The statue of General Robert E. Lee has been removed and a new flag for Texas.

[glen smith]

With all the hoopla surrounding the removal of statues memorializing the soldiers who fought for the Confederate States of America some thought has been given to other offensive symbols to the descendants of slaves. School districts are changing the names of schools named after confederate leaders. Cities are renaming streets and municipal buildings.

The first symbol to be political incorrect was the Confederate Battle Flag. It seems that every state flag of the Confederate States of America should also be considered offensive to the descendants of slaves. The worst offender is the State of Texas for under its state flag it existed as an independent nation which allowed slavery for nine years before becoming the 28^th state in 1845. So not to offend the descendants of slaves should not all the state flags of the Confederate States of America be required to be changed – especially Texas?

Today, it is politically incorrect to memorialize soldiers who fought for the Confederate States of America even if they were our ancestors. Today, there are some southerners whose great, great grandparents died, lost limbs, or returned forever wounded which along with the destructive acts of war continue to scar their descendants – just as does slavery continues to scar the descendants of slaves. Most who fought and died were not slave holders. They were just common people of the towns and land. They fought because of where they were born as a matter of patriotism just as did General Lee who declined the role of general in the Union Army. However, must we forget our wounded ancestors who fought and lost a war which has judged their sacrifice was for an unethical cause? Not forgetting remains a solace for pain and loss just as remembering inflames. When symbols of history past are erased from sight, the cause for which victor and vanquished suffered becomes less relevant. Do the descendants of slaves really wish that all America forgets slavery ever existed or that there remain many who continue to be racially prejudiced?

Why is it that the worst 20^th century holocaust of western civilization is so diligently preserved? Are the preserved death camps and the memorials to those who died and survived pleasing to the Jew? The benefit is certainly not because remembering is inoffensive. How does the Jew and the world benefit from these symbols?

Conclusion: Down with the Texas lone star flag! It should be replaced by vertical stripes of green, white, and red, as is the flag of Mexico to reflect the near future demographics of Texas and on the center white field something similar to the state seal of Kansas or Mexico only representing oil under bluebonnet flowers. Let us erase that which offends us in history since no lessons are learned from remembering the suffering, the losses, or the victories. Forget the Alamo and Goliad too! These acts of war resulting in battle victories for Mexico will offend the future majority in Texas.

10 October 2017 glen

[Baruch]

It doesn't behoove us to forget the past. We are made to recount our sins, in part, so that we can appreciate the fullness of God's grace, and His goodness towards us. What a foolish sequence of generations, which has culminated in this.

Germany post-WWII banned all symbols of the Nazi regime. This was done by those in control of Germany, who legislated and rolled out by-laws that were in agreement with the victors of the war. Consequently it was illegal to render the salute, display the swastika, including the Reichsmark. The Reichsmark struck prior to the wartime years was a valuable silver coin composed of 0.500 fine silver. While on tour in Berlin I befriended an older German fellow who was a child during the war. He gave me one of these coins. I had no idea what I held in my hand, and have since misplaced that peculiar gift.

I'll make no statements passing judgement, whether such an attempt at erasure was right or wrong. The war was a very complicated mess, and we are not meant to understand it.

Reason and understanding are nigh impossible for kings to manage. Rather we're meant and taught to react emotionally to humanist tropes. The victors assured the crippling of our reason, with their careful crafting of "history", and indoctrination mills known as public education, so that the truth of those years takes much labor to mine. Meanwhile, our emotional buttons are created as big easy targets, with user-friendly labels: so that not only can the Great Dispensers of Truth on high mash them, but also can we mash on each other's.

I mention the Nazi erasure because that "greatest evil" is the thing that Western nations point to as the thing to avoid. There have been far worse atrocities. Yet this is the byword chosen by the world leaders, the bad thing to avoid at any cost. We will never repeat it.

They lie. They repeat it daily.

The Texas erasure is an example of this intellect and its machinations at work.

It is also noteworthy that most people think they are inherently mostly good, and only capable of situational evil. If this were so, then why would there be a consensus that democratic tyranny is needed to suppress "the rise of evil"? Why do people profess this while demonstrating their distrust in most other people? Because, according to the apostle Paul, They walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. We need the life of God.

We should be offended at our sins, and the sins of our fathers. We should mark them and determine not to repeat them. This is impossible if we gloss them over or erase them. It is a lie. Worse in this case, it's a lie on top of other lies. I see many people offended at others' sins while holding themselves sinless. "Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" is an appropriate condemnation.

[Baruch]

I mulled this over while doing chores and it occurred to me that you might not know how I meant my post, Glen. I meant it to complement yours. I noticed your irony and delivery, and I agree with the implication and attempted to use it as my spring board. I hope you gathered that much, although I didn't spell it out. I'll try and remember my mistake next time and learn from it, much preferable to embracing the world leaders' doctrine of erasure and reinvention.

[Lou Newton]

It doesn't behoove us to forget the past. We are made to recount our sins, in part, so that we can appreciate the fullness of God's grace, and His goodness towards us. What a foolish sequence of generations, which has culminated in this.

Germany post-WWII banned all symbols of the Nazi regime. This was done by those in control of Germany, who legislated and rolled out by-laws that were in agreement with the victors of the war. Consequently it was illegal to render the salute, display the swastika, including the Reichsmark. The Reichsmark struck prior to the wartime years was a valuable silver coin composed of 0.500 fine silver. While on tour in Berlin I befriended an older German fellow who was a child during the war. He gave me one of these coins. I had no idea what I held in my hand, and have since misplaced that peculiar gift.

I'll make no statements passing judgement, whether such an attempt at erasure was right or wrong. The war was a very complicated mess, and we are not meant to understand it.

Reason and understanding are nigh impossible for kings to manage. Rather we're meant and taught to react emotionally to humanist tropes. The victors assured the crippling of our reason, with their careful crafting of "history", and indoctrination mills known as public education, so that the truth of those years takes much labor to mine. Meanwhile, our emotional buttons are created as big easy targets, with user-friendly labels: so that not only can the Great Dispensers of Truth on high mash them, but also can we mash on each other's.

I mention the Nazi erasure because that "greatest evil" is the thing that Western nations point to as the thing to avoid. There have been far worse atrocities. Yet this is the byword chosen by the world leaders, the bad thing to avoid at any cost. We will never repeat it.

They lie. They repeat it daily.

The Texas erasure is an example of this intellect and its machinations at work.

It is also noteworthy that most people think they are inherently mostly good, and only capable of situational evil. If this were so, then why would there be a consensus that democratic tyranny is needed to suppress "the rise of evil"? Why do people profess this while demonstrating their distrust in most other people? Because, according to the apostle Paul, They walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. We need the life of God.

We should be offended at our sins, and the sins of our fathers. We should mark them and determine not to repeat them. This is impossible if we gloss them over or erase them. It is a lie. Worse in this case, it's a lie on top of other lies. I see many people offended at others' sins while holding themselves sinless. "Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" is an appropriate condemnation.

It seems that most everyone, and probably everyone, sees the sins of others, but are at least slow to see their sin.

This is very evident in the liberals of the US. I watched this video today where a liberal student wanted our nation to pay blacks reparations. But he attended a very expensive University and when asked if he would give up his spot in the University to a black student, he said no. He was wanting to force others to do what he was not willing to do himself.

This is what liberals want to do. They want to force the middle class to give their property to the poor. But these elitists will not be hurt. So the elite and the poor support their view. But the middle class want the freedom for everyone to decide how much they give to the poor.

True freedom makes charity a choice, not an act that someone is forced to do.

[glen smith]

Baruch, I picked up on what you meant. It did spring board off my post and made good observations about Nazi Germany.

I think the legitimate criticisms of my post are two fold.

1. The statues of war heroes of the Confederate States of America are not in any sense the same as holocaust memorials. What would be a closer similarity is if Germans erected a statue of Adolph Hitler. This would be offensive. It seems this would most closely relate to the feelings of the descendants of slaves about confederate statues.

2. All Confederate States of America symbols have the potential of encouraging white supremacist or racism. Many if not all the statues and memorials to the soldiers of the CSA were erected in a time and atmosphere of hatred for the union and oppression of former slaves (Jim Crowe Laws). However, the ideas for erecting the memorials were for remembering those who served and died. Yet, some will always use the symbols for purposes never intended. The current example of NFL players not standing while the national anthem is played is such a case of hijacking a symbol for unintended purposes. But it does not follow that the national anthem should be abolished.

Baruch, you make an appropriate point about the crafting of history. In the face of modern civil rights movements and a more sensitive American conciseness, historians have restated the purpose of the civil war as being over slavery. I am just barely old enough to recall my great grandparents’ perspectives. For them the war was for the “South” and the rights of Southerners. This most certainly included the legal right for slave ownership, but by a large majority Southerners never owned slaves. During my childhood years no one I or my parents knew came from families who owned slaves. But we did not live or come from a slave region. In the 1860 census only 8% of Americans families owned slaves.

Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a now-inactive census archive site at the University of Virginia.

Mississippi: 49% South Carolina: 46% Georgia: 37% Alabama: 35% Florida: 34%

Louisiana: 29% Texas: 28% North Carolina: 28% Virginia: 26% Tennessee: 25%

Kentucky: 23% Arkansas: 20% Missouri: 13% Maryland: 12% Delaware: 3%

In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%. In the Border States (DE, MD, KY, MO -- those slave states that did not secede) the percentage of slave-ownership was 15.9%, and the total throughout the slave states was almost exactly 26%.

When the American Civil War began, President Abraham Lincoln framed the conflict as concerning the preservation of the Union. The reality was that neither Northerners nor the residents of the border slave states would support abolition of slavery as a war aim. The wealthy shipping families of the northeast had built their fortunes on the slave trade and much of their business was in shipping cotton from the south to English mills. These wealthy families did not want slaves freed because it would impact cotton production.

But by mid-1862, as thousands of slaves fled to join the invading Northern armies, Lincoln was convinced that abolition had become a sound military strategy to motivate union soldiers with a much needed moral cause to fight. On September 22, 1862 soon after the Union victory at Antietam, Lincoln issued a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that as of January 1, 1863, all slaves in the rebellious states “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” While the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, it was an important turning point in the war, transforming the fight to preserve the nation into a battle for eliminating slavery in the south. It is very important to realize the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the Confederate States of America and not to states in the union which allowed slavery (DE, MD, KY, MO). Therefore, how can the claim be legitimate that the purpose of the Civil War was to free the slaves?

For the CSA the Civil War was about the right of these states to succeed from the United States of America. States had joined the union voluntarily through the vote of the respective citizens of each state. Therefore, could a state also leave the union by the vote of its citizens? It was the military strategy of President Lincoln that reframed the Civil War from being about preserving the union in spite of the will of the states of the CSA into a war to free slaves in the CSA.

In the CSA about 25% of the men of fighting age died during the war. In addition to this 1 in 4 who did not survive there were many more wounded who survived. Virtually, every southern family either lost a family member or had a wounded family member from the war.

Considering the above information does the desire of the former states of the CSA to honor their soldiers appear in a different light? That the Civil War was simply about slavery is revisionist history designed to suit the agenda of the descendants of slavery in their struggle for civil rights. This is what also reframes the CSA statues and names of public buildings as symbols of oppression rather than memorials honoring those who fought. But alas, this is lost cause. Few care about the how the Southerns understood the causes of the war.

11 October 2017 glen