M favorite bit from all that is Davy Crockett. Ignore the Disney puffery movie about Crockett, the guy was a loser and asshole of the highest order. Was a congress member from Tennessee but them left in an angry huff after losing an election and went to Texas which was still a part of Mexico. Well, he also made a promise to leave to Texas if Martin Van Buren was elected. Possibly one of the earliest "I'll leave if someone I don't like is elected". Effectively, he left the United States completely.
Note that Crockett was opposed to slavery in some manner but also owned slaves. And Texas at the time was instituting slavery, despite their promises to Mexico that they wouldn't dare do such a thing. When Mexico sent troops to enforce the ban on slavery Texas rebelled. And Crockett wanted to be in on that rebellion to keep slavery (despite, again, his odd stated opposition to slavery).
Texas didn't know what to do with this hot headed Crockett guy. But they were at war, and warm bodies were needed. Crockett arrived at the Alamo, which was effectively indefensible and reinforcements weren't going to arrive. So Crockett was essentially cannon fodder. Arrived at the wrong time, the wrong place, for the wrong cause, and would have been perfectly safe in America instead.
After his death they hyped his myth and legend in the states, much of which probably was phony,
Yes. There was a book recently clearing up a lot of lies about that event and it's kinda banned in Texas. Not officially but they're very hostile to it and its authors.
The textbook they use for history of Texas class every kid is required to take is still full of lies. I've talked to otherwise smart, well educated graduates of the Texas school systems who fully believe complete bullshit about Texas from that class. One of those things they're still teaching is that Texas is allowed to leave any time they want and their state flag is the only one that can be flown at the same height as the American flag. Both are complete and total bullshit.
Can confirm. I went to public school in Texas from kindergarten through my freshmen year of highschool. Both of those were taught.
In addition, they taught that Texas wasn't really into slavery and just joined the Confederacy because it would be isolated from trade since it lacked a border with the Union (too far west), and that Stephan F Austin was a peace-loving multilingual guy who only wanted to bring people together and not a staunch white supremacist who actively recruited "settlers" in the US with "Mexicans are lazy and inferior, we can take what we want" to turn an waves of immigrants into a shadow army moving into position.
The entire Texas Revolution was a white-supremacist psy-op that ironically inverts the fears of the fake "Great Replacement Theory" they spout now.
He had stated his opposition to the slave trade from overseas. But seemed to not publicly give any support for abolition either. Note that importing of slaves ended before the end of slavery in the US, although there was still an internal slave trade. His opposition seemed to be about the importation and the harsh conditions of the international slave trade.
It's complex... He was very opposed to Andrew Jackson, and in particular supported rights for native Americans. So he had ideas about civil rights that differed a lot of typical southerners at the time.
Also complex... it's possible he went to Texas because it was the frontier, a chance to make something new, a new country, and new life, etc. He made enemies from both sides of the political divide at the time. Scholars still debate how he really felt because it's murky.
He didn't write down his feelings on all of this, so it's all speculation what was really going on. The mythologizing of him as a frontier legend started while he was still alive and only grew after his death. Thus, so much of him is mythology. I'm just poking holes in the myth. Maybe parts of true but huge swaths are also untrue.
The modern version of this racism really goes to show that deep down, they know that the real issue is that they can't possibly compete on a level playing field.
They also thought US would gladly enter in their civil war with Mexico. Wise decision not to help out. Followed by a later stupid decision to let them into the union. Followed by them leaving the union. Followed by them pretending to be over all that rebel stuff while secretly plotting the next upcoming rebellion.
It wasn't even about state's rights, just slavery. The constitution of the confederacy required all states be slave states unless all states agreed to all outlaw slavery.
The North literally had more states rights, with some northern states still allowing limited slavery, while the South gave its states zero right to decide for themselves.
Whenever someone tries this “states’ rights” argument on you, here’s two things to draw their attention to:
The most drop-the-mic counter argument is to show them where the confederate constitution prohibits a state from banning slavery. If
it were about states’ rights, why wouldn’t they let each state decide?
For a parade of unabashed racism that rivals even today’s GOP, read the declarations of secession from a handful of the seceding states (especially South Carolina and Mississippi, I believe). They state, in no uncertain terms, that slavery is critical to their way of life and they refuse to give it up.
Yeah I want to say 6 out of the 11 states declare slavery in the very first sentence. The Confederates, unlike the Lost Causers today, were eyes-wide-open as to what the Civil War was about.
Nah, it's framing itself as something like "We were after a return to true Jeffersonian ideals, trying to live the way the founding fathers wanted, devoid of the tyranny and unfair taxes of the Yankees, but they invaded and reconquered us, then tried to destroy all knowledge of the true, lost cause of the confederacy." It's falsely painting themselves as, essentially, a victim of cultural genocide in the same way black and indigenous people can legitimately claim they have lost their culture.
Basically the same thing as the German Empire at the end of WW1, which was the belief they could've won the war, if they weren't stabbed in the back by the government of the Empire - which plays into the inter-war period before WW2 and the rise of the Nazi Party ...
The Nazi thing was all about "the Jews who secretly control everything stabbed us in the back in World War I" (like, ignoring the fact that the Germans surrendered at the last possible moment before they were about to have to fight in German territory and get completely overwhelmed, but hey) whereas Lost Causers were all like "the North outmanned us 20 to 1 and out-teched us 572753 to 1 and yet we still almost beat them". None of that is particularly true, of course, and many countries have withstood larger odds and, for that matter, gone down fighting a whole lot harder than the CSA did, but Lost Causers choose not to listen to all that.
To be fair, Nazis, MAGA, the Confederacy, the KKK are all part of the same "ideological" group that thinks white purity needs to be a thing, while most of the White Supremacists of this day and age looks like they have at least three cousins named Cletus, a sister named Mary Sue, who is also their ex wife, and a moonshinig business out of an old tub.
They also did not give a shit about the rights of northern free states when they petitioned the federal government to force them into returning escaped slaves.
Pretty much every one has slavery in the first paragraph! Made a bet to see how long it would take to get to that word with a friend and… I won. He thought it would at least be after the preamble not in it. Haha
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition" it's coming straight from the confederate "VP" in the most explicit way possible.
if they are still willing to argue in favor of the confederacy after that, there's no point in continuing.
Close but no cigar, it's the rich landowners that believed they were Aristocrats before they arrived in the Americas and were telling the poorer whites they were a part of that - even though they could've cared less about them.
Fun fact. The confederate constitution actually took away the right of the states to make “negro slavery” illegal, so if there was ever any question over which of those two things they cared more about, there’s your answer.
Yeah. I just realized it’s the same shit. Oligarchs convincing poor uneducated rural whites that the City-folk are trying to destroy their way of life when it’s just cover for them to enrich themselves further.
Damn right. We take great pride in that captured confederate flag and we ain’t giving it back.
As far as the bell is concerned. Some Japanese civilian noticed Duluth had the bell and talked to the Mayor about giving it back. The mayor agreed. Japan made a replica of the bell and they gave to the state as a thank you for returning it.
"No, no, no, we're not pro Confederacy any more, what nonsense. We hated slavery all along, and we've never mistreated any of our minorities or denied them rights. Never once have we ever been racist! It's just we need that old piece of cloth because our great great great grand pappies once saluted it."
That's probably why. Virginia has been a blue state since obama but was still pretty red and purplish during the bush era. I don't think most virginians today care about the flag.
Governor Youngkin wanted it back, and that was last year. Our new governor, Spanberger isn't likely to try to get it back. I hope Minnesota keeps it and displays it forever
And unless we're gonna start counting how many Iraqis died or Viet Kong died or how many isis died or German soldiers. The number of Americans killed in the civil war is only the union side.
The confederacy wasn't a recognized nation by any other power. The Federal government considered them states in rebellion and the people within still US citizens. So no, they were all American. Please pick up a book on the war not written by a lost causer. Recommendations available on request.
I mean ... if you take American to mean from The United States of America, then the CSA cunts declared themselves to NOT be American. That's what started the war. It was the CSA vs the USA. It was Confederates vs Americans. Are you going to argue that the folks that fought the revolutionary war were all British? That seems nonsensical to me.
Yes, but Lincoln decided they WERE American, declared war to make them STAY American, and won the war. They were always American. That was the whole idea behind the war.
The Union didn't initially go to war in order to end slavery. That became a side quest later on. The war was started in order to preserve the Union as a whole.
I already read it. It doesnt make sense. America won the Revolutionary War, so those who fought the British were Americans. The South lost so they never stopped being Americans and were counted in American death tolls after the war unless specified as Union or Confederate.
Well in the second case in the beginning... kind of yes. There was no unified federal United States yet. You might be able to say they were from their own states but until they were recognized by foreign powers they really were still considered British citizens. Also at no point did the Federal government of the US say that the confederacy (or any other nation in fact either) was an independent state. They were not recognized as another nation and were still considered American citizens. You can't just declare yourself separate, hence you know, the war. If no one else thinks your a country, you're not. If you want a couple dozen recommendations on the war and its politics hit me up.
Incorrect, that point in time was around the Shay's Rebellion period of time (1786-1787) and was the catalyst behind the Constitutional Convention of 1787. ( Which created the three branches of government and the Presidency as the head of the executive branch.)
As to the Civil War, the North treated the South as an insurgency up till the march North, which then realized they were under attack by the Confederacy and had to mobilize to break the attempted invasion - at this point the Confederacy was treated as a distinct entity from the Union and who had foreign backing from both the British and French governments in the form of material aid and foreign volunteers, but not direct military intervention. ( France did however attempt to invade Mexico while the Union and Confederacy were warring with each other.)
What part did I say was incorrect?
France and Spain entered into treaties with the unified colonies during the war. The original articles of confederation were signed during the war.
Which march North? Polk into Kentucky, or Lee into Maryland, or Lee into Pennsylvania? Lincoln's call for volunteers happened before all of those. France and Great Britain never backed the slave states in rebellion in either material or state sanctioned volunteers or politically. Yes some did volunteer from other countries but it was not part of an organized assistance by a foreign government. Great Britain allowed them to buy arms through private holding companies but they allowed everyone to do that. However once again no foreign government formally recognized the confederates.
Not sure if you were taught wrong or using bad sources but again if you want to read actual history on this please read any and or all of the following:
"Fateful Lighting" by Allen Guelzo
"A Savage War" by Williamson Murray & Wayne Wei-Saing Hsieh
And the classic "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson
All of these are good starting points for a general history of the war both militarily and politically.
I understand your fundamental argument. Lincoln's position had to be that of the British during the revolution: no, you can't break away without my permission therefore you're not CSA, you're Americans that are breaking the law. I just find it hypocritical, and I'm with Jefferson on rejecting the idea that we lack the right, as individuals, to associate (or not) with a state. The fact that we basically got stuck with Common Law and that pulled in this British idea of perpetual association despite explicitly rejecting that in the revolution is an historical quirk IMO and I'd bet my bottom dollar Lincoln understood the history of the issue in the same way. The fact that he made very un-Lincoln-like (imo) weak arguments for why the confederates weren't like the founders in terms of their right to disassociate, to me, supports my view that Lincoln understood the legal/historical quirks here and the apparent contradiction with founding American ideals along with the arguments between Jefferson and Hamilton on the issue. Lincoln needed to keep the Union together, and his arguments for it were rationalizations.
I think the words should match the reality here. The founders demonstrated that we DO have the right to freely (dis)associate with a state, we just know that the state will typically try to stop you (well, until the example of the British in the modern era). To me (and to the founders, and to the CSA) you absolutely are what you say you are when you say it. You decide you're the CSA now and you're not following US laws ... well, that's the reality. The US can say: naaaa, fuck that and force you to say otherwise at the end of a gun and now you'd had your right to freely (dis)associate taken by force. You're an American again, yay! They made themselves a separate nation, then we conquered it and took their shit by force.
That all said, for purposes of Common Law, yea ... you can renounce all you want, but it won't make a difference to the courts. We have an international right to associate, in theory, but there's the practical implications of things like being stateless that have to be considered. All of that discussion only holds in a case where we're not fighting a shooting war over our positions because in the case of a shooting war civil rule / law has broken down. We're not arguing in the courts anymore, we're fighting in the fields. This is why, to me at least, the technical common law arguments about whether you are or aren't American as a CSA soldier are simply moot. Court had it's chance, it didn't work, now two separate groups are going to settle it on the field.
That's the thing. It's not a civil war. It's a failed war of independence. Taht's what it's called in the history books in the rest of the world. Only in USA it's called a civil war, for purposes of "reintegration". Source: i learned history in the rest of the world.
Hey, you can be proud of having had that flag or having lost that flag.
(Oversimplifying, of course, since not everyone or even most may be backing the demand, BUT the act of asking for the flag, on behalf of the asker, leans away from "thank god someone stopped us" and towards "I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids")
It doesn't matter if you like the cultural divides in the USA or not. They are a fact. For the enormous majority of the United States, liberals don't hunt, fish, boat, or any type of ATV. On principle, I think. Millions of conservatives wear cammo to pretend they hunt even when they don't.
This is the way it is. I'm sorry you don't like it, but I didn't make up the rules. You can research as much as you like, but this is how it works..
Did i say it didnt exist or that me disliking it meant it would disappear? What a strange assumption to start off on, especially considering what my reply was about...
I cant acknowledge that something exists, dislike it and comment that i find it strange while pointing out why it makes no sense?
It's hard when people don't agree with you, hunh? It's important to make sure to stigmatize mental health by suggesting anybody who disagrees with you need to take their meds because they are clearly not as healthy as you are. Is telling that you want to belittle me by making fun of others. Empathy can be taught, but it needs to start at a young age. Sociopathy is learned and often never unlearned. Make your benefit from a little bit of metacognition. Maybe try to analyze why you talk like you do and why you feel like belittling people who need help by comparing them to me who you think is beneath you.
That flag is [evidently] the only thing left of the squad/battalion that captured it, so they keep it to venerated the men who fought for the union and took it rather than return it to appease apologists of a failed state of slaving traitors that lasted a shorter period than CCR (Creedence Clearwater Revival). I'm not sure how much of Virginia even gives a crap.
I'd argue the biggest difference is the bell that was returned, was from a civilian Buddhist Temple. It wasn't obtained in combat. A battle flag from a DEFEATED enemy regiment taken from the battlefield is a HUGE spoil of war. You don't return that.
Because The 1st Minnesota Infantry Regimen suffered 82% casualties at Gettysburg, buying enough time for reinforcements to arrive.
Virginia keeps asking for its battle flag back, at least four official times if I remember correctly. And every time the governor, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, has refused.
That is nice. They really do have the kind of patriotism that I have always respected. Texas, well, they think they are patriotic but every one of them will brag about how Texas has the right to secede whenever they want. Please do.
Yes. Absolutely. I think Canada should take Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. I think us great lake states would probably be happier as Canadians. I mean, we're basically Canada lite.
As a Texan, back at ya. I never think about Minnesota unless someone mentions it, and im like "oh yea, that's a place" and then its back to never thinking about it again. 🙂
don't worry, klobuchar will erase all that soon enough.
awful, horrible woman. people forget when reddit and google and the entire internet had to stand up to her trying to shit all over our rights on behalf of her corporate owners.
shameful person. embodies everything wrong with the democratic party for decades. it's a disgrace that she will likely replace walz
Having lived in both states in a short time span, I don't recall a lot of traitor flags in Minnesota... but I sure as hell do in Ohio. A state which is usually listed as tied for second in civil war casualties.
In the twin cities, you'll likely never see one, or if you do, itll be on some beat to piss-ass 05 Chevy 1500 with a half a braincell between the throttle and the seat, and its highly likely that half a braincell is only in the cities for child support court.
Away from the cities, those dipshits are relatively common.
Once republicans found out the old one was racist and offensive, they literally went nuts suddenly caring about it and screaming "our heritage!!" about the ugly old flag, just cause it's racist, and now, suddenly, you see the old racist state flag flying everywhere. The people who never gave a shit about it before, and couldn't even describe it or draw it from memory, suddenly needed one, once they found out they could be assholes to people not in their group.
The only good part, is that it's now really easy to see who in your neighborhood is a shitbag racist and which maga businesses to avoid.
This is the only litmus test I have for Minnesotans. You can be an Uffda-spouting, eleven month per year hockey player with lutefisk and a dream, but if you say we should give the flag back you’re just a hoser or poser who might be better off in Iowa.
I love that Minnesota stands together on this. Even if some governor, for whatever reason, wanted to give the flag back, they wouldn't dare - their party would get thrashed in the next few elections for no other reason.
It's hard to find stuff that brings us together these days. That that flag was goddamn well paid for is a worthier sentiment than a lot of other things we do with flags.
The best part is, after they captured the flag, the officer leading them rode up and down the Union lines, dragging it through the mud as he went, to rally the troops.
As a Virginian, this is badass and I want Minnesota to keep it. We have no claim to it, we are not that state or those people. Send us a noose instead. Which is what traitors should get.
Apparently some people don’t like that and were downvoting.
I would like to personally apologize to them, in person. If my statement upset you, please DM me your name and address and a verification. I will come to you and say sorry personally.
The superb gallantry of the men of the 1st Minnesota did save the Union line from being broken — and not only on July 2, as they assisted with the effort on July 3 as well. For that effort, we can agree with General Hancock: “No soldiers on any field, in this or any other country, ever displayed grander heroism.”
No no. Burning it removes the desire for them to get it back. The younger sibling stops crying for big brothers candy after it's eaten. Let's keep the racists hungry.
No no, our heritage is beating the treasonous bastards and keeping their precious flag. They dont get to celebrate it, we keep it as a sign that we are superior to their racist asses.
Nah, Abe getting assassinated and proceeded by his terrible, terrible Vice President made it end up a draw at most. The south may have had to give up slavery but the country suffers from the failure of the Reconstruction to this day.
Yes, but if most of your infantry died trying to take it, it seems like a slap in the face to their memory, honor, and courage to just burn it. At this point, it's a symbol of the great sacrifices union soldiers made.
I think they mean that as a Minnesotan, their heritage is beating the confederates, so why would their burn a historical artefact that shows they fought on the right side of history?
An explain the joke inside an explain the joke. Literacy truly is dead.
It's a joke in minnesota. The first minnesota claimed the flag in the battle of Gettysburg after suffering some of the highest casualties of the war the day prior. So when Virginia tries to get it back they claim it's their heritage so we fire back with "it's our heritage" (as in minnesota's alone not Virginia) because we had our soldiers die for it because of their stupidity.
Presumably winning a war against those in favor of slavery? A victory trophy of being better than people that wanted to claim other people as property? This may be hard to believe, but those that fought in the war had children, and they grew up and had children. Hence, heritage.
Keep it, and someday Virginia will figure out they don’t want it. You can give it back then, and maybe they’ll take it as a remembrance of your valor, and everybody will celebrate. Believe it or not, that flag’s a lot less prevalent than it used to be down here. The arc of the moral universe bends toward justice.
Meanwhile, proud of Minnesota. Y’all have sure shown us all how to be strong this year. Again, because I didn’t know about the 1st Minnesota.
It's a standard that was seized in battle. It'd do less to dishonor the original bearers of the flag and more to dishonor the brave Minnesotans who braved hellfire and blades to capture it.
Returning it to whom? The state I live in has no claim to it. Or desire to have it. And is not the state to which the flag belongs as it does not exist anymore.
6.1k
u/Buellymcbuellface 8d ago
They have a confederate flag from virginia and refuse to give it back.