Thurmond has the deeply rooted history and ‘street cred’ that might really resonate with his audience within the state house. Certainly he heard enough of the unapologetic, unvarnished segregationist hatred at his father’s knee. (figuratively if not literally). Certainly he doesn’t sugar-coat the message that was intended when the flag went up. As an “outsider” herself, Haley felt the need to tippy toe around the history.
Levying war against the United States is treason, and has been since 1789.
@TatinG - Washington didn’t really free his slaves upon his death. His will stipulated that they would be freed upon his wife’s death. After Washington died, Martha felt fearful about this clause and freed those slaves about a year later.
However, Washington’s slaves represented less than half the slaves at Mount Vernon. Most were “dower slaves” inherited by Martha from her first husband’s estate and could not be freed by either of them since they were legally held for her heirs from her first marriage.
When Washington was President, the capital was in Philadelphia. If he brought “dower slaves” there (or any slaves), they could easily become free but he was careful to not let that happen.
@TatinG - The Byrd street sign isn’t pasted on bumper stickers, worn on t-shirts, or waved at rallys.
The EU isn’t even a country, it’s an economic alliance. Still, if Greece blockaded Germany’s consulate then proceeded to bomb it like Fort Sumter, I could imagine Germany might get a tad upset. A better modern analogy might be Crimea seceding from Ukraine.
Your terrible analogy aside, I do agree that painting the civil war as treason isn’t necessarily accurate.
If this country starts to purge names, Byrd’s name should go. The discussion isn’t about censoring bumper stickers, but names on public property… Of course, if we start down that road, very few historical figures will survive scrutiny based on today’s standards.
Washington could only do what legally he could do. By the standards of the day, he was better than most in that regard.
If symbols are the issue then Native Americans should start calling for the removal of the US flag.
Thank you Greenwich for the details about Washington. You beat me to it.
A point about Paul Thurmond; he was born after his father more or less renounced segregation. The Thurmond family history is a complex one regarding race relations. I think the family ancestral home, Edgefield County, at one time had a Black majority population. Blacks remain a significant proportion of the populace today. After his days as a Dixiecrat and through his years as a steadfast Republican, Senator Strom Thurmond did enjoy some electoral support from African-Americans. It has been said that the existence of his African-American daughter was an open secret. Not long ago, her name was added to a family memorial.
Yup. They’d like to blow up Mt… Rushmore too. Faces of the conquerors on the sacred Black Hills.
“The Byrd street sign isn’t pasted on bumper stickers, worn on t-shirts, or waved at rallys.”
I find it very telling that some people cannot tell the difference between the Confederate Battle Flag and street signs or statues. I think it just shows that those who bring things like that up as argument have jumped the shark.
It reminds me of the people who argue that legalizing gay marriage will lead to bestiality.
“Yup. They’d like to blow up Mt… Rushmore too. Faces of the conquerors on the sacred Black Hills.”
This is a very superficial view of the grievances of American Indians. For the most part, they were upset at the fact that the U.S. government violated good faith agreements (and court rulings) time and again, and that native tribes were often oppressed even more AFTER the treaties were signed. And the mistreatment continued well into the 20th century, including the battle over fishing rights in Washington State in the 1970s.
409 - It's not jumping the shark. In the last few days there have been articles calling for removal of statues of Jefferson Davis from the U. S. and Kentucky capitol buildings, removing the names of Confederate generals from U. S. military installations, questioning whether Robert E. Lee's statue should be on Monument Ave. in Richmond and so on. Where does it stop?
There are a couple of distinctions that seem relevant here.
First, it makes a difference to me how intimately connected a historical figure’s offensive views or actions are to the achievement for which we are honoring them. No one is honoring George Washington because he owned slaves; we honor him as a general and statesman. The fact that he owned slaves is a blot on his legacy, but it is incidental to the achievements themselves. The case of someone whose primary claim to fame involves participation in a war inspired in large measure by the defense of the institution of slavery is a different matter.
The other criteria, for me, is how typical the person in question was of their time and place. Charles Dickens and Richard Wagner were born within a year of each other. Dickens, especially in the earlier part of his life, displayed period-typical anti-Semitism. His depiction of Fagin is of a piece with other, less famous depictions of Jews from his contemporaries. Wagner, by contrast, wrote viciously anti-Semitic propaganda. Lots of nineteenth-century authors used stock figures of unscrupulous Jews. Wagner, as far as I know, is the only nineteenth-century composer who felt the need to write a manifesto on Jewish inferiority. So while I don’t think we need to stop performing or listening to Wagner’s music, I’d be a lot more bothered by naming a street or institution after him than I would in naming it after Dickens.
"It’s not jumping the shark. In the last few days there have been articles calling for removal of statues of Jefferson Davis from the U. S. and Kentucky capitol buildings, removing the names of Confederate generals from U. S. military installations, questioning whether Robert E. Lee’s statue should be on Monument Ave. in Richmond and so on. "
Lots of people call for lots of things and write articles about it. Let me know when there is a groundswell for the removal of those items.
The fight over the Confederate Battle Flag on public property has been going on for years and years because it has been the symbol used for the white man’s supremacy over blacks. It is the symbol used by white supremacy hate groups. None of the other things are used as a symbol for that.
Dylann Roof posed for pictures with the Confederate Flag and the flags of apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia were sewn on his jacket. He didn’t pose for pictures pointing to a street sign with Byrd’s name on it or Strom Thurman’s. He didn’t posed next to any statues of Confederate generals either.
Not everything is a symbol and not everything is a slippery slope.
@apprenticeprof
This may be getting too far OT, but how does the call to derecognize Columbus Day and recall the statue of Father Junipero Serra square with your analysis?
@TatinG Before we worry about where it will stop, let’s worry about getting it started. The Rebel flag still flies at the statehouse. And in fact – and this is gobsmackingly offensive and insensitive – that flag will fly over the body of one of last week’s victims as he lies in state at the capitol. It seems to me that the S. Carolina legislature could take a quick voice vote to get rid of it at least for this event. But no. They’re not that eager to get started.
The flag is gone, it’s just a matter of time. But I wonder at the near hysterical reaction of some on TV and in the Congress to pile on.
414 Yes and the call to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill. (Although now I read that Alexander Hamilton is the one to be demoted from the $10. I wonder what his historical offense was. He didn't own slaves. His financial acumen saved this country from ruin after the Revolution. But he is to be replaced by a woman. Who? Not known.)
Alabama’s legislature doesn’t have to vote on removal so the Gov. just ordered all 4 flags be taken down from their Confederate memorial on the statehouse grounds.
How many more states to go?
I think the reaction would be less “hysterical” if it hadn’t taken so very very long for pro-flaggers to understand what the rest of us (including lots of white S. Carolinians) have always thought was pretty obvious: that the flag is a symbol of oppression, and that, as Gov Haley suddenly realized two days ago, the capitol belongs to all S. Carolinians.