This message was self-deleted by its author

[kentuck]

This message was self-deleted by its author (kentuck) on Mon Jun 29, 2015, 03:18 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[arcane1]

1. People are "talking about banning everything connected with the South during the Civil War"?

I'm glad I missed it!

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Maybe banning everything that just plain sucks?

A noble proposition. Unworkable to be sure, but an admirable thought.

[arcane1]

24. It's a start!

[TheCount_]

23. I'm glad I missed it too

But you can see how things were tolerated that led to a deterioration of the country over decades.

I'm not even sure what the OP means by banned. You obviously can't pass a law, but government should make it very hard on people selling and promoting these items. I don't think they should play it on the radio. You could say that a person would have to be 21 to buy the CD. They practically banned the Dixie Chicks for telling it like it is and for arguing with that dirty prick Toby Keith.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. deterioration? Hank Williams Jr. is a retrograde fucknut. Most Americans don't agree with him.

Most Americans support things like LGBT marriage equality, whereas even 10 years ago they didn't.

Part of this is because we "tolerate" media that a lot of people would have liked to see banned.

using what happened to the Dixie Chicks as an argument for censoring media that pisses people off is kind of ironic.

[TheCount_]

53. You're comparing the Dixie Chicks to Hank Williams?

The Dixie Chicks made a single comment in England. Hank Williams promotes divisiveness and a disgusting symbol in this country. The symbol is not even subtle. It's like the Nazi flag. In fact, there is a thread around here comparing the Nazi flag with the Confederate flag. The Nazi flag is curbed in Germany because of practicalities. The same should be done with the confederate flag here.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. I'm saying that when you start dancing down the road of censoring speech that is unpopular

pretty soon you run up against people wanting to censor things you support. That is the lesson of the Dixie Chicks.

Germany doesn't have the 1st Amendment. Personally I believe that the 1st Amendment is a stronger bulwark against Nazi-style totalitarianism than banning a symbol ever could be, and I had family members die in those camps.

That said, there's no reason the confederate flag should be flying at statehouses or any other public venue.

[TheCount_]

61. Not really

The Dixie Chicks simply made a statement. No harm to anyone. The Nazi and Confederate flags incite hate because they are about hate. If you say the flag should not fly on public grounds but not private grounds, then that is hypocritical. The reasons for getting rid of it are the same.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. You don't understand the 1st Amendment, then.

Also, there's a difference between me saying it "should" be flown on private property, and me saying it's unconstitutional to make a law against it being flown on private property.

Funny, I seem to remember having this exact argument with someone who was banned 3 or 4 days ago. Odd.

[TheCount_]

66. Don't tell me.

Tell that to the Supreme Court. These cases are not monolithic. Flag burning cases, for example, often have divided opinions. The 1989 Texas v Johnson case, for example, was not unanimous. The dissenting opinion emphasized that the flag's symbol of national unity outweighed symbolic speech. If a court can uphold a law emphasizing national unity, then the opposite would apply. A flag or item causing such discord could also be the subject of limited speech.

Yes, the court favored and generally favors flag burning. That will happen unless, or perhaps until, the majority sees it the other way.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. And a dissenting opinion in a supreme court case carries exactly zero legal weight.

In the meantime I will comfortably continue to with the ACLU, etc. on matters pertaining to the 1st Amendment and know that current constitutional and judicial precedent agrees with me.

[TheCount_]

70. Not really.

It does not carry any weight, but it is influential. There are many 5-4 decisions. That can tip the next time around. The first amendment is also not monolithic. It is subject to restrictions.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Round and round we go.

Youre wrong, you cant ban speech you dont like or that pisses someone off, end of story, im done, im not going to spend all damn day arguing the constitution with you. Bye.

If you disagree, fine- go ahead and try and have someone arrested for saying something you dont like, singing a stupid, bigoted song, or flying an offensive flag. knock yourself out.

Ps. It's "there", not "their".

[TheCount_]

73. I'm not talking about banning

something that ticks off someone. I am talking about more than that. What if one of these rednecks wheres a confederate flag t shirt at a gathering where a lot of black people attend? That can get pretty in your face. These things are given to creeping up. They can be subtle. Or in this case not so subtle. And what good is free speech if you're not safe to speak it or walk around with people in your face all the time? Facebook and other things are bad enough. Seems people are in your face more than ever. Some people are just looking for a fight. I know it's true with these hate mongers and their stupid southern rock.

BTW, what is your PS? Their/there. I know how to spell.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. You say you're not talking about 'banning something that ticks off someone' and then proceed to give

examples of exactly that.

Yes, I know. "incitement", like drawing a blasphemous cartoon, or flying a racist flag, or, I don't know, getting up on stage at a rally for homophobic right wing fuckheads and going "i'm gay"

See where I'm going with this? You can't give a heckler's veto to everyone who might get mad about something, even if they might get REALLY mad, even if you think they have a good reason to get really mad, even if the person KNOWS they're going to make the other person really mad.

It doesn't work that way.

As for the rest of it - "facebook and other things are bad enough"- why? No one has to go on facebook by court order, do they? Seems to me someone who hates facebook needs to go to the extensive trouble of NOT typing "facebook.com" in their browser window. Onerous and in your face, indeed!

Lastly, you asked what this was about, before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6899965

And I answered.

[TheCount_]

75. Ha ha

Okay, I misspelled their/there. Excuse me because I probably have not done that one since 4th grade.

Anyway, we probably have different experiences. I'm just saying it's not either/or. Yes, people get mad and need to control their anger. But you see that many do not control it on their own. If they can't control themselves, then someone will have to pick up the slack.

We live in an angry society full of hate. That hate begins with vitriol in places everywhere. Every heard of a hate crime? The founding fathers probably had no concept of this, but society was different back then. The first amendment was not meant to cover viscous hate of the type we see today. The hate crime is a well placed concept. It often start innocently enough in the locker room or a bar. A joke then becomes an unloading of feelings. People look for targets. Symbols are inflammatory.

The point is that ALL of this starts with people getting mad. Combine that anger with hateful symbol, and you have a cocktail for things like hate crimes. You can take all your ivory towerness and be proud, but it won't do you any good if you can't secure walking down the street and not being bothered.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. I have heard of a hate crime. Emphasis on crime.

The speech itself, alone, cannot be a crime. If someone commits a crime and bigotry is part of the motive, hate crime statutes can apply. But again, it has to be in the context of an actual crime, like assualt, vandalism, etc- those are crimes.

To reiterate, the speech itself, alone, cannot be the crime. That is the 1st amendment.

And I happen to consider the 1st amendment a milestone in the progress of freedom of the human mind, a bulwark against all forms of totalitarianism AND hate. That is not an "ivory tower" viewpoint. As I said before, i had relatives in Nazi camps- yet I understand why Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie. In fact, i understand that to censor the nazis, would have been a victory for them. Allowing them the freedom to air their noxious views- and be refuted- is conversely a victory for everything their ideology stands in opposition to.

[TheCount_]

77. These marches

are still highly regulated. You have to get a permit. Sometimes quite expensive, depending on the security needed. The location of the marches is also controlled so as to minimum potential violence.

This is as it should be. Again, it makes the point that free speech is subject to regulation, depending on safety issues. As it should be.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. Regulation, yes. However, it is notable that the march was allowed to proceed on 1A grounds.

The point being that outlawing or censoring the content of the speech is not constitutionally permissible. That's the crux of the biscuit.

[TheCount_]

80. And some marches are not allowed to proceed at all.

That is the crux.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Not on the basis of the -content- of the speech.

That's the point you're consistently missing.

[TheCount_]

82. No, it is on the content of speech.

The powers that be see a march/demonstration as too inflammatory or provocative, so they set up barriers to stonewall. They might cite one reason, but we know it comes down to speech. And if it stops the hate mongers from spewing, then I have no problem with it.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. We're having two different conversations.

The simple fact of the matter is, constitutionally censoring unpopular or even downright foul opinions is not permitted under the 1st Amendment. That's why Fred Phelps won his Supreme Court case not that long ago, and he's about as noxious as noxious gets. Whether or not you "have a problem with it", there's a constitutional question at the core of the whole thing, that again you seem to be deliberately obtuse around.

Yes, municipalities delay permits or throw up roadblocks or whatever, that doesn't change the fundamental fact that the government can't censor speech just because it's bigoted or hateful. Which doesn't mean that bigoted or hateful speech is some great fucking thing, however, the principle that protects even unpopular opinions, is.

[TheCount_]

85. The simple fact

is de jure versus de facto. You are talking the former. I'm talking the latter. Free speech has always been curbed in history, and the first amendment did not change things. Localities throwing up roadblocks is part of the practical deal.

I'm all for free speech. You won't find a bigger supporter of the first. I am not however, for getting in people's faces. You can regulate speech when it's bigoted or hateful. You can stop people from inciting. If the speech goes too far like that, then regulating it is not a bad thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Okay.

Like I said, there's no way in hell you could arrest someone for flying their own confederate flag on their own property. If you disagree, call up your local police and ask. Or a lawyer.

There's no way the government could arrest Hank Williams Jr. for writing a shitty song, nor could they prevent people from buying it or listening to it. Doesn't mean it's not a shitty song, although as far as "in your face" I would have happily made it through my entire life without ever hearing that auditory turd, if someone hadn't posted it here on DU.

That's the de facto discussion that started this subthread. So parade permits aside, I'm right- the government can't censor speech it deems bigoted or hateful. Have you been on the internet lately? A lot of people express some extremely odious opinions; but if they're not making threats, etc, they aren't going to run afoul of the authorities. Why? Because the right to be a bigoted, hateful fuck is protected by the 1st Amendment. Doesn't mean it's noble, it just means it's not illegal.

[TheCount_]

88. There is a lot of hate

on the internet. Thankfully it is being addressed properly. Even the internet has it's restrictions. There is too much vitriol and bullying on the web. It leads to tragedies like suicide.

There was even a dissent in the Fred Phelps case you mentioned. The dissent was to the effect that even the first amendment is not a permit for vitriolic verbal assault. That's on the the record. No, that was not the prevailing opinion, but I would like to see justices appointed who recognize these verbal assaults. I think we are heading in that direction and it's about time. Time to see the gay bashing stop. Time for all of this hateful behavior to stop. When it reaches the point you can't be safe walking down the street, then that is a problem.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. I don't like gay bashing either.

But you're wrong about the ability of the government to censor opinions like bigotry. It's not constitutional, and it's not going to be constitutional. The Fred Phelps decision was 8-1, and the lone dissent was Alito, for fuck's sake.

We're not moving in the direction of government censorship, and that's a good thing. Media and communications are a helluva lot less censored and buttoned down than they were 30 years ago, and what's happened? Gay characters on TV, an internet where the one gay kid growing up in podunk can find out online that there are other people in the world like him or her. The culture is perfectly capable of evolving on its own, and back in the days when things WERE more censored, the hate was worse.

[TheCount_]

91. Imagine that.

If a dirtbag like Alito was on the right side of the decision, then there is hope. It's also not censorship, so I don't know why you keep using that word. It's simply balance.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. Maybe you should ask yourself why the rest of the justices all felt differently.

Including ones with a far more respectable record on the constitution.

[TheCount_]

93. Maybe

you should step into the real world. You're talking textbook and classroom. I'm talking reality.

[Warren DeMontague]

94. Again, I remember when the Nazis marched in Skokie, and I come from a family of Jews.

I still support the ACLU despite it. Hell, because of it, for the reasons I've patiently reiterated in this subthread.

Don't talk to me about ivory tower abstractions. This is real world, and I defend the 1st Amendment because it is an actual bulwark against actual oppression.

[TheCount_]

95. I support the 1st

amendment wholeheartedly. Yes, this is the real world, and maybe you need to step into it.

The real world is about securing basics needs. Even Maslow talked about the pyramid of needs. Right there at the foundation, just past basics like eating and breathing, is safety. Free speech is a higher need, but it still has to be compatible with basics needs like safety. That is why the first amendment does not guarantee that you can just say anything. The classic example, of course, is yelling fire in a theater. You can't just say anything if it incites.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. So go ahead and have someone arrested for flying the confederate flag, or making a shitty song.

You can't, despite your endless attempts to keep the inane plates of this subthread spinning, your fundamental proposition here is incorrect.

[TheCount_]

103. People are arrested for incitement

all the time. You don't understand the limits of the first and the balance required for a properly functioning society.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Oh yeah?

When was the last successful prosecution, and what were the specific parameters of the case?

[TheCount_]

110. Guess you've never traveled

internationally or read a global newspaper. Maybe you did not hear about all the people of color in Baltimore who got arrested for "back talking" the police. Forget that though. Which one of the thousands of disorderly conduct cases in America would you like to hear about?

[Warren DeMontague]

114. Damn, dude, don't put your back out, moving those goalposts.

We're talking about the Constitution of the United States and the 1st Amendment. Anecdotal examples of censorship from Singapore or Saudi Arabia don't really apply.

I want to hear who the last person was that was successfully prosecuted for "incitement" - in this country, mind you- and what the exact specifics of the case were- like, did they get up in front of an angry crowd and tell them directly to burn shit, for example? (the actual application of the very limited and- contrary to your assertion- rarely used precedent) Or did they express an opinion that was so obnoxious it was certain to make other people so mad they might commit an act of violence?

I'm asking about this because a) you brought it up in the first place, claiming it "happens all the time" and b) that seems to be the wider umbrella under which you mistakenly think people can be arrested for flying an offensive flag on their own property, or writing an offensive song, etc.

If you don't believe me, ask a lawyer. Ask them if you can have someone successfully prosecuted for being a bigoted, shitty songwriter, or for having a flag on their house- or their car- that says "I'm a fucking jerk".

You can't.

[TheCount_]

125. I can't?

I already did. Guess you have never been to a protest where a flag and someone talking has led to spitting and fistfights. Disorderly conduct charges stick all the time. Or, they are plea bargained because disorderly conduct is tacked on to the initial charge. Disorderly conduct is often just another term for incitement, which is the term used by a lot of other countries. Disorderly conduct is now a catch-all for a lot of things, not just what others call incitement. You might want to contact your lawyer if you don't know those definitions, cases, and practical applications.

I'm not talking about your TV examples of Singapore or the Saudis either. Dig deeper. Check France, UK, New Zealand, Australia, China, Japan, etc. The United States is not some unique island, with a monopoly on so-called free speech. It might be in junior high civics class, but I am talking about the real world.

There is a town near me that requires permits to demonstrate. It's required for one person who stands on the sidewalk carrying a sign. Paying for a permit means your speech is no longer free. That is what I am talking about. Free speech is balanced with societal concerns and safety. You are not free to get in someone's face or be a hooligan. Maybe you have never been to a protest where a flag and someone talking has led to spitting and fistfights. Yes, people are successfully prosecuted for that. Society has become so in your face that I think it's not a bad a idea to nip it in the bud further. Someone waving a hateful flag and speaking of terrorist threats is a crime in my book.

I also said that shitty songs should not be banned. I am not foolish enough to think that you can stop bad music. You can curb what's hurtful to the impressionable though, with my example of limiting sales of such music to adults, where possible.

Finally, what do you know about Singapore? Have you ever lived there? Hell, have you ever lived in a country besides the US? I have and I know people who have lived in Singapore. The TV impression is some ogre society, but you are not likely to see one single cop for months and months. They are civilized, which is more than I can say for some in this country.

[Warren DeMontague]

133. So you've got nothing, then.

Again, you said -in the context of a debate about the 1st Amendment, mind you- that people are being prosecuted for incitement "all the time". That was your assertion. So, rather than changing the subject and moving the goalposts, (again) straight up: What's the last time it was done successfully in this country, and what were the specific parameters of the case?


As for Singapore: You want to live in a country that criminalizes chewing gum, knock yourself out.

[MADem]

104. Wasn't that nitwit banned from ..... football? His little royalty cash cow song got the ax?

And when a bunch of wife-beating, kid - smacking, car-crashing, murdering bums think you need banning...well...

'Just SAYIN'.....!!!"

[Warren DeMontague]

109. I don't know anything about it.

But football and country music are both real fuckin' low on my radar.

[MADem]

111. I'm no expert on either, myself, but I thought he was the "Are you ready for some football"

guy who got fired for something--saying something racist, or sexist, or being an asshole...I might be mistaken....!

[Warren DeMontague]

113. Yeah--- That sounds vaguely familiar.

[BillZBubb]

2. I wouldn't listen to a Hank Williams, Jr song.

But no. I have no problem banning symbols of the confederacy from PUBLIC spaces. But private speech and expression should not be banned. Cretins like Hank Williams, Jr, however, should be shunned.

[kentuck]

6. Yes, he sucks.

But I would not go as far to say he should be banned...

[clarice]

40. +100 nt

[BlueJazz]

57. After listening to that song, I'm leaving DU and not because I want to. I plan..

...to shoot myself so there's zero chance I'll ever have to listen to that tripe again.

[hatrack]

3. No, but I'd vote for banning the singer . . .

Hank Jr. Jeezus what a bellowing, no-talent hack.

[NaturalHigh]

4. I'm not for banning anything.

That said, I wouldn't listen to Hank Williams Jr. on a bet.

[840high]

9. Agree on both.

[X_Digger]

5. I don't recall anything being banned.

Shamed, pointed and laughed at, boycotted.. sure. That's private citizens expressing their opinions.

Banning? Nope.

[seveneyes]

7. Should this offspring song be fucking banned ???

[madfloridian]

8. They'd have to ban nearly all of Stephen Foster's songs.

https://www.google.com/search?q=songs+of+stephen+foster&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[struggle4progress]

25. mebbe

[Jamastiene]

10. No one is talking about banning anything.

People just want government property in some stubborn states to stop having quite so much Confederate memorabilia. It's like a damn shrine to the Confederacy in some areas. It's one thing on private property, where some of us find it disgusting, but because of the 1st Amendment cannot do anything about it (except I let all of the bushes and stuff grow around my property so I won't have to see them every-fucking-where around me, damn neighborhood is cluttered with them). On state grounds, there is no reason for so many states to enshrine the Confederacy quite so damn much. History is one thing, but if you see how it is in the Carolinas and some other areas, it is overwhelmingly Confederate. It's not even like America. It's like the Confederacy never even fucking stopped. It's like a deranged nightmare that won't end, for some of us.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if I never saw that fucking flag again. I know I don't have that luxury, though, and never will. If I had a half a penny for every time some jerk in my hometown said the Civil War wasn't about slavery, I'd be a damn billionaire. There ain't a damn thing I can do about them except despise their bullshit lies and put up with it. I hate it, but poverty keeps it so that's the story of my shit life. fml, but that's beside the point.

The least we can do is get so much Confederate crap off state property. It has been so overwhelming just how much of that crap clutters state monuments down here that you would barely know you are even in America. Until you have experienced it, it is hard to understand. For some, it is what they love to wallow in, like pigs in filth. For the rest of us, it is a nightmare that never ends.

[merrily]

12. The Articles of Secession of South Carolina were used as a model for the rest.

They are online or used to be. Print them out and let the deniers read them. The only state right cited is slavery.

[Staph]

32. Or show the deniers Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech.

Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy and a Georgia politician, made this speech on March 21, 1861, three weeks before the first shots were fired on Fort Sumter and two weeks after the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln.



http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

This is what the leaders of the Confederacy believed. This is the reason that they wished to secede from the Union. The average, non-slaveholding southerners of the 1960s may have believed that they were protecting their homeland from invasion by the evil northerners, but like their Republican descendents of the 21st century, they are being badly mislead by those with ulterior motives.

[merrily]

33. Thank you. I did not know about that one. Bookmarking. I have a feeling I may want to

link to your post at some future time.

[Staph]

35. Be my guest!

Someone else here on DU had a link to an online article titled I Will Not Argue About The Confederate Flag -- http://www.thetattooedprof.com/archives/407 (my apologies to the original poster -- I can't find the original post).

It is a powerful letter, and it contains, among many other references, a link to the Wikipedia article about the Cornerstone Speech. I consider myself a history buff, and I'm a Civil War re-enactor as well (portraying a typical Union woman of western Virginia/West Virginia), but I'd never even heard of this speech. It really puts to rest the notion that the south left the Union because they were unhappy about tariffs, and that slavery was a minor issue that no one really talked about.

For many years, I've been arguing with my Confederate re-enactor acquaintances about the reasons for the war. In the past I've sent them links to the various states' articles of secession, which invariably begin with the whine that "the north is trying to take away our slaves!" But this speech is even better.

[LanternWaste]

59. that is the contextually relevant bit that the half-wits who say Washington DC should be renamed are

And that is the contextually relevant bit that the half-wits who say Washington DC should be renamed are missing (either through ignorance or through simple dishonesty).

[greyl]

11. Lyrics here:

If the South woulda won, we woulda had it made
I'd probably run for President of the Southern States
The day Elvis passed away would be our national holiday
If the South woulda won, we woulda had it made

I'd make my Supreme Court down in Texas
And we wouldn't have no killers getting off free
If they were proven guilty, then they would swing quickly
Instead of writin' books and smilin' on TV

We'd all learn Cajan cookin' in Louisiana
And I'd put that capital back in Alabama
We'd put Florida on the right track, 'cause we'd take Miami back
And throw all them pushers in the slammer

Oh, if the south woulda won, we woulda had it made
I'd probably run for President of the Southern States
The day young Skynyrd died, we'd show our southern pride
If the south woulda won, we woulda had it made
"Play a little dixieland boys, ah yes"

I'd have all the whiskey made in Tennessee
And all the horses raised in those Kentucky hills
The national treasury would be in Tupelo, Mississippi
And I'd put Hank Williams picture on one hundred dollar bill

I'd have all the cars made in the Carolinas
And I'd ban all the ones made in China
I'd have every girl child sent to Georgia to learn to smile
And talk with that southern accent that drives men wild

I'd have all the fiddles made in Virginia
'Cause they sure can make 'em sound so fine
I'm going up on Wolverton Mountain and see ole Clifton Clowers
And have a sip of his good ole Arkansas wine

Hey, if the South woulda won we'd a had it made
I'd probably run for President of the Southern States
When Patsy Cline passed away, that would be our national holiday
If the South woulda won, we'd a had it made, olay he hee hee
I said if the South woulda won, we would a had it made

Might even be better off

Songwriters
Jr. Williams

Published by
BOCEPHUS MUSIC, INC

http://www.metrolyrics.com/if-the-south-woulda-won-lyrics-hank-williams-jr.html?ModPagespeed=noscript

[Major Nikon]

13. His dad's talent skipped a generation

...but not his alcoholism.

[pnwmom]

21. If the south had won, when would they have given up their slaves? The ones they fought so hard for?

[Tree-Hugger]

51. Epic

Piece of shit.

[prayin4rain]

62. Every girl child sent to Georgia to learn to talk with that southern accent that drives men wild?

Ugh. All of it, ugh. I vote ban.

[U4ikLefty]

14. Public property should not hold racist symbols as honorable.

If one wants to be a fucking asshole bigot in their own home & display that piece of shit...let em' show their feathers!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

15. No, because you can't ban a song.

Censoring the speech of individuals is a completely different proposition than removing a flag from a state capitol.

[romanic]

16. No.

Because a song isn't government property.

[Juicy_Bellows]

18. Look away, Look away Dixieland. nt.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Some abso-fucking-lutely GREAT music has come from the South.

but this aint it.

[madokie]

20. I wouldn't want to give Hank Junior

the satisfaction that he might have sang a song that hit on a nerve somewhere. Talk about a louse he is on. iMO

[former9thward]

22. How about Joan Baez's song?

"The night they brought Old Dixie down". She made a ton of money off that off a that song . A song which is totally sympathetic to the Confederate cause.

[Cleita]

28. She sang a lot of songs about the south. I remember "Blue Bayou" and the Billy McAllister/Bridge

thing. I actually like a lot of the southern stuff even when it gets confederate. Like I said. I don't like to judge artists. Good music is good music.

[former9thward]

36. I am with you there.

I separate politics from entertainment.

[Cleita]

39. Oops I think I got it wrong senior memory and all.

I think it was Linda Ronstadt who sang those songs, however my sentiment remains the same.

[logosoco]

42. I love that song, both her version and the Bands.

I hear something different when I listen. In fact, to me it is still relevant today. Look at all the people today, poor people voting for Republicans because they will give the rich folks a tax break. They think somehow that will benefit them and the country. There were plenty of poor white people who died in the Civil War who had no slaves or even their own farms, they bought what the Confederates were selling. And they still are.

When I hear the song, it is about hard working people who didn't fall for what the rich white people were trying to say. We need more of that today. Education is a key, but some people will demand to be ignorant until they die. That is what i see when I see folks defending the south side in the civil war.

Also, I can't stand Hank Jr. He comes up on my Willie Nelson Pandora station and I can't get to the skip button fast enough!

[cemaphonic]

64. The Band wrote that song

Baez did a nice cover of it though.

The thing about that song, is that while it does indulge in the whole doomed romanticism of the Civil War, it doesn't really celebrate the cause or the state of the CSA. It's just about a poor farmer/soldier trying to come to terms with the cost and destruction of the war.

[former9thward]

65. I have zero problem with the song.

But I do have a problem with this hysterical attack on the South.

[pnwmom]

98. How can you have zero problem with the song

"If the south had won the war"

that leaves out the fact that the south fought the war so it could retain slavery?

And that's what would have happened if the South had won the war -- and it could have spread to the rest of the U.S, too, if the South had won the war.

[former9thward]

100. Sorry, I separate entertainment from politics.

I guess you can't. Your loss. BTW your history is terribly defective. The South was never interested in promoting slavery elsewhere.

[pnwmom]

101. If the South had won the war, it would have been in charge of deciding how to interpret

the Constitution, and it would have interpreted it to allow slavery in all the states. Southerners who moved north would have taken their slaves with them; and owners of runaway slaves would have been free to pursue them in the northern states.

A nostalgic song about the South winning the war, that doesn't mention slavery, is a despicable form of "entertainment."

[former9thward]

117. No, no and no.

First if you look in the sub-thread you will find I am talking about Joan Baez's song, not the song in the OP. I have never heard the song in the OP and I am not interested in clicking on the OP to hear it.

You are so wrong about the war. If the South had won they would have been their own country. So no they would not have been "interpreting the Constitution". We would have had two separate countries. Slavery was never economically viable in the North which is why it disappeared there.

[pnwmom]

121. Sorry, I had thought you must be talking about a Baez cover of the Hank Williams song.

Which, now that I think about it, is unimaginable. Not something Baez would do. The Hank Williams song is a celebration of the old South that neglects its foundation -- slavery.

The lyrics to the Dixie song are completely different. They don't express a nostalgia and longing for a return to the old South. They're just about the sadness of war and dying and loss. They could apply to almost any war.

[former9thward]

122. Well she sings about "the rebel cause".

Look, I have no problem with the song. I enjoyed it when it came out in '71 and I don't know if I even paid attention to the lyrics. She has a really nice singing voice. I know I didn't analyze them. Most rock songs I can barely understand every other word and I don't have a clue what they are about.

[pnwmom]

124. I usually listen like you do. It's the voice and music that I hear mostly,

not the words.

So I had to look up the lyrics to both songs.

[Live and Learn]

106. But they were interested in keeping theirs.

Are you okay with that????

[former9thward]

116. Take your strawmen to someone who cares.

[Cleita]

26. I'm not for banning anything artists do, even if it's political.

What I am against is not presenting both sides because there is always both sides. I haven't heard a good protest song in a long time. I don't believe musicians aren't writing them. They just aren't being heard at least not in my area. The radio stations have been usurped by the right wingers. There was a time we could get Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller on a very low power station for talk radio, but that is gone along with any good music stations.

[Hoyt]

27. I don't listen to any music associated with that damn flag, including Lynryd skynryd.

[Kalidurga]

29. Yuck he is as bad as the Nuge...

But, no we can't ban his music if you can call it that. Besides, while I don't like racists I do prefer to know who they are. So, if I find they love Hank Jr and they love the Dixie Swastika it's a good bet they are racists and to be avoided.

[Cleita]

30. Good point. You shall know them by their music.

I was lucky. I spent my youth listening to the anti-war musicians.

[Kalidurga]

31. Face book pegged me as a liberal based on my music

they are pretty close. I think I am an anarchist.

[LWolf]

37. No.

Free speech includes stupid and ignorant speech. There's an inbuilt expectation that not everything we hear is going to be worth listening to.

Want to regulate what we hear? Pay attention to what's worthy, and let what is not die.

I've been doing that with Jr. for most of my life.

[bigwillq]

38. No (nt)

[MineralMan]

41. Banned by Whom?

I don't understand. The First Amendment protects expression of ideas. There's not going to be any government-ordered ban of any such thing. There won't be bans on the Stars and Bars, either. People will still be able to own and display it as they choose. However, businesses can ban it from their stores and refuse to sell it. People will also be able, as they always have been, to express their disgust at its display.

The government isn't going to ban this song or the flag, either. It may decide not to officially display it on government property, of course, but an individual will still be able to carry it on that property, put it on their car, or whatever, as stupid as that is.

This kind of post fails to recognize that private decisions and government decisions are completely different.

[Orsino]

43. Who's talking about banning everything connected to the South, besides Fox screamers?

A government removing a flaf from certain official displays is not a "ban."

[edhopper]

44. Why is it that people don't understand the difference

between government endorsement and display of a racist, treasonous symbol or monument.

And an individual's speech or action.

[Nye Bevan]

45. Not "banned" by law, but YouTube and other sites have the right to decline to host it,

just as Walmart and Amazon have a right not to sell Confederate stuff.

[Texasgal]

46. No.

What is all this talk about "banning" anyway?

[KamaAina]

47. Charlie Daniels Band - South's Gonna Do It Again

http://www.metrolyrics.com/souths-gonna-do-it-again-lyrics-charlie-daniels-band.html

An' you can be proud, here now, be proud you're a rebel
'Cause the South's gonna do it again and again

Um, relax, people. It's about Southern music.

[yellowcanine]

48. No one is banning anything. Get a grip.

The only thing which is happening is that southerner politicians have suddenly come to the realization that government endorsement of a racist flag can no longer be tolerated. But no one has banned the Confederate battle flag or anything else. You want to fly it on your pickup truck or in your yard? Please proceed.

[snooper2]

49. I didn't know Tipper Gore posted on DU

Warrant - Ode To Tipper Gore

[WillowTree]

50. This "banning this" and "banning that" shit is getting entirely out of control.

Just sayin'.

[ismnotwasm]

52. No. Why?

[derby378]

54. No, but then again, I listen to Hank3 much more than Hank Jr. (n/t)

[kentuck]

56. This link had some good comments in it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6891604

[LanternWaste]

58. I'm not aware of any confederate related material that's been banned...

I'm not aware of any confederate related material that's been banned from ownership, distribution or sales over the past week or two. I am however, aware of the free market reacting to public perception and state governments refusing to endorse the relevant historical message of that failed, 4-year state via the mechanism of public display (though I realize many under-educated people will pretend that, like governments denying to endorse a religion, it is in fact a ban).

And if a handful of people on DU or elsewhere are calling for this or that to be banned, well-- bless their hearts for excising the first amendment. Nothing will come of it, and it's a great way to express and vent our frustrations.

[Glassunion]

60. It should be banned!

[seveneyes]

68. Just sign your name in blood ...

[TheManInTheMac]

69. No. And I didn't even look at it, or listen to it.

[Jetboy]

72. It's not a bad song. I llike the dixieland music woven in there.

Hank Jr has the right to express his opinions even if he is wrong.

Everybody trashes him because of his opinions but the fact is that he is a very talented musician. He can play some mean boogie woogie piano and was raised around most of the top rock-n-roll, rhythm and blues and country artists of the 50s and 60s. Sure, he's a wayward child but the man is the son of the Great Hank Williams. He has talent and is worth listening to despite his wrong-headed opinions.

[olddots]

79. yes

Because it sucks in every way a recording can

[WestCoastLib]

84. Nothing has been banned

Why do people keep talking about this even in the context of a ban? Nothing's been banned. It's not illegal to own, sell or have a confederate flag.

Many government organizations are coming to the (long overdue) conclusion that they shouldn't be flying an enemy flag, that is offensive to many, on their grounds. That's not a ban.

At the same time some corporations are choosing, for financial reasons of not wanting bad PR, not to sell the same flag.

There is no ban here.

[DrDan]

87. liberals/progressives calling for banning of songs . . .

I mean "liberals"/"progressives" calling for banning of songs

[Feron]

89. Oh FFS

There's a big difference between removing confederate garbage from public spaces and banning all items related to the confederacy.

Retailers have the right to exclude merchandise and/or decor that offends their broader base of customers. Confederate merchandise itself is not being banned and assuredly is still available at white supremacist retailers.

[pnwmom]

97. No. But how about no one buys it or plays it anymore.

That will solve the problem.

[KentuckyWoman]

99. Ban Hank? In Kentucky?

It'd be easier to ban bourbon or horses.

[valerief]

102. I think all country songs s/b banned.

[Live and Learn]

105. I am sure Elvis would have it banned if he were alive.

i couldn't get any further in the song than the Elvis reference.

[Live and Learn]

107. Heck no, This is a great reminder of what we could have suffered through

if the south actually would have won. In think we should add a few more stanza's to depict the reality, change the singer, fix the stanzas that are just plain wrong (like pretending Elvis shared their vision) and change the tune a bit (cause it really isn't that catchy).

But a song depicting the truth about where we would be now if the south would have won could be a horrifying reminder to vote for democrats.

[XRubicon]

112. Yes

the song sucks

[gollygee]

115. I don't think any songs should be banned but there are a lot of songs in bad taste

and maybe we can just recognize that they're in bad taste.

It's amazing how many old minstrel show tunes are still popular, and I cringe when I hear them because I imagine how they sounded and how it looked when they were in minstrel shows. I especially cringe when I see groups of school children perform them.

[Snow Leopard]

118. No

Totalitarian solutions are not my cup of tea.

[sjk.fly4ever]

119. Not really.

Not Really!!!

Stephan

[zappaman]

120. No. n/t

[libodem]

123. What is this banning of which you speak?

Wrong image. Ooops.

[Peacetrain]

126. It belongs in a museum.. not banned!

I am absolutely with the President on this one.. because trying to erase our history.. dooms us to repeat it..

[HassleCat]

127. Ban the singer. not the song

I don't know the song, so I have no idea whether or not it's offensive. I do know I have to run away whenever I hear Hank Williams Jr. Doing whatever it is he does. I refuse to call it "singing."

[ladjf]

129. This piece of music is NO threat at all to anyone in the United States.

It clearly shows why Hank Williams , Jr. and his ilk have no business in American Government. In that kinky sense, it's an education piece of work.

[jberryhill]

130. What government agency is using that song?

There is a huge difference between using tax dollars to support something, and proposing to "ban" something.

[LeftyMom]

131. I want a ban on stupid threads in GD. nt

[abakan]

132. No

We should not ban our history. We may not like it in 2015 but it is still part of what came before. Everyone seems to want to deny the civil war and everything associated with it. I find this impulse similar to the actions of the talaban and ISIL, when they destroy their heritage because they don't like what it stands for. The civil war happened to the whole country and for good or ill, it should be accepted as an important part of the story of this Country. We do not have to praise it but we should learn from it, lest we repeat it.