the state house in order to be proud that I'm a Southern boy.

[GatorHunter]

What bothers me about this situation...and I'm an outsider looking in, is when "celebrities" use their forum to promote anything other than what got them there. Spurrier telling the state of SC to remove the flag is like the Governor of SC telling Spurrier to remove his visor...it's not his business. Spurs actions are similar to the Dixie Chicks, Rosie O'Donell and all these other idiot celebs that use their public eye to promote their opinions. He may have been asked his opinion...and everyone has a right to one...but it's become a spectacle now.

[OmahaBound]

What bothers me about this situation...and I'm an outsider looking in, is when "celebrities" use their forum to promote anything other than what got them there. Spurrier telling the state of SC to remove the flag is like the Governor of SC telling Spurrier to remove his visor...it's not his business. Spurs actions are similar to the Dixie Chicks, Rosie O'Donell and all these other idiot celebs that use their public eye to promote their opinions. He may have been asked his opinion...and everyone has a right to one...but it's become a spectacle now.

First of all that's quite a flippant comparison. It would be more like the governor calling for Garcia's dismissal from the football team after the 2nd arrest or something like that. Sure it's not his job or his responsibility to say so, but it's a situation that makes the state and university look bad and he would have every right to state his opinion.

As far as the celebrity issue goes....are you saying that the average person has the right to voice their opinion and stand up for their beliefs but a celebrity doesn't? If they're using it to promote themselves then of course it's egregious, but I think we all know Spurrier doesn't have to promote himself. And all that crap about him allegedly saying it was hurting recruiting has been debunked. He never said that and in fact stated that he's never even had a prospect or parent bring the issue up.

[BamaMatt]

So you think America should've just let itself become Europe v.2.0??

As opposed to enforcing one sides belief over the other? Yes, indeed. The Union was a voluntary union, not one enforced by muskets and cannons. "America" died as soon as those troops entered the South. Whether anyone cares to admit it now or not. There is still a country named the United States of America, but it isn't the one George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the other Founding Fathers put together.


Are you telling me that if the flag is taken down then pretty soon you wont be able to appreciate your southern heritage? WTF?!

Attacking a straw man and something I didn't say.

I guess you also think that if Alabama cant display the 10 commandments on a courthouse lawn then pretty soon you wont be able to be a Christian...

Strawman 2.0

[USC66]

1.

2. I was still being raised in Georgia when the flag was moved. Maybe someone can give me confirmation of this: Didn't the NAACP agree that the flag be moved to the Confederate memorial? If so, then why did they start attacking the flag's location once it was moved to the spot they agreed on? Can someone clarify this for me?




I could be wrong and I probably am but I don't think they agreed to that. I can't confirm it but I believe the issue was getting it off the top of the state house. I don't think they seen it coming when the law makers put it where it is, front and middle of the state house grounds. It makes you wonder though, when is enough- enough? Once it came down and the NAACP got exactly what they wanted, they then said "NO" that's not enough. We want it off the grounds now. If it's taken from the grounds completely, next will be monuments. Then before you know it, Maurice will be in court sueing for the right to just fly it period. It just seems there is no compromise although that's why the flag is where is it now.

It's at a monument honoring the soldiers who fought in the war. Seems like the proper place to me.

[shanksta13]

I haven't read this whole thread, so I apologize if I am repeating anyone in saying this.

The problem with the Confederate Flag is the way that it is interpreted by different people. Personally, I view the flag as a symbol of the South's unwillingness to be forced into anything by another faction of the "United" States. However, others (namely African Americans) view it as the symbol by which the South declared that slavery would not end. For them, it represents all of the ill-will of southern whites toward their race. I can understand both viewpoints. For this reason, while I personally have no problems with the Confederate Flag, I do not fly it on my front porch, because it offends other people and I feel that they have a legitimate reason to see it as offensive, even if that is not my own interpretation of the flag.

[lacene]

As opposed to enforcing one sides belief over the other? Yes, indeed. The Union was a voluntary union, not one enforced by muskets and cannons. "America" died as soon as those troops entered the South. Whether anyone cares to admit it now or not. There is still a country named the United States of America, but it isn't the one George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the other Founding Fathers put together.


Attacking a straw man and something I didn't say.


Strawman 2.0

very poor argument here. There's no straw man argument. You have already responded to cocky4ever's reference to this post:

And if you cant enjoy this "wonderful Southern heritage" that so many people talk about without having a flag flying then you dont really appreciate it anyway. If you respect history that much you dont need a flag to validate your beliefs.

by stating this:

If you don't stand up for your beliefs, heritage or history you eventually won't be able to have them anymore when they keep pushing and pushing and pushing. Same with the forcing of Christian symbols from the public eye.

He has no choice but to infer what he inferred based upon your response to his above post you quoted, i.e. the connection between standing up for heritage & history, and the flying of the battle flag, and then the risk of losing all that if the flag is taken down. He's not attacking a straw man, and it is in fact, something you did say. If you don't want a connection made between his post you quoted, and your succeeding statement, then leave a disclaimer saying that there is no connection. However, with the words that I highlighted in red, there's really no way to disconnect the two from each other......

Also, good job of avoiding answering his question....:thumbsdow

[Lawdog]

Spurrier telling the state of SC to remove the flag is like the Governor of SC telling Spurrier to remove his visor...it's not his business.

Uh, yes it is. Regardless of what opinion each may have, it is the business of every citizen of SC.

Spurrier grew up in east Tennessee. It's not like he's some guy from Montana that doesn't understand the background. He's been around it his whole life, just like the rest of us. He has a right to his opinion.

[rooster]

who dat that clown with that flag?http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5224/spurrierfg2.jpg

[Lawdog]

I just don't understand why it's such a big issue there than in any other Southern state.

These issues are not any different in SC than in any other state in the deep south. SC just happens to still have the flag on state house grounds.

Heck, it was on the state flag of Georgia until a few years ago.

http://www.spsstore.com/True%20Georgia%20flag.jpg
http://www.southernmessenger.org/images/MVC-016F.JPG

The confederate flag was waved at all Ole Miss home football games:

http://www.olemisscheer.com/sitebuilder/images/confederate_flags-360x186.png

It is still on the official Mississippi state flag:

http://www.theus50.com/images/state-flags/mississippi-flag.jpg

My point is that SC is not the only place where the confederate flag and its "heritage" are still hot issues. Please don't peg SC as being any better or worse than the other deep south states.

I am in favor of taking it down. I just don't really care about it being kept up on state house grounds. I'm pretty indifferent about the confederate flag....I own a confederate flag, I just don't fly it in front of my house. I don't think our state government should fly it in front of the state house.

[cocky4ever]

As opposed to enforcing one sides belief over the other? Yes, indeed. The Union was a voluntary union, not one enforced by muskets and cannons. "America" died as soon as those troops entered the South. Whether anyone cares to admit it now or not. There is still a country named the United States of America, but it isn't the one George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the other Founding Fathers put together.




Attacking a straw man and something I didn't say.



Strawman 2.0


Im not even gonna get into your accusations of me presenting a straw man argument...Lacene did a rather good job of explaining those problems within your post in an earlier post of his own.

I will, however, go into your claims of "America" dying as soon as the troops entered the South. In the original constitution blacks were considered 3/5 of a person and the only people who could vote were land owning white males. Blacks and women had very little rights and there were plenty of problems within the Cons