PDA

View Full Version : Confederate clothing ban takes a twist



bill watson
05-22-2006, 07:20 PM
This will come as no surprise to the South Carolinians, but I thought it might give some Yankees a disconcerting moment...... :-)


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONFEDERATE_CLOTHING?SITE=PASTR&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Jubilo
05-22-2006, 10:41 PM
Dear Captain Bill ,
One can view this several ways:
1. Applaud a teenage girl who would rather think about her "heritage" than her hairdo . This is commendable.
2. What normal teenage girl would do this ? This is questionable.

3. Is this just a case of teen "grandstanding " i.e. attention getting ? Not commendable

4. Is this offensive to some of her community whether warranted or not ? Yes , and so probably not a positive thing .

5. Is it really a positive thing to draw attention to such a "hot " issue ?
Even if she succeeds , probably not.
If she is sincere , I applaud her intentions but think this is a case of cuttingoff one's nose to spite everyone else's face . I don't believe it is a winnable situation in today's atmosphere. Then again there is always the question of the C.S. A. : does it prove to be a heritage ? Southerner yes, South Carolinian , yes, Confederate ? If her ancestor's took the oath as encouraged by none other than Robert E. Lee , then I suspect not. Still , this is much like the feelings of the silent majority who feel abandoned by all while they witness a mulitude of groups waving flags, chanting slogans and making demands . Human nature , one suspects. What do you think Captain ?
All for the old flag,
David Corbett

bill watson
05-23-2006, 09:54 AM
What I think is the young lady is completely outdone in attention-getting by the former NAACP leader carrying a Confederate battleflag. :)

31stWisconsin
05-23-2006, 09:19 PM
hmmm, too bad we don't have some law that protects speech like that, oh wait, we do! The first amendment!

I guess schools are exempt from the first amendment.

I just hate censorship, and I hate how the Politically Correct response to controversial subjects is to stick your head in the sand and ban it.

Tim Surprenant

TimKindred
05-26-2006, 09:11 AM
Comrades

Personally, I believe that schools should either have uniforms for both faculty and students, which all are required to wear, with no other symbols visible, or else allow faculty and students to wear whatever they please.

How can schools consistantly preach diversity and tolerance, and individualism, yet put down any student that actually practices those traits?

Students may wear a christian cross on a necklace, but are banned from wearing a pentagram? Teachers are allowed to wear pins and buttons supporting specific political affiliations or organizations, yet students are denied the same right? Islam is taught as a culture, yet paganism and wicca are taught as myth and christianity and judaism banned from the curriculum?

Every one of those examples happened in the school system where I live. I am tired of it, and i am not alone in struggling to correct it here, but it's so terribly hard to fight entrenched attitudes and policies, especially when the unions are involved.

Like I said earlier, either have everone in uniforms, or allow everyone to wear what they wish. Those are really the only acceptable choices.

Respects,

bob 125th nysvi
05-26-2006, 09:48 PM
actually has a reasonable chance to win her court action against the school when it gets to Federal Court.

In 2004 a Federal court in the upper midwest ruled in favor of a student who was suspended for wearing a "You Might Be a Redneck" T-shirt to school.

The gist of the courts ruling was that you have a right not to be persecuted but no constitutional right not to be offended by someone's free speech.

The school will have hard time proving that the act of wearing the battle flag creates a "hostile" atmosphere. In effect if they allow, for example a student of Polish descent to wear a t-shirt with the flag of Poland on it, or for that matter a t-shirt with the American flag on it, they have no legal grounds for barring the battle flag outfit.

But PC has gone way too far in this country. Did you hear about the new rule from the Conn. State H.S. Athletic commission? Any football team that beats it opponent by 50 or more points will have the coach suspended for the next game. So you can outscore your opponent by 7 TDs just don't do any two point conversions.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

jthlmnn
05-31-2006, 10:13 AM
What I have not yet seen is why the ban was imposed in the first place. It is a truism that rules are imposed in reaction to a problem. (Whether the rule is wise or effective is another issue.)

Personally, I prefer to teach the principles of time, place, and manner. Is this the right time and/or place for what you're doing, and is that an appropriate manner to do it. Students learn to think about about what they're doing and the possible consequences. Best of all, it results in self-discipline. Bans and prohibitions are much less necessary.

As an aside, I have often wondered over the years, "Why the Battle Flag and not the Stars and Bars?"

tompritchett
05-31-2006, 10:31 AM
Why the Battle Flag

Actually the naval flag, not the battle flag. The battle flag was square while the naval ensign and jack were rectangular.

Randy36
06-26-2006, 04:01 PM
As most people that read or study about the Civil War the actual C.S.A. flag is being displayed all over. I have seen it in Texas in rest areas as one of the flags that flew over that state in the past and the majority of the people don't even know what it is, but let someone bring the naval or battle flag out and everyone says you are a racist. Go figure. I think people need to read about why the civil war started. Slavery was not an issue in the beginning it was state rights.

That sounds like the reason the colonies broke away from England and they are heros but the south is a bunch of traders because the winners write the history books.

5thNYcavalry
06-26-2006, 04:57 PM
One time I brought in a set of Confederate and Union flags. I got yelled at for having the confederate flag and had it ripped from my hands by a teacher, who then shoved it in her desk and never returned it. It was a 5" X 7" flag. I tackeed them both to my haversack I use in school. This is all because 1 girl made a big deal over it, because she considered it a symbol of the KKK whick is the WRONG interpretation!

Frenchie
06-26-2006, 11:27 PM
Slavery was not an issue in the beginning it was state rights.

It most certainly was an issue; in fact, it was the one intractable, unsolvable problem that brought about secession and war in the first place. The first and foremost "state right" that concerned the South was the right of property in slaves.

To those who have taken the time and trouble to study the history, literature, speeches and legislation of the period 1840 to 1860, it is very clear that the preservation of slavery was the foremost reason for secession.

The War was not fought to destroy nor to preserve slavery, but secession was adopted to preserve it and the war that was waged to re-unite the Union inevitably destroyed slavery. Call it "collateral damage".


That sounds like the reason the colonies broke away from England and they are heros but the south is a bunch of traders because the winners write the history books.

The people who led the colonies to break away from the Crown are traitors, not heroes, in England.

The majority of the more than 52,000 books about the War were written by Southerners and those sympathetic, or at the least not inimical, to the Confederate cause.

bulletsponge
06-27-2006, 11:56 AM
Slavery was such an important issue that it was carefully written into the Confederate Constitution. It appears that not only was this "Quaint Southern Institution" to be protected into perpetuity, but was to be expanded as much as possible.


Article IV, section 2 (1):

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Article IV, section 3 (3):

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

tompritchett
06-27-2006, 12:36 PM
To those who have taken the time and trouble to study the history, literature, speeches and legislation of the period 1840 to 1860, it is very clear that the preservation of slavery was the foremost reason for secession.

To be more specific it was THE reason for the secession of the first seven states of the Confederacy. The last four states, Tn, Va, NC, & Ar, did not secede until Lincoln issued his muster call to the state governors in response to the firing on Ft. Sumter. My research indicates that at least TN and VA had considered the issue of seceding over slavery during the first wave and rejected it. Lincoln's stated intention of using military force to bring the original seven states back into the Union was the final straw for these last four states.

Jim Mayo
06-27-2006, 01:14 PM
While it may be a matter of opinion and fact that nobody will ever agree on that slavery was the primary reason for secession, it is not the reason the war was waged. The Confederate soldier did not leave home to fight for the preservation of slavery. He left to repel invading armies who were a threat to his state and family. The Union army did not leave the North to free the slaves but to preserve the Union.

As I understand it, the Emancipation Proclementation did not free slaves in Union held territory or the rest of the US. It just applied to the portion of the states in rebellion under CS rule. Also slavery was legal in the United States until late 1865.

That means slavery was abolished in the South prior to the abolishment in the North.

Now why don't the history books talk about that? Why didn't the North immediately out law slavery at the beginning of the war? Looks the US flag was flying over a slave holding country while slaves in the South were free.

Looks like there is plenty of blame to go around but that is not the way it is taught in our schools. Remember the winner writes the history.

Pvt_Idaho
06-27-2006, 06:07 PM
All,

Going back to Bill Watson's original post, I marvel at attempts to erase history in the name of political correctness and am glad that Ms. Hardwick has raised the issue in her home town.

I moved to Viriginia as a twelve year old from New Hampshire. Being a history geek, I was excited to be moving to a place where I would learn about the Civil War in school. When we got to the 1860's in history class, we skipped over the subject completely! When I asked why we skipped the Civil War I was told, "It's not the Civil War, it's the War Between the States and we don't talk about it". A Southern burial of the topic.

I went to a Ivy League Liberal Arts college in the North that prides itself on its diversity and its embracing of all cultures. At the school there was a racist incident and we had a mandatory "town hall" meeting to discuss it. A college administrator announced from the stage that it was obvious that the blame rested with "white southerners who hang Confederate flags in their dorm rooms." I had an Irish flag hanging in mine. Never thought of myself as being a white southerner until that moment. But I was from Virginia, spoke with a drawl, said y'all routinely, and shocked people when I innocently said "we have Lee/Jackson/King Day off?" Needless to say, I had nothing to do with the incident and was angered by what had transpired.

If I ever go back to a reunion (have not yet) I will wear my Richmond Depot Type III jacket with pleasure.

With Regards,

Audrey Scanlan

Frenchie
06-27-2006, 06:58 PM
Looks like there is plenty of blame to go around but that is not the way it is taught in our schools. Remember the winner writes the history.

I repeat: The majority of the more than 52,000 books about the War were written by Southerners and those sympathetic, or at the least not inimical, to the Confederate cause.

ThumbStall
07-20-2006, 08:38 AM
I repeat: The majority of the more than 52,000 books about the War were written by Southerners and those sympathetic, or at the least not inimical, to the Confederate cause.In other words, the Union won the war, but the Confederacy won the peace.

(Note that I could have said "the North won the war, but the South won the peace"... but I don't believe there was a war between North and South. Not when you look at the large sections of the South like western Virginia, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina and other regions of the south that remained pro-Union throughout the war. I always get a kick of the fact that when Lee marched into Maryland in 1862 he didn't get as many volunteers as he expected... but when Rosecrans marched into eastern Tennessee in 1863 he was overwhelmed with potential volunteers willing to join up as soldiers or serve as civilian scouts for the Union. Yet, most people in East Tennessee today probably think that their forebearers were all staunch Confederates when in reality most of them were Unionists of the Andrew Jackson stripe.)

- Francis Galway

tompritchett
07-20-2006, 11:23 AM
Unionists of the Andrew Jackson stripe.

Andrew Jackson or Andrew Johnson? Both were from East Tennessee but only Johnson was directly associated with the Civil War.

E.Brown
07-21-2006, 01:40 PM
In other words, the Union won the war, but the Confederacy won the peace.

(Note that I could have said "the North won the war, but the South won the peace"... but I don't believe there was a war between North and South. Not when you look at the large sections of the South like western Virginia, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina and other regions of the south that remained pro-Union throughout the war. I always get a kick of the fact that when Lee marched into Maryland in 1862 he didn't get as many volunteers as he expected... but when Rosecrans marched into eastern Tennessee in 1863 he was overwhelmed with potential volunteers willing to join up as soldiers or serve as civilian scouts for the Union. Yet, most people in East Tennessee today probably think that their forebearers were all staunch Confederates when in reality most of them were Unionists of the Andrew Jackson stripe.)

- Francis Galway
Trust me being a 9th generation East Tennesseean (since 1797), we know where are ancestors loyalties were, more so of those that research the war,obviously. Actually the loyaties were fairly split, more in Knoxville say than here (Chattanooga) which was more of a Confederate strong hold (for awhile). Many are proud of their Unionist ancestors,I myself had a 5th grt grandfather who was a Federal calvary scout from Jackson Co. AL. These men were actually more of the Andrew Johnson stripe, who condemed Federal commanders in November 1861 of their "Shameless Desertion of East Tennessee". When a "theoretical" liberation of east tennessee never began, leaving many Unionist to be hung or scatter after they had already begun burning five trestles in N. Georgia and E. Tennessee, 500 were from here in Chattanooga. When my grandmother was alive she told had told me stories from the "old folks" about some Unionist being hanged over near Lookout Mountain.
Cheers!

tompritchett
07-23-2006, 10:30 PM
I always get a kick of the fact that when Lee marched into Maryland in 1862 he didn't get as many volunteers as he expected.

That is because he marched into the wrong section of Maryland. Had he marched into eastern Maryland, the reception likely would have been much different - at least according to some friends of mine who grew up in that section.

Frenchie
07-23-2006, 11:55 PM
If Lee had tried marching into eastern/southern Maryland he wouldn't have gotten a man across the water. Yes, there really was a U.S. Navy in the War, and the Potomac Flotilla would have had a thing or two to say about an invading army trying to cross its AO on whatever floating things it could beg, borrow or steal.

But you've come up with an interesting gedankenexperiment, Tom. It's one I'd never heard of before. Let's say the Army of Northern Virginia actually managed to make it across the Potomac south of, say, Indian Head (Fort Washington), and started north, following the route of the British in 1814. Would there have been a second Battle of Bladensburg? Another North Point? I must think on this...

Or, he crosses Chesapeake Bay ("On what?!" the rational mind wants to know; "Shaddup", says the war gaming part of the ego, "we're having fun here."). So okay, he gets to the Delmarva Peninsula and heads straight for Harrisburg. He actually makes it past the northern part of the Bay because the entire Union Army has fallen into a coma... :D

Getting silly now, got to get to bed, but I'd love it if others picked up this ball and ran a few yards with it.

BobR
07-30-2006, 12:49 PM
First, the link to the "news" story did not work so I searched for it just to see why I (as a displaced Yankee impatiently waiting to get back home and get out of this self-imposed exile in ****) should be "disconcerted", I was not.

In response to the original post and especially many of the subsequent responses I have borrowed a number of quotes from my favorite Yankee propagandist, Bruce Catton from his "This Hallowed Ground".

Sorry if this feels like Civil War 101, but here we go:

"The shortest and quickest way" to end the war "as far as the [Union] private was concerned, was to hit hard at anything that stood in his path to devastate the country [the South] as well as to fight the enemy armies.

Quite simply this meant...slavery was doomed.

The great majority of Union soldiers had entered the war with no particular feeling against slavery and with less feeling in favor of the Negro. They had no quarrel with the idea that the Negro was property; indeed it was precisely that fact that was moving them and writing this institution's doom.

Because looting and foraging...and because ruining a farm seemed one way to strike at the enemy...they were commissioning themselves to strike at rebel property - and here was the most obvious, plentiful, and important property of all" [i.e. slaves]. pp. 150-151

Catton continues:
In a letter to his father Grant said, "I want to whip the rebellion, but preserve Southern rights, if it cannot be whipped in any other way than through a war on slavery, let it come to that." p. 151

Grant also said, "I don't know what is to become of these poor people [Negro 'contraband'] in the end, but if it weakens the enemy, take them from them."

Grant to Congressman Washburn: "It became patent in my mind early in the rebellion that the North and South could never live in peace with one another except as one nation, and that without slavery." p. 151


In the summer of 1862 "Lincoln decided that the base of the war would have to be broadened and a immeasureable new force would have to be injected into it. It would become now a social revolution and there was no way to tell the final consequences. At the very beginning Lincoln had accepted seccession as a variety of revolution and had unhesitatingly used revolutionary measures to meet it, but he had clung tenaciously to the idea that the ruling war aim was to restore the Union, and he had steered carefully away from steps that would destroy the whole social fabric of the South" [i.e. original intention was to not try to take away their slaves]. pp. 157-158

Lincoln: "It may as well be understood...I shall not surrender this game leaving any card unplayed...the only remedy was to remove the cause of the war" (Ooops! There it is again). p. 158

"Objectively, the Emancipation Proclamation was no more than an official warning that if the rebellion did not cease by the end of 1862 a proclamation would be issued. It declared slavery extinct in precisely the areas the Federal government at the moment lacked all power to enforce its decrees - in the states that were in rebellion; it let slavery live on in states like Maryland and Kentucky, which remained in the Union....it having said no more than the previous Confiscation Act which granted freedom to slaves of all persons thereafter found guilty of treason and of all persons who aided or supported the rebellion." pp. 158

"It locked the Confederacy in with the anachronism that was the Confederacy's dreadful fatal burden. Europe could not intervene now....with grim fatality it [the Southern Confederacy] had been isolated.

The stakes of the war had suddenly become incalculable. if the war should be won [by the Union], the nation would for all time be wedded to the idea that all of its people must be forever free." pp. 170-171

Get it!!!!

Also, if the average Confederate soldier fought because he believed his home and freedom were somehow in danger of being taken from him, it is absurd!!!!

If this were the case the Confederate spin doctors did their job very well. To me it seems that soldiers on both sides (for that matter the soldiers and citizens during most wars thoughout history) were the victims of their government's propaganda machine. When Lincoln called for volunteers after the Confederacy used armed insurrection to attack Ft. Sumter and take over US Goverment property throughout the south, they (the rebels) were getting what they asked for. I cannot find any historical evidence that says Lincoln's main reason for his initial call for troops TO QUELL THE REBELLION was to go south and take property away from simple farmers and other innocent southern citizens minding their own business. If this was the average CS soldier's perceived "reality", it is absolute misguided nonsense!!!!

Regards.

AP Hill
08-02-2006, 10:54 AM
You gots to show me where/when/how General Lee expressed his disapointment that more western Marylanders didnt flock to his colors during the Sharpsburg campaign. Might be out there in one of those almost 52,000 pro-south books. Educate me...I dont know.

Obviously Mr. Pritchard's point is that the eastern part of that state was pro-South. But as we know, much of that part of the state was under federal 'protection'. We will never know if it was in fact a fertile bed of Confederate recruitment...even if our great Lee managed to get that way.

Ambrose

Hondo
08-05-2006, 06:12 PM
Wow! We actually have someone who knows the thoughts, ideas, and mindset of the 1860's. Alas, it seems everyone who fought for the South was misguided.

As Bob R. states:
if the average Confederate soldier fought because he believed his home and freedom were somehow in danger of being taken from him, it is absurd!!!!
If this was the average CS soldier's perceived "reality", it is absolute misguided nonsense!!!!

See?? All the men were idiots from the looks of that post. I hardly think that any of us know the real principals and ideals of those men. It has nothing to do with personal feelings or private opinions. Did the men maybe belive in the Constitution that allowed the right of secession? Of course not they were misinformed, misguided souls.

Geez get it right boys.


Bob H.

BobR
08-05-2006, 11:24 PM
Wow! We actually have someone who knows the thoughts, ideas, and mindset of the 1860's. Alas, it seems everyone who fought for the South was misguided.

As Bob R. states:
if the average Confederate soldier fought because he believed his home and freedom were somehow in danger of being taken from him, it is absurd!!!!
If this was the average CS soldier's perceived "reality", it is absolute misguided nonsense!!!!

See?? All the men were idiots from the looks of that post. I hardly think that any of us know the real principals and ideals of those men. It has nothing to do with personal feelings or private opinions. Did the men maybe belive in the Constitution that allowed the right of secession? Of course not they were misinformed, misguided souls.
Geez get it right boys.
Bob H.


OK, I admit part of what I wrote was influenced by my present state of mind due to my present "state" of residence. I won't get into that right now as it might start a flame war and that is not my intention, and I will not respond if anyone says anything about this particular subject.

So, from what you posted regarding my statements (opinions which I have the right to express), can one assume that it is absolutely impossible to understand the mindset of those soldiers (and others) who wrote their perceptions, feelings, sentiments, reasons, etc., etc., for participating in the rebellion and reactions to the times in which they lived by reading the numerous letters, memoirs, interviews (as old veterans), etc., which were left to us????? And, I cannot voice my opinion which was influenced by what I derived from those sources????

I said what I said because there was a previous post in this thread which mentioned that particular example as a reason for fighting (yes, of course there were many reasons expressed on both sides for wanting/needing to go and fight) and yes, I think that particular reason is absurd!!! - i.e. "to protect home and family". Protect from what??? Did the poor, lower classes need to fight to continue to be poor farmers? Honestly, do you think their situation in the world would have been better if the Confederacy succeeded???? As I said, propaganda has been used throughout history by various governments to influence (coerce) its citizens to fight for them. This is not an opinion it is a fact for which I can cite numerous examples. Why did both sides need to resort to a draft to fill the ranks??? It is a complex issue, I chose one small aspect to criticize.

Did Lincoln specifically say that he was calling for troops to "invade" the rebellious states so he can go around confiscating property and rights from ALL the citizens of the South??? Again, it is absurd. Also, is it impossible to honor and respect the soldiers of the Civil War (or any war for that matter) without being able to criticise them or the times in which they lived??
To that, I say Wow!!!

Remember, support the troops, even if you don't support the war!!!!

Regards

VA Soldier
08-10-2006, 07:00 AM
Dear Bobh
I agree that you are entitled to your opinions, and like it goes, opinions are like...well you know the rest.
Anyhow on your post about why the average southern soldier went to war is a joke. Lincoln did not have to say that he was calling up troops to "invade" the south but what was said is that they were raising troops to quelch the rebellion. Why what else could this mean other than an invasion.
Now I can't speak for everyone but as far as my ancestors go, they were from the mountains of Virginia and not one of them (and there were 5) ever owned a slave, why, because they were poor dirt farmers, yet they all went to war. I dought they had a vested interest in the preservation of slavery, but I am sure they had a vested interest in the protection of their homes.
As far as something to actually fear, read the accounts of the looting that took place at the hands of union soldiers. The taking of foodstuffs is onething but what good does it do to take curtains, silverware, pictures and other non-war related material?
Also to most people, their little patch of ground and home were all they had in the world. To the people of the 19th century hearth and home meant a whole lot more than it does today. We were not "The United State of America" but The united States of America. Everyone, wether from Northern states or Southern States almost all Americans would claim fierce loyalties to their home state. Robert E. Lee, who owned no slaves at the outset of the war, left the US Army which had just offered him command of such, an amazing offer for a col. left over the thought of having to lead an Army into his beloved Virginia. In his resignation speech he stated that he would never draw his sword in anger again unless it was in defense of his home.
Was Lee, the Gray Fox who vexed the Union Generals time and time again as misguided as all the other "poor southerners"? Or what about the 80,000 some odd Blacks that fought in the war, I suppose they were misguided too.
And for the southerners being traitors, how come none of them, not even Jefferson Davis were ever brought to trial, or even charged with Treason? Could it be that they in fact had never commited treason, they never sought the overthrow the government of the United States, merely to create their own. The attack on Ft. Sumpter came only after months of negotiations with Maj Anderson, the commander at the fort. The question may be posed why attack the fort at all, but I do not think that we could expect any nation, then or now, to allow a military instillation of another government (and possibly and agressor nation) to be placed in the middle of a major port. Seems to raise the same issue that the dubai ports deal of recent months went through.
The truth is I have no idea what exactly went through the minds of any of the people in 1860 or 61, why because I was not there and did not live as they did or suffer from the same experiences that they did, but what I do know is that over 620,000 Americans died mostly for beliefs and most of them needlessly. When we take the field we are not their to critize them but to honor them, and I have never heard anyone use the two terms together to mean the same thing. I am very proud of my ancestry as I am sure you are of yours, I belive I should have the right to display the symbols of that pride just as any one has the same right, and by the first amendment that right should not be infringed.

BobWerner
08-11-2006, 09:56 AM
Anyhow on your post about why the average southern soldier went to war is a joke. Lincoln did not have to say that he was calling up troops to "invade" the south but what was said is that they were raising troops to quelch the rebellion. Why what else could this mean other than an invasion.

Mr. VA Soldier:
I'm really not in the habit of responding to posts where the author doesn't even offer a valid signature to his work, but this one just proved irresistable.

In regard to your claims such as the preceeding quote, would you care to tell us just when, exactly, it was that the Confederate Congress authorized 100,000 twelve-month volunteers for service?

Truth: Tell it like it is.
History: Tell it like it was.

tompritchett
08-11-2006, 11:55 AM
In regard to your claims such as the preceeding quote, would you care to tell us just when, exactly, it was that the Confederate Congress authorized 100,000 twelve-month volunteers for service?

When the Confederate Congress passed such an authorization, somehow I extremely doubt that they were expecting to invade and conquer the North with just 100,000 twelve month volunteers. However, if one wants to assume that the Confederate Congress wanted to send a message to the Lincoln's supporters that the Southern states would not be meekly dragged back into the Union, this authorization makes a lot of sense.

VA Soldier
08-11-2006, 04:24 PM
My apologise for not signing my previous post, an error which shall not be repeated.

In response to the question about when the Confederate Congress called up the 100,000 troops, the date was March 6, 1861. In May the Confederate Congress would call for another 400,000 troops, but would have to turn half of them away due to a lack of supplies.

Lincoln would place his call for 75,000 ninety day militiamen after the fall of Ft. Sumter, by May 3rd he would call for an additional 42,000 three year army volunteers, 18,000 sailors, and expanded the army by 23,000 men.
When the US Congress met that July, they would authorize another one million three year volunteers. In addition to all of this were another 30,000 that individual Northern States had called up.

So, and if my math is correct, by the time of the Battle of Manassas the Confederacy had called for 500,000 men versus the United States call for 1,170,000 men to the army and the additional 18,000 sailors.

<numbers courtesy of Dr. J. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom>

The numbers, plus the fact that Lincoln called the orginal 75,000 for the expressed purpose of putting down the rebellion makes this much more of a credible threat to the property of the Southern populace. The amount of needless pillaging and torching of homes during the war proves that the fears any person felt for his or her property were vindicated. As late as April of 1865 when Gen. Stoneman lead his raid through SW VA and NC with the purpose of destroying rail lines, citizens were hiding their livestock and valuables and town leaders were pleading that their towns be spared the all too familar torch.

If I am correct it was the calling up of the 75,000 troops in the first place that caused such states as VA to join their brethern to the south in the first place. For a conservitive state such as Virginia to make such a bold statement must lend some creedence to the fears of an invasion.

D.A. Jackson

BobWerner
08-11-2006, 07:56 PM
When the Confederate Congress passed such an authorization, somehow I extremely doubt that they were expecting to invade and conquer the North with just 100,000 twelve month volunteers. However, if one wants to assume that the Confederate Congress wanted to send a message to the Lincoln's supporters that the Southern states would not be meekly dragged back into the Union, this authorization makes a lot of sense.

Tom:
Actually, I didn't mean to imply or infer that the Union's call for volunteers was intended to defend against any sort of Confederate invasion of the North. I just wanted to put the order of things into perspective here. Your suggestion that it was possibly meant to send a message to the Federal Government/Lincoln people/Northerners/Unionists or whatever seems more in order. A bit of chest-thumping, if you will.
"The North is swollen with pride and drunk with insolence. . . . The North needs proof of the earnestness of our intentions and our manhood. Experience shall be their teacher. Let them learn." Charleston Mercury, April 11, 1861.

Respectfully,

Frenchie
08-11-2006, 08:27 PM
My apologies for not signing my previous post, an error which shall not be repeated.

Just go to User CP, put in a signature line, and you won't have to remember to do it.


In response to the question about when the Confederate Congress called up the 100,000 troops, the date was March 6, 1861. In May the Confederate Congress would call for another 400,000 troops, but would have to turn half of them away due to a lack of supplies.

I am an interpreter at the Baltimore Civil War Museum. Not long ago an older, courtly Southern gentleman told me that as a schoolboy he was told the Confederacy never imposed a draft, and that this was a matter of pride where he had grown up. I got out the Burns Civil War and showed him that the South had imposed three drafts, the first before the first Northern one. The look on his face made me sorry I did it, but facts are uncomfortable things.


Lincoln would place his call for 75,000 ninety day militiamen after the fall of Ft. Sumter, by May 3rd he would call for an additional 42,000 three year army volunteers, 18,000 sailors, and expanded the army by 23,000 men.
When the US Congress met that July, they would authorize another one million three year volunteers. In addition to all of this were another 30,000 that individual Northern States had called up.

So, and if my math is correct, by the time of the Battle of Manassas the Confederacy had called for 500,000 men versus the United States call for 1,170,000 men to the army and the additional 18,000 sailors.

<numbers courtesy of Dr. J. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom>

The numbers, plus the fact that Lincoln called the original 75,000 for the expressed purpose of putting down the rebellion makes this much more of a credible threat to the property of the Southern populace.

In your opinion, of course. I for one don't see it as "a credible threat to the property of the Southern populace." In fact it took some time for the Federal government to decide to stop returning escaped slaves and posting guards to protect private property in the South.


The amount of needless pillaging and torching of homes during the war proves that the fears any person felt for his or her property were vindicated. As late as April of 1865 when Gen. Stoneman lead his raid through SW VA and NC with the purpose of destroying rail lines, citizens were hiding their livestock and valuables and town leaders were pleading that their towns be spared the all too familiar torch.

The pillaging and torching mainly occurred after the Federal government realized the efficacy of what would later be called "total war" in reducing the rebellion's ability and will to continue the struggle. And what of all the Southern journals, diaries, newspaper articles, etc. that complained of the Confederate army's pillaging of its own people's farms and homes?


If I am correct it was the calling up of the 75,000 troops in the first place that caused such states as VA to join their brethren to the south in the first place. For a conservative state such as Virginia to make such a bold statement must lend some credence to the fears of an invasion.

D.A. Jackson

You are correct that it was the major reason for Virginia's vote to secede. Where you are mistaken is in thinking that the Union armies "invaded" the South; an army cannot invade its own country. Lincoln made this mistake also, when he ordered the blockade of the Southern ports; a nation closes its own ports and blockades those of another nation. The Confederacy was not a foreign nation, it was a group of states in rebellion. But Lincoln was new to the job and faced with unprecedented problems; you have had your whole life to study the period and learn the history with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight.

BobWerner
08-11-2006, 08:36 PM
The numbers, plus the fact that Lincoln called the orginal 75,000 for the expressed purpose of putting down the rebellion makes this much more of a credible threat to the property of the Southern populace. The amount of needless pillaging and torching of homes during the war proves that the fears any person felt for his or her property were vindicated.

Mr. Jackson:
Sir, I would have to ask what amount of pillaging and torching of homes during a war can be defined as "needed" vs "needless" and by which parties if not both? :-) And if the war had been fought in the North, would the destruction and plundering have been significantly different?



If I am correct it was the calling up of the 75,000 troops in the first place that caused such states as VA to join their brethern to the south in the first place. For a conservitive state such as Virginia to make such a bold statement must lend some creedence to the fears of an invasion.

D.A. Jackson

Again, I'll return to the chronological order of things. The numbers you've listed and dates would seem to indicate something other than the claim that the South was responding to a threatened or perceived impending invasion by the North/Federal Government/Lincoln people or whomever. There was a great deal that took place during the weeks and months directly following Lincoln's election and preceeding his call for 75,000 volunteers. Drawing on primary sources of the period, one can very clearly get a picture of the passions of many of the key players in the saga that was unfolding. In many cases, passions were very deliberately stirred by one side or the other. I rather doubt, however, that the scattered and disorganized forces of what remained of the 16,000 man Regular Army was posing any serious threat to the South or subsequent Conferate States of America that emerged. That the call for the 75,000 Union 90-day men came AFTER the attack on Fort Sumter (April 12-13, 1861) on April 15, 1861, might have been in response to that attack rather than a Lincolnite conspiracy to subjugate the South.
There are many different reasons for the conflict we know as our Civil War, but we shouldn't try to apply simple explanations to extremely complex situations. It wasn't black and white; nor blue and gray; nor even North and South. It was a great deal more and far more complicated.

Hmmm, this seems like the type of debate that should be in a thread of its own rather than one that wandered off of something not quite the same subject.

By the way, depending on the area of Virginia y'all hail from, there might have been a pretty fair number of anti-slavery Unionists there back in the 1860s, just like our section of Pennsylvania had a good number of folks in opposition to the war and sympathetic to the South. We came real close to electing George W. Woodward as Governor in 1863, a fellow who believed Pennsylvania should have seceded and joined the Confederacy. Who'd'a thunk it?

Respectfully,

tompritchett
08-12-2006, 12:25 AM
If I am correct it was the calling up of the 75,000 troops in the first place that caused such states as VA to join their brethern to the south in the first place. For a conservitive state such as Virginia to make such a bold statement must lend some creedence to the fears of an invasion.

Viriginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina all left the Union at this time. In fact, Tennessee had already voted on the secession issue during the first wave of secessions and had voted to stay in the Union. The governor of Tennessee called a special session of the legislature to revist the secession issue specifically because of Lincoln's first call for miltia.

VA Soldier
08-12-2006, 05:55 AM
Southern states free or rebellious?
That debate depends largly on where you are from. I for one, after reviewing what facts are available, do not agree that the Confederate States were still a part of the United States. I have yet to find where in the Constitution or any amendment which prohibits any state so dissatisfied from leaving the Union. They were not in rebellion. To rebel implies that they wished to overthrow the United States Government. They sought no such thing, they only wished to live under what they considered a less opressive government. Using the very same principles that led Washington, Adams, Jefferson and others to declare independance from Great Britain in 1776, some states (and anywhere else in the world a "State" is a free and soverign nation) left. I suggest that it was the fear of losing 3/4 of the US Govt's income that stirred Lincoln to action. I admit I have the advantage of hindsight, at the same time I try to view things as they did to the best of my abilities, which I must admit are limited.

D.A. Jackson

tompritchett
08-12-2006, 09:30 AM
I suggest that it was the fear of losing 3/4 of the US Govt's income that stirred Lincoln to action.

Prior to Ft Sumter, Lincoln did take action in the form of trying to find a way to bring the seven seceding states back into the Union. Note the many compromises on the various slavery issues in his first Inaugural Address. Also recently it has come out that Lincoln was even prepared to propose a 13th Amendment to explicitly legalize slavery within the framework of the Constitution in such a way as it would take a second Amendment and not just an Act of Congress to ever abolish the institution. Since the first seven states left primarily because they saw the election of a Republican administration as a direct and immediate threat to the very institution of slavery itself, and not just a threat to the expansion of slavery into the western territories, this was a major concession to the these states, especially in light of Lincoln's deep personal feelings about slavery.

However, if by "action" you are referring to the use of military force, the South brought that upon themselves by firing on the American flag over Ft. Sumter. Yes, Ft. Sumter commanded the harbor, but the South had already almost brought the nation to war once before when they had fired on the Star of Texas (may have the name wrong) to block an earlier resupply effort of Anderson's troops. In fact the Confederate Secretary of War specifically cited this event and its effect on Northern sentiments (then firing on the flag was viewed similarly to how we view burning the flag) when he tried to persuade Davis to avoid using direct force to take the fort.

As for loss of revenues, again in his first Inaugural Address, Lincoln took a hardline approach on the issue of secession itself and specifically ordered the continued collection of tariffs and such taxes in the seceded states.

Frenchie
08-12-2006, 06:24 PM
Tom: Star of the West, which Neo-Confederates like to portray as a "warship" that was threatening to attack the South Carolina batteries surrounding the harbor.

Mr. Jackson: Um... let's see...

Loyal to the Union:
23 states and 8 territories, 3/4 of the total land area
About 22 million people
100,000 factories with 10 million workers
20,000 miles of railroad and 96% of the railroad equipment
81% of total bank deposits and nearly $56,000,000 in gold

In rebellion against the government:
11 states
About 9 million people, 4 million of them slaves
About 20,000 factories and 100,000 workers
Less than 9,000 miles of railroad track (and not a single factory capable of making a locomotive)
Far less deposits and gold, and $300,000,000 owed to businesses in the North

Please explain how three fourths of the government's income was generated in the South. You can get technical, I got an 'A' in Econ 101.

hanktrent
08-12-2006, 07:54 PM
Please explain how three fourths of the government's income was generated in the South. You can get technical, I got an 'A' in Econ 101.

I don't have exact figures, but it seems the argument would go like this.

Over 90 percent of the government's revenue at the time was from tariffs on imports, so that's what one needs to focus on.

The actual total production or capital didn't affect what was contributed to the government. All that really mattered was how much stuff was imported because that's what was taxed. But the country couldn't import anything, unless it had something to export in exchange, and the "something" we had that other countries wanted was the agricultural production of the south.

From http://www.answers.com/topic/international-commerce :

Farm products dominated American exports and became ever-more important to American farmers. The share of exports in agricultural gross product rose from about a tenth in 1810 to a sixth by 1860. Heavy and growing demand for cotton by English textile manufacturers led more and more southern planters to grow the crop. Cotton quickly became the key American export, constituting by 1816-1820 two-fifths of the value of American exports. After 1820, such exports made up from almost half to nearly two-thirds of the value of exports.

I believe that most of the actual importation, in dollars, was coming into northern ports, and thus northerners were actually paying the bulk of the tariffs, but the argument was that the items were in fact destined to be sold to the south, which was paying for them by exporting cotton and other agricultural products. So if the south wasn't exporting, the northerners wouldn't need to be importing items to sell to the south and therefore wouldn't need to be paying the tariffs that funded the government.

The same concept was echoed in Debow's Review, 1853, which reprinted an 1839 article urging the south to import items into its own ports, rather than allowing them to be imported into northern ports:

"The evil complained of is, that the southern and southwestern states, while producing near three-fourths of the domestic exports of the Union, import scarcely one-tenth of the merchandize received in exchange for them. The foreign commerce, which derives its existence from the productions of our industry, and which is the unfailing source of so much wealth to others, is carried on by the citizens of other states, causing their cities to flourish,while ours have been falling into decay. . .

"Of the domestic productions given in exchange for foreign merchandise, nearly three-fourths were of southern growth--we will say two-thirds, which we know, in the whole estimate, to be under the mark. Without disturbing the vexed question, 'who pays the duties,' we may state, then, what all will admit, that the government has been indebted to southern industry for six hundred and thirty millions of money."

You can buy that argument or not--it's kind of a chicken-or-egg thing--but I believe that's the way the case is presented.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

NC5thcav
08-23-2006, 10:22 AM
Actually the naval flag, not the battle flag. The battle flag was square while the naval ensign and jack were rectangular.

Why does this line of reasoning continue? There were MANY rectangular battle flags.:confused:

Derek Carpenter

jthlmnn
08-25-2006, 11:35 AM
All of the arguments I have read that support the legality of secession are predicated on the lack of a specific prohibition in the Constitution. I believe this is a rather shaky argument. If the framers had wanted to allow for the peaceful withdrawal of a member state, a mechanism for such action could have and, I posit, would have been included.

Since there is no specific language, one way or another, in the Constitution, subsequent legislation, or court decisions, we are forced to look at precedent.
For this we have President Andrew Jackson. His administration faced threatened secession and slapped it down in no uncertain terms. Federal opposition to any notion of "legal" secession had been established.

The people who attempted to form the Confederacy were well aware of this precedent. Some chose to ignore it, others held that the question was still open to debate. Unfortunately, the Confederacy chose to move the debate to the battlefield by firing on Fort Sumter. The issue was settled in a forum of Confederate choosing and the answer was a definitive, "No".

For your consideration,

Frenchie
08-25-2006, 02:10 PM
Why does this line of reasoning continue? There were MANY rectangular battle flags.:confused:

Derek Carpenter

No one has said they didn't exist. The rectangular "Southern Cross" battle flags (a starred blue saltire on a red field) were not in accordance with the regulations except when displayed as the Naval Ensign. This applies to a lot of Confederate flags and is explained by lack of approved materials and, IMHO, from the tendency of Southerners to do things their own way. That penchant was part of the cause of the War to begin with, and bedeviled Jefferson Davis for his entire administration.

HighPrvt
08-25-2006, 04:52 PM
The AOT had lots of rectangular battle flags.
Some are on display in EOGC

Sgt_Pepper
08-26-2006, 01:32 AM
(snip)
The issue was settled in a forum of Confederate choosing and the answer was a definitive, "No".

Succinct. Elegant. Very well said.

HighPrvt
08-26-2006, 06:48 AM
Hmmmph.
Girl wears flag shirt to school.
Southerners give her a cheer, yankee apologists whine 'n' cry.
I've seen much more useful threads locked................

:)

NC5thcav
08-26-2006, 04:38 PM
If I'm not mistaken the size and design of battle flags were determined by the army of depertment commander, not according to a military wide regulation. The 48"x48" and later 51" square battle flags were regulation issue for the ANV. Most AoT battle flags were rectangular, with the regulation size being 37"x54" for infantry and cavalry, and 30"x41" for artillery. These flags were issued starting in late 1863. Most were produced at the August Clothing Depot. Even then the regulation sizes were not always issued according to branch of service. For instance, the 58th NC inf. was issued an artillery size battle flag that was captured at Bentonville.

NC5thcav
08-26-2006, 10:52 PM
Somehow Augusta got turned into August in my above post. I really can't spell.:oops:

jthlmnn
08-31-2006, 11:20 AM
I have attempted, as best I can with limited time and resources, to find out why the school had imposed the ban in the first place. I even posed the question in an earlier post. Before I decide whether a school's (or school district's) rule is appropriate, misguided or outrageous, I like to know the context that prompted the rule. So far, no info from anywhere. If anyone does have more background on this situation, I'd like to read it.

YankRI
08-31-2006, 04:39 PM
I see this topic pop up once in a while and thought I'd get into my legal eagle impression and put out some relevant info based on what the Supreme Court has said on this issue. (Note: Some of the text below is from the web site of the First Amendment Center, a nonpartisan group affiliated with Vanderbilt University in the great state of Tennessee.)

In defining the free expression rights of students in a public school, the Court has developed three tests from three different cases for three different scenarios.

I. Vulgar, lewd, obscene, and plainly offensive speech (Fraser standard)

II. School-sponsored speech (Hazelwood standard)

III. All other student speech (Tinker standard)

The most pertinent for our discussion is the Tinker case from which the Tinker standard emanates. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 1969, is about 15-year-old John Tinker, his sister Mary Beth, 13, and Christopher Eckhardt, 16, and the black armbands they wore to their Iowa public schools in December 1965 to protest the Vietnam conflict. Their protests eventually culminated in the leading First Amendment free speech case for public school students.

School officials learned of this planned protest and quickly enacted a no-armband policy. The school then enforced its no-armband rule while allowing the wearing of other symbols, including the Iron Cross.

The students sued in federal court and lost before a federal trial court. The trial court sided with the school officialsí argument that they had enacted the policy out of a reasonable fear that the wearing of the armbands would create disturbances at school.

The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned the previous decision and ruled in favor of the students. In oft-cited language, the Supreme Court wrote, "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Writing for the majority, Justice Abe Fortas noted that the school officials could point to no evidence that the wearing of armbands would disrupt the school environment. As a result, the Court ruled that "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression."

In this decision, the Supreme Court established what has become known as the Tinker standard, considered to be the high watermark of studentsí First Amendment rights. In its ruling, the Court wrote: "the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably lead school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred."

Simply put, this ruling means school officials may not silence student expression just because they dislike it. They must reasonably forecast, based on evidence and not on an "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance," that the student expression would lead to either (a) a substantial disruption of the school environment, or (b) an invasion of the rights of others.

The Tinker standard governed student expression for years until the Supreme Court decided two other cases in the 1980s. The first of those rulings came in 1986 but aren't relevant here.

To help clarify how courts review the actions of students and school officials, letís take an example involving the controversial symbol of the Confederate battle flag.

If a student were disciplined for wearing a piece of Confederate flag clothing to school, a reviewing court would likely begin by applying the Tinker "substantial disruption" standard. Why? Because the speech is student initiated (not school sponsored) and is not lewd.

Under Tinker, the court would have to determine whether the school officials could have reasonably forecasted a "substantial disruption" of the school environment, perhaps based on past incidents of racial tension, or if the school officials overreacted out of an "undifferentiated fear or apprehension."

School officials, however, might argue that the expression should be banned based on the more deferential Fraser standard. In one recent case, in fact, a federal appeals court agreed with this logic, reasoning that "the more flexible Fraser standard applies where the speech involved intrudes upon the function of the school to inculcate manners and habits of civility." Denno v. Sch. Bd. of Volusia County, 218 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2000).

More recently, a federal appeals court ruled that students could not be ordered to remove clothing adorned with Confederate flags absent a reasonable fear of disruption based on past experience. Even then, the court indicated that school officials must be willing to apply the ban evenhandedly to other racially divisive symbols, such as a Malcolm X T-shirt. Castorina v. Madison County Sch. Bd., 246 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2001).

To use a slightly different example, imagine if a principal decides to change her school's "Johnny Reb" mascot because she has received complaints from members of the community, who believe the symbol to be racially insensitive. Now which standard should apply?

A reviewing court would likely apply the Hazelwood standard because the mascot is a form of school-sponsored speech. In fact, in a decision based on these details, a federal appeals court reasoned that "a school mascot or symbol bears the stamp of approval of the school itself" and concluded that the principal "eliminated the symbol based on legitimate concerns." Crosby v. Holsinger, 852 F.2d 801, 802 (4th Cir. 1988).

Finally, imagine that a group of students published a story about the Confederate battle flag and how students viewed the symbol in a privately published, underground student newspaper. Which standard would apply here?

In this case, the Tinker standard would apply, because the newspaper is student initiated, rather than school sponsored.

If you stuck around this long, you oughta think about law school! Anyway, hope it helps the discussion as I know that lots of folks haven't had a chance to digest a lot of Supreme Court case law. Interestingly, my constitutional law classes (there were two) focused mainly on the Commerce Clause, and not the more sexy Bill of Rights stuff. That's standard given the importance of the Commerce Clause (think expansion of Congressional power over the states -- holy federalism, Batman!) but there's only so many cases on milk that one can read! (that's an inside jokes for other lawyers out there)

Legally,

Brandon313
08-31-2006, 05:25 PM
"The battle flag was used by the Confederate pro-slavery states during the U.S. Civil War. While considered a symbol of heritage and pride for many southerners, it remains a symbol of racism and oppression for other Americans"

That is a CBS news quote covering the story. That is simply rediculous. i am a democratic pro confederate person (wierd huh?) the battle flag is a symbol of our great southern ancestors who left their families to fight a war against northern agression,(not my logic, it is theirs, nobody can deny that the average confederate soldier was fighting against what they considered to be the rule of a foreign power) not for or against slavery.
Now i do not support slavery in any way shape or form, but i do understand what the fighting men of the confederacy were fighting for. They did not want to live in a union with one section of it "imposing" is will through "coercion".

Now as i said, these are not my principles, they are theirs. But i do believe that people these days should be able to express themselves, and feel proud of their heritage. Today, being the descendant of a soldier of almost any army is a thing of pride, but in the south, descendants of confederates are EXTREMELY proud. I dont understand why people can wear american flags on their shirts but not a Confederate battle flag? The BF was not a flag of the CONFEDERACEY, most people dont even know what the First National flag of the Confederacey is, yet they are quick to say that they KNOW a BF is a symbol of racism??

If anyone should be offended by any flag of the South, it should be either the first, second, or third nationals...because those are the ACTUAL flags of the Confederacey. But nobody even knows what those are! People would get upset if someone wore a Nazi flag to school, and i would understand that. But a Battle flag is NOT the same thing as a National flag. The Swastika and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd were NATIONAL flags.....


Like so many people say, its heritage not hate..

tompritchett
08-31-2006, 07:30 PM
"The battle flag was used by the Confederate pro-slavery states during the U.S. Civil War. While considered a symbol of heritage and pride for many southerners, it remains a symbol of racism and oppression for other Americans"

Actually, it is my personal opinion from having grown up in the South during the Civil Rights Movement that the "Battle Flag"'s association with racism has little to do with the Civil War of the 1860's and everthing to do with the racism and violence that occurred in opposition to the Civil Right reforms of the 1960's. When Southern whites demonstrated against the various Civil Rights reforms of this period, such as the forced integration of schools, the Kentucky - Texas-El Paso NCAA finals game, etc., it was the Confederate flag that they were waving, the Confederate flag that they flew from their porches, and the Confederate flag that they displayed on their cars. IMHO, It is not the heritage of the 1860's but rather the heritage of the 1950's - 1970's that now give it its racist associations.

Brandon313
08-31-2006, 09:28 PM
i can deffinately see that point of view, but then again, using the battle flag for those reasons are rediculous....ah i cant get into it, but it just disgusts me. All those brave men died for their rights, and then some racists a hundred years later use their sacrifice as a coverstory for their evil beliefs.

tompritchett
09-01-2006, 07:19 AM
Again from having lived through the Civil Rights period, there were some parallels between the 1860's and the 1960's. One common Southern sentiment in both periods was that the South was trying to resist the North's trying to tell them how the South should run its society and for some the South's willingness to use some level of force, if necessary, to defend their right of self-determination. I can remember my father and other of his peer's commenting that, although integration of schools was a good thing, they resenting the Federal government dictating that it MUST be done at once rather than one grade at a time starting at the lowest (which in itself was an admission that separate education systems for blacks and white did not mean equal systems). In both cases, I do not agree with my ancestor's racist stands on slavery and Civil Rights but I do at least understand their beliefs about the right of self-determination.

jthlmnn
09-02-2006, 08:00 AM
First, thanks to Michael for his review of Constitutional law. (Yes, I read all of it and I am not a lawyer.) ;) The Tinker standard clarifies why I wanted to know more of the context of this situation.

Second, I'll relate two different events where I first encountered a Confederate battle flag. The context of each is critical to its "meaning". Both events took place in the early 1960s.

A neighbor was a Civil War reenactor with a Confederate unit during the Civil War Centennial years. At times he would have possession of his unit's colors. I never heard a racist remark escape his lips and never associated his use of that flag with anything mean, hateful or offensive.

During this same period, my father took me and my older siblings to witness an open housing march in a Milwaukee suburb. (History in the making.) On one side of the street were the demonstrators, marching with their signs and chanting a variety of slogans. On the other side were spectators, like my family, and a variety of hecklers. One group was gathered in and around a red pickup truck (hand on my heart, it is true). This group was waving a Confederate battle flag and singing, "I wish I were an Alabama trooper. That is what I'd truly like to be. 'Cause if I were an Alabama trooper, then I could shoot the n*****s legally." (Melody: Oscar Mayer weiner jingle) This was my first personal experience of blatant racism connected with implied violence. (More would follow in later years.) It is burned into my memory.

I understand both perceptions of that symbol and withold my personal judgement regarding the use of it until I know more about the whys and wherefores of the situation.

VA Soldier
09-03-2006, 06:49 AM
The civil rights era was deffiantley a rough time in this county. It is a disgrace that any group of people would use the Confederate Flag for that reason. Education, and a willingness to learn are the only tools I know of for our nation to move on. The zeal to become PC has been a polarizing force in this nation and untill people will actually set down and talk to someone before judging them, this will never end. (Makes me wonder what would happen if it really got out that the current Virginia Flag is a holdover from the War)

D. Jackson

Frenchie
09-03-2006, 05:04 PM
(Makes me wonder what would happen if it really got out that the current Virginia Flag is a holdover from the War)
D. Jackson

The Revolutionary War, that is, as the Virginia State Flag was adopted in 1776. That it was the flag of a state in rebellion against the Union is irrelevant. However, some other Southern state flags clearly celebrate their Confederate history:

Alabama: Crimson St. Andrew's cross on a white field, patterned after the Confederate Battle Flag, and adopted in 1895.

Arkansas: The top of four stars in the center represents that Arkansas was a member of the Confederate States during the Civil War.

Florida: On a white field emblazoned with a red X (see Alabama) and the state seal, etc.

Georgia: The Georgia flag has three red and white stripes and the state coat of arms on a blue field in the upper left corner. Thirteen stars surrounding the seal denotes Georgia's position as one of the original thirteen colonies. Flag adopted May 8th, 2003. (It's the Confederate National Flag! Many of them had thirteen stars also, and the 1956-2003 flag has the Battle Flag as part of its design.)

Mississippi: The Confederate Battle Flag again, since 1894.

VA Soldier
09-03-2006, 06:55 PM
Yes Virginia came up with a flag when they became their own state in 1776, but in April of 1861 The Virginia General Assembly voted to change the design of the flag, moreover the color. Prior to this time the field of the flag was white, but in honor of the Bonny Blue Flag the color was changed to Blue, which it still is today. Many VA units carried the newly designed flag with them as they took the field thus making the flag not only the flag of a State of the Confederacy, but a flag designed as a result of the war and a battle flag as much as any other.

D. Jackson

garyjd
09-22-2006, 01:12 AM
Had he marched into eastern Maryland, the reception likely would have been much different - at least according to some friends of mine who grew up in that section.


Man, they must be really old. Sorry, could'nt help it.lol~Gary