PDA

View Full Version : The reasons the Confederate battle flag is condemned



5thNYcavalry
05-15-2007, 04:13 PM
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/flag/flaggifs3/20000119edhan-a.gif&imgrefurl=http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/flag/main.asp&h=379&w=500&sz=21&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=nptslNxFQqtv4M:&tbnh=99&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dconfederate%2Bflag%26svnum%3D10%26um% 3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DNr
Here are some cartoons I found. I personally think they are the stupidest things I have seen for the anti-Confederate battle flag arguments.

I believe this is why the Confederate battle flag is condemned by so many.

flattop32355
05-15-2007, 08:48 PM
Pretty much the standard viewpoint, much of it based on sensationalism and minimal knowledge of history.

Never let it be said that the mainstream media did its homework.

sbl
05-16-2007, 07:56 AM
Flattop,


Pretty much the standard viewpoint, much of it based on sensationalism and minimal knowledge of history.

Never let it be said that the mainstream media did its homework.


These are Political CARTOONS, not doctoral thesis. They may not be true, but hit the mark of the what the rest of the world thinks when they see the Battle Flag.

bill watson
05-16-2007, 08:08 AM
And they are all reacting to the postwar and mainly 20th century use of the flag by hate groups. It's a textbook example of hijacking a powerful, blood-stained icon that stood for duty and honor among soldiers and putting it in front of an unsavory cause. It takes more patience than most people have to explain this, and then it still doesn't seem to matter very much: The flag is still being misused by hate groups.

The reaction to all this I liked best came in maybe 1993 or 1994 in Columbia at a Confederate Memorial Day parade. A small group of nutjobs showed up with Confederate flags and bullhorns and a hate agenda; when they tried to speak, the Palmetto Battalion, in its usual perfect formation, drowned them out so they couldn't be heard. Three tries and they gave up. It wasn't a cheer so much as it was a roar. What got to me, a Yankee in the PB at that time, was that it seemed to happen spontaneously or maybe according to an SOP I didn't know about. It was a real moment of awakening for me. :-)

Malingerer
05-16-2007, 09:00 AM
And they are all reacting to the postwar and mainly 20th century use of the flag by hate groups. It's a textbook example of hijacking a powerful, blood-stained icon that stood for duty and honor among soldiers and putting it in front of an unsavory cause. It takes more patience than most people have to explain this, and then it still doesn't seem to matter very much: The flag is still being misused by hate groups.

The reaction to all this I liked best came in maybe 1993 or 1994 in Columbia at a Confederate Memorial Day parade. A small group of nutjobs showed up with Confederate flags and bullhorns and a hate agenda; when they tried to speak, the Palmetto Battalion, in its usual perfect formation, drowned them out so they couldn't be heard. Three tries and they gave up. It wasn't a cheer so much as it was a roar. What got to me, a Yankee in the PB at that time, was that it seemed to happen spontaneously or maybe according to an SOP I didn't know about. It was a real moment of awakening for me. :-)
With all due respect, I believe that the issue isn't quite that tidy on at least two counts: 1. I grew up in segregation era Mississippi and can clearly remember many ordinary whites waving Confederate flages in the faces of young Black students as they tried to enter formerly white-only schools. These wern't clansmen they were ordinary, God-fearing citizens who knew which buttons to push when it came to taunting Blacks.
2. If the Confederacy had won, institutionalized slavery would have been the law of the land for the foreseeable future. Seccession advocates made their prima facsia case for creating the Confederacy as a way of protecting slavery. Ergo, the whole raison d'etre for the Confederacy rested on the desire to continue the institution of slavery. Hard to feel a whole lot of pride in that.
As someone who regularly portrays a Confederate soldier, I believe that its incumbant upon me to be honest (with myself, fellow reenactors, and the public) about the Confederate cause and its symbols.

tompritchett
05-16-2007, 10:07 AM
With all due respect, I believe that the issue isn't quite that tidy on at least two counts: 1. I grew up in segregation era Mississippi and can clearly remember many ordinary whites waving Confederate flages in the faces of young Black students as they tried to enter formerly white-only schools. These wern't clansmen they were ordinary, God-fearing citizens who knew which buttons to push when it came to taunting Blacks.

I also grew up in South as the Civil Rights reforms were going through and agree that the battle flag was used to show support for resistance to these reforms. However, that does not change the essence of Bill's statement "It's a textbook example of hijacking a powerful, blood-stained icon that stood for duty and honor among soldiers and putting it in front of an unsavory cause". Rather it just adds another dimension of the hijacking. I would even argue that much of resistance to the Civil Rights reforms was indeed driven by hatred (just look at some of the period new clips). Back then most of my parents and older siblings generations tended to like Blacks as individuals but hate them as a race. I never could understand that dichotomy but I saw it in action too many times to discount its existence.

sbl
05-16-2007, 10:31 AM
I like to look at European reenactor sites to see what they're up to. I was suprised at the wide use of the Battleflag (navy jack) by Europeans as a decoration at History Balls involving CW/WBTS and Wild West groups. In Germany and the Czech Republic the Battleflag seems to have taken on a status as the "cowboy flag" with European country and western dance groups as well.

Of interest is that here in Mass, every morning on Route 128, is the guy with an American Flag mounted on the bed of his pick up truck which also sports a Battleflag bumper sticker. Possibly he is "a Rebel" in real life.

Malingerer
05-16-2007, 10:35 AM
I also grew up in South as the Civil Rights reforms were going through and agree that the battle flag was used to show support for resistance to these reforms. However, that does not change the essence of Bill's statement "It's a textbook example of hijacking a powerful, blood-stained icon that stood for duty and honor among soldiers and putting it in front of an unsavory cause". Rather it just adds another dimension of the hijacking. I would even argue that much of resistance to the Civil Rights reforms was indeed driven by hatred (just look at some of the period new clips). Back then most of my parents and older siblings generations tended to like Blacks as individuals but hate them as a race. I never could understand that dichotomy but I saw it in action too many times to discount its existence.
Good Point on the hijacking - but that is a part of the history we are dealing with when it comes to the Confederate flag and, therfore, helps explain the strong reaction that the flag provokes. I think that those cartoons (although somewhat offensive to me as a Southerner) make a valid point (the part about white insensitivity to how Blacks feel about the flag) and they are missing a valid point (the part about average Confederate soldiers fighting and dieing for their homes not slavery). But cartoons are not in the buisness of providing fair and balanced views - they make a funny and savage point and that's all.

flattop32355
05-16-2007, 12:24 PM
These are Political CARTOONS, not doctoral thesis. They may not be true, but hit the mark of the what the rest of the world thinks when they see the Battle Flag.

Soooooo, it's okay to perpetuate an incorrect perception because, after all, they're just political cartoons? If we're going to do that, we'd better be prepared to be a whole lot less pissy about a great number of other things as well.

We can't limit the hijacking of the Confederate flags, nor anything else for that matter, if we're willing to allow it to happen without comment and perspective. I'd also be willing to bet that fewer people would be influenced by a doctoral thesis than by political cartoons.

A current similarity is the hijacking of a Mickey Mouse look-alike by Islamists to teach children specifically to hate the USA and Israel and generally to promote the idea that Islam will one day (again) rule the world.

I don't think I'm prepared to dismiss it as "just a cartoon".

tompritchett
05-16-2007, 02:00 PM
but that is a part of the history we are dealing with when it comes to the Confederate flag and, therfore, helps explain the strong reaction that the flag provokes.

Unfortunately, this is a history that many advocates of the battle flag, especially Southerners born after the Civil Rights movement and Northerners in general tend to forget when they talk about the flag strictly as a matter of heritage and/or in terms of its 19th Century history. I can remember a Confederate reenactor, born and raised in NYC, who accused me, a native born Southerner, of wearing the wrong color uniform because I was making the points you and I have been discussing.

bob 125th nysvi
05-16-2007, 07:15 PM
Unfortunately, this is a history that many advocates of the battle flag, especially Southerners born after the Civil Rights movement and Northerners in general tend to forget when they talk about the flag strictly as a matter of heritage and/or in terms of its 19th Century history. I can remember a Confederate reenactor, born and raised in NYC, who accused me, a native born Southerner, of wearing the wrong color uniform because I was making the points you and I have been discussing.

I think that like anything else we want to think good things about our ancestors and ourselves so we re-write history not so much in changing the facts but overlooking the inconvenient ones.

So do I beleive that the ordinary southern soldier fought to protect hearth and home, yep I do.

Was part of that hearth and home slavery, yes it was.

Therefore protecting one was also protecting the other.

What is it Longstreet says in Gettysburg: "First we should have freed the slaves and then fired on Ft. Sumter."

It is an unfortunate reality that the southern battleflag will always be linked (rightfully so) with the effort by the southern states to protect the institution of slavery.

That it was hijacked (was it?) by groups who continue to espouse the superiority of one race over another or (as during the civil rights days) by ordinary people looking to discriminate against another group is not helping anybody on the oppressed side of the ledger see your point of view that we are honoring the men and not the mission.

tompritchett
05-16-2007, 07:38 PM
That it was hijacked (was it?) by groups who continue to espouse the superiority of one race over another or (as during the civil rights days) by ordinary people looking to discriminate against another group is not helping anybody on the oppressed side of the ledger see your point of view that we are honoring the men and not the mission.

It my personal opinion that it is more recent history of the flag and not so much it 19th Century history that makes it persona non grata in so many communities. After all, if it just was its association with the Confederacy that was causing all the heartburn, you would expect to see similar feelings about the various National flags.

VA Soldier
05-16-2007, 08:10 PM
The Confederate Battle Flag is the embattled flag.

Unfortunatley the Battle Flag has been used by several groups which offer up hatred and bigotry.

These groups also carry the American and Christian flags, no one seems to notice that.

The cartoon is right, on an unlikely note, the numerous blacks that fought in the South, for the South.

It is a shame that such a symbol has been misused by such groups, but it is a part of the historical record, it can not be denied. As far as my impression, my ancestors that fought in the war owned no slaves, the unit I am with represents SWVA, where the number of slave owners was very limited, for me and mine, defending hearth and home which in no way included slaves.

I understand the controversy surrounding the flag, I also understand my obligation as a reenactor to dispel myths that surround the history I portray. As a soldier in the Confederacy, I can truthfully say, that I don't have an issue with blacks, think slavery is wrong, and say that I am not fighting to protect slavery.

Images such as that caption do nothing but help make the job of education that much harder.

D A Jackson

toptimlrd
05-16-2007, 11:19 PM
With all due respect, I believe that the issue isn't quite that tidy on at least two counts: 1. I grew up in segregation era Mississippi and can clearly remember many ordinary whites waving Confederate flages in the faces of young Black students as they tried to enter formerly white-only schools. These wern't clansmen they were ordinary, God-fearing citizens who knew which buttons to push when it came to taunting Blacks.
2. If the Confederacy had won, institutionalized slavery would have been the law of the land for the foreseeable future. Seccession advocates made their prima facsia case for creating the Confederacy as a way of protecting slavery. Ergo, the whole raison d'etre for the Confederacy rested on the desire to continue the institution of slavery. Hard to feel a whole lot of pride in that.
As someone who regularly portrays a Confederate soldier, I believe that its incumbant upon me to be honest (with myself, fellow reenactors, and the public) about the Confederate cause and its symbols.

Peter,

To also echo Tom and Bob, I remember similar protests as well and there seemed to be as many American flags there as Confederate but we only blame the one. Many of these same hate groups use the Bible to "prove" they are right by taking passages out of context and distorting them to their own twisted way of thinking but that should not sully the Holy Bible. If nothing else in my lifetime I would like to see groups such as us (reenactors) take back that flag from these morons and return some amount of dignity to those who died in defense of it.

Malingerer
05-17-2007, 07:30 AM
Peter,

If nothing else in my lifetime I would like to see groups such as us (reenactors) take back that flag from these morons and return some amount of dignity to those who died in defense of it.
Robert,
I completely support that seniment and would only add that in order to return the Confederate flag to a position of pride we need to be cognizant of the whole story (not just the parts we're comfortable with) and sensitive to the feelings of those who have suffered at the hands of the morons of whom you speak. If we try to shove anything down their throats we are going to lose.

BTW - very excited about getting my I&C knapsack at resaca.

toptimlrd
05-17-2007, 08:16 AM
Robert,
I completely support that seniment and would only add that in order to return the Confederate flag to a position of pride we need to be cognizant of the whole story (not just the parts we're comfortable with) and sensitive to the feelings of those who have suffered at the hands of the morons of whom you speak. If we try to shove anything down their throats we are going to lose.

BTW - very excited about getting my I&C knapsack at resaca.


We are on the same page there Peter. Once again though I think the fight is really over power once again. The Jessee Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world seem to be the ones who keep waving the flag in front of their followers just to get them in a frenzy. They do this to keep there followers folowing them, it's all about the money and power when you bail it down. Most of the hate groups have been so marginalized at this point that I don't think anyone takes them seriously any more.

bob 125th nysvi
05-17-2007, 12:28 PM
remember that the 'swastika' was orginally a Tibetan Buddhist religious symbol. About as inoffensive a group as you can find.

It is easy for people to hijack a symbol if they get a lot of press coverage.

The reason the Stars & Bars gets knocked around when hijacked is because people look at the American Flag at those demonstrations and say to themselves, I know MY flag doesn't stand for those things.

And when the bad guys wave a bible, the person says to themselves, I know MY bible doesn't support what they are saying.

But when the Star's and Bars gets waved the same person goes, well they taught me in school that that flag flew over troops who wanted to keep the black man as a slave and so it MUST represent evil.

History is extremely complex and any group anywhere can be accused by someone of having evil acts committed in their name or under their symbol (as the Islamic Fundementalists have hijacked the Quarn).

Unfortunately this is America where we like our information in either sound bites or not more than 10 minute segments. If it didn't happen in my lifetime it isn't really important that I know it. Whoever agrees with me and yells the loudest is right.

And made up "reality TV" keeps millions glued to their televison sets nightly.

So NOW you expect them to actual look, think, read and understand?

Sgt_Pepper
05-17-2007, 10:09 PM
So NOW you expect them to actually look, think, read and understand?

Sigh... Sometimes I think it's just barely enough to expect most Americans to wear shoes and not defecate on the carpeting.

Sorry; the news of the illegal immigrant amnesty bill has made me crankier than usual.

sbl
05-18-2007, 04:41 AM
"So NOW you expect them to actual look, think, read and understand?"

Bob,

Unfortunatly most people have "stuff" to do everyday.

Rob Weaver
05-18-2007, 06:05 AM
I really have enjoyed the generally peaceful spirit of this thread, so I'm gonna weigh in on a subject I usually avoid. Let me give you a little background. I am clergy, American Baptist, a denomination firmly committed to racial reconciliation. (Martin Luther King Jr is our most famous modern hero.) I am white, and the adoptive parent of an African-American child (and a Hispanic child but he's not really germaine to this conversation). So, I feel I've got a foot in both worlds, to a certain extent. I am also a very good theologian, historian and reenactor. This whole flag thing has distressed me for years, because it's about the power of a symbol. A symbol participates in the reality is expresses at a very pirmal, sub-verbal level. It says a lot with few or no words. For instance: the cross, the swastika, the star of David, the cresent, etc. The problem with the Confederate flag as we've inherited it is that the meaning of the symbol is not clearly defined. To some, it's a historical symbol, to others a hate symbol, to others a general symbol of joyous rebellion. I'm old enough to remember when the only way to get a Civil War flag was to get a "Stars and Bars." As living historians, we need to define what that symbol means in our camp. That definition has to be rooted in historical attitudes and articulated as such. At the same time, we need to distance ourselves from other uses of that symbol. This can come down to practical actions: don't put one one your car, ballcap, bumper sticker, etc. unless it's the historical one you're associating with. (You know what I mean, the ones they sell in gas stations are the wrong shape.) Be prepared to offer a better solution: why didn't someone offer that the State House in Columbia SC fly the 1st National years ago rather than a flag that never flew there years ago? Don't get involved in the discussion at a sound-byte level. That's going to encourage misunderstanding. And we need humility. We have to realize we operate in a world where a version of our symbol has very real and viceral meaning other than what we intend. It's our task to continue to be the voice of reason. (I don't teach my child that the Confederates were the "bad guys," and I refuse a reduction of the complexities of our national tragedy that encourage such simplistic thought. I like to think of our family, and those like us, as the next wave of the civil rights movement. One without activists and demigogues. But now I disgress.) Respectfully, I remain,

flattop32355
05-19-2007, 08:45 AM
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and make a couple of general statements. They are my best guess, rather than my opinion, and may not hold water, but I'd be willing to place at least a small wager on them.

1) Many, if not most, people who take "pride" in flying a Confederate battle flag wouldn't recognize the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Confederate States of America National Flags if they saw them.

2) Many, if not most, people who fly the "Confederate battle flag" are actually flying the naval ensign.

If someone hasn't taken the time to figure out either of the above, they're probably just pissing in the wind about their "heritage" being so important to them.

Does anyone else notice a shortage of Confederate national flags flying at reenactments, especially early war?

sbl
05-19-2007, 09:50 AM
Bernard,

1) Many, if not most, people who take "pride" in flying a Confederate battle flag wouldn't recognize the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Confederate States of America National Flags if they saw them.

While I know the difference I suspect most folks think the 1st National is the Puerto Rican or Texas flag.

hanktrent
05-19-2007, 10:22 AM
While I know the difference I suspect most folks think the 1st National is the Puerto Rican or Texas flag.

Two Memorial Days ago, my wife and I were chatting with a local historical society bigwig while waiting for the cemetery service to start. The bigwig was telling how she had begun the tradition years ago of putting Confederate flags on the graves of the four Confederate soldiers buried in the cemetery, during the ceremony.

Meanwhile, four modern soldiers were lining up, each holding a little CS first national flag. I commented that they must be the ones getting ready to do it this year.

She looked at the flags and said no, those weren't Confederate flags, they were Ohio state flags.

I said no, they're definitely Confederate flags. She disagreed.

It wasn't until the four soldiers trooped off to the part of the cemetery where the Confederates were buried, that she was convinced what they were doing.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

tompritchett
05-19-2007, 12:01 PM
2nd or 3rd Confederate States of America National Flags if they saw them.


I would suspect that most would think these two to be a state flag for one of the Southern states.

sbl
05-19-2007, 01:50 PM
The 1st National is one of my favorites...

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u100/sbl1952/Confederate%20Army/ToySoldiersOfSanDiegoConfederates.jpg?t=1179604584

Brian Wolle
05-23-2007, 12:23 PM
No offense meant to anyone, but it's curious to me with the talk about 20th century hijacking.

Non-slaveholding Confederates were "hijacked" also if they were fighting the war to "save their homes" only. There weren't becoming millionaires like the big planters. What stake did they have in keeping slavery alive? Hinton Helper's book spelled it out: slavery was ruining the South and keeping it enslaved by the North. De Bow's Review out of New Orleans said it more: everything of a material nature the South had, the North made.

The only place Lincoln drew the line was on the expansion of slavery into the new territories. Of course, this was in opposition to the Dred Scott decision.

Brian Wolle
05-23-2007, 12:40 PM
It's nice to be able to say you're a reenactor and not using it as a hate symbol, but there are quite a few who do both. I know, because I went Confed.

It's also nice because we live in such enlightened times (?) to be saying how unprejudiced we are, but I bet if we were back even in the fifties, most of us would be singing quite a different tune. A lot of us wouldn't work with them, allow them on our streets after dark nor let our daughters date them.

No offense meant, just looking at it from an historical context...

tompritchett
05-23-2007, 01:26 PM
Non-slave-holding Confederates were "hijacked" also if they were fighting the war to "save their homes" only. There weren't becoming millionaires like the big planters. What stake did they have in keeping slavery alive?

While they had no stake in keeping slavery alive, many were sold on the idea of secession because of the threat that the more radical abolitionists would have forced through legislation that would have made the freed slaves the legal equals of whites. It was this latter point that motivated many non-slaveholders to support the secessionists and was one of the points stressed by the secessionist commissioners in their speeches and letters.

Whether or not this was a realistic threat or not given the Northern feelings on this issue is not really the point. The point is that this was a realistic threat as perceived by many Southerners. In fact, it did become a reality after the war with the 14th Amendment.

bill watson
05-23-2007, 02:00 PM
"Non-slaveholding Confederates were "hijacked" also if they were fighting the war to "save their homes" only."


Sure. But we were talking about the battle flag.

Remember, this flag was designed at the request of the military for use on the battlefield in the wake of First Manassas, when the First National (the "Stars and Bars") was indistinguishable from the United States Stars and Stripes. It therefore took on life as a flag designed by soldiers for soldiers, and gained value as a symbol of valor and virtue by reason of the blood shed with that flag at the head of hundreds of regiments. The emotion attached to battleflags as symbols of the bonding of men under extreme conditions was huge, so much so that some regiments tore up their flags and distributed the pieces among the regimental survivors when it was over rather than surrender them. Those qualities, and that astonishing depth of emotion, were what was hijacked, mainly in the 20th Century, by the various hate groups, who thought by carrying battle flags they would associate themselves with the favorable mental and emotional image most people have long had of Confederate soldiers.

If you want to talk about who gets tricked by their emotions and intellect in supporting a cause for one reason, when the cause is started by others with different goals, that would be a good thing, and a long thread, but this one was about the battle flag itself. :-)

toptimlrd
05-23-2007, 02:38 PM
I really have enjoyed the generally peaceful spirit of this thread, so I'm gonna weigh in on a subject I usually avoid. Let me give you a little background. I am clergy, American Baptist, a denomination firmly committed to racial reconciliation. (Martin Luther King Jr is our most famous modern hero.) I am white, and the adoptive parent of an African-American child (and a Hispanic child but he's not really germane to this conversation). So, I feel I've got a foot in both worlds, to a certain extent. I am also a very good theologian, historian and reenactor. This whole flag thing has distressed me for years, because it's about the power of a symbol. A symbol participates in the reality is expresses at a very primal, sub-verbal level. It says a lot with few or no words. For instance: the cross, the swastika, the star of David, the crescent, etc. The problem with the Confederate flag as we've inherited it is that the meaning of the symbol is not clearly defined. To some, it's a historical symbol, to others a hate symbol, to others a general symbol of joyous rebellion. I'm old enough to remember when the only way to get a Civil War flag was to get a "Stars and Bars." As living historians, we need to define what that symbol means in our camp. That definition has to be rooted in historical attitudes and articulated as such. At the same time, we need to distance ourselves from other uses of that symbol. This can come down to practical actions: don't put one one your car, ball cap, bumper sticker, etc. unless it's the historical one you're associating with. (You know what I mean, the ones they sell in gas stations are the wrong shape.) Be prepared to offer a better solution: why didn't someone offer that the State House in Columbia SC fly the 1st National years ago rather than a flag that never flew there years ago? Don't get involved in the discussion at a sound-byte level. That's going to encourage misunderstanding. And we need humility. We have to realize we operate in a world where a version of our symbol has very real and visceral meaning other than what we intend. It's our task to continue to be the voice of reason. (I don't teach my child that the Confederates were the "bad guys," and I refuse a reduction of the complexities of our national tragedy that encourage such simplistic thought. I like to think of our family, and those like us, as the next wave of the civil rights movement. One without activists and demagogues. But now I digress.) Respectfully, I remain,

Rob,

Well stated. I for one was at first disappointed with Georgia's decision to remove the battle flag from their state flag (especially with that blue aberration that originally replaced it) until I did my research and realized the original flag featured the pattern of the 1st national and the battle flag was used during the desegregation years. I had hoped at that time they would go back to the flag based on the 1st national and as it turned out they did. This to me preserves the historic quality of the flag while maintaining some semblance to the state's willingness to defend itself when it felt threatened without raising too many hackles that the battle flag can do. I for one do not find the battle flag inherently offensive unless it is being used in such a way as to intimidate or harass a person or group of people. It is then I become incensed at the group misusing the flag for their own hatred and sullying the memory of those common men who fought under it.

toptimlrd
05-23-2007, 02:45 PM
Just to build on the lack of history education in America, forget about the first, second, or even third national; how many would know what the Bonnie Blue Flag was?

I was talking to a vendor at a reenactment once when a child wanted to buy a battle flag as a souvenir. The father forbade it saying that he would not buy his kid a "racist" flag but that he could have the early American flag, he bought a 1st national.

tompritchett
05-23-2007, 04:02 PM
Sure. But we were talking about the battle flag.

Bill, I am assuming that you are using the linear viewing feature rather than one of the threaded versions. Yes, the thread is about the battle flag, but Brian Wolle's post was about how the non-slave holders were hijacked into supporting the slave-holders in the 1860's. Here is the preceeding paragraph of the post and the remainder of the paragraph that I was responding to.

No offense meant to anyone, but it's curious to me with the talk about 20th century hijacking.

Non-slaveholding Confederates were "hijacked" also if they were fighting the war to "save their homes" only. There weren't becoming millionaires like the big planters. What stake did they have in keeping slavery alive? Hinton Helper's book spelled it out: slavery was ruining the South and keeping it enslaved by the North. De Bow's Review out of New Orleans said it more: everything of a material nature the South had, the North made.

reb64
05-23-2007, 09:55 PM
It's nice to be able to say you're a reenactor and not using it as a hate symbol, but there are quite a few who do both. I know, because I went Confed.

It's also nice because we live in such enlightened times (?) to be saying how unprejudiced we are, but I bet if we were back even in the fifties, most of us would be singing quite a different tune. A lot of us wouldn't work with them, allow them on our streets after dark nor let our daughters date them.

No offense meant, just looking at it from an historical context...

I once galvanized into a normally Union unit in easten Mo. and thought I would get the first person view of "freeing the slaves" etc. instead it was alot of expletives and racist views, never heard in virginia growing up. labeling one side or the other as hateful is stereotyping i found out.

rebelyell62
05-24-2007, 11:59 AM
Thourghout the nation, North and South (19th century) blacks were not welcome with open arms by all, and the Irish were even more hated. Remember the N.Y.C. riots?

Why were black units (Federal) led by white officers? Because the "negro" was not capable of grasping tactics, logistics,or standards of leadership.

Sadly, racism is alive and well still. I feel we all, to some degree, hold certain prejudices, be it political, biblical,skin tone, geography,etc.

I can't tell you how many times I have been called "hillbilly" because of my accent. And after a while, it gets old. Especially when the word conjers up images of the Jerry Springer show.

There are people of all races, backgrounds, whom I dislike and yes even dispise, YES, even caucasions.

But, if I, as a white protestant, conservitive, male, exibits even the slightest dislike of a person of color, it is because I am racist and nothing more.

Martin Luther King once said somthing to the effect of judgeing a man on the content of his charactor, a lofty proposition I agree. But a very noble trait to all who embrace the notion.

With that said, if you choose to hate me for perceptions sake ( the flag in my yard, 1st, 3rd Nat'l, Bonnie Blue,10th Tenn. Harp of Erin, my hillbilly accent)
That, my friend ,is your cross to bear.

Most Respsctfully,
Wendell Brown
9th Ky. The Orphan Brigade when I'm serious (N-SSA)
8TH kY when I play :-)

Brian Wolle
05-24-2007, 01:54 PM
Didn't mean to say that Southern units were the only ones using "n" word et cet. And I would believe not having heard it in Va previously. Thanks for correcting me.

reb4lee
05-24-2007, 02:24 PM
My opinion is that because certain groups use the Battle flag as there flag most people will think that whoever uses that flag is racist. Just because of the flag, people don't want to learn about it or want anything to do witch it.

rebelyell62
05-24-2007, 06:51 PM
My opinion is that because certain groups use the Battle flag as there flag most people will think that whoever uses that flag is racist. Just because of the flag, people don't want to learn about it or want anything to do witch it.

Let's not forget the fact that slavery existed far longer under the stars and stripes (eighty odd years) than it did under the stars and bars (barely 4 yrs)

hanktrent
05-24-2007, 07:35 PM
Let's not forget the fact that slavery existed far longer under the stars and stripes (eighty odd years) than it did under the stars and bars (barely 4 yrs)

Or that the stars and stripes has represented a free country most of the time, while the stars and bars never did.

Or that far more soldiers sacrificed their lives to free the slaves under the stars and stripes (even if it was a small percentage of the total), than under the stars and bars (pretty close to zero).

Unfortunately, soundbites and slogans are too easy to spin whichever way is wanted.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

VA Soldier
05-27-2007, 10:03 AM
The Stars and Stripes v. the Stars and Bars

The Stars and Stripes has flown over a free country, if by free you mean Non-Slaveholding, from late 1865 through present, which is far longer than the stars and bar flew over any nation true enough. But I think most would agree that the Unitd States following the War between the States was a far different place than prior, so if we are going to make comparisons, let us make sure that we are comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

And as far as freedom, let us not forget about the racial persecution and purges of Native Americans, pre and post Civil War, but the US Gov't, let us not forget the inability of women to vote until 1919, or even the segergation of the Army until post WWII.

And as far as numbers killed, I have never seen any numbers of Union dead who expressed a sentiment that they were out to end Slavery, and am unsure if such a list even exist. Surely there were many who felt that way, but many more who were interested in preserving the Union. Just because following the emancipation proclimation the end of Slavery was an added war aim does not mean we can blanket the entire Union army with that mantra no more so than we can cover the Confederate army with its defense. Why people seceed may be one matter, why they are willing to fight and die, is another entirely. We are in not fit position to give blanket coverage to either army on what the troops in the field were thinking, no matter how many letters or diaries exist, it does not cover all and to make broad generalizations based on a few accounts is nothing more that bad history.

D A Jackson

bill watson
05-27-2007, 10:18 AM
Jackson makes a fine point: When you view either side as monolithic, you miss a lot of interesting things, especially if you let the imperfections color your thinking and filter your perceptions.

Just because a society is imperfect doesn't invalidate its existence or detract from its virtues.

It's that last point that a lot of today's more thoughtful Southern sympathizers/defenders wish more of us would get, along with losing the hubris that goes with winning what became, in the final analysis, a one-dimensional war, one issue, a very big and important one.

Imperfection maybe the only constant; if that invalidates everything else, we might as well dig holes, crawl in and pull the dirt on top, because nothing we do will ever pass master.

KarinTimour
05-27-2007, 10:33 AM
Dear Mr. Jackson:

I read your post with interest and was pleased to note your appreciation for women being given the vote. I just wanted to clarify a bit about the dates and what was granted. Women in the US were granted full sufferage in all states in the Union on August 26, 1920 when Tennessee was the final state needed to ratify the constitutional amendment.

Women voted in various states and territories far before this, but they could not vote in all elections, and there were often other qualifiers that they had to meet. For example, women first voted in New Jersey in 1776, but they needed to have more than $250 in real property to qualify to cast a ballot.

Kentucky holds the honors of first allowing women (whether propertied or not) to vote in school elections in 1837. When Kansas entered the Union in 1861, one of it's conditions was that women (who had been voting in school elections) be allowed to continue doing so. Utah was the first state to grant women full sufferage in 1870, and many of the Western states entered the Union having already granted women the right to vote prior (sometimes years prior) to that state becoming part of the Union.

Thank you for "remembering the ladies!"

Sincerely,
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Come see me at September Storm -- I'll have the sock line with me.
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

hanktrent
05-27-2007, 11:45 AM
And as far as numbers killed, I have never seen any numbers of Union dead who expressed a sentiment that they were out to end Slavery, and am unsure if such a list even exist. Surely there were many who felt that way,

There ya have it. "Surely there were many." You admit it! How many Confederate soldiers do you think were fighting to free the slaves? More than on the Union side? No? Then even my opponent has to admit my statement is true.

Naturally, that's said (typed?) with deep sarcasm, and is an imitation of the kind of argument that's designed to lead away from an understanding of the whole complex truth rather than toward it.


We are in not fit position to give blanket coverage to either army on what the troops in the field were thinking, no matter how many letters or diaries exist, it does not cover all and to make broad generalizations based on a few accounts is nothing more that bad history.

And of course that was my whole point. An argument of sound-bites is silly, because each side can easily come up with a counter-attack that's equally true in denotation but misleading in connotation. If the goal is a greater understanding of the complex reality, you can't get there from here.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 08:21 AM
"The Confederacy....its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." Alexander H. Stephens, 1861

I REALLY wish you would not use this quote. Alexander Stephens was only one person. There were many others in the Confederacy that were opposed to slavery.
It is the same quote used by ignorant people to slam the Confederacy.
Slavery is not what the Confederate Soldier fought for, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were both opposed to it.

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 08:29 AM
Tom:

Here is a quote by Abraham Lincoln: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races.... I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

When people point fingers at the Confederate States for having slaves, I always point out that the "Great Emancipator" didn't care much for them either. It was all about politics. Then and Now.

Malingerer
11-01-2007, 09:27 AM
"The Confederacy....its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." Alexander H. Stephens, 1861

I REALLY wish you would not use this quote. Alexander Stephens was only one person. There were many others in the Confederacy that were opposed to slavery.
It is the same quote used by ignorant people to slam the Confederacy.
Slavery is not what the Confederate Soldier fought for, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were both opposed to it.
You are absolutely right -my bad. Stephens was only one man. Here are quotes from seven more:

"Slavery is central to not only our spiritual but our national life" -- Pastoral letter of the Bishops of the Southern Episcopal Church.
"Negro Slavery is the South, and the South is Negro Slavery" - A Georgia editor in 1860

"Slavery and the cause must rise or fall together, for they are identical." - Mobile Register

"Now what are we fighting for? We are fighting for the idea of race. - Daily Richmond Enquirer

"Our Ideal is a PRO SLAVERY REPUBLIC." - Augusta (Ga.) Daily Constitutionalist.

"This struggle has set the seal of providence before the eyes of the world upon domestic slavery. Above all, it is this that lends an awful sacredness to this contest on our part - that the rightful claims of Jehovah are deeply involved" - William A. Hall in a lecture entitled "The Historical Significance of the Southern Revolution."

"We do not place our cause upon its highest level until we grasp the idea that God has made us guardians and champions of a people whom he is preparing for his own purposes and against whom the whole world is banded. - Episcopal Bishop Stephen Elliot "Our Cause in Harmony with the Purposes of God in Jesus Christ." - A Sermon given in Savannah, Ga. 1862

Would you like more? There are literally thousnds of quotes that I could draw on which demonstrate quite clearly the true 'raison d'etre' for the existence of the Confederacy. Among the most striking are those of the so-called secession commisioners who traveled to each of the slave-holding states prior to the secession of the upper South. In each instance their prima facia case for secession was the survival of slavery. Most of these speeches are availablle in Charles Dew's "Apostles of Disunion". Here's a small taste:"On the 29th of November last, the Legislature of Mississippi, by an unanimous vote, called a Convention of her people, to take into consideration the existing relations between the Federal Government and herself, and to take such measures for the vindication of her sovereignty and the protection of her institutions as should appear to be demanded. At the same time, a preamble, setting forth the grievances of the Southern people on the slavery question, and a resolution, declaring that the secession of each aggrieved State, was the proper remedy, was adopted by a vote almost amounting to unanimity. The last clause of the preamble and the resolution, are as follows:
"Whereas, they (the people of the non-slaveholding States) have elected a majority of electors for President and Vice-President, on the ground that there exists an irreconcilable conflict between the two sections of the Confederacy, in reference to their respective systems of labor, and in pursuance of their hostility to us and our institutions, have thus declared to the civilized world that the powers of the government are to be used for the dishonor and overthrow of the Southern section of this great Confederacy." Fulton Anderson of Mississippi to the Virginia Secession Convention, 1861.

Now can you offer any like evidence showing a dislike of slavery on the part of Confederate leaders? Ignorant minds (like mine) are waiting to become enlightened.

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 09:58 AM
OK....here ya go:

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

More to follow..................

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 10:03 AM
Here is a story about Stonewall Jackson, though not a quote per say:

Stonewall Jackson, Champion of Black Literacy
by R.G. Williams, Jr.

Mention the legendary Confederate General Stonewall Jackson to most people and the image that immediately comes to mind is one of a fearless, hard-fighting Southerner known for his eccentricities, who some say fought for slavery. But Thomas Jonathan Jackson was a much more complicated man.

Indeed, a careful study of his life would lead one to believe that General Jackson might even be described as a civil-rights leader. Yes, that’s right, a civil-rights leader. In the nineteenth century, prior to the War of Federal Aggression, Virginia law prohibited whites from teaching blacks to read and write. Though Stonewall Jackson was known as an upstanding and law-abiding citizen in Lexington, he routinely broke this law every Sunday.

Though the law was not strictly enforced, Jackson quietly practiced civil disobedience by having an organized Sunday school class every Sunday afternoon, teaching black children to read, and teaching them the way of salvation. There are still churches active today that were founded by blacks reached with the Gospel through Jackson's efforts. Jackson taught the Sunday school class for blacks while he served as a deacon in Lexington’s Presbyterian Church. It was in the autumn of 1855 that Jackson, with the permission of his pastor, Dr. William S. White, began the class in a building near the main sanctuary. Every Sabbath afternoon shortly before 3:00 pm, the church bell would toll letting everyone know it was time to worship the Creator of all men. Jackson quickly gained the admiration and respect of blacks in the surrounding area as his zeal was apparent, and he took this solemn responsibility seriously. Attendance often numbered more than one hundred and Dr.White later wrote that Jackson "threw himself into this work with all of his characteristic energy and wisdom."

Jackson not only demanded much of himself in reaching slaves and free blacks, he demanded much of his students. His classes began promptly at three, and once he started, the classroom door was locked and latecomers were not allowed entrance. Bibles and books were awarded to those who were faithful and showed satisfactory progress. He also expected his students to give to the Lord’s work.

"On one occasion Gen. Thomas J. Jackson was appointed one of the collectors of the Bible Society. When he returned his list it was discovered that, at the end, copied by the clerk of session, was a considerable number of names written in pencil, to each of which a very small amount was attached. Moreover, the session, recognizing very few of the names, asked who these were. Jackson’s characteristic reply was ‘They are the militia; as the Bible Society is not a Presbyterian but a Christian cause, I deemed it best to go beyond the limits of our own church.’ They were the names chiefly of free Negroes."

This relationship between Jackson and the blacks of his community was not all that uncommon in the South, particularly pertaining to whites who were devout Christians.

"In Jackson’s mind, slaves were children of God placed in subordinate situations for reasons only the Creator could explain. Helping them was a missionary effort for Jackson. Their souls had to be saved. Although Jackson could not alter the social status of slaves, he could and did display Christian decency to those whose lot it was to be in bondage…he was emphatically the black man’s friend." – Dr. James I. Robertson

It was obvious that Jackson’s concern for his black brethren was real and something that occupied his mind even at the height of the war.

"Soon after one of the great battles, a large crowd gathered one day at the post office in Lexington, anxiously awaiting the opening of the mail, that they might get the particulars concerning the great battle which they had heard had been fought. The venerable pastor of the Presbyterian Church (Rev. Dr. W.S. White, from whom I received the incident) was of the company, and soon had handed him a letter which he recognized as directed in Jackson's well known handwriting. ‘Now,’ said he, ‘we will have the news! Here is a letter from General Jackson himself.’ The crowd eagerly gathered around, but heard to their very great disappointment a letter which made not the most remote allusion to the battle or the war, but which enclosed a check for fifty dollars with which to buy books for his colored Sunday school, and was filled with inquiries after the interests of the school and the church. He had no time for inclination to write of the great victory and the imperishable laurels he was winning; but he found time to remember his noble work among God's poor, and to contribute further to the good of the Negro children whose true friend and benefactor he had always been. And he was accustomed to say that one of the very greatest privations to him which the war brought, was that he was taken away from his loved work in the colored Sunday school." ~ William Jones


It was further obvious that the blacks of Lexington knew that Jackson’s love and concern for their spiritual well-being was real and they returned his affection.

"Jackson thus acquired a wonderful influence over the colored people of that whole region, and to this day his memory is warmly cherished by them. When Hunter's army was marching into Lexington, the Confederate flag which floated over Jackson's grave was hauled down and concealed by some of the citizens. A lady who stole into the cemetery one morning while the Federal army was occupying the town, bearing fresh flowers with which to decorate the hero's grave, was surprised to find a miniature Confederate flag planted on the grave with a verse of a familiar hymn pinned to it. Upon inquiry she found that a colored boy, who had belonged to Jackson's Sunday school, had procured the flag, gotten some one to copy a stanza of a favorite hymn which Jackson had taught him, and had gone in the night to plant the flag on the grave of his loved teacher." ~ William Jones

General Stonewall Jackson was, without question, one of the greatest generals America ever produced. He was fearless in battle and his legendary "Valley Campaign" fought in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia is still studied to this day. But more than that, he was a devout Christian and a lover of all good men – regardless of their color. Southerners and lovers of truth should do everything possible to educate future generations about the truth of our history, especially when it comes to the heroes of our faith and of our beloved Southland. Only in truth can we worship the Creator of all men.

Sources

Stonewall Jackson, The Man, The Soldier, The Legend by James I. Robertson
Christ in the Camp by J. William Jones

Malingerer
11-01-2007, 11:42 AM
OK, my bad. By Confederate leader I meant political leadrers not military - you know, the ones setting political policy. Most of us are familiar with sentiments of Lee, Jackson, Cleburn, and others. My own great grandfather fought for the South and never owned slaves and likely fought because he supported his community like tens of thousands of other young men. I get that. Everybody gets that. What they dont get (and thus, the reason 'the flag' is controversial) is this insistence that the Confederacy was some sort of holy cause created to foster some enlightened view of how the American democracy was really supposed to be. States rights is fine as a theory (kind of like communisim is fine as a theory) but to invoke its use to support human bondage does not give me the warm fuzzies.
So, now, can you provide a single quote attributable to a Confederate political leader expressing doubts about slavery?

tompritchett
11-01-2007, 11:50 AM
When people point fingers at the Confederate States for having slaves, I always point out that the "Great Emancipator" didn't care much for them either. It was all about politics. Then and Now.

I would suggest that you reread all of my posts in this thread because at no time do I cast any blame on the flag for its role in the Confederacy. Rather, IMHO, the black stains in this honorable flag all date to the 1950's and 60's when it was used as the rallying symbol for "peaceful" but highly intimidating, as well as extremely violent, opposition to the Civil Rights reforms - long past Lincoln had died and had any further influence on American politics.

Malingerer
11-01-2007, 11:54 AM
And, since you seem to be fond of Lincoln quotes, here's another one: "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
Abraham Lincoln

Malingerer
11-01-2007, 12:05 PM
General Stonewall Jackson was, without question, one of the greatest generals America ever produced. He was fearless in battle and his legendary "Valley Campaign" fought in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia is still studied to this day. But more than that, he was a devout Christian and a lover of all good men – regardless of their color. Southerners and lovers of truth should do everything possible to educate future generations about the truth of our history, especially when it comes to the heroes of our faith and of our beloved Southland. Only in truth can we worship the Creator of all men.

Sources

Stonewall Jackson, The Man, The Soldier, The Legend by James I. Robertson
Christ in the Camp by J. William Jones

Like many so-called Christians, Jackson carefully picked and chose which parts of the Scriptures he wanted to obey. While he carefully observed the Sabbath, he didnt mind giving his enemies a good old fashioned slaughtering of old testement proportions - despite the admonitions of Jesus to 'love our enemies' and 'he who lives by the sword....'. etc.. . MY hero of my beloved Southland and faith is M.L. King.

Pvt Schnapps
11-01-2007, 12:34 PM
Like many so-called Christians, Jackson carefully picked and chose which parts of the Scriptures he wanted to obey. While he carefully observed the Sabbath, he didnt mind giving his enemies a good old fashioned slaughtering of old testement proportions - despite the admonitions of Jesus to 'love our enemies' and 'he who lives by the sword....'. etc.. . MY hero of my beloved Southland and faith is M.L. King.

I'll add that the quote from Lee demonstrates a willingness to tolerate slavery for quite a while under the guise of "instruction." It's hard to credit him with that statement -- we know the slaves weren't getting much academic instruction, and it's hard now to credit the value of moral instruction received at the end of a lash.

As far as the Jackson tale, the work "Christ in the Camp", published in 1887 (see http://books.google.com/books?id=UkT0xLxpfaQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Christ+in+the+Camp%22&ei=Hv0pR-a8DJak7wK5y_3xCw) is neither a particularly objective nor well-sourced reference.

Patrick Cleburne found out how much the political leadership of the south was wedded to slavery when he suggested raising black troops on the promise of freedom.

A friend of mine once pointed out that there were only three differences between the Confederate constitution and the original: a single six year term for president, the line item veto, and an iron-clad guaranty that slavery would stay legal. A lot of folks say the war wasn't caused by slavery but, as he put it, it's hard to believe 600,000 Americans died over the line item veto.

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 01:26 PM
I would suggest that you reread all of my posts in this thread because at no time do I cast any blame on the flag for its role in the Confederacy. Rather, IMHO, the black stains in this honorable flag all date to the 1950's and 60's when it was used as the rallying symbol for "peaceful" but highly intimidating, as well as extremely violent, opposition to the Civil Rights reforms - long past Lincoln had died and had any further influence on American politics.


Tom, my post wasn't directed at you personally. I was just reminding everyone that Lincoln was no angel either....:D

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 01:32 PM
That one would be hard to do, but the point here is that even though slavery was a major issue, (among the planter class, anyway), States-Rights was the underlying problem, slavery being an example of a right that the states had and should solve. Now, that being said, there is the reason that MOST fought for who served in the Confederate Army: A Federal officer asked a Confederate prisoner why he was fighting them.....The reply was, "BECAUSE YOU'RE HERE!" .......

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 01:35 PM
And, since you seem to be fond of Lincoln quotes, here's another one: "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
Abraham Lincoln
Sir;

I am trying to be polite, YOU on the other hand seem to be getting heated.
Maybe we should discontinue until you cool off.

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 01:39 PM
Like many so-called Christians, Jackson carefully picked and chose which parts of the Scriptures he wanted to obey. While he carefully observed the Sabbath, he didnt mind giving his enemies a good old fashioned slaughtering of old testement proportions - despite the admonitions of Jesus to 'love our enemies' and 'he who lives by the sword....'. etc.. . MY hero of my beloved Southland and faith is M.L. King.

Jackson used the bible as an example for life. He believed that giving "no quarter" to the enemy was biblically correct, and would end the war quickly.
He was a Christian, but a soldier as well. Nothing shameful about that.

I am quite sure that if you were to examine ML King's life, you would find him less than perfect, as well.

hanktrent
11-01-2007, 01:43 PM
OK....here ya go:

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

I'm not seeing how that contradicts the basics of Alexander Stephen's message. It wasn't unusual for southerners to condemn slavery in the abstract, but Lee, like others, makes it clear he's not taking personal moral responsibility for it, he's not willing to work to end slavery in the south, and he doesn't want abolitionists doing it either because that's up to God.

Reminds me of the joke about the stranded person in the flood who refused the help of boats and helicopters because God would save him. Lee doesn't allow for the fact that the abolitionists might be sent by God to accomplish the task. Not that I believe that, but many of the abolitionists surely did.

There's a difference between opposing slavery, in the sense of refusing to own slaves, working to free slaves, and advocating the outlawing of slavery, and opposing slavery in the sense of believing it's wrong in theory but supporting it in practice.


The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence.

If the goal is to show that influential southerners opposed slavery in the same way notherners did, I don't think we can get there from here...

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 01:44 PM
I'll add that the quote from Lee demonstrates a willingness to tolerate slavery for quite a while under the guise of "instruction." It's hard to credit him with that statement -- we know the slaves weren't getting much academic instruction, and it's hard now to credit the value of moral instruction received at the end of a lash.

As far as the Jackson tale, the work "Christ in the Camp", published in 1887 (see http://books.google.com/books?id=UkT0xLxpfaQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Christ+in+the+Camp%22&ei=Hv0pR-a8DJak7wK5y_3xCw) is neither a particularly objective nor well-sourced reference.

Patrick Cleburne found out how much the political leadership of the south was wedded to slavery when he suggested raising black troops on the promise of freedom.


A friend of mine once pointed out that there were only three differences between the Confederate constitution and the original: a single six year term for president, the line item veto, and an iron-clad guaranty that slavery would stay legal. A lot of folks say the war wasn't caused by slavery but, as he put it, it's hard to believe 600,000 Americans died over the line item veto.



R.L. Dabney, who was one of the greatest Christian Evangelist of all time, was Jackson's personal chaplain, and has written a very good and accurate biography of Stonewall's life, and it backs up everything in the story.

As I posted to someone earlier, Slavery was LEGAL. The continuation of that moral wrong should have been solved by the states. THAT was the issue.

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 01:49 PM
I'm not seeing how that contradicts the basics of Alexander Stephen's message. It wasn't unusual for southerners to condemn slavery in the abstract, but Lee, like others, makes it clear he's not taking personal moral responsibility for it, he's not willing to work to end slavery in the south, and he doesn't want abolitionists doing it either because that's up to God.

Reminds me of the joke about the stranded person in the flood who refused the help of boats and helicopters because God would save him. Lee doesn't allow for the fact that the abolitionists might be sent by God to accomplish the task. Not that I believe that, but many of the abolitionists surely did.

There's a difference between opposing slavery, in the sense of refusing to own slaves, working to free slaves, and advocating the outlawing of slavery, and opposing slavery in the sense of believing it's wrong in theory but supporting it in practice.



If the goal is to show that influential southerners opposed slavery in the same way notherners did, I don't think we can get there from here...

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net



Lee simply believed that the slaves were not ready for freedom at that time.
Reconstruction, and the years that followed seem to back up that premise.
He was in favor of gradual emancipation. In Brazil, slaves were freed gradually, and they have none of the racial problems that this country is undergoing today.

Malingerer
11-01-2007, 01:58 PM
R.L. Dabney, who was one of the greatest Christian Evangelist of all time, was Jackson's personal chaplain, and has written a very good and accurate biography of Stonewall's life, and it backs up everything in the story.

As I posted to someone earlier, Slavery was LEGAL. The continuation of that moral wrong should have been solved by the states. THAT was the issue.
On that, we agree. It should have been - but when money talks morality walks. The interesting thing to me is how lost causers will espouse the right of the states to withdraw ( a right I happen to agree with) but overlook just why it was they withdrew. One doesnt have to look far - they did a great job of explaining it. Time and and again they said it plain as day -the protection (in perpetuity) of slavery. They were proud of it and were willing to die and kill for it. I for one, don't need a whitewashed PC view of the Confederacy to pay homage to my ancestors - I can take the truth warts and all. The really sad part was, that the peculiar institution was under no immediate threat from Republicans who just wanted to stop the spread of slavery to the territories.

Malingerer
11-01-2007, 02:02 PM
Sir;

I am trying to be polite, YOU on the other hand seem to be getting heated.
Maybe we should discontinue until you cool off.
If you will reread this thread it may occur to you that my quote was given in response to your Lincoln quote. Nothing heated in that. Perhaps you are projecting just a bit.

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 02:04 PM
Perhaps. But my Lincoln quote didn't have a personal aim to it.
I will take your word that no personal insinuation was meant.

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 02:08 PM
On that, we agree. It should have been - but when money talks morality walks. The interesting thing to me is how lost causers will espouse the right of the states to withdraw ( a right I happen to agree with) but overlook just why it was they withdrew. One doesnt have to look far - they did a great job of explaining it. Time and and again they said it plain as day -the protection (in perpetuity) of slavery. They were proud of it and were willing to die and kill for it. I for one, don't need a whitewashed PC view of the Confederacy to pay homage to my ancestors - I can take the truth warts and all. The really sad part was, that the peculiar institution was under no immediate threat from Republicans who just wanted to stop the spread of slavery to the territories.


That is the big question. Was there a threat? Our Southern ancestors certainly must have perceived that there was. I find it hard to believe that war would have come unless they were wholly convinced that Lincoln meant to do away with that "peculiar institution"........

Malingerer
11-01-2007, 02:55 PM
That is the big question. Was there a threat? Our Southern ancestors certainly must have perceived that there was. I find it hard to believe that war would have come unless they were wholly convinced that Lincoln meant to do away with that "peculiar institution"........
One of the things that history teaches us is that people have done some pretty crazy things because they thought they were threatened. A bunch of inncocent people were strung up in Massachusets because the people thought they were witches out to do us harm. The people of the South (white people) consistently got virtually everything they wanted (like the fugitive slave act) despite being a minority within the United States - and they still took their ball and went home. Sheesh, talk about your soreheads.

jthlmnn
11-01-2007, 03:05 PM
That is the big question. Was there a threat? Our Southern ancestors certainly must have perceived that there was. I find it hard to believe that war would have come unless they were wholly convinced that Lincoln meant to do away with that "peculiar institution"........

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories was the perceived threat. On that, Lincoln was "inflexible". [Letter to Seward February 1, 1861 http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/slavery/al17.htm] The cash crops which relied on slavery to be profitable also exhausted the land on which those crops were grown. Expansion was necessary or the whole system would eventually collapse. The expression "land rich & cash poor" has been used to describe the economic situation of many plantation owners. The money they borrowed from Northern bankers was primarily for the purchase of more and more land. Some speculate that one of the motivators for secession was the possibility of getting out from under that accumulated debt.

As for the existing states, Lincoln had publicly stated that he would not try to abolish slavery where it existed, because he could not constitutionally do so. (I can't, therefore I won't try.)

"I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so." Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio*
September 17, 1859

A perusal of Lincoln's speeches and writings regarding slavery will find a consistent reiteration of these two points:

1) Slavery is evil and should not be allowed to expand into the territories
2) Where it exists, it is constitutionally sanctioned, therefore it can only be eliminated when the people of those states so decide

So, was there a threat, coming from Lincoln, to suddenly and forcibly free the slaves in existing states? Only in the rhetoric of Southern firebrands. Was there a long-term threat to the viability of a slave-based economy? Without expansion into the territories, yes.

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 03:22 PM
One of the things that history teaches us is that people have done some pretty crazy things because they thought they were threatened. A bunch of inncocent people were strung up in Massachusets because the people thought they were witches out to do us harm. The people of the South (white people) consistently got virtually everything they wanted (like the fugitive slave act) despite being a minority within the United States - and they still took their ball and went home. Sheesh, talk about your soreheads.


Perhaps.

Without being there, it is hard to tell WHY they felt threatened. I do know that many Southerners with calmer heads enlisted. suffered, and in many cases, died, and I don't believe that slavery was the motivation. :confused:

jthlmnn
11-01-2007, 03:42 PM
Lee simply believed that the slaves were not ready for freedom at that time.
Reconstruction, and the years that followed seem to back up that premise.


I would submit that "Reconstruction and what followed afterward" speaks volumes of how unprepared the the White population was and still is to accept the freedom and political equality of the former slaves, and nothing as to whether the slaves "were ready" for freedom.

Malingerer
11-01-2007, 03:43 PM
Perhaps.

Without being there, it is hard to tell WHY they felt threatened. I do know that many Southerners with calmer heads enlisted. suffered, and in many cases, died, and I don't believe that slavery was the motivation. :confused:
That is why I supplied the quotes from so many folks in leadership positions who wholeheartedly supported slavery - they tell why they felt threatened - The election of Lincoln and the 'Black Republicans' was just to much of a threat to the future of slavery. Remember, many of the folks up North had recently offered up praise to John Brown and his raiders. Regardless of why our leaders get us into wars (justified or not) patriotic young men will always join up to fight for their communities. Slavery wasnt the motive to fight, it was the reason for the war.

Malingerer
11-01-2007, 03:51 PM
I would submit that "Reconstruction and what followed afterward" speaks volumes of how unprepared the the White population was and still is to accept the freedom and political equality of the former slaves, and nothing as to whether the slaves "were ready" for freedom.
Well John, are any of us really ready for true freedom?

In all seriousness, your point is spot on and we Southerners are still reaping the whirlwind sewn by our forefathers. It is a legacy filled with both glory and shame and until we get over this incredible sense of denial, we're never going to be rid of the shame part. I for one am quite ready to face the past with an unblinking eye.

madisontigers
11-01-2007, 04:20 PM
Goodness gracious, I knew that this topic just couldn't die. Oh well, here is my outlook on this whole issue. If one wants to fly the Confederate flag, then fine let them do it. However, although our constitution clearly indicates freedom of speech, we should be fully prepared for any and all criticisms that come our way, in regards to actions that we partake in. In otherwords, although you have the right to fly the Confederate flag, then likewise, others have the freedom to call your hand on what the flag may or may not stand for.As far as my personal usage of the flag, I choose to only display it at Living histories(with historically accurate version, correct for the impression that I am portraying)grave dedications, and other historic events.Personally, I feel that the flag has no business flying from the top of any state capital.
I am the proud descendent of numerous C.S. soldiers, and I don't apologize to anyone for feeling that way.However, if one is to read the Confederate constitution, one clearly sees that the sole purpose of the Confederacy was to preserve the institution of forced servitude. Yes, it is true, the majority of CS soldiers did not own slaves, at lest the enlistedmen that is, but the government that they were fighting for, well, they did believe in the institution of slavery.
My outlook on sectional racial tension, at least in todays time, is a bit different. I feel that all sections of the nation suffer from racial tension. To me, the biggest problem with racial suffrage is that it isn't just one gender that is racist, it is all genders. To me, what is scary is the fact that we don't just have one hate group, we have several. Today, we have many hate groups to contend with, some examples which include the : KKK, Neo-Nazi movement, Aryan brotherhood, Muslim brotherhood, Black Panthers,and so on...and so forth. Racism is as prevelant in the Northern part of our nation than it is in the South. The biggest black eye in regards to southern forms of racism, at least in recent times, is segregation.

Regards,

David Long

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 04:56 PM
I would submit that "Reconstruction and what followed afterward" speaks volumes of how unprepared the the White population was and still is to accept the freedom and political equality of the former slaves, and nothing as to whether the slaves "were ready" for freedom.


I disagree. There is more than enough documentation to prove otherwise.
Again, look at Brazil, and how they handled the situation. They have NONE of the same problems.

TexConfederate
11-01-2007, 05:01 PM
Well John, are any of us really ready for true freedom?

In all seriousness, your point is spot on and we Southerners are still reaping the whirlwind sewn by our forefathers. It is a legacy filled with both glory and shame and until we get over this incredible sense of denial, we're never going to be rid of the shame part. I for one am quite ready to face the past with an unblinking eye.


I think that the South collectively has suffered enough. I think 140 years is long enough, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, addressed any inequalities.
The flag stands for the bravery of my ancestors, and it is time for the NAACP and anyone else concerned to just get over it. I am willing to face the past, but I refuse to suffer for it.

reb64
11-01-2007, 05:58 PM
I believe the US genocidal native american policy and anti-semitic position put them over the top. Also drafting slaves to do the dirty work make them worse in my estimtion, then abandoning them and keeping them in perpetual social entitlemnt bondage ever since.

Malingerer
11-01-2007, 06:25 PM
I think that the South collectively has suffered enough. I think 140 years is long enough, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, addressed any inequalities.
The flag stands for the bravery of my ancestors, and it is time for the NAACP and anyone else concerned to just get over it. I am willing to face the past, but I refuse to suffer for it.
This is precisely the sort of denial I'm talking about. 140 years of suffering? By whom? Not Whites thats for sure. I grew up in Mississippi during desegregation and the only suffering I witnessed was that of young Black children as they tried to go to school with us White kids. The displays of the Confederate flag did not make my heart grow proud as they were waved tauntingly in the very faces of these kids. These wern't klansmen either - just good ole' god-fearing country folks.

140 years of suffering? Does the irony of that statement not just amaze you?

Malingerer
11-01-2007, 06:28 PM
I believe the US genocidal native american policy and anti-semitic position put them over the top. Also drafting slaves to do the dirty work make them worse in my estimtion, then abandoning them and keeping them in perpetual social entitlemnt bondage ever since.
Reb,
You really need to catch up on your reading. Blacks volunteered (in the tens of thousands) to join the army (the US army). As far as compelling Blacks to work on projects like fortifications and such - well both sides can lay claim to that one.

tompritchett
11-01-2007, 07:11 PM
Tom, my post wasn't directed at you personally.

It is just I tend to reach that assumption when people when people reply of of one my posts (I use the hybrid view which shows to which reply the reply button was hit), especially when they also start the reply with the words "Tom:". As far as Linclon was concerned, yes he was a racist by our standards but he would have been one of the more enlightened members of his society because of his strong views against slavery. However, regardless of how he personally felt about slavery, we now know that he felt even more strongly about preserving the Union - even if it meant strengthening the legal foundation of slavery in the current slave states.

tompritchett
11-01-2007, 07:16 PM
I would submit that "Reconstruction and what followed afterward" speaks volumes of how unprepared the the White population was and still is to accept the freedom and political equality of the former slaves, and nothing as to whether the slaves "were ready" for freedom.

Considering it took the Federal government to in essence force much of the South, and later parts of the North, to acknowledge those freedoms almost a century later, I think that you hit the nail clearly on the head with that assessment.

reb64
11-01-2007, 07:21 PM
Reb,
You really need to catch up on your reading. Blacks volunteered (in the tens of thousands) to join the army (the US army). As far as compelling Blacks to work on projects like fortifications and such - well both sides can lay claim to that one.

You haven;t read enough. many were forced to join, fact. many were put in front line spots to take the brunt of the fight.

flattop32355
11-01-2007, 09:53 PM
You haven;t read enough. many were forced to join, fact. many were put in front line spots to take the brunt of the fight.

Such a statement requires documentation, from credible sources.
Please be so kind as to give some references to support the above statement.

Thank you,

TexConfederate
11-02-2007, 01:58 AM
This is precisely the sort of denial I'm talking about. 140 years of suffering? By whom? Not Whites thats for sure. I grew up in Mississippi during desegregation and the only suffering I witnessed was that of young Black children as they tried to go to school with us White kids. The displays of the Confederate flag did not make my heart grow proud as they were waved tauntingly in the very faces of these kids. These wern't klansmen either - just good ole' god-fearing country folks.

140 years of suffering? Does the irony of that statement not just amaze you?


I think you need to look around you, if you think Mississippi didn't suffer.

Example: Meridian was burned to the ground by Union troops and STILL is suffering economically to this day!

Take a look at Vicksburg, those people were treated shamefully after the city's surrender, and they were so bitter they didn't even celebrate 4th of July until 1958!

I think you are someone who is obviously ashamed of your roots. I'm not. My family did nothing to be ashamed about. If you are ashamed of the flag, then don't fly it...but don't accuse those of us who aren't of being in "denial"!

Malingerer
11-02-2007, 09:34 AM
Such a statement requires documentation, from credible sources.
Please be so kind as to give some references to support the above statement.

Thank you,
I wouldn't hold my breath.

TexConfederate
11-02-2007, 10:00 AM
I also grew up in South as the Civil Rights reforms were going through and agree that the battle flag was used to show support for resistance to these reforms. However, that does not change the essence of Bill's statement "It's a textbook example of hijacking a powerful, blood-stained icon that stood for duty and honor among soldiers and putting it in front of an unsavory cause". Rather it just adds another dimension of the hijacking. I would even argue that much of resistance to the Civil Rights reforms was indeed driven by hatred (just look at some of the period new clips). Back then most of my parents and older siblings generations tended to like Blacks as individuals but hate them as a race. I never could understand that dichotomy but I saw it in action too many times to discount its existence.


Tom:

I can understand your confusion. I had the same problem. In the 1940's my Grandfather had a "muleskinner" that worked with him, who was black, and was essentially his best friend. My Grandfather almost went to jail for standing up to the County Sheriff, for literally "kicking" this man off of a sidewalk, because only "whites" were allowed to be on it. Yet, for all their friendship, when this man would come to visit, he always went to the backdoor, and would eat outside in the backyard, and never in the house. When my Grandfather passed away, the black gentleman's wife came to the house, cooked, and cleaned and helped my Grandmother, but would not eat in the same room with everyone else. When I asked my Dad why, he explained that the situation was "just the way it had always been, etc."

It was confusing to me......

TexConfederate
11-02-2007, 10:04 AM
That is why I supplied the quotes from so many folks in leadership positions who wholeheartedly supported slavery - they tell why they felt threatened - The election of Lincoln and the 'Black Republicans' was just to much of a threat to the future of slavery. Remember, many of the folks up North had recently offered up praise to John Brown and his raiders. Regardless of why our leaders get us into wars (justified or not) patriotic young men will always join up to fight for their communities. Slavery wasnt the motive to fight, it was the reason for the war.

This is one thing we BOTH agree on for sure....... :)

billwatson2
11-02-2007, 10:29 AM
"Meridian was burned to the ground by Union troops and STILL is suffering economically to this day!"

Well, Chambersburg, Pa., was burned to the ground by Early's troops, and rebuilt itself better than it was before. And Atlanta didn't take long to recover, either. I'm not sure how long it took to recover from war damage is a barometer of inflicted suffering or a measure of some competency or other or underlying economic fact of life: Maybe Meridian was simply not as viable as a town without a surrounding slave economy? Or maybe it wasn't doing all that well before the war? Kind of hard to say, but personally I'd not pin "slow recovery" on my chest as a badge of martyrdom, since to be affected 145 years later says more about me than it does about what happened then. My paradigm, anyway. Yours may vary.

Meanwhile: A great many southerners believed the same wealthy abolitionist folks who financed John Brown's raid were behind the election of Lincoln. In other words, they believed the revolutionaries first seized the government, then implemented policy, said policy being abolition of slavery by fire and sword and blood. The subsequent actions taken by everyone made that belief true, in the end, of course, but as a motivator, a belief you are about to be invaded is pretty high on the list of reasons to enlist. At that point it really doesn't matter if you yourself believe in slavery, Catholicism, voodoo or the gold standard, you enlist to defend yourself, your family, your community. It's not hard to understand the initial motivation, although it may be quite hard for most of us to put ourselves in the shoes of a typical southerner in 1860 and see what he saw as he saw it coming down; we have the curse of knowledge to inform our hindsight.

TexConfederate
11-02-2007, 11:20 AM
"Meridian was burned to the ground by Union troops and STILL is suffering economically to this day!"

Well, Chambersburg, Pa., was burned to the ground by Early's troops, and rebuilt itself better than it was before. And Atlanta didn't take long to recover, either. I'm not sure how long it took to recover from war damage is a barometer of inflicted suffering or a measure of some competency or other or underlying economic fact of life: Maybe Meridian was simply not as viable as a town without a surrounding slave economy? Or maybe it wasn't doing all that well before the war? Kind of hard to say, but personally I'd not pin "slow recovery" on my chest as a badge of martyrdom, since to be affected 145 years later says more about me than it does about what happened then. My paradigm, anyway. Yours may vary.

Meanwhile: A great many southerners believed the same wealthy abolitionist folks who financed John Brown's raid were behind the election of Lincoln. In other words, they believed the revolutionaries first seized the government, then implemented policy, said policy being abolition of slavery by fire and sword and blood. The subsequent actions taken by everyone made that belief true, in the end, of course, but as a motivator, a belief you are about to be invaded is pretty high on the list of reasons to enlist. At that point it really doesn't matter if you yourself believe in slavery, Catholicism, voodoo or the gold standard, you enlist to defend yourself, your family, your community. It's not hard to understand the initial motivation, although it may be quite hard for most of us to put ourselves in the shoes of a typical southerner in 1860 and see what he saw as he saw it coming down; we have the curse of knowledge to inform our hindsight.

Meridian was a major rail hub for the South, similar in value to Corinth.
The railway was totally destroyed, as would be expected in war, but the troops also burned the town to the ground.

As for your other sentiments, I agree with you 100%.
That is why my ancestors fought. Because of invasion.

ILYankee5
11-02-2007, 11:31 AM
I teach Social Studies at a Jr. High. I was wondering what the viewpoints were on allowing Jr. High Students to wear clothing with the battleflag on it. One of which says "It's a Southern Thang." Even though I am from Illinois, I live at the Sothern tip of the state 20 minutes from Kentucky. There were several people that went to fight for the Confederacy from this area. I however view the above said shirt offensive. Offensive to southerners making them look uneducated and ignorant. I did not make him change it, rather I made him explain to me what that flag meant to him. I was shocked, he had no clue!! Luckily this is my first year teaching, or I would have kicked myself. I said to him, apparently you didn't do to much on the Civil War last year, and his reply was "oh was that the war between us and England?" Just looking for thoughts

Seth Graves

Malingerer
11-02-2007, 12:36 PM
Meridian was a major rail hub for the South, similar in value to Corinth.
The railway was totally destroyed, as would be expected in war, but the troops also burned the town to the ground.

As for your other sentiments, I agree with you 100%.
That is why my ancestors fought. Because of invasion.
For what its worth, Meridian is doing just fine. It is a vibrant, thriving, and prosperous city. For that matter, so is Vicksburg - and nowadays we Mississipians are quite proud to celebrate the fourth of July and we consider ourselves (for the most part) U.S. patriots.

Malingerer
11-02-2007, 12:41 PM
I teach Social Studies at a Jr. High. I was wondering what the viewpoints were on allowing Jr. High Students to wear clothing with the battleflag on it. One of which says "It's a Southern Thang." Even though I am from Illinois, I live at the Sothern tip of the state 20 minutes from Kentucky. There were several people that went to fight for the Confederacy from this area. I however view the above said shirt offensive. Offensive to southerners making them look uneducated and ignorant. I did not make him change it, rather I made him explain to me what that flag meant to him. I was shocked, he had no clue!! Luckily this is my first year teaching, or I would have kicked myself. I said to him, apparently you didn't do to much on the Civil War last year, and his reply was "oh was that the war between us and England?" Just looking for thoughts

Seth Graves
The primary responsibility of schools is to provide a safe learning environment. Within the bounds of the school environment kids have one inailiable right- the right to learn. All other rights are secondary to that one. So, if certain t-shirts cause disruptions then they should probably be banned. If they're not a problem then I suggest that you don't go looking for one. You've probably got your hands full as it is.

TexConfederate
11-02-2007, 12:54 PM
I don't doubt Meridian is doing fine, but not at the same level as in 1860, or so I have been told. As for Vicksburg, I was there two weeks ago, and a lady at the Visitors Center told me a few things that would dispute what you are saying.

sbl
11-02-2007, 02:09 PM
"not at the same level as in 1860"

Jaye,

What stays the same? My area used to be booming with capital industry; textile mills, shoe factories, granite quarries, and fishing. Now it's Malls, light manufacturing and tourism. (Outside Boston)

It wasn't even war that changed that.


Are rail roads still major transportation in and around Meridan?

Do we all know the lady at the Visitor's Center?

peedeeguard
11-02-2007, 02:37 PM
I teach Social Studies at a Jr. High. I was wondering what the viewpoints were on allowing Jr. High Students to wear clothing with the battleflag on it. One of which says "It's a Southern Thang." Even though I am from Illinois, I live at the Sothern tip of the state 20 minutes from Kentucky. There were several people that went to fight for the Confederacy from this area. I however view the above said shirt offensive. Offensive to southerners making them look uneducated and ignorant. I did not make him change it, rather I made him explain to me what that flag meant to him. I was shocked, he had no clue!! Luckily this is my first year teaching, or I would have kicked myself. I said to him, apparently you didn't do to much on the Civil War last year, and his reply was "oh was that the war between us and England?" Just looking for thoughts

Seth Graves



Thank You, I agree that the shirt was offensive and it shows the flag and the southern people in a bad light. Hate groups and stupid shirts like the one mentioned have done more to disgrace the Confederate Battle Flag than those who oppose it flying. When the flag was taken off of the S.C. capitol I was glad, because it was put there to protest desegregation. But when it was moved to the monument the protesters still whinned, so on the other hand they want it erased from everyones memory. That is not observing the rights of the southern people who are very proud of their ancestors?
Malingerer, your post on the Southern race and the Christians makes me believe that you are just as guilty as the racist, you said are and were living in the south. You sound as though you think all Southerners are and were doing nothing but sitting around plotting against the Black race. That makes you sound like a racist. As far as the "So-called Christians such as Stonewall Jackson" as you called him, we are not perfect, nor would a true believer in Christ say they are. If you can find where General Jackson said he was perfect then show me. It is our sins that are washed in the blood of Christ, not our humanity. You said that you can honor your ancestors and admit they were racist, well that is your ancestors not mine. My ancestors who fought and died in the Confederate Army never owned one slave. Does that prove they were not racist, no, but it does not prove they were either.

Dewey McRae

ILYankee5
11-02-2007, 02:37 PM
You are exactly right about having my hands full!! This is my first year. The student in question plays on the basketball team I coach, and is no problem. I may should have used another word than offend, more like surprised me. But thank you for your comments back.

tompritchett
11-02-2007, 02:54 PM
I don't doubt Meridian is doing fine, but not at the same level as in 1860, or so I have been told. As for Vicksburg, I was there two weeks ago, and a lady at the Visitors Center told me a few things that would dispute what you are saying

Times change as economies shift from one major commodity to another. I suspect that the relative decline of Meridan and Vicksburg had as much to do with the decline of King Cotton and the lack of a replacement for its role as a major cash crop as with the ending of the Civil War. Look at many of the old mining towns of Colorado and the cattle towns of Kansas. These towns declined in prominence and others in their region grew as the economies of the regions shifted. I suspect the same applies to Meridan, Corinth and Vicksburg. Also remember that at the time, the railroad bridges across Old Man River were few and very far between. Now is no longer the case.

Malingerer
11-02-2007, 02:58 PM
Thank You, I agree that the shirt was offensive and it shows the flag and the southern people in a bad light. Hate groups and stupid shirts like the one mentioned have done more to disgrace the Confederate Battle Flag than those who oppose it flying. When the flag was taken off of the S.C. capitol I was glad, because it was put there to protest desegregation. But when it was moved to the monument the protesters still whinned, so on the other hand they want it erased from everyones memory. That is not observing the rights of the southern people who are very proud of their ancestors?
Malingerer, your post on the Southern race and the Christians makes me believe that you are just as guilty as the racist, you said are and were living in the south. You sound as though you think all Southerners are and were doing nothing but sitting around plotting against the Black race. That makes you sound like a racist. As far as the "So-called Christians such as Stonewall Jackson" as you called him, we are not perfect, nor would a true believer in Christ say they are. If you can find where General Jackson said he was perfect then show me. It is our sins that are washed in the blood of Christ, not our humanity. You said that you can honor your ancestors and admit they were racist, well that is your ancestors not mine. My ancestors who fought and died in the Confederate Army never owned one slave. Does that prove they were not racist, no, but it does not prove they were either.

Dewey McRae
Dewey,
With all due respect, are sure you know what "race" and "racist" means? I'm no expert, but I'm fairly certain that 'Southern' is not a race.
And, Dewey, if you're going to quote someone make sure you do it correctly - that's just good manners. I never said my ancestors were racits. I have no way of knowing - they left behind no diaries or letters to indicate their feelings. And yes, I certainly can honor their sacrafice and courage without honoring the cause for which they fought.
Lastly Dewey, go back and reread my post regarding Stonewall Jackson because I think you missed my point. Saying you're a Christian doesn't make it so - a certain degree of action consistent with the dogma is required. I would submit that slaughtering your enemies seems somewhat at odds to the essence of Christ's message.

billwatson2
11-02-2007, 03:38 PM
"I was wondering what the viewpoints were on allowing Jr. High Students to wear clothing with the battleflag on it."

Being somewhat of a troublemaker in this arena, my inclination would be to take the kid aside and ask him what he knew about the flag. If he even mentioned Stephen D. Lee's charge to the United Confederate Veterans, I'd let him keep on wearing it.

The odds of that kind of answer are pretty slim, though. "It's a Southern thang" just doesn't cut it as shorthand....

peedeeguard
11-02-2007, 03:54 PM
On that, we agree. It should have been - but when money talks morality walks. The interesting thing to me is how lost causers will espouse the right of the states to withdraw ( a right I happen to agree with) but overlook just why it was they withdrew. One doesnt have to look far - they did a great job of explaining it. Time and and again they said it plain as day -the protection (in perpetuity) of slavery. They were proud of it and were willing to die and kill for it. I for one, don't need a whitewashed PC view of the Confederacy to pay homage to my ancestors - I can take the truth warts and all. The really sad part was, that the peculiar institution was under no immediate threat from Republicans who just wanted to stop the spread of slavery to the territories.

__________________
Peter Julius



Granted the slavery issue was one of the reasons some of the states pulled out, but the flag over the capitol would have been either the first not the battle flag. That was the soldier's flag it wasn't out until 1862.
As far as the quote racist, whites get called this by people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson every week on one of the news channel, so I do know what the word means. But the way Southerners is being used on this topic it sounds like we are viewed as an alien race to this country. Yes we have racist in the South, they come in all colors. Just like the rest of the country and world to be honest.
I was looking at the part in your above statement about "willing to die and kill for it". Did you mean the soldiers or the politicians? If you meant the politicians, I doubt any of them were willing to die, but if you meant your ancestors then I was right. If you meant the politicians then I apologize, I did misquote you.
The Jewish Bible, or the Old Testament as it is now called, has a load of stories about war as you said. People will and have always fought with each other ever since Cain was thrown out of the Garden. King David was a warrior who had a whole village wiped out except one man. And he was a man after God's own heart. If you go by the killing in war senario then are you saying all soldiers are not Christian. Jesus did preach peace and I wish everyone would have listened, but Jesus is also a warrior. Examples are his willingness to face and conquer death and at the second comming when he will lead his army against Satan. Jackson is not any different than any other General who puts on a uniform, his job is to kill the enemy. Stonewall was just good at getting the job done.

Dewey McRae

Malingerer
11-02-2007, 04:04 PM
On that, we agree. It should have been - but when money talks morality walks. The interesting thing to me is how lost causers will espouse the right of the states to withdraw ( a right I happen to agree with) but overlook just why it was they withdrew. One doesnt have to look far - they did a great job of explaining it. Time and and again they said it plain as day -the protection (in perpetuity) of slavery. They were proud of it and were willing to die and kill for it. I for one, don't need a whitewashed PC view of the Confederacy to pay homage to my ancestors - I can take the truth warts and all. The really sad part was, that the peculiar institution was under no immediate threat from Republicans who just wanted to stop the spread of slavery to the territories.

__________________
Peter Julius



Granted the slavery issue was one of the reasons some of the states pulled out, but the flag over the capitol would have been either the first not the battle flag. That was the soldier's flag it wasn't out until 1862.
As far as the quote racist, whites get called this by people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson every week on one of the news channel, so I do know what the word means. But the way Southerners is being used on this topic it sounds like we are viewed as an alien race to this country. Yes we have racist in the South, they come in all colors. Just like the rest of the country and world to be honest.
I was looking at the part in your above statement about "willing to die and kill for it". Did you mean the soldiers or the politicians? If you meant the politicians, I doubt any of them were willing to die, but if you meant your ancestors then I was right. If you meant the politicians then I apologize, I did misquote you.
The Jewish Bible, or the Old Testament as it is now called, has a load of stories about war as you said. People will and have always fought with each other ever since Cain was thrown out of the Garden. King David was a warrior who had a whole village wiped out except one man. And he was a man after God's own heart. If you go by the killing in war senario then are you saying all soldiers are not Christian. Jesus did preach peace and I wish everyone would have listened, but Jesus is also a warrior. Examples are his willingness to face and conquer death and at the second comming when he will lead his army against Satan. Jackson is not any different than any other General who puts on a uniform, his job is to kill the enemy. Stonewall was just good at getting the job done.

Dewey McRae
Apology accepted.

hanktrent
11-02-2007, 04:40 PM
clothing with the battleflag on it. One of which says "It's a Southern Thang."

I must be totally missing something, because I'd interpret that T-shirt as a humorous pro-southern, pro-heritage statement.

I thought it referenced the catch-phrase "It's a ------ thing, you wouldn't understand." The additional humor comes from writing it with a southern accent, near as one can do with only four words, so it sounds (reads) like a southerner speaking. I mean, it's not ROFLOL humor, but I don't see it's an insult either; most southerners acknowledge they have an "accent" compared to generic newspeak America.

The meaning of the phrase generally implies that the "it" is a complex emotional issue, not easily understood by outsiders but understood by the speaker. In this case, it would be the whole southern pride, heritage-not-hate, battleflag-stands-for-heroism-not-racism, kind of attitude. Which might be offensive to some, but the offended demographic wouldn't be the pro-Confederate flag folks.

What am I missing?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

peedeeguard
11-02-2007, 07:34 PM
[QUOTE=hanktrent]I must be totally missing something, because I'd interpret that T-shirt as a humorous pro-southern, pro-heritage statement.

I thought it referenced the catch-phrase "It's a ------ thing, you wouldn't understand." The additional humor comes from writing it with a southern accent, near as one can do with only four words, so it sounds (reads) like a southerner speaking. I mean, it's not ROFLOL humor, but I don't see it's an insult either; most southerners acknowledge they have an "accent" compared to generic newspeak America.

The meaning of the phrase generally implies that the "it" is a complex emotional issue, not easily understood by outsiders but understood by the speaker. In this case, it would be the whole southern pride, heritage-not-hate, battleflag-stands-for-heroism-not-racism, kind of attitude. Which might be offensive to some, but the offended demographic wouldn't be the pro-Confederate flag folks.

What am I missing?

Hank Trent


I might be the one missing the point, maybe I should have asked my two teenage children. I guess being in my mid 40's I am out of touch with today's slang. But then again I still don't know what Led Zepplin was talking about by "sprinkling for the May Queen" or" a bustle in your hedgerow" in Stairway to Heaven. Maybe my partying in the late 70's and early 80's took it's toll on me.
So Mr. Graves if the shirt is not offensive to the South would you please give that young man a piece of hardtack and send me the bill, that is if you accept Yankee Greenbacks, my Confederate money seems to be worth more today than it was in 1865.
Thank you Mr. Trent for straightening me out.

Dewey McRae
23rd. N.C.T.
Rocky Mount N.C.

Che
11-02-2007, 08:43 PM
But the way Southerners is being used on this topic it sounds like we are viewed as an alien race to this country. Ever been to the Bronx? How 'bout Queens? Flatbush? Now those folks ARE an alien race. Can't understand a word they say. :shock:

hanktrent
11-02-2007, 10:15 PM
I might be the one missing the point, maybe I should have asked my two teenage children. I guess being in my mid 40's I am out of touch with today's slang.

Well, I'm 47... :D

And I really don't have a clue if I'm interpreting it right, it's just what occurred to me. Be interesting to see others' interpretation of it.

Maybe it's a lesson, though, in how easily misunderstood symbolic communication, like a flag, really is!

Just decided to google the phrase. Appears there are also T-shirts saying "It's a southern thang, y'all wouldn't understand" and "It's A Southern Thang, Yankees Will Never Understand," so I got the phrase right.

They seem to be sold by sites that sell pro-southern redneck humor, everything from innocuous "Heritage Not Hate" T shirts, to the more aggressive "I have a dream" with a picture of the battleflag over the capitol dome.

There's even a song that uses the phrase!



Gulf breeze, on the porch, me and my honey rockin' back and forth
Ridin' up again with my kin and friends, underneath the yellow moon
Sweet dream, New Orleans, Mississippi River running over me
Pretty mama come and take me by the hand
Don't mock what you don't understand....it's a southern thang


Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Robert A Mosher
11-02-2007, 10:36 PM
The Jewish Bible, or the Old Testament as it is now called,

I believe "The Jewish Bible" is called The Torah - it would only be called "The Old Testament" by Christians using a Bible that includes the New and Old Testaments.

Robert A. Mosher

peedeeguard
11-02-2007, 11:14 PM
I believe "The Jewish Bible" is called The Torah - it would only be called "The Old Testament" by Christians using a Bible that includes the New and Old Testaments.

Robert A. Mosher[/QUOTE]

You are right on part of that point. The Torah is the first five books of the Bible. The other books are either writings (which achieved canonical status in 100 BC) or the prophecies ( which became canonical in 200 BC). The Torah was canonized about 400 BC. You are correct on the old testament term, only us Gentiles would call someone elses Bible "OLD".
Oh by the way I took Rel. 211 "Introduction to the Old Testament" in the 2007 Spring semester of college. I made an A, I wish I would have studied like I do now in the 70's when I was in high school, but I guess I should study with the high cost of tuition and books. Right now I should be at Fort Branch dressed out in my Yankee sky blues since this is one of a few events we do Federal. But I have an Anatomy test Monday.

Dewey McRae
23rd N.C.T. Co. D

Claude Sinclair
11-03-2007, 02:41 PM
I ran the NYC Marathon from 1991 to 1994 which started in Staten Island and proceeded through Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, Harlem, and Manhattan. I wore a Confederate bandana which I purchased from a store on Broadway. Just wanted people to know that I was from the South. At mile 22 a little girl and her mother in Harlem gave me some ice cream because I was having a bad day. Nobody really seemed to care about my Confederate sweatband. It seems that Confederate symbols offend more folks in the South than the North. During that time from 1991 to 1994 I knew little about Confederate history. Now that I do I will not wear Confederate Clothing out of respect for my ancestors. But if I want some free beer all I have to do is put on my Confederate uniform and go into a bar. Each time I attend the battle of Secessionville at Boone Hall Plantation I will visit Bert's Bar on Sullivan's Island for good Fish and free beer.

Claude Sinclair

ILYankee5
11-03-2007, 08:45 PM
Not to beat a dead horse but if they at least would have spelled THING instead of THANG it would have made at least me feel better. Once again, I am from Illinois, a state that is day light and dark going from the northern to southern part. I have a strong southern accent, and am constantly asked if I am from the south. Friends of mine from the northern part of the state are constantly aggrevating me about how I talk saying we are all uneducated down here and to me shirts like this play into their hands. But as I said, I wasn't trying to start a war, I was just wanting opinions and I got some great ones from many people who understand this area and have a passion for history and heritage as I do. Thank you all.

Seth Graves

CheeseBoxRaft
11-03-2007, 09:32 PM
I'd like to have a T-shirt that reads "Not all Southerners were Rebels" with a picture of any or all of the following people on it:

General Winfield Scott
General George Henry Thomas
General John Gibbon
Major Robert Anderson
Captain Robert Smalls
Sgt. Major Christian A. Fleetwood, CMoH
1st Sgt. Powhatan Beaty, CMoH
Pvt. William H. Barnes, CMoH
etc., etc., etc.

;)

- John Steadman

sbl
11-03-2007, 09:46 PM
I'd like to have a T-Shirt that says: "It's a Northern Thing and I'll explain it to you S-L-O-W-L-Y."

flattop32355
11-03-2007, 10:59 PM
I have a strong southern accent, and am constantly asked if I am from the south.

Where I grew up, in northeastern Kentucky, what most folk hear as a southern accent is actually a Appalachian accent, which extends, at the least, from eastern Tennessee into eastern Ohio/western Pennsylvania and down the Ohio River into Indiana and possibly Illinois.

The two accents are distinct if you listen carefully, each with its own twists of speech and phrase.

Tarheel57
11-16-2007, 01:09 AM
I ran the NYC Marathon from 1991 to 1994 which started in Staten Island and proceeded through Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, Harlem, and Manhattan. I wore a Confederate bandana which I purchased from a store on Broadway. Just wanted people to know that I was from the South. At mile 22 a little girl and her mother in Harlem gave me some ice cream because I was having a bad day. Nobody really seemed to care about my Confederate sweatband. It seems that Confederate symbols offend more folks in the South than the North. During that time from 1991 to 1994 I knew little about Confederate history. Now that I do I will not wear Confederate Clothing out of respect for my ancestors. But if I want some free beer all I have to do is put on my Confederate uniform and go into a bar. Each time I attend the battle of Secessionville at Boone Hall Plantation I will visit Bert's Bar on Sullivan's Island for good Fish and free beer.

Claude Sinclair

This reminds me: Every year I attend the Heavy Rebel Weekender in Winston Salem NC. Many Psychobilly and Rockabilly bands incorporate the Battle Flag into their logo, stage props, t-shirts, etc. Many vendors also sell related items like bandannas, t-shirts with a hotrod and the battle flag, etc. There is a pretty multicultural crowd, but I've never heard of battle flag ever being an issue. I go to a lot of music festivals and it's the friendliest crowd I know.
Psychobilly and punk bands and their fan worldwide also tend to wear Confederate battle flag patches, t-shirts, etc. but I think they simply see it as a vague symbol of rebellion against authority.

sbl
11-16-2007, 07:51 AM
"....vague symbol of rebellion against authority."

That's how I see it used up here. There a "hippy" commune around here in the late 60s that flew the Battle Flag as their "totum."