Rush and the Confederate Flag Furor

Before we can debate history, read something written by an actual historian

A little message I created to focus on factual arguments instead of listening to the same talking points over and over and over again and again.

Rush Limbaugh on his radio program:  “but I’m the mayor of Realville. Facts matter to me.”

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/06/23/i_m_not_arguing_to_keep_it_but_this_is_not_really_about_the_confederate_flag_in_south_carolina

In the Blaze:

Rush Limbaugh claimed Democrats are the ones “responsible” for raising the Confederate flag over the South Carolina Statehouse, therefore, they should be the ones — not Republicans — deciding what to do with the divisive symbol.

“Do people even care anymore about truth, objective truth? When did this become a Republican problem? Logical certitude? Do people care about this stuff anymore? Does it matter?” Limbaugh asked.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/22/limbaugh-claims-important-history-is-being-overlooked-in-confederate-flag-debate-do-people-care-anymore-about-truth/

Rush, throughout grad school I heard that life today isn’t exactly easy so why in the heck would anyone think history is easy?

You’ve hinted, so why not continue and tell the whole truth.

You know the type of truth that prevents people like yourself who rely upon others not having the time, ability, or inclination to read primary documents for themselves because profit rests in that ignorance.

Democrats did place the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia to fly over the state capitol of South Carolina. They did it in 1962, but of course it was the Democrats because at that time the only political party of any consequence in the South was the Democratic Party.  It had been that way since the 1870s as the military occupation governments created in the Radical Reconstruction Acts enacted on 2 March 1867, nearly 2 years after Lee surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Court House on 9 April 1865, had been forced out of the South by groups using false identifiers like Redeemer, Bourbon, Readjustor, and so on instead of the Democratic Party.  Yes military occupation presided over by the Republicans, and intimidation, violence, lynching used by the Democrats to force them out.

American History would likely be different if Lincoln had not been assassinated and his 10 percent plan to reform the union had continued. Johnson, however, did not have the political acumen of his predecessor and became powerless even though he survived impeachment by a single vote. The Radical Republicans of the day would punish the South.  As Senator Thaddeus Stevens remarked on 18 December 1865, the former southern states were:

“only dead carcasses lying within the Union.”

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1851-1875/thaddeus-stevens-speech-of-december-18-1865.php

Yes Rush, the South was a one party region as Republicans even into my lifetime were often considered overt racists.  David Duke back home is a prime example of what many of us felt was the ‘typical’ Republicans. The Democratic primary and not the general election determined who won and lost elections. Now those Democratic primaries were highly contested as each state in the South had a de facto 2 party system with different factions within the Democratic Party.  Of course that would change, but that change is hard for folks like you to explain for a financial profit.

Since South Carolina is at the heart of the present day debate, the simplicity of J Strom Thurmond in politics illustrates the ‘logical certitude.” Thurmond, a Democratic governor and one considered progressive on Civil Rights by pushing for the prosecution of those accused of a lynching. Then in 1948, the Democratic Party split not in the states, but on the national level over domestic issues which led to a State Rights Democratic Party or Dixiecrats with J. Strom Thurmond as the Presidential candidate and not Harry S Truman.  In the South, the candidate which got to use the party symbols created its own set of ruckuses.

Well Thurmond would not become President, but he also lost in his state’s primary election for US Senator prompting a challenge as a write in candidate for the seat. He won as a write in, resigned, and then won the seat in the party primary. He also endorsed IKE over Stevenson.  Finally in 1964 following disagreements with Northern Democrats pushing for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Thurmond did not simply ally with the Southern Democrats in opposition but switched his affiliation to the GOP.  On the Federal level, Goldwater and Nixon began to receive some Southern support. With the Reagan revolution some began switching their party affiliations. Like Thurmond many of the old Democrats became the new GOP.

Republican or Democrat, Democrat or Republican, an idiot is still and idiot and a thief is still a thief. This simplistic party labeling and passing the buck doesn’t fly.  Sure talk about Jim Crow in the South, but also talk about GOP politicians openly affiliated with the KKK in places like Indiana in the 20th century.

You see it ain’t a Republican problem; it ain’t a Democrats problem; it ain’t a white problem; it ain’t a black problem; in ain’t a Southern problem; it ain’t a Northern problem.  IT’S OUR PROBLEM…WE THE PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM, and it is going to take every freakin’ one of us bustin’ our tails to solve that problem.
Please continue reading:  Let’s Lose the Lost Cause

https://lablouisianaboy.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/3544/

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Rush and the Confederate Flag Furor

  1. Pingback: LAB Louisiana Boy | Let’s Lose the Lost Cause

  2. Folks let me clarify that my issue is not the battle flag or any flag for that matter. My take is that history with the Old South / New South (a term coined by a newspaperman Henry Grady) and this idea of a Lost Cause has become these distorted myths and pointing out those myths is neither a rewriting of history nor a cancellation of history. People of that time had legitimate reasons to create these myths because they had to persevere and anything was better than what they currently had in the so-called New South. Life wasn’t pleasant for the vast majority both before and after and that did not change with the color of one’s skin.

    My personal opinion is that the United States Flag is the flag which should be flown permanently on the grounds of our government buildings. Individual states can also fly their state flag, but I really do not have a strong opinion about those flags one way or the other. Flags of other groups or causes should be a decision of the people of the state, and the display of such flags should only be in the form of temporary exhibits which change on a consistent basis. While illustrating respect for a heritage, group, or cause, these displays could promote dialogue and education about the things the symbol represents.

    As for personal property and non-government property, a person should have the right to display any flag that he or she wishes. I do feel that one should not display a flag on their private property if the physical size or location of that flag impedes the passage of others on common property. That 50 foot flag on a pole that is 10 feet high is not a respectable display. If one chooses to fly a flag properly, that is their right and as long as that flag is not illegal under existing code in reference to free speech and personal rights of privacy. Others have the right to protest that flag, however, as long as they do not violate existing codes. It’s a two way street.

    If a store chooses to pull products with a rebel flag, that is the store’s choice. I do not, however, feel like anyone aside from those with a vested interest in that store should make the call. It’s not my decision.

    Likewise, I see no call to rename locations just because those locations are named for let’s say Robert E. Lee. Almost a century ago, I could see a legitimate reason to change Berlin Street to General Pershing, but we were at war then. Monuments and statues on government property do not need to be removed or destroyed. Some, however, should be better protected from the elements which might mean moving into a museum. If I feel one is inappropriate, I’ll make an argument with relevant citations. If I find one offensive, I’ll organize people and petition based upon the offensive aspects. If I simply dislike or disagree, I will use it as an educational piece to encourage learning. I may also advocate for another piece to be displayed which would also be an educational piece for those who like and agree with the initial piece.

    We can like something and still find it is inappropriate for that place and time. We can dislike something that is appropriate for that place and time. It’s not about this political correctness garbage. It’s about learning history and not just from secondary sources or from a singular perspective. It’s about communication. It’s about dialogue and respect. The vast majority of us can accomplish that, but we have to avoid one group trying to throw gasoline, other groups striking matches, and even more flapping their arms and gums just to try and fan the flames so even if we don’t get burned all we can see and smell is the smoke.

Comments are closed.