Comments by "Ronin Dave" (@RoninDave) on "Confederate Flag FINALLY Removed From South Carolina Statehouse" video.

  1. Flying the Confederate Battle Standard (it wasn't the "Confederate Flag" which represented the Confederacy) should be a personal affair and not flown at a state capital under the federal government. That flag had been carried into battle against the United States and the side which carried it, lost. While some claim the flag simply represents heritage, it had been created specifically in 1861 to be used against the US in order to be able to continue slavery. Afterwards it was used by the KKK to spread fear and terror. To have had it flying on state capitol grounds sent a very mixed message especially as that tradition only started suspiciously during the Civil Rights Movement. Keep the "Confederate Flag" on your belt buckles, truck decals, dodge chargers, t-shirts, and Civil War re-enactments, etc... I can appreciate the cultural significance the "Confederate Flag" has in the private sector. After all, it was the "Confederate Flag" which gave the General Lee the power to jump over wide creeks and gullies to escape Boss Hogg and get the moonshine to Uncle Jesse. But again, it has no business whatsoever being near government property. And as a Southerner, to my fellow Southerners who won't let it go that we lost 150 years ago may I remind them that Southern Victory in the Civil War or the War Between the States if you prefer (or the War of Northern Aggression for those who really can't let it go) would have eventually destroyed Southern culture as it would have deprived future generations of southerners the joy of sitting around the potbelly stove sipping shine and eating moon pies whilst fiercely debating that "...if only General What's-his-name had turned left at the Battle of Whereverville, then the South would have won the war!"
    111
  2. General Guderian the US flag was not created with the specific intent of maintaining slavery
    13
  3. A86 Yeah the irony that a flag created and flown by Democrats is being ardently defended primarily by Republicans many of whom have said in recent years with a straight face - "well, the KKK was created by democrats so they're all racist!" while ignoring geography and the geo-politics.  In the 1960s Democrats didn't run north with liberal principles nor did Republicans run south with conservative principles. The people who founded the KKK and joined it lived and their descendants live in the same area they've always lived. The racists changed their political party identity but not their location nor their mentality.
    8
  4. Dennis Boyd well I would say they have the freedom to be stupid but we also have the freedom to criticized them for that stupidity. The same with the Rebel Flag. Anyone should be allowed to fly it but with the understanding that many people have issues over it; however, it should not be flown on government property.
    7
  5. Anthony Serocco actually not at first. The first Africans to the 13 colonies weren't slaves and one of the early slave owners was african. The first slaves in the new world were native americans who turned out to be unreliable because either they would easily escape knowing the land or die from the diseases brought over by Europeans.  Africans were brought in because they would less likely escape into a foreign hostile landscape where they would stick out like a sore thumb and they were more resilient to european diseases. And the Europeans didn't start African slavery. They merely tapped into an already thriving market and diverted it towards the Americas. There was also white slavery in the form of indentured servitude which could also become actual slavery. Racism or rather racist ideologies developed after the practice began to justify the continuation of slavery. People didn't just enslave people because they were racist as strange as that may sound. They enslaved people because they had money&power and didn't want to do all the work themselves plus they didn't want to have to pay wages to someone who might quit or run off. It started with greed coupled by laziness which then later was justified by racist ideologies.
    7
  6. ***** to be fair they weren't all willing to kill Northerners over the issue of slavery. The 1% of the Confederacy was willing to have others kill and die for the right to keep slaves. This fact misses a lot of modern Confederates who don't want to acknowledge that their ancestors got used.
    4
  7. Terry Banks the vast majority of southerners who fought for the CSA did not own slaves. Slave owners were a minority of the population but had all the wealth and influence. 
    4
  8. MrQueentakesrook and yet it was conservatives in Oklahoma who wanted AP American History removed because it was too negative in reporting on the US's bad history
    3
  9. Edward Bernayse666 the idea of flying a flag of basically another nation and one which fought against the US is not far from flying a british flag whom we fought against to become America. I don't think conservatives would be too keen on it but they would miss the point as usual - which is you don't fly other nations' flags on US capital buildings.
    3
  10. 18Darkside I have to disagree. To say the war was not over slavery is just as wrong as to say the war was over slavery. Now it is true the North did not go to war in the beginning to end slavery only to put down the secessionists but many of the secessionists seceded in the first place out of fear of Lincoln and his party's anti-slavery views. The first states to secede had higher slave populations than the later ones who seceded after Sumter and Lincoln's call for volunteers. The irony of it is that Lincoln was less radical than he was taken for in regards to slavery and he probably would have proposed a series of half-measures while he was in office. By seceding and going to war, the secessionists eventually gave Lincoln the wherewithal to effectively abolish slavery once and for all throughout the country.
    2
  11. Anthony Serocco people get the reasons for secession and fighting confused. Secession was largely over slavery from a political power and economic side rather than some evil joy in owning people - there were 4 slave owning states who stayed in the Union after all and slave owners who fought for the Union. As for fighting, people forget how powerful the ties of local hometowns were on people at that time especially as people didn't travel to the degree we do today. Even Lee who spent much of his time prior to the Civil War out in Texas felt he couldn't go against his own state despite being against secession and slavery. However one has to wonder had the secessionist hotheads not over-reacted to Lincoln's election would slavery have ended as soon as it did? Some argue it was a dying institution before 1860 but how long would it have taken to die? Another generation? Would we have gone into the 20th century with slavery still on the books? How incredibly backwards would that have been?
    2
  12. Terry Banks no not all worked with plantations in some form. There were a lot subsistence farmers. And seriously do you think barefoot soldiers from the backwoods were cognitively aware how they somehow benefited from a system where they lived in a hovel without shoes? The reasons for secession and the individual reasons for fighting are different things.
    1
  13. Terry Banks I didn't say you said they worked on plantations but with them and if you extend your line of reasoning that would include much of northern business which did business with the South. As for poor whites feeling the intangible superiority to slaves, tell that to the Irish whom planters would hire for a bottle of whiskey to do work seen as too dangerous for a slave to do because at the end of the day a slave was property with value whereas an Irishmen had no value in their mind. Anyway, it's needless hair-splitting. The secession and and subsequent war was a highly complex affair where you had people on either side with a myriad of views and reasons for their actions. Trying to say they fought because they benefited from the system of slavery is an over-simplification of a complex issue.
    1
  14. Terry Banks so could some southern blacks. You do know that some slaves were set free by their masters on their death and that some former slaves became slave owners themselves. Were they as free as those in the North? No but those in the North weren't exactly welcomed with open arms either as the draft riots in NY hideously showed. As I said things were more complex than most people know or are willingly to find out. And how am I using the old states rights argument by pointing out the complexities? I'm not defending the South but defending history itself from the oversimplifications of people who want to make history fit their modern narrative.
    1
  15. Terry Banks but there were those who did fight over the issue of states rights. States Rights did not originate with the Civil War but in the wake of the Revolution's end when 13 semi-autonomous states came together to form a Union. Does that make slavery less unsavory? No, but regardless it doesn't change the fact that reasons behind people's thoughts and actions of the time were not all in accord with one another. Also not all the States seceded at once. The latter group of southern states which seceded did so primarily in response to when Lincoln called up volunteers from all the states including those in the South to put down the rebellion. Virginia was still in the US and Robert E Lee was still a commander in the US Army when the US flag was being taken down after the bombardment of Ft Sumter.  Also during the whole war 4 slaving owning states remained in the Union and there were slave-owners who fought for the Union for example the defender of Ft Sumter. Also there were others who fought simply because the North "was there" and in that respect they were correct as the North burned, looted, and destroyed much of the South far beyond what was necessary from a military standpoint. In the end, it was much more complex than many on both sides are willing to admit for socio-political reasons or for intellectually shallow reasons that they can't be bothered.
    1
  16. Terry Banks what about the slave states which did not secede and who fought for the North? If slavery played a big part (which I'm not denying) then why didn't they secede? Why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation include those territories? In the votes for secession, s study was done in the 1960s on the vote by county and it was discovered that counties with high slavery voted 72% for secession, middle ones were 60% while those with low slavery only voted 37% so even in the high slavery counties there was still 28% dead set against secession. Also a number of Confederate generals who fought for the South had been against secession or been lukewarm to the idea including Robert E Lee, George Longstreet, Jubal Early while there were others against slavery like Lee and radicals like Patrick Cleburne who wanted slavery abolished and free black men enlisted. The point I'm continually try to make is that it is a more complex situation than many think. Slavery was certainly a main issue but it was not the only issue nor was it the only reason for fighting. But I go back to my original point, the wealthy elite of the Confederacy used states rights rhetoric and local sympathies people had for their hometowns to get a large number of people to fight and die for them. 
    1
  17. Terry Banks your splitting hairs again - I didn't say 1% as an accurate percentage of slave owners who wanted to secede and fight (though it was a minority) but the proverbial 1% ie the wealthy elite who get others to do their fighting for them. 
    1
  18. Anthony Serocco there's already talk of them doing so and about high time too
    1
  19. King Solomon Dude, I've already been thru this with "war was over slavery" and "the war wasn't over slavery" folks. It is more complicated than the oversimplification that people on both sides of this issue today want to make it out to be in order to fit their modern day (and intellectually lazy) narrative.
    1
  20. Edward Bernayse666 heck maybe we should fly British flags at our state capitals 
    1
  21. General Guderian was that flag specifically designed in opposition to the US as were the various forms of the Confederate Flags? No.
    1
  22. General Guderian you're right. It doesn't matter. You can go clutch at some other straws
    1