Anti-Confederate battle flag hysteria drives 'The Dukes of Hazzard' off the air

Houston TV Examiner ^ | July 1, 2015 | Mark R. Whittington

[Marcus]

USA Today reported on Wednesday that TV Land, a nostalgia network that shows episodes of old TV series, has yanked “The Dukes of Hazzard” from its schedule. The series, which aired from 1979 to 1985, depicted the hijinks of the cousins Luke and Bo Duke of Hazzard County, Georgia, whose main occupation seemed to be defying authority, an occupation in which they were aided by their customized, red Dodge Charger, the better to outrun the law. The car, dubbed the “General Lee,” is what got them banned from the airwaves. The General Lee has a Confederate battle flag on the roof, an image now too horrible to be exposed to human eyes.

[mquinn]

If I recall, the only episode that was outright crude was the pilot, and it was re-jiggered quickly after that. Roscoe was the primary villain, and he was mean & devious, not bumbling. Bo and Luke steal a shipment of slot machines and make subtle incest jokes about Daisy, and so on. It was bad, but was thankfully redone as a rather nice show. I miss it.

[Theodore R.]

The textbooks have denigrated the Confederacy, but there are many Civil War books out there read by the few who can understand them.

[ilovesarah2012]

I always thought the show was silly and only watched it a few times, but I did sign the petition to keep it on the air.

[armydawg505]

Krystallnacht American style.

[Busko]

Welcome to Nazi Amerika! The idiots that are dancing with joy are going to be the first ones to get rounded up.

[Theodore R.]

One can learn a lot about music by watching the old Welk shows.

[GranTorino]

As well as the Union. It was a nasty war.

[Boonie]

This “stuff” is beyond ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Boowhoknew]

has any one got a fairly accurate list of sponsors of TV Land?

[DiogenesLamp]

No, they have not. If anything, a lot of the history books and memorials tend to put the confederates in a bit more of a nicer point of view than they should be.

Really? It is my impression that it is very much the other way around. The propaganda/fiction that the Union invaded the South to stop slavery has been repeated so often that now most people believe it.

The truth is more mundane and less noble. They invaded the South to stop Independence, not slavery.

[hawkaw]

But wasn’t the reason the south seceded was due to many northern states not wanting slavery and northern states invoking their states rights to do it and the feds deciding not to enforce their statute against the north. Once the south states left the feds had no choice but to stop it.

[DiogenesLamp]

But wasn’t the reason the south seceded was due to many northern states not wanting slavery and northern states invoking their states rights to do it and the feds deciding not to enforce their statute against the north. Once the south states left the feds had no choice but to stop it.

Not even close to the truth. There were five Union Slave states that remained Slave states until the 13th amendment was passed AFTER THE WAR. Over a year after the war started, Lincoln clearly indicated he had no intentions of abolishing slavery either in the south or the north.

August 22, 1862.

" As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

[hawkaw]

I know Lincoln had no intention at the start of the war to abolish slavery. You missed my question/statement. I said many northern states not all. I also indicated that I thought the south states left because the feds were letting many of the northern states away with abolishing slavery and not doing anything about it (i.e., the many northern states were using states rights and not following federal law). Then I indicated that once those south states left over the states rights issue, the feds had no choice but to go after the southern states to keep the country united.

[NKP_Vet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qogVHlmFcx0

Waylon Jennings has something to say about these morons.

[DiogenesLamp]

Then I indicated that once those south states left over the states rights issue, the feds had no choice but to go after the southern states to keep the country united.

Well, I don't consider the issue of keeping the country United to be the right course of action. It is no different from an abusive husband forcing his wife to live with him and to continue suffering his abuses.

The Southern States had as much right to leave the United States as did the 13 Colonies to leave the United Kingdom. If people want to leave, it is wrong to use force to keep them, especially at the cost of so much blood, misery and destruction.

We recognize the right of self determination all over the world, but for some reason we didn't recognize it in the country from which the idea was born.

I find myself wishing states could break off and leave Washington now, because all I see is the Liberal parts of the country wrecking everything, and I no longer wish to be part of their depraved and disgusting nation.

But the mindset has become commonplace that people don't have a right to leave, and that mindset started with the Civil War.