Pharyngula

Posted by: theswede | August 14, 2010 1:29 PM

Flag burning always seems so politically charged to me. To a lot of southerners the civil war is still the "war of northern aggression". But that's rather besides the point, is it not? That the north didn't stand for any state placing humans under ownership of other humans is the heart of the matter, and they were in fact aggressive about that stance.

Now, to find a confederate flag in Sweden somewhere ... I doubt the average truck stop 'round here will have one.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 14, 2010 1:42 PM

How long before we have the defenders of southern heritage comparing the burning of this flag to the hanging of nooses in the workplace?

Posted by: Temaharay | August 14, 2010 1:45 PM

That is just hilarious! :)

Posted by: Brian | August 14, 2010 1:51 PM

If I had a Confederate flag I'd burn it. But I'm not going to pay someone (even after the fact) to make a Confederate flag, solely for the purposes of burning it.

Posted by: DominEditrix | August 14, 2010 1:57 PM

Or print one out from an online picture -free and flammable.

Posted by: blf | August 14, 2010 2:11 PM

According to The Pffft! of All Knowledge, the current Mississippi state flag incorporates the confederate flag, so I suppose you could get one of those, and cut out and burn the confederate bit.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | August 14, 2010 2:16 PM

Why bother?

Srsly. Why give them the attention?

I think there was talk some years ago about introducing anti-flagburning legislation in Denmark, but Iono what came of it. Hmmmm ... it may actually be that it's already illegal to burn foreign flags here.

::digs::

Straffelovens § 110 e har i dag følgende ordlyd: »Med bøde eller fængsel indtil 2 år straffes den, der offentlig forhåner en fremmed nation, en fremmed stat, dens flag eller andet anerkendt nationalmærke eller De Forenede Nationers eller Det Europæiske Råds flag.«

Lovely ...

Up to two years imprisonment for public mockery of foreign countries, nations, their flags or other acknowledged national symbols. this goes for the EU and UN flags as well.

This was indeed contested some years ago. By the Xenophobic People's Party who wanted the paragraph in question extended to cover the Danish flag as well.

I think I need to start burning more flags.

Posted by: jonathan.b.jacobs | August 14, 2010 2:31 PM

Burn the good ole Stars 'n Bars? Big whoop.

Want to make a real statement? Wipe your ass with it.

Posted by: TomS | August 14, 2010 2:44 PM

@jonathan.b.jacobs#15 -

The most well-known Confederate flag is the battle flag, also known as the "Southern Cross", the dominant feature being a Saint Andrew's cross (X- shaped) holding 13 stars.

The "Stars and Bars" was the official flag of the Confederate States of America, which was similar to the "Stars and Stripes", with the major difference being that it had three broad "bars" (red-white-red) rather than thirteen narrower "stripes", and they could be confused in chaos of battle.

Posted by: Ströh | August 14, 2010 2:47 PM

Theswede: We can apparently order them online over here: flagstore.se sells them for 100 Kr ($13.50 for you 'mericans)

Turns out it's their 5th best seller. God knows why.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | August 14, 2010 2:53 PM

My favorite nutjob quote: "Lee surrendered, I didn't".
Priceless.

Posted by: artconserv | August 14, 2010 3:13 PM

Spammer on Aisle #16.

Posted by: darthcynic | August 14, 2010 3:16 PM

I dunno, think it's a bit thick meself.

Always personally found flag, effigy and book burning to be part of the fundies and other nuts SOP. The focal point for some braying mob of unthinking clowns to dance exultantly about, whilst looking like a bunch of barely functioning primates to everyone else.

Shall we also beat the flag with sticks or shoes whilst it burns to properly register our umbrage?

Nah, it's a bit too close to a mob of peasants with pitchforks and torches for my taste.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2010 3:24 PM

Nah, it's a bit too close to a mob of peasants with pitchforks and torches for my taste.

You might want to read some of the history behind it before concluding it to be the strategy of knuckle-draggers.

http://atheism.about.com/od/flagburningdesecration/p/FlagBurning.htm

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2010 3:31 PM

Why can't you carpetbagging northern liberal yankee scumbags let them ol boys have their little bit of pride in heritage?

what else is war for if not to rub the losers' noses in it whenever possible?

;)

Posted by: theswede | August 14, 2010 3:44 PM

chgo_liz @25, it was reality here too not long ago. The vikings weren't particular about freedom of those who couldn't stand up against them.

Now, if it was a slave auction taking place today it would perhaps be charged. But it's hardly some deep dark secret that most civilizations kept slaves.

Which doesn't mean it's something which is excusable. Most civilizations have performed atrocities, and still keep at it, and that's something that needs to be stood up against constantly.

Posted by: bunnycatcher | August 14, 2010 3:51 PM

@ Antiochus Epiphanes ~LOL brilliant!
Even better when read with Ashokan Farewell playing as a backdrop.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 14, 2010 4:12 PM

I feel no need to refight the Civil War. We won the first time.

Posted by: UberAlles | August 14, 2010 4:19 PM

Where's Bono?

He's the man to negotiate the South's re-surrender.

Posted by: Dianne | August 14, 2010 4:58 PM

Now, to find a confederate flag in Sweden somewhere

Ebay. Or just take some paper and draw one. It's probably more environmentally sound than burning plastic or cloth anyway. Bonus points if you use toilet paper.

Posted by: jack.rawlinson | August 14, 2010 5:02 PM

Anyone who is upset or annoyed by something as trivial as symbol abuse, deserves to be.

Ah, I remember Crackergate...

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlKJdL9swr_16Tu_jBbL7FYT-Ct962KKng | August 14, 2010 5:17 PM

Hey Mr Myers.

Come on over to my house and burn the one in front of my home.

I will give you a cannon salute to go with it!

As a safety measure you will need to look down the barrel first.

We will have a Blast !

Dave Tatum
Suffolk VA

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2010 5:33 PM

As a safety measure you will need to look down the barrel first.

ah, another wonderful death threat.
brings a tear to my eye.

Ah, I remember Crackergate...

ayup.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 14, 2010 5:37 PM

BOY Tatum, total idjit,

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

Care to buzz off or apologize?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 14, 2010 5:54 PM

Dave Tatum @ 43;

I will give you a cannon salute to go with it!

As a safety measure you will need to look down the barrel first.

Ahh, death threats. So pathetic they are almost cute...

Tell me, is there any other method you like to use to deal with your impotent rage against people with the bad form to have a differing opinion to your own, or are murder-fantasies enough to satisy your evidently low-functioning exscuse for a mind?

Posted by: Bubba707 | August 14, 2010 6:09 PM

I can't believe the utter hatred displayed here at an entire region of the country. Most of you make me ashamed to be a northerner. I think I can do nicely without this blog and the cretins spouting their bile here over a complete irrelevency. Good bye bigots.

Posted by: Cosmic Snark | August 14, 2010 6:14 PM

Burn the Confederate Flag Day is a protest against the right's exploitation of racial prejudice for political gain.

Great! Let's also have a Burn the Mexican Flag Day to protest against the left's exploitation of illegal immigration for political gain.

Posted by: scooterKPFT | August 14, 2010 6:18 PM

PX sed:

Now I just have to figure out where to get a cheap traitor's flag in Minnesota.

I'm sure Minnesota's pride and joy, Michele Bachmann, has a a few thousand of those rags in the slave quarters behind her ticky tack.

Speaking of cheap traitors.

Posted by: Birger Johansson | August 14, 2010 6:19 PM

Some racist whites, ca. 1988: "I Have Never Met a Nice South African" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hy628pktV0
The Spitting Image song about white South Africans, from before the end of Apartheid (Breytenbach is an author who opposed Apartheid, and got jailed). The line about lacking a sense of humor seems up to date...

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | August 14, 2010 6:27 PM

I can't believe the utter hatred displayed here at an entire region of the country. Most of you make me ashamed to be a northerner. I think I can do nicely without this blog and the cretins spouting their bile here over a complete irrelevency. Good bye bigots.

You're as big of an idiot as #43, and I suspect you're a Troll from the South.

You're aware that the actual target of Myers' and most others' posts are morons who actually continue to support a dead rebellion, not all southerners, right? Because I could tell that one, and I live in Alabama's ass-crack, the florida panhandle.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2010 6:31 PM

???

I'm fairly certain the comment relates to the impression that democrats are demonizing republicans unfairly over unconstitutional immigration laws like those passed in Arizona (twice), and are simply criticizing those policies for political gain.

IOW, the author is an example of the far-delusional right.

the thing they don't seem to conclude is, if they are right, and democrats are utilizing criticism of these immigration laws for POLITICAL GAIN... what that actually means.

Posted by: Cosmic Snark | August 14, 2010 6:34 PM

Nerd of Redhead #56

Come to my neck of the woods and try that stoopid gesture. And I bet all those perforating your intestines are US citizens...

Hmmm... well, I certainly don't feel like getting my intestines perforated today. How about Draw Muhammad On A Flag And Burn The Fucking Thing Day instead?

Posted by: Bruce Godfrey | August 14, 2010 6:36 PM

I really object to burning the Confederate Flag. It's offensive. Second-hand smoke, I mean. Now wiping my arse with it - no problem.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 14, 2010 6:41 PM

Bubba707 @ 51;

I can't believe the utter hatred displayed here at an entire region of the country.

I think you find that most of the hatred is reserved for the racist attitudes that are so closely associated with the Confederate flag. Any number of Far Right and White Supremacist groups employ the flag as their symbol. There are even a few in the UK who do so (though I have no idea why).

Also, although I am a foreigner, I was under the impression that the Confederate war effort was a failed rebellion, and so the Confederate flag is not in truth a symbol of any part of the modern United States of America, but rather is a symbol of the faction in the American civil war who thought that 'freedom' meant the right to not give up their slaves...

I think I can do nicely without this blog and the cretins spouting their bile here over a complete irrelevency.

So the history of slavery in the US and the contemporary use of the Confederate flag as a symbol of racial hatred is 'irrelevent' to you?

Good bye bigots.

I fail to see how burning a flag that has no association with any modern nation or state as a protest against the racism associated with that symbol can be classed as 'bigoted'.

Now, the white supremacist rhetoric that goes with the Confederate flag is a different matter...

Deprogrammed @ 53;

Great! Let's also have a Burn the Mexican Flag Day to protest against the left's exploitation of illegal immigration for political gain.

Umm, I think you will find that it is mostly the political Right in America that likes to use scare stories about the 'swarming South American hordes' as a means of securing political advantage. They like to claim that the Left will leave the gate to the US open, and people (worse, brown people *clutch pearls*) will flock into the US and take all the jobs/mooch off the state/out breed the 'true' (read 'white') Americans and thereby destroy the 'American Dream' in a tide of humanity who are not WASPS, and indeed are for the most part catholic (so far as the likes of Faux News are concerned, it could only really be worse if thery were muslim).

The logic there after is simple (or rather simple-minded as is the wont of the Republicans); if you want to stop the Democratic party destroying America's economy and giving your job to one of those darned South Americans, then you must vote Republican...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 14, 2010 6:44 PM

I certainly don't feel like getting my intestines perforated today. How about Draw Muhammad On A Flag And Burn The Fucking Thing Day instead?

Then they (a different group of citizens) might just perforate your spleen (see Winky)...

Posted by: llewelly | August 14, 2010 6:47 PM

Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 14, 2010 6:35 PM:

Great! Let's also have a Burn the Mexican Flag Day to protest against the left's exploitation of illegal immigration for political gain.

The Left's exploitation?

THE LEFT'S?

Are you fucking brain damaged or just have zero ability to see reality?

Don't you know that th' Democrat party has been dragging illegal immigrants across th' border and forcing them to vote Democrat? I am a Democrat but even I know this is how Obama got elected. How else could a man born in a far-flung province of Kenya get elected?

Posted by: llewelly | August 14, 2010 6:51 PM

Remember folks, this is a great holiday, but please, get your own flag. Do not take a blowtorch to your neighbor's Confederate flag covered pickup truck.

Posted by: Alverant | August 14, 2010 6:56 PM

Rutee #62

I heard the same thing about how Obama and Clinton has deported more illegals each than W. In fact in each year of Clinton's term in office, with one exception, he deported more illegals than W had in his best.

Thing is I forgot where the link was and it was about 2 years old (so didn't have Obama on it). Can you post the link about Obama's record when it comes to deporting illegals and prosecuting businesses for hiring illegals?

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | August 14, 2010 7:03 PM

In 1781 13 states joined a Confederation ! Part of which said ” Each state retains its own sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States.”

You're a fucking moron if you think the Articles of Confederation were still binding by the time of the US Civil War. They were outmoded for 60 years at the time.

where does it say that in the Confederation, or Constitution for that matter ---- All states joined in this union are forever forbidden from the departure of it?"

Nowhere. It also doesn't let you leave. You guys were traitors, but you probably would have been released if you weren't attacking forts (Admittedly if one accepts the premise that you guys were a nation, destroying foreign forts isn't morally indefensible).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traitor:
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

So why would any Confederate feel he was a traitor ? The South was paying for the Norths infastructure ! As 75% of all federal funds were derived from the south. Them Add the Morill terrif and the South would be Bankrupt.

Um. No. That's blatantly false. The North had more population baseline, more citizens who could buy goods (Meaning tarrifs), and more production (Albeit most of it was domestically sold). The north obviously didn't go bankrupt without the south, ya realize, right? They probably had to go into deficit spending for the war, but it's not like the CSA didn't.

To lay the blame for slavery on the doorstep of the south is like Pilate washing his hands of Jesus.

To say the north is blameless is false, that's true. To say the North was as culpable, when the South absolutely refused to let non-slavery get a further hold? That's fucking stupid, and you're a fucking stupid person for so much as implying it.

And what laws did the south violate when King Lincoln took over !

Lincoln exercised far less executive power then the presidents y'all elected in, you realize.

But you do realize you attacked federal land, right? That's sort of breaking laws...

Posted by: yakiimo | August 14, 2010 7:13 PM

I love reading Pharyngula and many others here at scienceblogs. Coming from the south, and knowing many people there who are not bigoted or racist, it saddens me to see people who are otherwise rabidly against injustice and irrationality using the epithet "redneck."

If you think, "I don't dislike everyone who lives in the region you know, only the rednecks", I would say remember what people used to say publicly and still do privately about people with dark skin, "I don't dislike all of them you know, just the n******" They are both essentially ad-hominem attacks, and should be treated as such.

Racism/bigotry/etc. are most certainly not limited to people who like to do things outdoors and live in the south. Call racism/bigotry/etc. out for what they are.

As for the confederate flag, I could certainly do without it.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 14, 2010 7:14 PM

Aw, is poor little Davy Tatum of Suffolk, VA unhappy the mean liburls don't like racism? Is he annoyed the flag used by a bunch of racists is threatened with burning?

Incidentally, Dave, the Supreme Court determined, in Texas v White 74 US 700 (1869), that states do not have the right to secede from the Union.

Posted by: kevthegreat55 | August 14, 2010 7:17 PM

Welp, I'm in Dallas trying to start a secular student group. Should we do this? Should I do this?

More specifically, I'm in Plano. Home of the Prestonwood Baptist Church, more lovingly referred to as the Baptodome.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlKJdL9swr_16Tu_jBbL7FYT-Ct962KKng | August 14, 2010 7:22 PM

Lincoln exercised far less executive power then the presidents y'all elected in, you realize

I GUESS I WILL TAKE MY KNUCKLE DRAGGING SELF BACK TO THE SWAMP.

HOWEVER ------

Constitutional government in America ended April 9, 1865? It ended four years earlier in the United States with Abraham Lincoln's ascension to the presidency.
Within a year of his election, he effectively eliminated Constitutional rights. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus and imprisoned
and deported an Ohio Congressman without warrant or due process. He censored telegraphic communications, stopped circulation of newspapers that criticized his autocratic rule and imprisoned many of their editors. He
deprived states of representative government, and unilaterally waged war without the consent of Congress by blockading Southern ports and calling for 75,000 volunteers to invade the sovereign States of the South.

The last bulwark of State sovereignty and Constitutional rights in North America, the Confederate States, ceased to exist when Lee surrendered at Appomattox. From that day forward, the Republic of Jefferson, Madison, Mason
and Franklin was to be no more. Henceforth, the federal government that was created by sovereign States to be their agent would become their master. All that remained was for the new order of government to dismantle the Republic's
remnants.

Individual rights, expressed in State sovereignty, undergirded the Republic.
The declaration of those rights by American Colonists in 1776 culminated a centuries-long struggle for recognition of individual sovereignty dating back to the Magna Carta.
As Thomas Jefferson expressed it, all men are
"endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among those are
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and when government fails to protect those rights it is the right of the people to "alter or abolish"
that government.

In late spring, 1787, the greatest minds among the American States gathered in Philadelphia to carve out an instrument to strengthen the weaker Articles of Confederation under which they had united in 1777. What they forged was the American Republic-a voluntary union of sovereign States, created by sovereign individuals, and founded upon the Constitution. When their proceedings ended in September a bystander asked Benjamin Franklin what kind of government they had created. He replied, "A republic, if we can keep it."
He and the other Founders understood the fragile nature of government-especially their Republic with its delicate balance of powers.

None of the Founding Fathers envisioned a democracy. Their new government was a Republic of Sovereign States with carefully diffused constituencies, and Franklin's uneasiness about keeping it was well founded. Even before the
Constitution was in its final form, forces were at work to weaken it and institute a government as autocratic as that of George III.

Without surrendering their sovereignty, the States ratified the Constitution, entering into a voluntary compact under it. In so doing, each
State reserved for itself the full measure of sovereignty it held before joining the compact, and expressed that in the 10th amendment to the
Constitution. State sovereignty meant that any or all of them had the right to freely withdraw from that compact whenever it became destructive of the ends for which it was established.

From the Republic's inception the sovereignty of its member States suffered erosive political attacks that reached their high water mark when Lincoln invaded the South and forced seceded States back into the union at bayonet point.
Upon his shoulders rests the responsibility for destroying the Republic. But even before the election of 1860, greedy Northern interests
were working to change Franklin's Republic into a Consolidated, Mercantile Empire.
Lincoln's election culminated those efforts and in the century and a half since his war Lincoln's heirs have almost finished his work. From 1860
until the present, the Republic has been dismantled to such an extent that the Founders would not recognize it if they returned to 21st century America. Their Republic no longer exists.
From its very beginning efforts were exerted to dismantle the Republic and replace it with a centralized government by incrementally
eroding its foundation of State sovereignty-efforts that achieved their goal, for without State sovereignty, that Republic cannot exist.

Governments may control actions, but they cannot control ideas.
They may chain a man's body, but they cannot chain his mind.
The Republic that Lincoln destroyed first existed as an idea and it still exists in that form.
Jefferson Davis said, "The contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena, and the principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and
in another form."
Given the grassroots disaffection for the federal social programs being forced upon the states and the arrogant usurpation of Constitutional authority by the federal government today, it appears that the cause of State Sovereignty still reposes in American hearts. Those voices of dissent in Congressional "Town Hall Meetings" and "Tea Parties" across the land in our time are faint sounds from the stirring wings of the great Phoenix of Davis' principle rising from the ashes of Lincoln's war to reassert itself "at another time and in another form."
But I'm just a stupid fucking person !
DT

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2010 7:28 PM

he South was paying for the Norths infastructure !

not that even then that was remotely accurate, but even if it was... how times have changed.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Posted by: Birger Johansson | August 14, 2010 7:35 PM

Re # 85
The British were sympathetic with the South, but because of the slavery issue they were unwilling to join CSA in the war.
Do you realise the CSA would have won independence if they had only abolished slavery and asked for British support?
The planter aristocracy that dominated Southern politics chose to hang on to slavery to keep their profit margins bigger. This stupidity -along with the attack on Fort Sumpter- is what cost the South its chance of independence.
Demonizing Lincoln does not change the facts.
CSA was sabotaged from the outset by its own leaders, and that is why there is no loose confederacy of sovereign states today.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | August 14, 2010 7:39 PM

I know. I'm familiar with the role cotton played, and the unreasonability of freeing all slaves prior to other cotton-eries getting off the ground, among other things.

I objected to the claim that they provided 75% of all US Federal income, not to the claim that they were important.

I suspect the dependence on cotton delayed the industrialization of the South, but the political class was dominated by "planters" who apparently lacked interest in vulgar things like factories. Slavery thus twisted the mindset of the South.

Why add machinery when you have free labor? There's no incentive. But that as well.

@Much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

But I'm just a stupid fucking person !

Yes. Yes you are. However, the power of the gish gallop, and my hunger, means I'm just going to have to let other people dismantle at least some of your claims.

Given the grassroots disaffection for the federal social programs being forced upon the states and the arrogant usurpation of Constitutional authority by the federal government today, it appears that the cause of State Sovereignty still reposes in American hearts.

Well, there are grassroots movements that are for those things. If that's all it takes to prove they're good, we're both right, no?

But it isn't. There's the fact that social programs are more humane and to an extend redistribute ill-gotten wealth and extend the notion of equality as we understand it. And that 'the free market' is based on screwing over the public. If we're going to pull out "What Long Dead Old White Men Think Totally Still Matters" card(The republic envisioned by the men you mention believed only well to do white men should vote, and that the militias were to be carefully regulated, among other things), then why not Adam Smith? "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation always ends in conspiracy against the public."

You're also aware that the constitution grants the president the right to suspend HAbeas Corpus, right? And that your boy Shrub 2 did it, right?

Now, I actually disagree with Lincoln doing it. I'm against his lionization. He was not a paragon of morality or equality on any level.

But that didn't stop you from thinking I lionized him, did it?

Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | August 14, 2010 7:55 PM

Googlemess @ 85:

I don't know where you copied and pasted that drivel from, but whoever wrote it is a moron. The constitution is not the Articles of Confederation, no matter how many times you say it is.

And since you always quote Thomas Jefferson to support your crap about "sovereign" states, why are you knuckle-dragging yokels trying to write him out of American history?

On a lighter note, we have a Six-Flags type amusement park here just south across the county line called Enchanted Village, or something like that. They have a bunch of flags flying—I think the theory is every flag that has ever flown over any part of the United States. They didn't want to fly the Beauregard flag, I guess, so they have the Stars and Bars instead. I have quizzed hundreds of people, and not a single one knew what it was.

When did this start? When did the flag that was used by the CSA, and never the CSN for obvious reasons, become the symbol that the revanchists cling to?

After the war, the accommodation we reached was to honor the men who fought and died on both sides equally. That's why we have army bases like Fort Bragg, etc. I think of the Beauregard flag as symbolizing that—I guess Rebel sailors are SOL.

The flag we should be demonizing is the Stars and Bars—the symbol of the political termites who tried to destroy this nation—yes, nation, not congeries of "sovereign" states. The acute, suppurating ignorance of these Neoconfederate traitors is obvious in the fact that they don't even know the significance of their own symbols.

So I say, let's burn the Stars and Bars instead. It shows we know more of their own history than they do, they can't possibly object, since they haven't been exalting it for the last 150 years, and it makes a political statement, instead of "I hate your grandpappy who fought with Stonewall Jackson."

I would suggest the Bonnie Blue flag, but everybody would think it was the Somali flag. Actually that would be appropriate, since Somalia is what these traitors want to turn this country into.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlKJdL9swr_16Tu_jBbL7FYT-Ct962KKng | August 14, 2010 7:56 PM

Hit me with your best shot !

I'm still standin yea yea yea !

Come on is that the best you folks can do ?

Calling me names truly exposes who is the bigot.

How many ships flying the confederate flag imported slaves? ZERO !

That was the north's doing. Cha Ching $$$$.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Also in Lincoln's first inaugural address:
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
So why did Lincoln invade the South if not to free the slaves? If you have an inability to think for yourself, then you stick to repeating the same government lies. But if you are interested in finding the truth, you can again examine Lincoln's very own words. Again from his first inaugural address:
"there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority [...] to collect the duties and imposts"
It seems fairly clear from the actual words of Lincoln that he was a racist (like most Americans in that day) who wanted to invade the South in order to collect the government's taxes from Southerners who no longer wished to remain in the Union. The entire war was initiated and fought by the North in order to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. Likewise, since the North was not threatening to end slavery, the South was most certainly not fighting to preserve slavery. The South fought the war to defend their homes and to break free from a tyrannical government.

Also, recall that slavery was supported by the US government, not just by the South. Moreover, most of the slave trade went through Northern ports and the North was profiting from slavery just as well as the South through cheap Southern-produced goods and tariffs. So if the media is going to attack all things Southern as racist, should they not been held to do the same for all things US government or all things yankee? The hypocrisy is truly unbelievable. I suspect the true motive for the denigration of the South is really about denouncing secession (by equating it to racism). Government is coercion and secession is the ultimate weapon against government.

As Jefferson Davis said, "Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again." Let us hope this is true.

disclaimer: Although I think this is unnecessary, the yankees will slander me if I do not say this. While I support the South and the principle of secession, I am completely against slavery. While we are at it, I am also against murder, rape, pedophilia, and the slaughter of kittens.

Confederate Constitution:
"Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights

1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws
as shall effectually prevent the same."

Wall of Text # 2

DT

Posted by: jfbode1029 | August 14, 2010 8:03 PM

Jesus Christ, what is this sudden fetish with the goddamned Confederacy lately? "We" lost; "you" won. A century and a half ago.

You want to protest modern-day racism, use something that's actually relevant to this century. How 'bout a picture of Mark "Monkey God" Williams?

Posted by: Miki Z | August 14, 2010 8:14 PM

A search on his name turns up that this is his usual pattern. Find someone commenting about confederate flags, suggest they come to his house so he can kill them, then spew a lot of noise. (Example at The Gay Pastor)

If we continue to 'persicutide' him, he will try to remember some Tae Kwon Do, then say he voted for Obama and respects us all.

Dave Tatum truly embiggens the heart of the smallest troll.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 14, 2010 8:20 PM

the heart of the smallest troll.

And how does this heart compare to the Grinch??? ;)

Posted by: scooterKPFT | August 14, 2010 8:31 PM

Yakimo @ 79

Coming from the south, and knowing many people there who are not bigoted or racist, it saddens me to see people who are otherwise rabidly against injustice and irrationality using the epithet "redneck."

Your concept of bigotry and racism is incorrect. I am from the south and there are times I might consider wrapping a redneck in a confederate flag, hanging him from a tree, then lighting him on fire, making postcards and sending them to my freinds.

By your definition this is exactly the same as lynching, and I am no different than KKK trash, with whom I share the grate state of Texas.

WRONG!!!

The term Redneck describes a culture and belief system, inseparable from racism. Some of the most progressive humans on the planet have come from the South and they talk funny and are stone white and might even ride tractors in fields. They, sir are NOT rednecks.

Being hung from a tree because of your skin color, or gender preference is an arbitrary persecution. It is a punishment for a crime that has not been committed.

Sticking a needle in the arm of a skinhead racist for dragging James Byrd behind a car is not a lynching, it is an execution, or taking out the trash.

Are you saying that Rednecks were just born that way and can't help firing bullets into the radio station where I work?

Rednecks are not a Southern thing, the last great revival of the Ku Klux Klan happened in Indiana, not Alabama.

Rednecks are an ideological white supremacist bucket of protoplasm that is not worthy for me to piss in , they are my enemy, they threaten myself and my kids in the real world right here where I live. I live to crush them by any means necessary.

They CHOOSE to be racist assholes, and the sooner they die out the better.

Mostly Baptists by the way

Posted by: cuco3 | August 14, 2010 8:34 PM

To a lot of southerners the civil war is still the "war of northern aggression".

That's just so they don't have to admit that great(n)grand-pappy was on the wrong side, which is a bit pathetic really.

Every country has been on the wrong side of some conflict or other; as an Englishman I can vouch for that. (We didn't get the biggest empire the world has ever known by being all sweetness and light.) The tossers should just face up to their pasts and move on.

Of course, being human a fair number - most? -of them will figure that whatever they think is right and then try to re-define reality to fit.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 14, 2010 8:44 PM

disclaimer: Although I think this is unnecessary, the yankees will slander me if I do not say this. While I support the South and the principle of secession, I am completely against slavery. While we are at it, I am also against murder, rape, pedophilia, and the slaughter of kittens.

Dave Tatum hates slavery yet he supports the southern rebellion. A rebellion that happened because they were no longer able to spread slavery into new territories and new states. It is good to see that Dave Tatum has more respect for state's right then for individual's rights.

No, wait, he is also whining about the tyranny of Lincoln. Shit, that was so much more brutal then the tyranny of a plantation owner over human chattel.

No, wait, he has no problem about brutal actions. Dave Tatum offered to shot PZ Myers in the face.

Dave Tatum is an incoherent asshole. But this is not because he is southern.

Posted by: llewelly | August 14, 2010 8:55 PM

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlKJdL9swr_16Tu_jBbL7FYT-Ct962KKng | August 14, 2010 7:56 PM:

Hit me with your best shot !
I'm still standin yea yea yea !

"You yellow bastard! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!"

Posted by: Pacal | August 14, 2010 8:58 PM

RE #95

You do realize that the reason that the Confederate constitution outlawed the Slave trade was because if they legalized it it would have garenteed European opposition to the New Confederate states. Despite this there was a signifigant push to relegalize the slave trade by some Southerners at the time. This was rejected as political suicide. You do realize that that the U.S. had aboloshed the Slave trade more than 50 years earlier. You do realize that people continued to illegally import slaves into the south for profit. You do realize that Southerners were heavily involved in this traffic and that therer were court cases in the South in which those who were tried for this were routinely aquited. (Forest benefited from such a trial)

You do realize that the confederate constitution strengthened slavery and made it much more difficult to abolish. You do realize that that at the state State Convntions considering succession slavery was talked about ad naseum and that that in the papers and other documents justifying succession slavery was the most prominently given reason for succession. You do realize that after the election of Lincoln large sections of the South were filled with spasms of rage and fear over what his election meant in terms of the survival of slavery.

You do realize that even before Lincoln was inagurated 7 states had succeded from the Union and the confederacy formed. You do realize that the Southern states were ceasing federal property all over the place. You do realize that attacking Fort Sumter was an act of war. You do realize that the American president has emergency powers to deal with insurrection, which this is indisputably.

You do realize that the Confererates absolutely refused to recognize the right to succeed of prts of the Southern States that didn't want to go along with it. You do realize that mass arrests and in some places executions happenned in those areas. Say parts of Texas, Eastern Tennessee, with mass arests suspension of Habus corpus etc.

During the War the Confederacy in terms of centralizing the state etc, went the same way as the Union. Oh and the Confederacy invaded neutral Kentucky.

Oh and Andrew Jackson, a Southerners said during the Nullificvation crisis in 1832 that succession was treason and that he would hang the ringleaders as traitors.

In 1860 most people in the United States did not think that there was a legal right to suceed. Most American supported the right to revolution, which was a different thing. In this case the simple fact that Lincoln was elected as President was not deemed by most northerners and by a lot of Southerners sufficent excuse to suceed. After all Lincol had been elected by 40% of the vote and the republicans had less than half the seats in the new Congress. Lincoln's ability to adversly affect the South would have been severely limited. Oh and Stephen Douglas a very pro-Southern Northern politician and seconfd in the popular vote in the election of 1860 swore up and down that succession was illegal and that he would help crush it.

Oh and at the same time Arkansas suceeded from the Union the state introduced laws that made manumission of slaves illegal and tried to re-enslave the states free blacl population.

Succession was not a legal act but a revolutionary act and has such had a high chance of causing a Civil War. The Southern politicians gambled and lost. Oh and many were hoping for the election of Lincoln and helped to generate the hysteria and panic in the months preceeding the election in order for succession to happen.

And do I have to point out that during the constitutional convention Southerners lobbied for their human property to be included as part of the full population when it came to appropriating representation etc. at the sametime thety wanted their human property excluded from the rights of the constitution etc. A compromise was reached the imfamous 3/5th clause. At the same time Southern slave owners rsisted any effort to lesson their tyranical control over their slave property. Allowing slaves to get legally married would have been a good start.

THe South fully supported coercion against slaves to keep them in that status and those who didn't want succession.

Posted by: glenn | August 14, 2010 9:32 PM

PZ,
Truck stop?
Maybe you're right, but if there's a Confederate flag to be found in a Minnesotan truck stop, it's only because some pandering jackass of a buyer has some seriously fucked up attitudes about his customers.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlKJdL9swr_16Tu_jBbL7FYT-Ct962KKng | August 14, 2010 9:43 PM

I can feel the out pouring of love.

It truly warms my heart.

"You yellow bastard"

Dave Tatum is an incoherent asshole

They CHOOSE to be racist assholes, and the sooner they die out the better.

Dave Tatum truly embiggens the heart of the smallest troll.

Yawn, another idjit apologist. Dime a dozen, and not a brain amongst them.

But you're still a racist prick.

BOY Tatum, total idjit,

Thank you all for you wonderful comments.
It tells me a lot about the wonderful mental condition of the writers.
True scholars one and all.

You want to know why I feel the way I do ?

go to-----
http://terriorist1864.blogspot.com/

This is the point I could go into a slu casting rampage that would make all of you very very angry.
But then I would be no better than my detactors.

See yall at the tea party !

Pacal
Thanks for being rational.

I may not agree but such is life.

Deo Vindice

DT.

Posted by: Rawful le Mayo | August 14, 2010 10:05 PM

It's funny how you can almost immediately detect copy-pasta, because it's usually in stark contrast to the writings of the simple minded copier, and of course the intellectually honest would cite. A simple Google search shows that Paula Deen--I mean Dave Tatum's screed is from here:

http://confederatewave.org

In other words, it's the same regurgitated trash from one of those insular communities of nutjobs that infests the internet.

Y'all.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 14, 2010 10:08 PM

I can feel the out pouring of love.

Amazing how that happens when, in your first post, you offer to shot someone in the face. But I am sure that it is meant as a loving shot.

But I have a reason why I called you an incoherent asshole. It is in my first comment on this thread. But I see you have to whine about name calling as opposed to showing why your thinking is not incoherent.

Please explain why you think slavery is wrong but it is fine for the CSA to be based on the institution. And why the tyranny of the federal system is wrong but the tyranny of slavery is to be tolerated. And why you can threaten to shot a person is fine but you whine when you get called names.

Asshole.

Posted by: UberAlles | August 14, 2010 10:10 PM

Don't have so much faith in your politicians. . .

Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation some 18 months after the war started. Remember the North was militarily incompetent for several years and the South had a reasonable chance of winning. If Lee could have won at The Battle of Antietam, the EP may never have seen the light of day and today you might be speaking with a drawl.

Reversing his position on slavery to get elected, Lincoln was using any thing he could to rise the North to want to vanquish the South.

And don't show any love for the Supreme Court. This political institution condoned "economic slavery" and "separate but equal" extending the life of slavery into the 1960's.

Posted by: otrame | August 14, 2010 10:25 PM

Tatum, sweetie, why don't you try reading a few real history books. You know the ones written by actual historians?
If you want history with a bit of southern bias try Shelby Foote. To get a slightly different view try James McPherson. Or from a British military historian try John Keegan. Then maybe read the Killer Angles, which won a Pulitzer Prize for a reason.

I know. Silly me. Acting as if you actually want the truth. You have no interest in the truth. You only want what makes you feel big and strong and manly, standing up all those who--well, all those who live in the real world.

I wonder why you need to seek out sites like this one and thrust your manly chest out and talk about how strong and mean you are.

P.S. Cut-and-pasting long screeds from a bunch of self-serving idiots does not make you look like anything but what you are. Which is pretty damned pathetic, really.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 14, 2010 10:31 PM

You can find most of asshole's screed from #85 on this site. They were written by Jerry C. Brewer. Asshole cannot even site who his is plagiarizing from.

Asshole.

Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | August 14, 2010 10:32 PM

So, Dave:

You never answered my question that was lost in my tl;dr post above. If your whole philosophy is based on "States' Rights", "No taxation for internal improvements", "Free trade", "Jeffersonian democracy", yada, yada, yada...why are you gomers writing Jefferson out of American history?

It's pathetic, really—they quote Jefferson as the source of their ethos, and yet...he never existed! They hate, hate, hate Alexander Hamilton, because he was a Federalist, who wanted to create a unitary national state like...well, the USA. Meanwhile, they laud the kind of corporatist oligarchy of wealth that he wanted to set up. So neither the Democratic-Republicans nor the Federalists were the Good Guys in first 40 years of our nation's history. Nothing but Bad Guys! (So much for worshipping the (Founding Fathers™!) But yeah, we'll appropriate Jefferson's politics and Hamilton's economics and keep them both out of the classroom, so nobody can grow up to call us on it. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 14, 2010 10:40 PM

Pete D, that hardly matters. It is not like I have exclusive skills in entering a couple of paragraphs into a search engine. I wish more people would do it, though.

Posted by: A. Nuran | August 14, 2010 10:55 PM

We're in the middle of a smog alert, so I don't want to burn the slaver's rag. Can I just wipe my ass with it and throw it in the trash?

Posted by: Anri | August 14, 2010 10:57 PM

Dave T:

Do you support the right of the people around you to declare you not to be an American citizen? Howsabout the state legislature?
Think carefully before you answer.

I assume you are also aware the Jefferson Davis proclaimed martial law and suspended habeas corpus (albeit less than Lincoln did), and you were just tossing that out in hopes we were ignorant of that.

Also:

You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you. ...Some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes, believe that the emancipation policy, and the use of colored troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the rebellion. ...[When final victory is achieved] there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it.

- President Abraham Lincoln, Aug 26, 1863.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 14, 2010 11:15 PM

Major Kong, not really likely. The entrance of the US into the Great War turned the war to the Allies favor. It is hard to say how long the conflict would have gone on without the US or who would have won. Therefore, it is hard to say what condition Germany would have been in except to say that the the days of the Kaiser was over. There was no guarantee that the Nazis would have come to power in order to wage war. Perhaps Germany would have ended up as a communist state, there might have been less freikorp personal to suppress that. (See the Bavarian Communist state.)

Posted by: UberAlles | August 14, 2010 11:31 PM

If the South had won at Antietam and marched into Washington, D.C. they would have "won" the war, but they would have retreated and not occupied.

Another civil war would probably occur in a decade or two over more 'economic' reasons although the North would cry for the reunion of the Nation.

Or the alternative future might have been when the industrial revolution became fined tuned for the substitution of slave labor the South might have sunk under its own population weight or unemployment or . .

The South's political policies would have crumbled trying to handle a slave nation with no more need of slaves. (Yes I know our modern jobs are rutted monsters and the "take this job & shove it" mantra still applies).

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 14, 2010 11:35 PM

Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM @ # 107: Dave Tatum is an incoherent asshole. But this is not because he is southern.

But you must admit, it surely helps.

Ftr: Mississippi boy here.

Posted by: Anri | August 15, 2010 12:51 AM

Can't we just take out the word 'flag' and just make it 'Burn A Confederate Day?' And we can wear white flowing costumes (with a pointy top so the soot doesn't settle on us). And we can hire a magician, or maybe some sort of wizard, to stand at the front of the group for entertainment while the Confederates roast. Man, this sounds like fun...I'm just getting started with the ideas of where to take this thing...

"You've no idea what irony is, do you, Baldrick?"

"Yes I do - it's like bronzey or goldy, only it's made of iron"

Posted by: scooterKPFT | August 15, 2010 1:56 AM

I live in Texas and want the South to rise again so I can slughter the men, have sex with their widows and take all their shit like we did the last time the South did epic FAIL. This 40 hr week is getting me down and these morons are easy pickings.

Please fire a shot heard round-a-world so I can cash in on these fucking retards

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 15, 2010 2:14 AM

Please fire a shot heard round-a-world so I can cash in on these fucking retards

HAW!

Posted by: brue68 | August 15, 2010 2:26 AM

Maybe I shouldn't say anything, but I feel very upset over this. I consider myself fairly liberal, but I'm from Virginia and I feel quite a connection to Virginia's past. I don't condone slavery, and I don't know how I feel about secession, but I think of the Confederate symbols as representations of our history. I feel an odd sense of pride/joy when I see one (when it's obviously not being used to indicate racism, rare as it may be). Much like I feel pride/joy when I see the Virginia flag, or Virginia mentioned in a non-negative manner in the national news. Maybe that doesn't really make sense, but fuck it. Y'all probably don't care. Just wanted to let some people know that not everyone who feels a connection to those symbols is an historical revisionist, bigot, or tea partier.

For the record, I hate that the KKK and other racist groups use that flag. I'm not racist and don't want to be associated with anyone who is.

first comment I've made, possibly the last. more comfortable lurking, anyway.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 15, 2010 2:40 AM

Maybe I shouldn't say anything, but I feel very upset over this.

Boo-hoo.

I don't condone slavery, and I don't know how I feel about secession,

Sounds like you've got some more thinkin' to do.

but I think of the Confederate symbols as representations of our history. I feel an odd sense of pride/joy when I see one

Why?

Much like I feel pride/joy when I see the Virginia flag, or Virginia mentioned in a non-negative manner in the national news.

Again, why? What is it with people who identify so strongly with the latitude and longitude of their place of birth? I seriously don't understand - it's a historical accident that any of us were born at particular coordinates. Why should we feel anything, positive or negative, about that place?

"Hometown pride" is just stupid, small-minded parochialism. There isn't anything essentially "Virginia" that represents you, or that you ought to have this dumb emotional allegiance to. Just as there's nothing essentially "New England" that I ought to think I'm obligated to defend/identify with.

Have a good think about why your damned "Virginia identity" is all-fired important to you.

Posted by: brue68 | August 15, 2010 2:47 AM

if it's not being used in a tea party, yes.

I don't know exactly why, I was really into Confederate history as a kid. I think it's to do with a regional pride. Yeah, it was a lost war. And yes, perhaps the reason for the war wasn't pleasant, but I think Virginia and the rest of the South fought well considering the circumstances regarding resources. I know it's nothing really to do with me, being 150 years ago, but still.

I dunno. Kind of like Koreans still feel pride at their turtle warship, maybe.

Posted by: brue68 | August 15, 2010 2:56 AM

sorry to annoy you, Josh. I did just want to let my emotions out, but I didn't mean to come off like I did. I'm not very articulate.

I don't know why I feel regional pride, especially since 2 years ago all I wanted to do was get out of Virginia. I did. I lived in S Korea for about 9 months teaching English. Being away made me appreciate all the things I liked about Virginia, and missed. Also my interactions with my foreigner coworkers could have played a role. I don't know. but coming home, I just feel much more connected than I did previously. not really rational.

though, thinking about it, the regional feelings were always there, but they had faded by the time the opportunity to go to Korea came. and came back stronger than they were previously. maybe it'll change in time, it has before.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 15, 2010 3:05 AM

Well, brue, you don't have to apologize for annoying me (though that's very kind), since you have no obligation not to annoy me - I'm just some schmo on the Internet:)

I get it about feeling like you're "home." I feel like I'm "home" where I live now. But I do think it's a mistake to invest pride - and then go on defending - a particular place or culture just because it's the place one calls home. That kind of pride needs to be earned; it's foolish to defend one's hometown just because it's one's hometown.

That's all I'm saying.

Posted by: brue68 | August 15, 2010 3:15 AM

That's a fair point, Josh. And I really can't rationally justify it. Best I can do is use my vote to make sure it stays or becomes a place I'd like to continue living.

This has been a good talk.

Posted by: GayHedBri | August 15, 2010 3:19 AM

So, this is the patriotic thing to do?? Really?

Interesting.

Oh, True Patriotism, where forth art thouth....?

Wisdom, Love for Defending one's Mother Nation,

Conviction for doing the right thing and

Perseverance for never turning back and never being afraid.

Oh, authentic soldiers and citizens and defenders of the Nation and the Constitution, where forth art thou?

Posted by: Rorschach | August 15, 2010 3:22 AM

Wisdom, Love for Defending one's Mother Nation,

The problem lays with the concept of "mother nation".Caused a lot of grief over the centuries.Not bad for a little emotional attachment to the place where your mum got drunk with your dad one night.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 15, 2010 3:46 AM

Just what the fuck do they have to be so proud about?

Remember the Alamo!

:P

Posted by: iasasai | August 15, 2010 4:07 AM

Josh, I've been saying that for years. For all the good it seems to do... Pride in general is a bit of a waste of time (I concede that it is not however inherently a bad thing, in and of itself), but pride in specific things that aren't associated with a personal accomplishment make even less sense. Maybe it's just a remnant tribal affiliation; that would not, of course, actually make it any better. Whenever someone goes on about pride in such things as birthplace, place of upbringing, political affiliation, team affiliation, or what-have-you, I sometimes manage to refrain from telling them that they're a fucking clueless idiot (sometimes I have other things to do and I have to try and refrain so as to be able to do what I'm actually supposed to be doing).
I will in no way ever be proud to be an american (I'm not willing to capitalize it anymore) or an Ohioan or a Cincinnatian or identify myself with a sports team as though that were something important. Hell, I'm not even "proud" to be a human being or a resident of Earth; all that is STILL too parochial.
Pride should be reserved for actual personal accomplishments. Perhaps it's not surprising that I find patriotism to be functionally indistinguishable from religion...

Posted by: Mercury | August 15, 2010 5:36 AM

where does it say that in the Confederation, or Constitution for that matter ---- All states joined in this union are forever forbidden from the departure of it?"

In Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, according to Wikipedia. 'Article XIII stipulated that "their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state" and "the Union shall be perpetual".' Here and here.

In the Constitution it does not. That's where Texas v. White comes in.

Posted by: Moggie | August 15, 2010 5:44 AM

#147:

Maybe I shouldn't say anything, but I feel very upset over this. I consider myself fairly liberal, but I'm from Virginia and I feel quite a connection to Virginia's past. I don't condone slavery, and I don't know how I feel about secession, but I think of the Confederate symbols as representations of our history. I feel an odd sense of pride/joy when I see one (when it's obviously not being used to indicate racism, rare as it may be). Much like I feel pride/joy when I see the Virginia flag, or Virginia mentioned in a non-negative manner in the national news. Maybe that doesn't really make sense, but fuck it. Y'all probably don't care. Just wanted to let some people know that not everyone who feels a connection to those symbols is an historical revisionist, bigot, or tea partier.

I bet this sounds better in the original German.

Posted by: solius | August 15, 2010 6:17 AM

theswede wrote:

But it's hardly some deep dark secret that most civilizations kept slaves.

Yep, slavery was only removed from northern states a generation or two before the Civil War/The War Between The States/The War Of Northern Aggression. See this

Re: The War Of Northern Aggression- I think that an argument can be made that it was a War of Southern Aggression as A.S. Johnston's(CSA) command was the first that violated Kentucky's neutrality by the occupation of Paducah, Bowling Green, and the Cumberland Gap.

Birger Johanson wrote:

"The stars and bars" -I wonder how many southerners are aware that *THIS* is the Confederate flag!!!

In the South, probably most. I learned at an early age, and was also taught of the horrible injustices of the northern armies. Google "Benjamin Butler".

Again, he wrote:

Make a giant Southern Cross flag -with pink background, and a rainbow in the corner.

Best ideal, yet! Something to dissociate a bunch of fear mongering rednecks from their cause celebre.

some google account wrote:

I will give you a cannon salute to go with it!

Better yet, a few nice cold stiff juleps, and a rigorous discussion. Sir, you respond with threats of physical violence? You write that you are from Virginia, but I have yet to meet such an insolent Virginian. If so from, for shame, sir.

ekwhite wrote:

General Sherman had a better idea - burn the whole state.

Hell, why stop there. Why not burn everything south of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi, and couple of states west, too?

Sir, did you read what you wrote?

Somewhere, up in thread, it was a from a foreigner that pretty much nailed the hammer on the head. The North didn't fight the war to end slavery, the South fought it to preserve that Peculiar Institution. Slavery wasn't an issue to the North until '63, and then it was only used as an instrument to punish those areas then in rebellion... it didn't apply to border states, or those areas then under occupation.

I made it through about half of the posts; the corn liquor is making my eyes heavy. So, I will read the rest tomorrow.

Posted by: Great Waves | August 15, 2010 6:21 AM

Many Japanese do (just look at the Uyoku hicks on the front page of Japan Today), though those that do tend to use them for their aggressive Imperialist meanings.

Posted by: Tom | August 15, 2010 6:43 AM

Flag burning was invented as a marketing tool for political groups to sell their wares to the opposition - if your going to have a revolution you may as well get the enemy to pay for it!

Posted by: pccdrski.myopenid.com | August 15, 2010 7:21 AM

Solius & all,
Read The Road to Disunion by William H. Freehling 2 volumes. The best history of the antebellum South.
The South was hardly homogeneous and 'united'. It can be argued that the South lost because it did not have the support of their brothers on the Border.
I moved to Atlanta from Rochester, NY and the amount of revisionist history available, even in mainstream book stores, is amazing.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 15, 2010 7:24 AM

As for my ancestors , They all served with honor.

So fucking what? It wasn't anything YOU did.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 15, 2010 7:49 AM

There would not be a need for a burn the confederate flag day, if the confederate battle flag was appropriately displayed. At cemeteries with civil war dead, at memorials for civil and other war dead, in parades with soldiers depicting various eras. Essentially as a piece of history, not forgotten, but also not misused. There are places where it doesn't belong, as it is misused. Cars, trucks, schools, stadiums, dorm rooms. Essentially anyplace not containing civil war dead. Then it means stay in your place N*****, and fuck you the rest of the country. Not very polite, or even a decent thing to do. The descendants of those of fought should just move on, and relegate that flag to history, and keep it there.

Posted by: ekwhite | August 15, 2010 7:56 AM

I can't believe the utter hatred displayed here at an entire region of the country. Most of you make me ashamed to be a northerner. I think I can do nicely without this blog and the cretins spouting their bile here over a complete irrelevency. Good bye bigots.

Who said I was a northerner? I was born and raised in North Carolina, thank you very much. I have family there (and in Georgia, for that matter). I know EXACTLY what that flag stands for.

Posted by: Ian Gould | August 15, 2010 8:09 AM

"Well folks when I got up this morning my battle flag was still flying. No one foolish enough to drop by and try to burn it. If you try watch out for Old "Boomer" he bites. And his bark can be heard for miles. Also bear in mind an act of "night time arson" is a felony in VIRGINIA."

I assume Virginia has fairly liberal gun laws.

I wonder if they cover private ownership of working cannons?

Posted by: Ian Gould | August 15, 2010 8:11 AM

"So why now did the north wish to stop the expansion of slavery ?

Simple they did not want to have competition for jobs in the western territories ! "

If it were that simple they would simply have bought slaves themselves.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 15, 2010 8:14 AM

Most places in the US have ordnances against discharge of firearms within a certain distance of occupied houses.

Posted by: solius | August 15, 2010 8:51 AM

Ian wrote:

I wonder if they cover private ownership of working cannons?

I don't want to speak for all southern states, but since, they are breech loaded, the federal government recognizes breech loaders as primitive weapons. As such, anyone can own one. Really, who would go against a 155mm with something that takes a half minute to load???

Breech loaders are irrelevant.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlKJdL9swr_16Tu_jBbL7FYT-Ct962KKng | August 15, 2010 8:56 AM

Boomer is my Dogs name.
Cannonball is my cats name.
I also have a cat named V-2.

OK ?

DT

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 15, 2010 9:13 AM

I don't want to speak for all southern states, but since, they are breech loaded, the federal government recognizes breech loaders as primitive weapons. As such, anyone can own one. Really, who would go against a 155mm with something that takes a half minute to load???

My friend used to help manage the hydro power generator on the top of Bridalveil Falls in Telluride Colorado.

Just to the right of house up top in the photo at that link is a cannon, no idea what size the bore is. There were many a late night / early morning we set that thing off. I'm sure the tourists were slightly disturbed by the earth shattering boom and muzzle flash (do you still call it that with a cannon?) going off above the falls at the end of the valley.

I'm glad there were no restrictions.

BOOM

Posted by: blf | August 15, 2010 9:31 AM

Rev. BDC, I assume that was not the avalanche whatever-it's-called cannon?

As I (vaguely!) recall, controlled avalanche shelling is done with a WW2(?)-era recoilless(?) rifle firing what is now increasingly-rare munitions (no idea the calibre). I recall reading recently they are having problems getting the shells, which is a bit of bugger because (and here my memory is probably failing) there's no other available USAian system which would work as well.

Posted by: co | August 15, 2010 9:49 AM

"Deo Vindice", Tatum? Really?

Posted by: solius | August 15, 2010 10:08 AM

blf wrote:

As I (vaguely!) recall, controlled avalanche shelling is done with a WW2(?)-era recoilless(?) rifle firing what is now increasingly-rare munitions (no idea the calibre). I recall reading recently they are having problems getting the shells,

Probably, 75, or the 105mm. iirc, there is a 75 that was shot with two men???

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | August 15, 2010 10:37 AM

'Tis:

I had an ancestor who fought in the Civil War. So what?

Exactly.

I had ancestors who fought on opposite sides. Oh noes, now I'm conflicted! Who should I feel prideful for? *swoons, clutches pearls, flops on fainting couch*

Seriously though, that war was fought a century and a half ago. The South&trade needs to get the fuck over it. Why are you feeling pride because someone whom you've never met fought in it?

Question: If the stars 'n bars was simply a symbol of southern pride, why the fuck do I see it displayed on pickup trucks and flying outside of homes in upstate New York?

Posted by: solius | August 15, 2010 11:12 AM

rev bigdumbchimp wrote:

I feel like bitch slapping people who choose to point to the Confederate battle flag and other confederate symbols as prideful examples of the south and choose to ignore ones that really are.

Don't mean to feed on stereotypes, but salt pork, fat back, jowel bacon, and fall beans...

Posted by: solius | August 15, 2010 11:22 AM

Vicky wrote:

If you're a southerner with ancestors who fought at Bull Run or Antietam,...

Madam, down here, those battles are known as Manassas, and Sharpsburg.

Posted by: rgovrebo | August 15, 2010 12:25 PM

GayHedBri @ #159:
Oh, authentic soldiers and citizens and defenders of the Nation and the Constitution, where forth art thou?

The word you're trying to write is "wherefore". But if you're trying to ask where they are, you shouldn't use a word that means why.

Posted by: cd | August 15, 2010 2:09 PM

But I'm just a stupid fucking person ! DT

Well, at least you realize it.

My take is that the Confederate Constitution is probably the most immoral document in American history. For one thing it was politically regressive, the first element in a reestablishing of aristocracy and monarchy and expansionist empire on American soil. It was in essence a scheme to not just legalize but absolutely privilege an oppressive social pyramid that was only going get steeper and create additional underclasses. And of course- which is where the relevance for this site is- God and Christianity and Civilization were enlisted in and held to justify and license this depraved obscenity.

Historians have noted that the South and slaveholders and their propagandists generally appropriated God/Christianity/Civilization for themselves early in the 19th century. It was a well known cultural trope by the time of the Civil War. But this God, Christianity, and Civilization look rather like those of the morally ugliest pre-Christian Northern European paganism.

The Confederate Constitution is a monument to regression and human vanity, greed, and barbarity. Sherman said that covetousness was the core and essential Confederate sin. I think we can easily discover the same to Mr. Tatum's various, er, contributions here.

The Gettysburg Address and the Fourteenth Amendment are the answers the North finally came up with. When the last David Tatums rest six feet under, clutching their Stars And Bars, those will remain as the reply of History to their faded rantings and ravings and egotism.

Posted by: cd | August 15, 2010 2:15 PM

Question: If the stars 'n bars was simply a symbol of southern pride, why the fuck do I see it displayed on pickup trucks and flying outside of homes in upstate New York?

It's the Contrarianism Of The Stupid.

Posted by: The Ex-Christadelphian | August 15, 2010 2:24 PM

1. The whole country was a confederation of states after the revolutionary war, by agreement of the states.

2. Each state had the right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a state militia.

3. A political party (republican) headed by Lincoln didn't like that arrangement and decided to force the country into a federation with a big central government and call it a Republic.

4. This political party (republican) used slavery as the match that lit the fuse of the Civil War.

5. The confederacy of states was the legal and agreed upon arrangement, so it was the federals who were actually the traitors of the agreement.

6. We do not have state militias after the Civil War. So, that was the first right that the country lost to the republican party.

Beware, lest you lose the rest of your constitutional rights to the republican party - the next thing you know, our money will be just paper with "federal reserve note" written on it instead of "silver certificate" or "gold certificate" - oops.

Posted by: blf | August 15, 2010 2:41 PM

Article XIII of that [USA] constitution

Good rant. However, I think you got your documents and sections mixed up here? There is no Article XIII (13) in the USA constitution; it only has 7 articles, plus umteen amendments.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 15, 2010 2:49 PM

Dave Tatum, your apology for posting an other person's words means jack shit. You make appearances on blog on a regular basis. Other people had to have caught you plagiarizing and called you on it. You are only sorry you got caught.

Besides being an incoherent asshole, you are dishonest. People have asked you how you can decry the tyranny of the north yet have no problem with the fact that the CSA was founded with slavery as it's foundation, it's reason for being. Sorry, jackass, but honorable people fighting for a despicable system does not make the system honorable.

(As a side note, I do not hold the Founding Fathers in high esteem for the very fact that many were slave holders.)

You response to these questions is to whine about the bigotry and go off that you are but a working person. Well, fuck you and everything you stand for. You make a mockery of working people who value education and work at continued education. You sneer at those working people who value equality and human rights.

Keep looking for people online who express their contempt for your piece of cloth. Keep copying and pasting the words of better spoken bigots. Ignore the questions of what you think of the tyranny of slavery when you whine about the tyranny of other. And wrap yourself in the imagined glory of the past and continue to to jack shit to actually improve the live of yourself and the lives of others. I expect nothing more from a parasitic tapeworm like you.

You will not be missed.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/K2PNji0at.txAjzTShOlxwLuFcVVFwbnng--#bd813 | August 15, 2010 3:14 PM

The 'Stars and Bars,' was the first confed flag. The "southern Cross, Battle flag was never the official Southern flag. The second Confed flag was white with the battle flag in Canton. Because that flag could look like a surrender flag, a red bar was added at the fly. A hasty revision.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 15, 2010 3:34 PM

Why, thank you googlemess, for pointing out that northern colonies and northern states also had slavery. I was under the misguided impression the all northerners were under the side of the righteous. I now realize that the northerners were just hypocrites who had no right to tell other white people that they had no right to spread slavery into new territories.

Posted by: cd | August 15, 2010 3:55 PM

Generally a confederation is a uniting of disparate entities against a common external enemy- a gussied up military alliance.

A federation is an alliance generally focussed on peaceful and continually enlarged cooperation between its members, leading to an incremental integration of its the members into a common society and endeavor.

Posted by: KG | August 15, 2010 4:51 PM

And yes, perhaps the reason for the war wasn't pleasant, but I think Virginia and the rest of the South fought well considering the circumstances regarding resources.

- brue68

So did the Germans and Japanese in WWII.

Posted by: KG | August 15, 2010 5:20 PM

To be honest John Wilkes Booth did more to hasten the freedom of slaves than Lincoln.

Dave Tatum

You wouldn't know how to be honest, scumbag. You're still smarting from the theft of the black slaves you should have inherited all those years ago, clearly. But the piece of nonsense I quote above makes clear you are not just a racist liar, but actually insane.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlKJdL9swr_16Tu_jBbL7FYT-Ct962KKng | August 15, 2010 5:32 PM

He was against secession.

Served with Honor for Georgia.

After the war

He was also an advocate for negro voting rights.

He donated frequently to the poor,

started a school named the Wolford Academy.

Fought against the poll tax that prevented poor whites and blacks from voting.

He promoted African American education.

Was against convict leasing.

He promoted veterans bennifits

This is a small portion of his accomplishments

All information I quoted as well other work he did can be found in the book titled

"One of the most Daring of men"
by Gerald J Smith

Another Ancestor I'm proud of.

DT.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 15, 2010 5:38 PM

Another Ancestor I'm proud of.

*yawn*

drunk-ass troll is drunk.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 15, 2010 5:49 PM

Fine, I will stand up two soldiers of the Confederacy who became much more; Samuel Clemens (better known by an other name) and Albert Parsons (Look up the Haymarket Martyrs.)

Answer the question, you parasitic tapeworm. Why do you take pride in a nation that fought and died for slavery?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlKJdL9swr_16Tu_jBbL7FYT-Ct962KKng | August 15, 2010 6:12 PM

William Tatum Woffard.

Sorry I left his name out of the last post.

Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula
When in Rome do as the Romans.
I'm sure your mother was a good person who worked had and honest to raise you.
I just got tired of the name calling and decided to let you know what it feels like.
with all of the colorful names I have been called it has been hard to not reply with the same.

Accept it or not I am sorry for my comment about your mom. I must admit the tape worm comment was a good one. I will give you a 10 on that one.

What is the reason behind all the profanity?

Only once in all my blog visits have I ever resorted to the action. But Blubber Boy had it comming.

Call me what you will, I have thick skin.
I also will never knowingly or willingly use anyones work without telling the source.
Thanks for calling me out on that.
I'm not perfect, and I try to respect everyone.
Even Old Reverend Weekly, A Gay Black Preacher.
After our inital battle we had a good discussion.
We still disagree but respect the others position.

I know the Flag was and is used as a hate tool.
I have no control over who flys it.
I treat all people as I would like to be treated,
until they make it impossiable.

As a safety inspector on construction sites I have been called every name in the book, and all I was trying to do is keep people alive. help them to go home at night in the same shape they came to work in.So you can put all of the names together that I have been called at this blog and you would not scratch the surface of one day at work.
I'm out of Safety Now and am a member of "Homeland Security" I'm sure you will sleep better at night knowing that ! ( LOOOOL )
I have been through FBI, CIA, Interpoll, NCIC checks and came through clean.
I disclosed my SCV connection, my SAR connection, and my Jamestown Society connection.
I also disclosed my Black Powder Cannon Building hobby and my collection of over 100 cannons.

I passed extensive "square peg in the round hole test"
I have a DCJ card, and my computer at home is open to Homeland Security. They have the ability to read every keystroke I make.

When I put on my uniform and go to work I am protecting Yanks, Rebs, Blacks,& Whites, and I take great pride in the fact I am able to do so.

So I hope that my job is one thing you are not against. As for everything else well thats up to you. Do what you feel is correct. I will do the same.

Take care.

DT.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlKJdL9swr_16Tu_jBbL7FYT-Ct962KKng | August 15, 2010 7:03 PM

By the way, this sort of thing:

Hey now be nice, you may be my daughter,
I did have unprotected sex with prostitutes back in the day!
will get you banned, you slimy, treacherous, lying coward. Don't do it again.

Ive been banned from better sites than this.

Kevin Levins and Robert Moores.

Huggs and kisses to all.

Sleep well at night knowing I have your back !

See yall at the tea party, I will be the one who has the fire extinguisher, hope you like the taste of its componets.

And Thats a promise !

I'm outta here, so now you can continue with you witch hunt unabated.

And like the HYDRA
" Burn a confederate flag and two shall take its place" !

Yall be cool.

DT.

Posted by: kohi-no-tora | August 15, 2010 7:07 PM

Somewhat out of left field but as an Australian (and on behalf of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea) I object to the characterisation of the Confederate Battle Flag as the Southern Cross. The Southern Cross is the colloquial name for the constellation Crux which is on the flag of the aforementioned countries (even if the Kiwis are lazy bums and leave out Epsilon Crucis). Especially as in Australia at least it's used as a national symbol.

We've got enough of our own problems without being associated with the Confederate States of America.

Posted by: Ian Gould | August 15, 2010 7:21 PM

Still curious as to why southerners don't feel obligated to fly the Union Jack under which their ancestors fought and died during the Seven Years War.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 15, 2010 7:37 PM

I'm not perfect, and I try to respect everyone.
Even Old Reverend Weekly, A Gay Black Preacher.

why, I bet he even has black friends!

phht.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 15, 2010 8:54 PM

Trolls will be trolls.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | August 15, 2010 9:36 PM

"why, I bet he even has black friends!"

Yes, but does he let him use his bathroom?

"Fucking coward cannot bother to answer my very simple and straight forward question. Cannot say I am surprised."

Yeah, disappointing. I was sort of hoping he'd come up with some justification for the Confederacy beyond it briefly representing the place where his parents and other ancestors fucked.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | August 15, 2010 10:17 PM

Left out a few words from my last comment. I meant "with some justification for his defense of the Confederacy"

Posted by: Opus | August 16, 2010 12:38 AM

On further research, David Tatum's ancestor William Wofford of Habersham County, Georgia owned forty-two (42) human beings of African ancestry, according to the slave schedule of the 1850 US census. There are no names listed for the human property: they are simply listed as 'male' or 'female,' with an estimated age. The oldest piece of property was 70, and the youngest was 1.

David, if you are interested in more details of your noble, honorable heritage it can be found in the census report dated December 5, 1850, as enumerated by Benjamin Cleveland, Assistant Marshall.

I'd attach a link to the census report, but a subscription is required.

Posted by: SQB (fuck death) | August 16, 2010 7:26 AM

Burn the Van Dorn flag and piss off both Southerners and Muslims.

Posted by: Sister marie | August 16, 2010 9:21 AM

A gentle reminder for those who are engaging Brother Dave: "Never wrestle with a pig - you'll just get dirty, and the pig likes it."

Brother Dave lives in a state which stubbornly embraced its racism well into the (19) 50s and 60s. When the "separate but equal" concept in which Virginia employed to keep black Americans in their place was struck down by the Supreme Court. Virginia closed its public schools rather than to submit. The area in which Brother Dave lives includes several "private schools" which owe their origin to the desire of White Citizens to send their kids to a school not "contaminated" by black children.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | August 16, 2010 9:50 AM

d'oh. That's "Threaten us with death".

Seriously it's weird.

Posted by: Ian Gould | August 16, 2010 10:23 AM

"The South Will rise Again..."

...then it'll wipe the puke off it's confederate flag t-shirt, stagger out of the alley behind the bar and try to freeload bus fare back to the trailer park.

Posted by: steph.D | August 16, 2010 10:58 AM

I think some of you are being a little unfair. You are all acting as if everyone in the south is a right winged religious zelot, which is far from the truth. I know nobody here wants to be lied about, especialy in a manner of steeotyping. I know for a fact that there are a lot of people in the south that are smart, tolerant, and all around wonderfull indeviduals. A lot of you are also assuming that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism, but that is not true, although some use the flag for that reason, some of us see it only as a cultural part of our history. I'm not saying I am proud of the things done under that flag, but there are things that have been done under the American flag that I dont like either, that does not make me want to burn it. I dont think this will solve anything, I guess that is what I'm trying to say. Thats my "2 cents".

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 16, 2010 11:55 AM

Steph.D, you are paint with a very broad brush. The only people who are condemning all of the south are people like you, people dealing with inaccurate generalities. Many of the regulars on this blog are southerners. No one is accusing them of being racist, right wing tea-baggers.

As for the cultural value of the confederate flag, it stands for slavery. The Confederacy was founded upon the ideals of slavery, that it was right and natural for blacks to be in perpetual bondage to the right class of white people. You are either being disingenuous or ahistorical if you take the slavery out of the flag. This is not an assumption. That flag is a symbol of racism.

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | August 16, 2010 12:13 PM

I notice that the person who objected to my using Northern names for battles in the Slaveholders' Rebellion didn't bother to spell my own name right, even though it was right there on the post. That person was also more interested in making a fuss about battle names than in my point about some of the genuinely admirable bits of American history and culture that Southerners can lay claim to.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | August 16, 2010 12:43 PM

You know, the problem I have with the Confederate Battle Flag (stars and bars) is not so much with what it represented during the American Civil war, but rather the way it has been used/misused in decades since.

The Civil War was complicated. At its inception, it had far less to do with slavery than it did with the question of whether the United States was one nation or an alliance of many nations. This was not settled by the constitution because it could not be agreed upon by the states. The Civil War settled the question.

DT's posts are disingenuous. Lincoln gave the South no cause to secede. He bent over backward to meet them halfway--and then DT has the nerve to call him hypocrite for doing so. In the end, Lincoln had the vision to make the war about more than union, and that is what counts.

Unfortunately, the American South still insists on its "peculiar institutions": Segregation and opression of the black (or any other) minority; enforced christian theocracy; even it's own anti-scientific, anti-reality brand of backwardness. And it is here where we see the ugly symbol the Confederate flag has become. The message of the flag is that the South insists on its "right" to subjugate ethnic and religious minorities and they they are more than willing to drag the nation into Civil War agian to secure that right.

It is the use of the flag as an implicit threat that has profaned the flag.

Posted by: Neil | August 16, 2010 7:49 PM

"deprogrammed" shat out this ripe nugget:

Great! Let's also have a Burn the Mexican Flag Day to protest against the left's exploitation of illegal immigration for political gain.

Yeah, all that political gain they get by insisting that we treat other human being like humans instead of disposable draft animals. "The left" tries to occasionally offer a minimum of human decency, and all they get is stupid shit from worhtless ignorant shitbags like you.

It is the right that endlessly exploits immigration, legal and illegal. Companies get to avoid paying living wages in America by importing destitute labor. Southwestern farmers (by and large, almost entirely republicans) only hire immigrants (legal and illegal), then spend all day howling about "liberal" immigration policies and getiing the idiot masses riled up for their own political gain, all the while doing absolutely nothing to solve the issues, and in fact doing their best to destroy any sensible policies that liberals or centrists put forward. Instead, they get ignorant racists to vote for multi-billion-dollar fences that will never work, and then scream "traitor" when their ridiculous schemes are rightfully criticized.

The ONLY gain that the left gets is a portion of the votes of legal immigrant citizens and other sympathetic folks who are smart enough to realize that the only thing that republicans will ever do for immigrants (or anyone else) is fuck them over for every last penny while calling for their deportation or prosecution if they dare complain.

You call yourself "deprogrammed." Maybe you've gotten idiot religion out of your system, but there is obviously still quite a bit of right-wing kool-aid running through your veins.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 16, 2010 8:05 PM

@SQB 259:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman

thanks for making me look that up.

Posted by: Neil | August 16, 2010 9:43 PM

I try not to be a bigot, just because I was born in a state that isn't quite as full of hateful morons as some seem to be. So why do worthless, lying, ignorant, self-righteous, troll-ass pieces of dogshiat like Dave Tatum always have to be tempting me?

I'm sorry you're such a useless deluded loser, Dave, I really am. I'm sorry that racism, lying about your loser history, and feeling proud of being a shitbag person from a place with a lot of shitbag history are considered virtues by many where you live. I'm sorry that you feel your loser flag is so important to your identity. I'd hope you'd try to better yourself, rather than wallowing in your stupid, worthless symbols and traditional self-righteous, stubborn idiocy. Instead, you sit there justifying the worst parts of your shitbag, loser history by saying that those yankees were almost as bad, as if it justifies your own love of shitbaggery.

Your beloved shitbag history will soon be as forgotten as it should be, except to you silly losers. You're already nothing but a joke among everyone except the few idiots who agree with you. The South is a joke to everyone except southerners, even though many good people don't really deserve the stereotype. Well they can thank you and every other flag-waving idiot. Your cherry-picked, context-free history lessons are a joke. Your millions of semi-literate fundie christians are a joke. The rampant anti-government sentiments from states that couldn't survive without slaves or welfare dollars from other states, are a joke. The continued southern racism, and the sad, pathetic way you goddamned shitbags had to be dragged into the 20th century by that evil federal government is a joke, a particularly bad one. And your goddamned loser flag is a huge fucking joke, and you are the butt of that joke every time you raise or defend it. Thanks for the laughs!

I know there is plenty of interesting history, good people, and great achievements that have come from the south...why do so many morons insist on trying to polish their turds as well?

I'm from central California, should I around celebrating the depression era work camps, and doing Grapes of Wrath re-enactments? Maybe raise a traditional, history-soaked Spanish flag and rape a few Indians, then torture and convert them to Catholicism for old times sake?

And yes, we have plenty of semi-literate, racist, anti-gay bigot religious nutjob historical revisionists around here as well. Too damned many of them, and they are almost all registered, voting Republicans, and they have WAY too much power. But somehow, we seem to do a much better job of not imitating the shitbags openly. Must be all the press that L.A. and S.F. get. Maybe we're just better at hiding our shitbags...or maybe we just have a hint of shame when we know we should.

Posted by: solius | August 18, 2010 11:13 AM

Tis wrote:

Most Civil War battles have two names. and the South named them after nearby towns. Some battles are only known by one name, usually towns, like Gettysburg and Vicksburg.

Both sides called one battle Chickamauga after a creek running through the battlefield. The nearest town, Snodgrass (GA), just didn't have the right ring for the name of a battle.

Of course, they did. Generally, the northern armies chose the name of nearby geographical features, and the southern armies chose physical features. Though, not always. Hence, Perryville and Stones River.

Posted by: solius | August 18, 2010 11:25 AM

tag fail @ 280