PDA

View Full Version : World's Largest Confederate Flag



Pages : [1] 2

FloridaConfederate
06-01-2008, 09:29 AM
http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article551722.ece



Confederate group plans giant flag in Hillsborough County
By Jessica Vander Velde

Saturday, May 31, 2008

TAMPA — Next year, a giant Confederate flag may tower above the tree line near the junction of Interstate 75 and Interstate 4.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans wants drivers in the Tampa area to see the massive flag — 30 feet high and 50 feet long — atop a 139-foot pole, the highest the Federal Aviation Authority would allow. It would be lit at night.

With the pole already in the ground and building permits in hand, the group is on its way to having what it calls the "world's largest" Confederate flag in place by mid 2009. The group just needs about $30,000 more, said Douglas Dawson, Florida division commander.

Several nearby business owners don't mind. It's history, they say, and it's on private property. Tampa resident Marion Lambert owns the small triangular plot just west of Interstate 75 along U.S. 92 E.

But when Hillsborough County NAACP president Curtis Stokes heard about the plans to have the flag flying next year, he was shocked.

"I'm surprised that they would allow something like this to go on in Hillsborough County," he said.

The county has wrestled with sensitive Confederate issues in the past. In 1994, the Confederate flag was removed from the county seal. Last year, county commissioners recognized Confederate commander Robert E. Lee on the same day they honored a black civic leader. Commissioners later apologized and haven't since recognized Lee.

It's the commissioners' responsibility to make sure plans don't move forward, Stokes said. The flag would send the wrong message about the county and it would be embarrassing because many visitors use the roads, he said.

Code enforcement officers won't be able to stop the project because flags were removed from county sign regulations in 2004. County Commissioner Kevin White, whose district includes the flagpole site, could not be reached for comment Friday.

Plans for the flag, which is part of a memorial for Confederate veterans, started about four years ago, said John W. Adams, a Deltona resident who co-chairs the Confederate Veterans' Flags Across Florida project.

Flags Across Florida started about eight years ago, after the Confederate flag was removed from the Capitol in Tallahassee. So far the group has two major flags erected: one in Suwannee County along Interstate 75 and one in Havana along U.S. 27.

Adams insists the flag isn't about racism or slavery. "It's about honoring our ancestors and about celebrating our heritage," he said. "It's a historical thing to us."

He hopes people who are offended by the flag will drive to the memorial and view the plaques honoring Confederate soldiers. They plan to have one dedicated to black Confederate veterans, he said.

Mitch McDonald, the general manager of a nearby crane rental business, said he won't mind the flag. "The bigger, the better," he said.

But he's worried that it might offend a black employee of his, who was angered by the sighting of a Confederate flag on an earlier assignment.

Ted Meyer, who owns a nearby boat business, said he is concerned customers will think it's his flag because the properties are adjacent. His wife, Maxine Meyer, is upset by the plans. "I've got a lot of black customers," she said.

Dawson, the Sons of Confederate Veterans' Florida commander, said he knows a giant Confederate flag flying 24 hours a day over two of the Tampa area's busiest roads will cause controversy.

"We can't do anything but explain to people what the truth is," said Dawson, of Pensacola. "If they don't want to accept that, they're closed-minded, and Jesus Christ couldn't change it."

The flag and pole are ready today...the engraved monument work and its installation are underway.

Test flying of the flag:

http://florida-scv.org/Camp556/images/restflyi4.JPG

sbl
06-01-2008, 10:07 AM
Other coverage...some explicit language.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3333081

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-01-2008, 10:09 AM
Great job . Where do I send my contribution?

FloridaConfederate
06-01-2008, 10:13 AM
http://www.florida-scv.org/projects/FAF/index.html

Georgia Frame
06-01-2008, 10:16 AM
Will flying these flags really honor anyone?

They have folk here in Texas who are wanting to do the same thing...
http://www.texasconfederateveterans.com/index.html (till a short while back) had a thing where they were going to put up a huge Battle flag off of I-30 somewhere in East Texas. They were stating that they would like to see more flags put up every time that someone in school was forced to put away their Battle Flag, or not allowed to have a Battle flag. (Something to that effect) I find it strange they don't have THAT on their web site at the time I write this!

My beef is if these flags are for getting back at those who fight to take down Battle Flags from public places, or lost lawsuits against schools who don't allow Battle flags on clothing. "In your face" tactics will not honor anyone.

Battle flag detractors are not totally stupid, the "Heritage, Not Hate" statement holds little water, when they know it was Confederate Veterans started the KKK, and wonder how many of their "Sons" were involved too. Folk that will have these in, or near their cities/towns are going to ask what the motive is for the flags.

I'm not one for shoving something into someone's face and trying to force them to like it. Our confederate ancestors deserve better than "revenge" tactics. I don't think it's a good idea to cast pearls before the swine.

Kevin Dally

FloridaConfederate
06-01-2008, 10:17 AM
Other coverage...some explicit language.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3333081

I understand and respect why someone would be offended.

I have my own thoughts on it too

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-01-2008, 10:26 AM
Will flying these flags really honor anyone?

They have folk here in Texas who are wanting to do the same thing...
http://www.texasconfederateveterans.com/index.html (till a short while back) had a thing where they were going to put up a huge Battle flag off of I-30 somewhere in East Texas. They were stating that they would like to see more flags put up every time that someone in school was forced to put away their Battle Flag, or not allowed to have a Battle flag. (Something to that effect) I find it strange they don't have THAT on their web site at the time I write this!

My beef is if these flags are for getting back at those who fight to take down Battle Flags from public places, or lost lawsuits against schools who don't allow Battle flags on clothing. "In your face" tactics will not honor anyone.

Battle flag detractors are not totally stupid, the "Heritage, Not Hate" statement holds little water, when they know it was Confederate Veterans started the KKK, and wonder how many of their "Sons" were involved too. Folk that will have these in, or near their cities/towns are going to ask what the motive is for the flags.

I'm not one for shoving something into someone's face and trying to force them to like it. Our confederate ancestors deserve better than "revenge" tactics. I don't think it's a good idea to cast pearls before the swine.

Kevin Dally



As long as the NAACP , the Jesse Jackson version of the National Park Service , the Southern Poverty Law Center , the PC Staff of the Museum of the Confederacy and the cowardly schools boards, etc, etc. are doing their thing , we will do ours.

Georgia Frame
06-01-2008, 10:46 AM
"As long as the NAACP , the Jesse Jackson version of the National Park Service , the Southern Poverty Law Center , the PC Staff of the Museum of the Confederacy and the cowardly schools boards, etc, etc. are doing their thing , we will do ours."

WHO are you trying to honor here...the Confederate Veteran, or yourselves?

Kevin Dally

FloridaConfederate
06-01-2008, 10:49 AM
WHO are you trying to honor here...the Confederate Veteran, or yourselves?

Kevin Dally

Come to Florida.

I owe you a beer.

RebelBugler
06-01-2008, 10:59 AM
Will flying these flags really honor anyone?

They have folk here in Texas who are wanting to do the same thing...
http://www.texasconfederateveterans.com/index.html (till a short while back) had a thing where they were going to put up a huge Battle flag off of I-30 somewhere in East Texas. They were stating that they would like to see more flags put up every time that someone in school was forced to put away their Battle Flag, or not allowed to have a Battle flag. (Something to that effect) I find it strange they don't have THAT on their web site at the time I write this!

My beef is if these flags are for getting back at those who fight to take down Battle Flags from public places, or lost lawsuits against schools who don't allow Battle flags on clothing. "In your face" tactics will not honor anyone.

Battle flag detractors are not totally stupid, the "Heritage, Not Hate" statement holds little water, when they know it was Confederate Veterans started the KKK, and wonder how many of their "Sons" were involved too. Folk that will have these in, or near their cities/towns are going to ask what the motive is for the flags.

I'm not one for shoving something into someone's face and trying to force them to like it. Our confederate ancestors deserve better than "revenge" tactics. I don't think it's a good idea to cast pearls before the swine.

Kevin Dally

After consulting my current US Constitution, the 1st Amendment protecting freedom of expression is still intact. Reading further, I have been unable to find any Constitutional provision guaranteeing the right of someone not to be offended. The flag, as I understand it, will be on private property. Ergo, other than some parties whining about it, there is not much to debate.

For that matter, I wonder if this topic would be better posted in the Whine Cellar, as it does not directly relate to flags and statues in the context of historical settings.

FloridaConfederate
06-01-2008, 11:05 AM
Terry

My direct exp with SCV and many are fine folks...

is too much us not enough them.

Respectfully....

and I am as avid consumer of CS historic culture as they come.

We can PM about specifics or I am happy to give you my telephone number.

sbl
06-01-2008, 11:13 AM
Terry,

Good points.

This story is in that twilight zone area of a flag to honor the Confederate soldiers that looks like to some as a big FU to blacks, northerners and "lib-er-als." I think the "worlds biggest" CSA Naval Jack helps to re-enforce the perception of the South as backward. I know that's not true.

(Could be a whine.)

FloridaConfederate
06-01-2008, 11:29 AM
CSA Naval Jack helps to re-enforce the perception of the South as backward. I know that's not true.

No not backward enough.

Let's go waaaaaaaay back to a time of personal accountability and the independence and right of the individual to be free from government interference from pursuing their highest level of self-gratification without harming or affecting others along the way.

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-01-2008, 11:35 AM
"As long as the NAACP , the Jesse Jackson version of the National Park Service , the Southern Poverty Law Center , the PC Staff of the Museum of the Confederacy and the cowardly schools boards, etc, etc. are doing their thing , we will do ours."

WHO are you trying to honor here...the Confederate Veteran, or yourselves?

Kevin Dally



I guess you weren’t aware that the Sons of Confederate Veterans is the direct descendent of the United Confederate Veterans and that we were established by the Veterans themselves.

Who else will defend the veterans against the NAACP, SPLC , NPS etc. version of history. They just don't like it when their own tactics are used against them. Tough luck.

Keep in mine, these groups pretty much left us alone until about the
mid 1980's. I guess they needed to raise some money.

Georgia Frame
06-01-2008, 11:42 AM
This probably does belong in the whine folder.

It's a war of attitudes, and interpretation of the WBTS, and how we view it today. One side sees the Flag as representing the segregationist Jim Crow Laws of yesteryear, with a lack of rights, lynchings, murder, fear of reprisals...

The other spectrum is one that says the Confederacy was for States Rights, Jeffersonian form of Constitutional Government, honor and devotion to the "Cause", standing up to the northern aggression...(which they did very well!)

Then you have those that know both sides of the equation, and a clear view of the history on both sides of the spectrum...and everything in between.

It’s like the story I heard once about a woman complaining to R. E. Lee, (wish I had the source) about a tree in her yard was damaged by a shell, Lee say’s "cut it down woman, and forget it".

I do ask, would Lee approve of these tactics to NOW get the urge to want to put up BIG Battle Flags?

An example; which honors the Confederate Soldier better, a Descendant who obeys the laws in school, doesn’t make a huge fuss over not being able to wear Battle flag clothing, does well in their studies…or the one who purposely goes to school wearing a Battle flag on their clothing, knowing it’s against the written/understood policy of the school, goes crying to everyone/SCV/Lawyers about getting kicked out for breaking the rules, and tries to take it to court in a law suit…

I take a more reverent stand that being a good citizen (like so many of our Confederate Ancestors were after the war) will honor the Confederate Soldier more than all the Battle Flags in the world.

I won’t honor the James, the Younger’s, or any other outlaw (who fought for the Confederacy) that took up crime after the war. What the Confederate Soldier did after the war means as much as what they did during the war.

Mileage is going to vary.

Kevin Dally

FloridaConfederate
06-01-2008, 11:52 AM
Woe for I to be half the man of RE Lee.....



"...The duty of its citizens, then, appears to me too plain to admit of doubt. All should unite in honest efforts to obliterate the effects of the war and to restore the blessing of peace. They should remain, if possible, in the country; promote harmony and good feeling, qualify themselves to vote and elect to the State and general legislatures wise and patriotic men, who will devote their abilities to the interests of the country and the healing of all dissensions. I have invariably recommended this course since the cessation of hostilities, and have endeavoured to practise it myself...."

Robert E. Lee, letter to Governor Letcher
"Recollections And Letters Of General Robert E. Lee",
Captain Robert E. Lee, as published on-line by Project Gutenberg

tompritchett
06-01-2008, 12:16 PM
For that matter, I wonder if this topic would be better posted in the Whine Cellar, as it does not directly relate to flags and statues in the context of historical settings.

Actually the Flags & Statues Conference was established to discuss just this type of issues associated with modern displays. Historical usage of flags and questions about historical flags are topics for the appropriate Military Conferences.

tompritchett
06-01-2008, 12:25 PM
It's a war of attitudes, and interpretation of the WBTS, and how we view it today. One side sees the Flag as representing the segregationist Jim Crow Laws of yesteryear, with a lack of rights, lynchings, murder, fear of reprisals...

The other spectrum is one that says the Confederacy was for States Rights, Jeffersonian form of Constitutional Government, honor and devotion to the "Cause", standing up to the northern aggression...(which they did very well!)

Both spectra are looking at the historical usage of the flag - the first group is looking at its usage in the 20th Century while the latter group is focussed on its usage in the 19th Century. I think it would be appropriate to mention two things: 1) most Southern states did not include the flag into their state flags and other symbols until the 20th Century, usually in protest to Civil Rights reforms (a non-violent way of showing support for the scare tactics of lynching, bombings, and burning out peoples' homes) and 2) the 20th Century usage of the flag in support of segregation and Jim Crow laws occurred for far more years than the 19th Century usage that we as reenactors try to honor.

RebelBugler
06-01-2008, 12:41 PM
Actually the Flags & Statues Conference was established to discuss just this type of issues associated with modern displays. Historical usage of flags and questions about historical flags are topics for the appropriate Military Conferences.


Tom,
I was merely questioning the appropriateness of this topic appearing in the Flags and Statues category, based on the descriptive narrative provided.

"News and discussions related to preservation of flags and statues."

hanktrent
06-01-2008, 12:53 PM
No not backward enough.

Let's go waaaaaaaay back to a time of personal accountability and the independence and right of the individual to be free from government interference from pursuing their highest level of self-gratification without harming or affecting others along the way.

For a white male, there were certainly some glory days. But when would that time have been in the U.S., from the point of view of a woman or, to use the period terms, Negro or Indian?

Or does it have something to do with the definition of "highest level of self-gratification without harming or affecting others," in that a woman who wanted to run for office would affect the outcome of an election and perhaps future policy, or a man born into slavery who wanted the same rights as his master would harm his master socially and economically?

As far as the big flag, I think big flags are cool, especially on a windy day. There's a U.S. flag that looks about that size, that a company's been flying for years along the highway here, and it's neat to see it in the breeze.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

reb64
06-01-2008, 01:13 PM
Will flying these flags really honor anyone?

don't allow Battle flags on clothing. "In your face" tactics will not honor anyone.

Kevin Dally


I dont know the motivation but whats wrong with being a little in-your-face? isnt it american and patriotic to just be a little darn rebelious at times? how about "dont tread on me?, give me liberty or give me death, **** the torpedose, I have not yet begun to fight and so on,. This flag shows we aint going take it, all the pc crap. dont like the little flag on the city seal? well how about this flag? I say make it bigger.

tompritchett
06-01-2008, 02:35 PM
Tom,
I was merely questioning the appropriateness of this topic appearing in the Flags and Statues category, based on the descriptive narrative provided.

No problem. It is just that I go back to the days under the old software when this conference was set up to pull such discussions as this out of the Military General Discussion. I must admit though I have not read the description that was written for this conference when the forum was rebooted on the new software.

FloridaConfederate
06-01-2008, 02:50 PM
For a white male, there were certainly some glory days. But when would that time have been in the U.S., from the point of view of a woman or, to use the period terms, Negro or Indian? [/EMAIL]

I'm not indian, woman nor negro. So that is a tough one.

If you're asking me personally, I would set my WAYBAC machine and Sherman and I would head back to April 29, 1951.

I will let those with superior investigative skills research out why this is a very significant day in Southern history.

Georgia Frame
06-01-2008, 03:05 PM
I guess you weren’t aware that the Sons of Confederate Veterans is the direct descendent of the United Confederate Veterans and that we were established by the Veterans themselves.

Who else will defend the veterans against the NAACP, SPLC , NPS etc. version of history. They just don't like it when their own tactics are used against them. Tough luck.

Keep in mine, these groups pretty much left us alone until about the
mid 1980's. I guess they needed to raise some money.


My non-fanaticism with the Battle Flag is covered over with my hardcore interest of the Confederate Veteran as a soldier…more of the material culture, than symbolic.

I am aware of the SCV’s roots, was a member of the Texas Division. There was a time you could get the Confederate Veteran Magazine, and actually READ about the Confederate veteran!

Now it’s all political. A few years back it switched to a different role of being reactionary, with what I call a grossly mis-interpreted “Charge”. Now it’s all about the “Charge” and God-forbid if you have a different view, other than the “Charge”.

A lot of good folk left, some were all but run down, and then ran out of the organization!
I could go on and on, but it would not add anything constructive to the conversation.

I opted to quit the SCV, & join the Civil War Preservation Trust, and go towards saving the Battle fields BOTH sides fought and died on.

A final note, I’m not anti SCV, I still on occasions go to Camp meetings and give talks on the Confederate Soldier, or the Battles he fought in, or the Uniform/Equipage he had.

Kevin Dally

FloridaConfederate
06-01-2008, 03:17 PM
I have always been the odd man out in my SCV camp....for that matter everyday life...

**** its outwardly evident..."One of these is not like the other ones......"

8 guys in 80/20 wool roundabouts, gaiters and kepis...and then there is the one "Mr. Non-Conformist."


http://florida-scv.org/Camp556/images/strawberry_colour_guard_web.jpg

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-01-2008, 03:21 PM
GREAT looking group you included .

tompritchett
06-01-2008, 04:16 PM
Now it’s all political. A few years back it switched to a different role of being reactionary, with what I call a grossly mis-interpreted “Charge”. Now it’s all about the “Charge” and God-forbid if you have a different view, other than the “Charge”.

I will never forget when a SCV member born and raised in NYC publicly and in writing told myself and another member of our Confederate unit, both of whom were born in raised in the South, that we were not worthy to wear the Confederate uniform because we disagreed with him on a flag related issue (we believed the 1rst Amendment trumped his objections on the issue).

Blockade Runner
06-01-2008, 04:46 PM
I have always been the odd man out in my SCV camp....for that matter everyday life...

**** its outwardly evident..."One of these is not like the other ones......"

8 guys in 80/20 wool roundabouts, gaiters and kepis...and then there is the one "Mr. Non-Conformist."


http://florida-scv.org/Camp556/images/strawberry_colour_guard_web.jpg

You guys look great! It's particularly impressive when everyone marches and keeps in step together. That's not always easy since we're all volunteers and our only "practice" is when we actually participate in an event.

As for the flag flap...some groups over the years have misappropriated use of the Confederate flag for their own purpose, and to fit their own agenda. The SCV is about preserving the heritage, valor, and spirit of the Southern soldier. Unfortunately, many folks aren't able to distinguish between heritage groups and "others". That unfortunate situation is in large measure due to the drive-by media types who neglect to educate the public about what the SCV is really about...preserving history and heritage of the Southern soldier.

For those who seek to ban the flying of the "Battle Flag", I would tell them that flag was the flag that our soldiers fought and died for. We will never relent concerning its contiuned use.

Ross L. Lamoreaux
06-01-2008, 05:01 PM
Since I'm on the same sheet of music as Mr. Dally and the esteemed Mr. Rideout on this one, and also as a former SCV member, I can see why the public views this as a great big FU. How about a compromise and fly a First National flag and use it as an educational opportunity. The SCV will never do it, but it would be a nice in the middle gesture. It keeps within the freedom of speech area, still honors Confederate veterans and it isn't as much "in your face" as a naval jack or battle flag. Even though the pole is on private property, that flag is will be seen by hundreds of thousands of motorists and will be one of the first things seen by people driving to Tampa. For those unaware of the story or controversy, it will be one of the biggest things they will remember about Tampa, right or wrong.

bill watson
06-01-2008, 05:04 PM
[QUOTE=5 th Alabama Infantry]I guess you weren’t aware that the Sons of Confederate Veterans is the direct descendent of the United Confederate Veterans and that we were established by the Veterans themselves.

QUOTE]


Does one still have to have an ancestor who was in the Confederate army or government or navy to be a member of the SCV?

FloridaConfederate
06-01-2008, 05:12 PM
Thanks for the compliments, all.

I limit my involvement with the SCV to parades (hey who dont like pimp'n the duds), living histories in schools / other groups and ceremonial purposes.

The monument part to the 15,000 Floridian CS soldiers (I have 7 primary ancestors) of that flag site is more important to me and has taken a backseat in importance and focus to the huge "in your face" flag.....which the controversy it has and will continue to stir makes it even tougher for me as a "fair and balanced" living historian to get a fair shake at getting across (if we can set aside slavery for an instant) as to how this war drastically changed our representative form of government and turned us from "the United States" plural form.... to "United States" singular form.

I am not a CS flag flyer and I have made the in depth study of CS culture and history my primary neurosis. I believe it represents a defeated nation, and as RE Lee said in the end game (and other noted CS leaders including NBF reinforced) and I paraphrase " go home and if you do as good as US citizens as you were soldiers you will do well and I will be proud".

I live by Marse Robert's words as a Southron-American (my term) and SCV member. However, if you want to talk about a new direction for Southern people with traditional values in 2008, I am all ears. Also if you have a CS ancestor in FL and you want help researching or doing a grave marker application / ceremony, by all means I am your man.

FloridaConfederate
06-01-2008, 05:27 PM
[QUOTE=5 th Alabama Infantry]I guess you weren’t aware that the Sons of Confederate Veterans is the direct descendent of the United Confederate Veterans and that we were established by the Veterans themselves.

QUOTE]


Does one still have to have an ancestor who was in the Confederate army or government or navy to be a member of the SCV?

Mr Watson,

One can also be a Legionaire (I think is the term; please if correction is in order) which is anyone really. You cant vote and other minor differences.

Or a decsend from a honorable CS military veteran.

firstmdes
06-01-2008, 05:41 PM
How about a compromise and fly a First National flag and use it as an educational opportunity.
I agree 100% with this statement! If the SCV really is about heritage, not hate, then get rid of the symbol of hate and fly the 1st National Flag. Besides, the battles are over, there is no need for a battle flag anymore! If my group's symbol was hijacked by hate-mongers, I would find a new one.

I think that deep down inside many SCV members do use the flag as an "in your face" who cares about your feelings symbol. Many have lost the true sense of honoring their ancestors. How do you think some of those feel who are decendants of dead Union troops (black and white) or decendants of those enslaved by the flyers of that flag?

We can still be proud of our past and not flaunt our sins at the same time!

firstmdes
06-01-2008, 05:42 PM
I'm not indian, woman nor negro. So that is a tough one.

If you're asking me personally, I would set my WAYBAC machine and Sherman and I would head back to April 29, 1951.

I will let those with superior investigative skills research out why this is a very significant day in Southern history.
Dale Earnhardt was born? :) Go Jeff Gordon!! #24...wooo!

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-01-2008, 05:46 PM
[QUOTE=5 th Alabama Infantry]I guess you weren’t aware that the Sons of Confederate Veterans is the direct descendent of the United Confederate Veterans and that we were established by the Veterans themselves.

QUOTE]


Does one still have to have an ancestor who was in the Confederate army or government or navy to be a member of the SCV?



Confederate Army, Navy or Marine Corps , not government

FloridaConfederate
06-01-2008, 05:47 PM
Dale Earnhardt was born? :) Go Jeff Gordon!! #24...wooo!


You get a cookie.

Go figure... you a JG fan

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-01-2008, 05:58 PM
I agree 100% with this statement! If the SCV really is about heritage, not hate, then get rid of the symbol of hate and fly the 1st National Flag. Besides, the battles are over, there is no need for a battle flag anymore! If my group's symbol was hijacked by hate-mongers, I would find a new one.

I think that deep down inside many SCV members do use the flag as an "in your face" who cares about your feelings symbol. Many have lost the true sense of honoring their ancestors. How do you think some of those feel who are decendants of dead Union troops (black and white) or decendants of those enslaved by the flyers of that flag?

We can still be proud of our past and not flaunt our sins at the same time!




Nice of you to be telling us what to do. You’ve been doing it for far too long . Maybe that was part of the reason we resisted your invasion.

The Veterans themselves used the Battle Flag in their parades and ceremonies, specifically at the New Orleans UCV Convention of 1906 and at the dedication of the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Baltimore in 1903. The Maryland Historical Society has a very famous picture of same if you want to look it up.

No, we won’t surrender our ancestor’s flag because you or anyone else think it’s a nice idea.

Georgia Frame
06-01-2008, 06:55 PM
You guys look great! It's particularly impressive when everyone marches and keeps in step together. That's not always easy since we're all volunteers and our only "practice" is when we actually participate in an event.

As for the flag flap...some groups over the years have misappropriated use of the Confederate flag for their own purpose, and to fit their own agenda. The SCV is about preserving the heritage, valor, and spirit of the Southern soldier. Unfortunately, many folks aren't able to distinguish between heritage groups and "others". That unfortunate situation is in large measure due to the drive-by media types who neglect to educate the public about what the SCV is really about...preserving history and heritage of the Southern soldier.

For those who seek to ban the flying of the "Battle Flag", I would tell them that flag was the flag that our soldiers fought and died for. We will never relent concerning its contiuned use.

You see, it's STILL seems to be only about the Flag. I thought that the Soldiers fought for their Country (States) beliefs; to ward off invaders...I question if most in the SCV event KNOW what the Flag was for?

I view it simply as a GUIDE, an object that helped to align the formations of troops, to show rallying points...sure there was unit pride, and folk did give their lives to keep it out of enemy hands. You can embellish it and gird it up in great flowing grandeur of imagined Knights of old fighting for it, but it was simply a guide to be recognized from the enemies flag across the way.

As I have said before, some Confederate Veterans didn’t quite follow Lee’s advice about moving on and getting rid of the vestiges of war, but started the KKK, and didn’t see what shame that would bring on everyone to this day.

I just view motives behind flying a huge Battle Flag with suspicion, and wonder WHO is abusing the Flag more?

I say furl it and move on, till everyone on all sides can grow up as to it’s actual use!

Kevin Dally

GrumpyDave
06-01-2008, 07:03 PM
That's the biggest Navy Jack I've ever seen. Too bad those colors have so much negative baggage.

firstmdes
06-01-2008, 07:08 PM
You get a cookie.

Go figure... you a JG fan
I figured it wasn't the death of Ludwig Wittgenstein. As to JG, no but my brother is. I really don't follow NASCAR too closely.

firstmdes
06-01-2008, 07:24 PM
Nice of you to be telling us what to do. You’ve been doing it for far too long . Maybe that was part of the reason we resisted your invasion.

The Veterans themselves used the Battle Flag in their parades and ceremonies, specifically at the New Orleans UCV Convention of 1906 and at the dedication of the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Baltimore in 1903. The Maryland Historical Society has a very famous picture of same if you want to look it up.

No, we won’t surrender our ancestor’s flag because you or anyone else think it’s a nice idea.
1) You did not resist my invasion. As far as I can tell neither of us were even close to being thought of during the 1861-1865 period. Maybe that is part of the problem.

2) Those who actual fought for the flag have a right to use it after the war. Those men I respect. Did you place your life on the line in its defense? No.

3) Don't you dare tell me that I don't have a say in this. My family lived in Virginia during the war and I am just as much a descendent of this war as you are. As a matter of fact, one of my ancestors was born in 1862 and wore his family's allegiance as his name: Jefferson Davis Bosley. Did my family have a stake in this short lived nation? We seem to have gotten over the defeat. How about you?

4) If you are from Maryland as I assume from your SCV Division and involvement in Loudon Park Cemetery, you are in the same boat as me. Marylanders fought on both sides of the war. Many Maryland families were the epitome of the Civil War: Brother against Brother. Should we step on the flag defended by the Union boys and disrespect their ancestors in order to further your lost cause? I think not.

5) Do you really think things would be so spectacular if the C.S.A gained their independence? Think of the consequences to the nation and the world. I am glad that the Union was restored. I am proud of the unified country in which I live and I would never wish it were torn apart. Is that what you really desire. I find that bordering on treason at worst and disrespectful to those subsequent U.S. veterans and war dead at best. If you truly think this, go buy yourself a desert island and create your own country. I promise not to bother your sovereignty.

With waning respect,

Ross L. Lamoreaux
06-01-2008, 08:10 PM
Nice of you to be telling us what to do. You’ve been doing it for far too long . Maybe that was part of the reason we resisted your invasion.

The Veterans themselves used the Battle Flag in their parades and ceremonies, specifically at the New Orleans UCV Convention of 1906 and at the dedication of the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Baltimore in 1903. The Maryland Historical Society has a very famous picture of same if you want to look it up.

No, we won’t surrender our ancestor’s flag because you or anyone else think it’s a nice idea.
Maybe if the example by the United Daughters of the Confederacy was followed by using the 1st National flag as their symbol, there would be alot less controversy. For some reason you never see the UDC tagged as right-wing extremists or hate-mongers, and they have the same mission : to honor their ancestors who fought for the south and to educate the public about their heritage.

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-02-2008, 06:18 AM
Maybe if the example by the United Daughters of the Confederacy was followed by using the 1st National flag as their symbol, there would be alot less controversy. For some reason you never see the UDC tagged as right-wing extremists or hate-mongers, and they have the same mission : to honor their ancestors who fought for the south and to educate the public about their heritage.


1. Would it not be presumptuous of the SCV to use, in effect steal , the First National symbol of the UDC.

2. We adopted the Battle Flag in 1896 as it was given to us by our fathers at the time, the Veterans themselves.

3. It would be an act of utter cowardice to abandon that symbol and in effect abandon them.

4. “Avoid controversy,” again an act of cowardice , the controversy is all on the other side , we just want to be left alone to honor and remember our ancestors AND their cause. This includes official remembrance in State Flags , school names, street names, holidays etc.

5. You may want check on your contention that the UDC is not attacked. In the early 1990’s Senator Carol Mosley- Brown (sp) of Illinois ranted and raved in the US Senate against the UDC when that body attempted to vote an official approval of their First National emblem. She even badgered Senator Heflin of Alabama whose ancestor had signed Secession Document of 1861 into voting against the UDC.

RebelBugler
06-02-2008, 08:11 AM
As I have said before, some Confederate Veterans didn’t quite follow Lee’s advice about moving on and getting rid of the vestiges of war, but started the KKK, and didn’t see what shame that would bring on everyone to this day.
Kevin Dally

The KKK of the Reconstruction Period, which did have Confederate antecedents, is not the same organization that exists today. While General Lee's advice to go home and be good citizens was proper, he wasn't aware that the Radical Republicans would disenfranchise citizens of the Southern states from voting, holding office ad infinitum

firstmdes
06-02-2008, 08:20 AM
The KKK of the Reconstruction Period, which did have Confederate antecedents, is not the same organization that exists today. While General Lee's advice to go home and be good citizens was proper, he wasn't aware that the Radical Republicans would disenfranchise citizens of the Southern states from voting, holding office ad infinitum
So, let me get this right...to counter the Radical Republicans, the "KKK of the Reconstruction Period" disenfranchised the poor ex-slaves. That will teach those rich and uppity Carpetbaggers!

As most of our grandmothers have said, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

I have always wondered about the cowardice of Klan members. If one feels so strongly about something (lynching minorities, bombing mosques, etc.) why do they cover their faces? Be a man and show your face. Don't hide behind a mask! (Disclaimer: And just for the record, I am not saying this about RebelBugler or any other person I have disagreed with on this forum)

Frenchie
06-02-2008, 08:28 AM
... minorities, bombing mosques, etc.)

Bombing mosques? When and where?

GaWildcat
06-02-2008, 08:30 AM
I'm sorry, I just don't agree that adopting the 1st National or even 3rd National is "selling out to the PC crowed". The Battleflag is a battleflag. There are no battles. Honoring the veterans, and the fallen, is best done by that flag of the Country they served, and the battleflag was never a national flag.

I am not an SCV member, and while I have three possible relatives who served in the 35th Tennessee, I doubt I would ever join the SCV. I have reenacted CS for a long time, and have galvanized since 2000. I have reenacted under the battleflag and stars and stripes, and have been upset with the usage of the Battleflag by fringe groups. I was pleased when the State of Georgia adopted the current state flag, as I saw a compromise between those who supported the Confederate history of the state, as well as those who felt the sting of how the flag had been used in the modern era. I also believe that the flag has been dishonored, and diminished, and trivialized with the flag kitsch, painted on the roofs of cars, and such.

I fully understand the tremendous sense of belonging that the Original Cast that formed UCV had for the battleflag. It was theirs. I also understand the handing of that flag to future generations. BUT I also believe that we can take into account what the flag has become, not just as a possibly racially charged symbol, but also as a symbol by many outside of the South of "Rednecks". It is my opinion... and opinons are like trashcans, we all got one and they all stink, that knee jerk raisings of Confederate battle flags, sends the wrong message. I also take exception to the Your Side remarks made toward some folks. There is no side. The War is over, and has been over for a long long time. We are not the United States and the Confederate States, We are the United States. I agree that we as Americans have and should have the right to be proud of our Ancestors, no matter who they are. I believe that Blacks, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Irish, Scots, RUssians, Germans, etc. et al, Ad Naseum, have every right to be proud of thier backgrounds, as do the sons of Confederate Veterans and Union Veterans; but I also believe that under it all, we are Americans, not hyphenated Americans, but AMERICANS. We are a nation of laws, and live under those laws, and if we don't agree with them, we use the legal system, and those guidelines established by the Constitution to change those laws.

I will defend to the death, and have defended, the right to speak your mind, and fly your flag, but I will also defend to the death the right for people to be opposed to those views. I also believe that knee jerk raisings of battle flags is very akin to yelling Fire in a crowded theater. You are aware of the reaction you will get and you are aiming for that.... C'mon, we have enough division in this country, why do we need more. Honor the veterans, but keep in mind that the war is over, the Confederacy lost and is no more, but their memory will live

(for what its worth, the flag we use as a camp color, a second national, was flown in flagrant violation of Multi-National Force orders for exactly 10 minutes in Iraq)
__________________

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 08:33 AM
While General Lee's advice to go home and be good citizens was proper, he wasn't aware that the Radical Republicans would disenfranchise citizens of the Southern states from voting, holding office ad infinitum


You do realize that the radical rebublican movement was headed and whipped into a frenzy by someone from the South and the folks that were against such actions are the ones which are hated the most from a Southen perspective ?

firstmdes
06-02-2008, 08:40 AM
Bombing mosques? When and where?
I guess I did not explain myself too well. By bombing mosques I was referring to the cowards who do so in present day Iraq while wearing scarfs over their faces. If killing for their cause is so noble, then take the mask off and let us see your face!

Sorry for the confusion this must have caused!

And yes, I am equating the Klan to more cosmopolitan organizations such as al-Qaida.

Ross L. Lamoreaux
06-02-2008, 09:03 AM
1. Would it not be presumptuous of the SCV to use, in effect steal , the First National symbol of the UDC.

2. We adopted the Battle Flag in 1896 as it was given to us by our fathers at the time, the Veterans themselves.

3. It would be an act of utter cowardice to abandon that symbol and in effect abandon them.

4. “Avoid controversy,” again an act of cowardice , the controversy is all on the other side , we just want to be left alone to honor and remember our ancestors AND their cause. This includes official remembrance in State Flags , school names, street names, holidays etc.

5. You may want check on your contention that the UDC is not attacked. In the early 1990’s Senator Carol Mosley- Brown (sp) of Illinois ranted and raved in the US Senate against the UDC when that body attempted to vote an official approval of their First National emblem. She even badgered Senator Heflin of Alabama whose ancestor had signed Secession Document of 1861 into voting against the UDC.
1. You would not be stealing the symbol of the UDC but using a historically correct symbol of the Confederacy, another banner that southerners fought and died for
2. The same battleflag that was and is adopted by less desirable groups
3. How is it an act of cowardice to go to the 1st National or any other flag that still symbolizes the bravery and honor of our ancestors and potentially avoid bad press.
4. The SCV would have more to gain by avoiding controversy. It is by no means an act of cowardice , in fact the SCV could stand to gain more membership if it chose to use less "in your face" tactics. It is by no means an act of cowardice to choose a banner that is not seen as racist by a majority of people around the world.
5. Yes, of course the UDC has been attacked, but much, much less than the SCV, League of the South, MOSB, etc , because the majority of the public does not connect the 1st National flag with the battle flag.
MY POINT: THE FIRST NATIONAL FLAG IS STILL A CONFEDERATE FLAG

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-02-2008, 09:36 AM
1. You would not be stealing the symbol of the UDC but using a historically correct symbol of the Confederacy, another banner that southerners fought and died for
2. The same battleflag that was and is adopted by less desirable groups
3. How is it an act of cowardice to go to the 1st National or any other flag that still symbolizes the bravery and honor of our ancestors and potentially avoid bad press.
4. The SCV would have more to gain by avoiding controversy. It is by no means an act of cowardice , in fact the SCV could stand to gain more membership if it chose to use less "in your face" tactics. It is by no means an act of cowardice to choose a banner that is not seen as racist by a majority of people around the world.
5. Yes, of course the UDC has been attacked, but much, much less than the SCV, League of the South, MOSB, etc , because the majority of the public does not connect the 1st National flag with the battle flag.
MY POINT: THE FIRST NATIONAL FLAG IS STILL A CONFEDERATE FLAG




Some chose to cave to the NAACP , Southern Poverty Law Center, “avoid bad press”, etc. , etc. Many do not, but chose to stand and fight.

As I mentioned earlier , the so called “controversy” is all on the other side…. and there are obvious sides on this issue. Compromise in South Carolina, Georgia, Hillsborough County, etc. has achieved nothing but more attacks. Adopting the First National will make no difference to “those people.” They want ever symbol of the Confederacy, including monuments and even graves destroyed , see Bedford Forrest grave site.

As to the Battle Flag being a symbol “seen as racist by a majority of people around the world.” That is untrue . I would note that the Flag was a symbol of freedom in Eastern Europe when Communism and the Berlin Wall fell. There are pictures available.

Blockade Runner
06-02-2008, 09:42 AM
1. You would not be stealing the symbol of the UDC but using a historically correct symbol of the Confederacy, another banner that southerners fought and died for
2. The same battleflag that was and is adopted by less desirable groups
3. How is it an act of cowardice to go to the 1st National or any other flag that still symbolizes the bravery and honor of our ancestors and potentially avoid bad press.
4. The SCV would have more to gain by avoiding controversy. It is by no means an act of cowardice , in fact the SCV could stand to gain more membership if it chose to use less "in your face" tactics. It is by no means an act of cowardice to choose a banner that is not seen as racist by a majority of people around the world.
5. Yes, of course the UDC has been attacked, but much, much less than the SCV, League of the South, MOSB, etc , because the majority of the public does not connect the 1st National flag with the battle flag.
MY POINT: THE FIRST NATIONAL FLAG IS STILL A CONFEDERATE FLAG

I think that we are in agreement that the First National Flag is a Confederate Flag. However, that flag was a flag that flew over government buildings and other facilities. It was not a flag that which was routinely carried into battle.

It is the current misconception of what the Battle Flag represents that is the problem. That misconception is fostered and nurtured by the PC crowd in the media, and liberal academicians to fit their biased agenda. I see no reason why the SCV should acquiesce to their desires. Fragile sensitivities aside, the flying and display of the Battle Flag is our right, and that right must never be abridged.

firstmdes
06-02-2008, 09:52 AM
Some chose to cave to the NAACP , Southern Poverty Law Center, “avoid bad press”, etc. , etc. Many do not, but chose to stand and fight.

As I mentioned earlier , the so called “controversy” is all on the other side…. and there are obvious sides on this issue. Compromise in South Carolina, Georgia, Hillsborough County, etc. has achieved nothing but more attacks. Adopting the First National will make no difference to “those people.” They want ever symbol of the Confederacy, including monuments and even graves destroyed , see Bedford Forrest grave site.

As to the Battle Flag being a symbol “seen as racist by a majority of people around the world.” That is untrue . I would note that the Flag was a symbol of freedom in Eastern Europe when Communism and the Berlin Wall fell. There are pictures available.
Question: Why are you so belligerent towards those offering you suggestions and ideas related to this issue? A few have even come from SCV members, so please don't use an 'outsiders are interfering' defense.

One needs to chose ones fights. If your group keeps fighting so aggressively for the 'right' to fly the flag, they are doing more harm than good. The main purpose of the SCV is to honor the men who fought for the flag, right? It seems to me that effort is being lost in the political squabbling that goes on. I agree with you that some people take things too far. We should never outlaw the battle flag or anything else that is Confederate. This will destroy a part of American history that, whether you agree with the CSA or not, is important to remember. Good and bad things alike should be remembered for all time.

Let's tone down the belligerence in this discussion. You will catch more bees with honey. :)

firstmdes
06-02-2008, 09:56 AM
I think that we are in agreement that the First National Flag is a Confederate Flag. However, that flag was a flag that flew over government buildings and other facilities. It was not a flag that which was routinely carried into battle.

It is the current misconception of what the Battle Flag represents that is the problem. That misconception is fostered and nurtured by the PC crowd in the media, and liberal academicians to fit their biased agenda. I see no reason why the SCV should acquiesce to their desires. Fragile sensitivities aside, the flying and display of the Battle Flag is our right, and that right must never be abridged.
So, are you fighting for your right to honor the brave Confederate soldiers or your right to fly the flag? Much of what you have written seems that your fight has taken you away from the original intent of the SCV.

Just what I have perceived in recent posts...Please correct me if I am wrong.

Ronnn
06-02-2008, 10:18 AM
Well, I'm not sure where my final opinion on this topic will land, to be honest. "No opinion" just yet. I can see pretty strong reason on both sides of the issue. I do have to say that near as I can tell, the controversy is so "controversial" because the "pro stars and bars" contingient has made little effort to understand the opposite side of the issues misgivings. They've taken a "it's our heritage, too bad deal with it" approach, which certainly isn't condusive to fostering education or understanding.

And there is also a lot of "wink-wink, nod-nod" crap associated with this issue in my experience. Technical legalisms and semantic shell games abound.

Further, if I were black, even hearing the rhetorical arguments, and if I actually believed they weren't rhetorical, ( a BIG if) I think it would be a "no sale" for me.
Mr. Prichett raised a really good point as to when and why the stars and bars started appearing in more modern times too.

One sad thing is that folks who do things like fly giant flags in clear and arrogant defiance of community wishes, right or wrong, do more to harden folks against their stated viewpoints than to soften their views toward it . . . which is ironically, part of their generally stated goal.

I also can't help but to wonder what these folks would think if someone chose to fly the Nazi flag like that. There were clearly some noble and galliant men who fought under that flag, who had nothing against the Jews, America, or anyone else. They were just fighting for their country, for better or for worse, just like our Southern forefathers.

They have relatives who live in this country, who no doubt are proud of their relatives valor, even though they don't like the political aspects of the flag. Under pretty much the same arguments used by the pro stars and bars people, shouldn't they be allowed to fly the Nazi flag?

Personally . . . I hope not. And personally, I see no problem with flying the Stars and Bars. Heck I have a few, and used to have one hanging on my wall, before women decided it clashed with the draperies and the couch and such. (Same thing with my Taxidermied-frogs playing cards table lamp . . . dang it!)

But, and sometimes it's frustrating, we can't just pick and choose when to play the "constitution card'. We must also consider the rights of others too, as we are not to excersise our rights to the point of impeding anothers rights.

I'd say the strongest argument would be for the business owners on adjoining properties. They are sort of in a 'danged if they do, danged if they don't' situation, if it reasonably appears that people could mistake the flag to be theirs.

I suppose in a nutshell, my opinion right now is that there are three 'enemies to the cause of "right-to-fly S&B':
1) Ignorance of 'culture versus politics versus history" of the flag historically
2) Ignorance of 'culture versus politics versus history" of the flag presently
3) The 'enemy within' thinking that getting "in their face' and hardening people against ever getting them to understand is a valid way to deal with the issue

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-02-2008, 10:35 AM
The Battle Flag is not the Stars and Bars.

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 10:49 AM
Some chose to cave to the NAACP , Southern Poverty Law Center, “avoid bad press”, etc. , etc. Many do not, but chose to stand and fight.

As I mentioned earlier , the so called “controversy” is all on the other side…. and there are obvious sides on this issue. Compromise in South Carolina, Georgia, Hillsborough County, etc. has achieved nothing but more attacks. Adopting the First National will make no difference to “those people.” They want ever symbol of the Confederacy, including monuments and even graves destroyed , see Bedford Forrest grave site.

As to the Battle Flag being a symbol “seen as racist by a majority of people around the world.” That is untrue . I would note that the Flag was a symbol of freedom in Eastern Europe when Communism and the Berlin Wall fell. There are pictures available.
I am not sure I understand the antipathy toward the Southern Poverty Law Center. Is it their teaching tolerance education program or the fact they sued the Alabama Klan right out of existence that bothers you?

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 10:49 AM
Here is a link to a video news piece....click on flag controversy and then find "Kristen Wright" reports to link to the video...

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/


The image freezes on my browser but I get the audio...

When you hear heritage not hate "I am Southerner, born and raised Floridian, I have never had a problem with the people in my life.... to me let them have their flag"....that is a black man.

Interesting. NCAAP got no airtime.

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-02-2008, 11:16 AM
I am not sure I understand the antipathy toward the Southern Poverty Law Center. Is it their teaching tolerance education program or the fact they sued the Alabama Klan right out of existence that bothers you?


I think if you research past SPLC “ Intelligence Reports”… or maybe not so intelligent reports, you will find that they have constantly attacked the Sons of Confederate Veterans and even put one of our Past Commanders in Chief on its watch list …or whatever they call it.

Ronnn
06-02-2008, 11:26 AM
The Battle Flag is not the Stars and Bars.

Thanks for clarifying that. I'd edit but don't think I can, sorry. The general points are stil applicable

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 11:37 AM
I think if you research past SPLC “ Intelligence Reports”… or maybe not so intelligent reports, you will find that they have constantly attacked the Sons of Confederate Veterans and even put one of our Past Commanders in Chief on its watch list …or whatever they call it.
I did as you suggested and immediately pulled this up:
Sons of Confederate Veterans Protest
May 27, 2006

Intelligence Report
Summer 2006



Eddie "Grooch" McRae (from left), Steve Poteat and Donnie "Porkchop" Hatley.


Three hard-line members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) heritage group traveled to a NASCAR race in Charlotte, N.C., to protest the racing association's recent moves to discourage the flying of the Confederate battle flag at races.
Steve Poteat (left), commander of the Rowan Rifles SCV camp in Salisbury, N.C., Eddie "Grooch" McRae, commander of the James-Younger Camp in Norwood, N.C., and Donnie "Porkchop" Hatley, a member of the James-Younger Camp, handed out "I support Confederate heritage" stickers outside the race track.

The three men are part of an extremist faction that has largely taken over the SCV in recent years -- a fact emphasized by the T-shirt worn by Hatley. The shirt depicts the cover of The Turner Diaries, a violently racist novel about a future race war that was written by neo-Nazi leader William Pierce and served as a blueprint for the Oklahoma City bombing.
These guys make me disgusted too. Although they have a perfect right to voice their copmplaints as much as anyone else.

firstmdes
06-02-2008, 11:47 AM
The three men are part of an extremist faction that has largely taken over the SCV in recent years -- a fact emphasized by the T-shirt worn by Hatley. The shirt depicts the cover of The Turner Diaries, a violently racist novel about a future race war that was written by neo-Nazi leader William Pierce and served as a blueprint for the Oklahoma City bombing.
Nice! Seems like neo-Nazi novels have absolutely nothing to do with "Heritage Not Hate" messages. I wonder what Jefferson Davis would say about his "descendants" supporting anti-Semitic groups considering Judah P. Benjamin was a good friend and adviser of the late President. Maybe that is why many Americans have a negative opinion of the SCV.

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 11:56 AM
It's my understanding the SPLC keeps tabs on all groups actively engaged in extremist "hate" agendas. From the looks of the post I provided above (the first article I came to on their site), it looks like the SCV may fit that catagory.

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 12:18 PM
I did as you suggested and immediately pulled this up:
Sons of Confederate Veterans Protest
May 27, 2006

Intelligence Report
Summer 2006



Eddie "Grooch" McRae (from left), Steve Poteat and Donnie "Porkchop" Hatley.


Three hard-line members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) heritage group traveled to a NASCAR race in Charlotte, N.C., to protest the racing association's recent moves to discourage the flying of the Confederate battle flag at races.
Steve Poteat (left), commander of the Rowan Rifles SCV camp in Salisbury, N.C., Eddie "Grooch" McRae, commander of the James-Younger Camp in Norwood, N.C., and Donnie "Porkchop" Hatley, a member of the James-Younger Camp, handed out "I support Confederate heritage" stickers outside the race track.

The three men are part of an extremist faction that has largely taken over the SCV in recent years -- a fact emphasized by the T-shirt worn by Hatley. The shirt depicts the cover of The Turner Diaries, a violently racist novel about a future race war that was written by neo-Nazi leader William Pierce and served as a blueprint for the Oklahoma City bombing.
These guys make me disgusted too. Although they have a perfect right to voice their copmplaints as much as anyone else.


You're kidding me right ?

Passing out "I Support Confederate Heritage" stickers at a NASCAR race in scary t-shirts ?

You would think you could outline "an intelligence report" with more evil than that ?

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 12:20 PM
I think if you research past SPLC “ Intelligence Reports”… or maybe not so intelligent reports, you will find that they have constantly attacked the Sons of Confederate Veterans and even put one of our Past Commanders in Chief on its watch list …or whatever they call it.
My sincere thanks for the suggestion that I check out past SPLC Intellegence Reports - they have been a veritable font of information regarding the political infighting that has occured within the SCV. Looks like the racist wing of the neo-Confederates have succesfully steamrolled their way past the members whose goal was to preserve the memory of the Confederate fighting man. Also, I noticed that the SPLC seemed to have no problem with heritage wing of the SCV. Thanks again - most informative.

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 12:22 PM
You're shiiteing me right ?

Passing out "I Support Confederate Heritage" stickers at a NASCAR race in scary t-shirts ?

You would think you could outline "an intelligence report" with more evil than that ?

In fact, I was referring to the guy with the Turner Diaries T-shirt. And yes, that is pretty disgusting.

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 12:34 PM
In fact, I was referring to the guy with the Turner Diaries T-shirt. And yes, that is pretty disgusting.

Oh' I see. Disgusting t-shirts.

Compelling argument you put on there.

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 12:37 PM
Oh' I see. Disgusting t-shirts.

Compelling argument you put on there.
Hey, if that's the public face you want for the SCV have at it. But as the descendant of of Confederate veteran, I want no part of these racist yahoos.

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-02-2008, 12:42 PM
I did as you suggested and immediately pulled this up:
Sons of Confederate Veterans Protest
May 27, 2006

Intelligence Report
Summer 2006



Eddie "Grooch" McRae (from left), Steve Poteat and Donnie "Porkchop" Hatley.


Three hard-line members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) heritage group traveled to a NASCAR race in Charlotte, N.C., to protest the racing association's recent moves to discourage the flying of the Confederate battle flag at races.
Steve Poteat (left), commander of the Rowan Rifles SCV camp in Salisbury, N.C., Eddie "Grooch" McRae, commander of the James-Younger Camp in Norwood, N.C., and Donnie "Porkchop" Hatley, a member of the James-Younger Camp, handed out "I support Confederate heritage" stickers outside the race track.

The three men are part of an extremist faction that has largely taken over the SCV in recent years -- a fact emphasized by the T-shirt worn by Hatley. The shirt depicts the cover of The Turner Diaries, a violently racist novel about a future race war that was written by neo-Nazi leader William Pierce and served as a blueprint for the Oklahoma City bombing.
These guys make me disgusted too. Although they have a perfect right to voice their copmplaints as much as anyone else.

If clothing were a big issue. and I had the technical ability , I could send you hundreds of pictures of SCV members in coats and ties, tuxedos, etc. as well as priests in their collars and retired and active duty military officers and enlisted men in uniform , but I doubt it would make any difference.

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 12:46 PM
Hey, if that's the public face you want for the SCV have at it. But as the descendant of of Confederate veteran, I want no part of these racist yahoos.

If by "you", you mean me....you can spin it that way (or try.. almost as weak as your IntelRep) but the fact remains:

That in effort to backup the SPLC and disparage the SCV you posted an intelligence report from the SPLC that amounted to them passing out stickers at a NASCAR race in disgusting (your term) t-shirts.

You probably don't see how patently retarded that is.

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 01:28 PM
If by "you", you mean me....you can spin it that way (or try.. almost as weak as your IntelRep) but the fact remains:

That in effort to backup the SPLC and disparage the SCV you posted an intelligence report from the SPLC that amounted to them passing out stickers at a NASCAR race in disgusting (your term) t-shirts.

You probably don't see how patently retarded that is.
So let me get this straight. You're OK with guys in Turner Diaries T-sthirts representing you? Wow.
And yes, I do mean you. After all if you want to go goose stepping down the highway in a parade with these guys, I guess that would include you.

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 01:30 PM
If clothing were a big issue. and I had the technical ability , I could send you hundreds of pictures of SCV members in coats and ties, tuxedos, etc. as well as priests in their collars and retired and active duty military officers and enlisted men in uniform , but I doubt it would make any difference.
I've seen plenty of facists in formal wear. You can't polish a turd.

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 01:44 PM
Where's Frenchie to post his triangle of debate image...?

and what it means when rather than answer with intelligent factual retort you resort to obfuscated name calling.

You can't get a more classic example of intellectual dishonesty, from a "teacher" no less

firstmdes
06-02-2008, 01:48 PM
If by "you", you mean me....you can spin it that way (or try.. almost as weak as your IntelRep) but the fact remains:

That in effort to backup the SPLC and disparage the SCV you posted an intelligence report from the SPLC that amounted to them passing out stickers at a NASCAR race in disgusting (your term) t-shirts.

You probably don't see how patently retarded that is.
Chris,

To me that report is more important than it might first appear. The SCV may not be a neo-Nazi organization, but showing up at SCV events, protests, whatever wearing clothing depicting anything negative can be seen as a connection by the average passerby. If the SCV is trying to make the battle flag about heritage and not about hate, then leave the hate symbols at home.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that the SCV is holding a protest or informational event and the members present are wearing Viagra t-shirts. I bet most people seeing the two items together would make them think that the SCV is either supported by Viagra or uses Viagra regularly. An innocuous belief, but a belief none the less. SCV members at these events should avoid racist, derogatory or other negatively perceived symbols if they are trying to project a positive image. Maybe they need a better PR department.

Just a thought!

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 01:49 PM
Where's Frenchie to post his triangle of debate image...?

and what it means when rather than answer with intelligent factual retort you resort to obfuscated name calling.

You can't get a more classic example of intellectual dishonesty, from a "teacher" no less
Speaking of ad hominum attacks, I like the quotation marks around teacher.
Still waiting for an answer with regard to the guy wearing the Turner Diaries t-shirt - this with regard to 'intelligent' factual retorts.

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 01:51 PM
Chris,

To me that report is more important than it might first appear. The SCV may not be a neo-Nazi organization, but showing up at SCV events, protests, whatever wearing clothing depicting anything negative can be seen as a connection by the average passerby. If the SCV is trying to make the battle flag about heritage and not about hate, then leave the hate symbols at home.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that the SCV is holding a protest or informational event and the members present are wearing Viagra t-shirts. I bet most people seeing the two items together would make them think that the SCV is either supported by Viagra or uses Viagra regularly. An innocuous belief, but a belief none the less. SCV members at these events should avoid racist, derogatory or other negatively perceived symbols if they are trying to project a positive image. Maybe they need a better PR department.

Just a thought!
But John, this is the direction in which these guys have decided to go.

firstmdes
06-02-2008, 01:53 PM
But John, this is the direction in which these guys have decided to go.
The pro-SCV posts in this thread claim that it is about heritage. I am just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's hard, but I am trying...

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-02-2008, 01:55 PM
I've seen plenty of facists in formal wear. You can't polish a turd.


Nice language , your class really shines ... and you criticize T shirts.

Ross L. Lamoreaux
06-02-2008, 01:59 PM
Ding, ding, back to your corners. Let me jump in between two good pards here, Peter and Chris, who if attending the same event together would be beer drinkin' buds after the first 10 minutes (due in part in their choice in tailor, but also to their intellect). Neither man needs me to defend them or explain anything to or for them, but we're missing the big picture here. As in every momement or side, there are good a bad people. The SCV is one such organization. Some of the greatest patriotic Americans I know are members, and they happen to also love and show support for their history and heritage. There are also members who show no regard for others feelings in defense of their heritage. This is true of almost every organization that I have ever been affiliated with. The SCV in Hillsborough County, of which I am a citizen and quite familiar with the members of the local camp and was a proud supporter of other projects in the name of history and heritage, has a grand opportunity to educate the public with a monument and flagpole that thousands will see daily, but have decided to make it a "battle" instead of "educational opportunity". I won't keep beating a dead horse, but by using the battle flag, they are indeed declaring "battle". Peter, on the converse side, has seen that as well, but is viewing his thoughts filtered through the extremist side of the SCV and other southerners, without giving benefit to the just as impassioned but much more subtle moderate side of the SCV. I cringe everytime the media focuses on the "rebel flag totin" side instead of the side I know, professional, focused, educated southerners (like Chris and myself), who understand that a little moderate behavior and education is necessary and not brute force. Let's not beat each other up over the semantics of a few extremists who may indeed have the right idea, just wrong approach to it.

hendrickms24
06-02-2008, 01:59 PM
Is this report false? :confused:


A War Within (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=77)
Despite beating back the candidacy of a key white supremacist, America’s leading heritage group succumbs to extremists
By Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 02:01 PM
Still waiting for an answer with regard to the guy wearing the Turner Diaries t-shirt - this with regard to 'intelligent' factual retorts.


You know the answer. Its a t-shirt and stickers. Shall we start to post link after link of flak about t-shirts of every flavor causing insult across the nation? You're more intelligent than that. Should I hate Barack Hussein Obama because he has known association with Che images ? That's pretty offfensive to members of this very board.


When you support your attack of someone based on intelligence report that amounts to an article of clothing and sticker, irrespective of how you or I or anyone views the subject matter.. that says to me in big letters:

Nothing to see here, move along.

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 02:02 PM
Nice language , your class really shines ... and you criticize T shirts.
I definitley don't claim to a classy guy ("I'm no gentleman" - Rhett Butler) but two things: I sign all my posts - I will not hide behind the annonymity of the internet like some coward; I tell the truth - I will always let you know where I stand with regard to the Turner Diaries.

Ross L. Lamoreaux
06-02-2008, 02:04 PM
Is this report false? :confused:


A War Within (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=77)
Despite beating back the candidacy of a key white supremacist, America’s leading heritage group succumbs to extremists
By Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok
Oh man, this is scary. It corresponds with alot I've been saying here about letting the extremists take over from the moderates.

sbl
06-02-2008, 02:09 PM
"..As to the Battle Flag being a symbol “seen as racist by a majority of people around the world.” That is untrue . I would note that the Flag was a symbol of freedom in Eastern Europe when Communism and the Berlin Wall fell. There are pictures available..."

I've only seen photos of the Confederate battle flag used in Eastern Europe from the film "Pretty Village Pretty Flame."

http://www.yu4you.com/slike/dvd/4.jpg

You're more likely to see it used as a "Country Western" decoration..

http://fr.portaventura.com/media/img/PortAventuraParkEspectaculosFarWest/TheCanCanShow/PA30505z.jpg

http://www.sskmikulov.com/foto/zavody19srpna2006valda/images/IMG_7088.jpg


http://tkcalipso.cz/foto/Frantiskovy_2006/image/15.jpg

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 02:14 PM
I just read RL's post #79. I respect you so much dude.

True leader. I would follow you anywhere. You know what I mean by that

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-02-2008, 02:16 PM
It’s amazing and really the height arrogance that a bunch posters not in the SCV want to tell us how to run our organization.

tompritchett
06-02-2008, 02:16 PM
3. It would be an act of utter cowardice to abandon that symbol and in effect abandon them.

But in essence isn't that what they did in the 1960's when they let the battleflag take on a new meaning as the symbol of protest against the Civil Rights reforms and as a sign of quite support for the more violent means that that were used to fight that effort (i.e., the lynchings, the murders, the bombing of black churches, the torching of black homes, and the total failure of the state justice systems to hold any of the criminals responsible for these crimes). Remember, we Southerners allowed the flag to take up a totally new meaning during that period and now we can't undo that past by sticking it into everyone's face and proclaiming that it is only about "heritage" and "history" because that black stain of the 1960's is just as much part of our heritage and history as the honorable service of those men in the 1860's.

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-02-2008, 02:17 PM
I definitley don't claim to a classy guy ("I'm no gentleman" - Rhett Butler) but two things: I sign all my posts - I will not hide behind the annonymity of the internet like some coward; I tell the truth - I will always let you know where I stand with regard to the Turner Diaries.


Wrong again. My name is on my profile.

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 02:21 PM
Wrong again. My name is on my profile.
I put my name on my work - you don't. And how's about addressing point two. The smart money says you won't.

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 02:23 PM
But in essence isn't that what they did in the 1960's when they let the battleflag take on a new meaning as the symbol of protest against the Civil Rights reforms and as a sign of quite support for the more violent means that that were used to fight that effort (i.e., the lynchings, the murders, the bombing of black churches, the torching of black homes, and the total failure of the state justice systems to hold any of the criminals responsible for these crimes). Remember, we Southerners allowed the flag to take up a totally new meaning during that period and now we can't undo that past by sticking it into everyone's face and proclaiming that it is only about "heritage" and "history" because that black stain of the 1960's is just as much part of our heritage and history as the honorable service of those men in the 1860's.

Is it your contention that the racial unrest of the modern century was/is an entirely a Southern phenomena ?

tompritchett
06-02-2008, 02:29 PM
Is it your contention that the racial unrest of the modern century was/is an entirely a Southern phenomena ?

No by no means, but it in general it was most violent in the South in terms of attacks on blacks. Also, racial violence outside of the South could be successfully prosecuted while during the same time period it was almost impossible for a white to be convicted of "killing a n****r". In the Northern states, you did indeed have racism and racial discord but, on the whole, it was far less institutionalized than in the South.

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 02:32 PM
I jus thawt you bein a Southener and all you'd wanna point that out....

Thanks for the clarification.

tompritchett
06-02-2008, 02:47 PM
I jus thawt you bein a Southener and all you'd wanna point that out....

Thanks for the clarification.

Actually, I had made that point much earlier on this forum but it had been several years earlier. When it comes to racism and racial inequality, the U.S. as a whole has a major black eye. It is just that in the South, we chose to equate that racism with the battle flag, a meaning that was then picked up by other racist groups across the country.

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 02:48 PM
Ding, ding, back to your corners. Let me jump in between two good pards here, Peter and Chris, who if attending the same event together would be beer drinkin' buds after the first 10 minutes (due in part in their choice in tailor, but also to their intellect). Neither man needs me to defend them or explain anything to or for them, but we're missing the big picture here. As in every momement or side, there are good a bad people. The SCV is one such organization. Some of the greatest patriotic Americans I know are members, and they happen to also love and show support for their history and heritage. There are also members who show no regard for others feelings in defense of their heritage. This is true of almost every organization that I have ever been affiliated with. The SCV in Hillsborough County, of which I am a citizen and quite familiar with the members of the local camp and was a proud supporter of other projects in the name of history and heritage, has a grand opportunity to educate the public with a monument and flagpole that thousands will see daily, but have decided to make it a "battle" instead of "educational opportunity". I won't keep beating a dead horse, but by using the battle flag, they are indeed declaring "battle". Peter, on the converse side, has seen that as well, but is viewing his thoughts filtered through the extremist side of the SCV and other southerners, without giving benefit to the just as impassioned but much more subtle moderate side of the SCV. I cringe everytime the media focuses on the "rebel flag totin" side instead of the side I know, professional, focused, educated southerners (like Chris and myself), who understand that a little moderate behavior and education is necessary and not brute force. Let's not beat each other up over the semantics of a few extremists who may indeed have the right idea, just wrong approach to it.
Excellent and reasonable post Ross. I would only add that my own viewpoint is absolutely colored by my experiences. As a professional, focused, educated Southerner, I am appalled by the extremists who have subverted a once fine organization into a modern hate group. My entire life I have watched without saying a word as racists have spewed their vitriole and in the end, it makes all of us from the South suspect. I recently promised myself that if I was going to be able to look at myself in the mirror then I would stand up to these guys regardless of their subsequent attacks on me.

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-02-2008, 02:49 PM
I put my name on my work - you don't. And how's about addressing point two. The smart money says you won't.


Well, if it’s the “smart money” it won’t be you.

As to “The Turner Diaries” I haven’t read it and know very little about it. I think it’s a work of fiction dealing with race war or domestic terror. Hey, I’m for free speech and against book burning if someone else wants to read it. It's just not my cup of tea,

I usually stick to non fiction and historical biographies . Just finished “Jefferson Davis- American “ by William Cooper.

You lose.

SIGNATURE

Elliott Cummings

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 02:53 PM
I recently promised myself that if I was going to be able to look at myself in the mirror then I would stand up to these guys regardless of their subsequent attacks on me.


"You're Good Enough, You're Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like You"
Stuart Smalley

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 02:56 PM
"You're Good Enough, You're Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like You"
Stuart Smalley
OK, I admit it. That made me laugh.

Sgt_Pepper
06-02-2008, 02:58 PM
It’s amazing and really the height of arrogance that a bunch of posters not in the SCV want to tell us how to run our organization.

Not as high as the arrogance that says others shouldn't exercise their freedom of speech. There is great danger in wishing the restriction of the rights of others, because doing so puts your own in jeopardy. I recall, and may have somewhere a copy of, a post on a political newsgroup, something like (paraphrasing): "If you work to restrict one of my rights, be prepared for reciprocity, and be ready to like it, because if you manage to destroy one or more of my rights, I'll be happy to help destroy what's left of yours."

---
Messrs. Cummings and Julius:

I highly recommend taking off a day or so and cooling down before continuing.

Ross L. Lamoreaux
06-02-2008, 03:00 PM
It’s amazing and really the height arrogance that a bunch posters not in the SCV want to tell us how to run our organization.
I may be a trace arrogant sometimes, but I can only speak to my perspective on this topic, as a former member for 4 years of the SCV,who left after seeing the extremists within the League of the South and the Southern Party take over aspects of the membership in my particular camp and area as a whole. There are indeed several people on this thread who speak without that perspective, but I don't see them or myself telling you how to run your organization, merely showing what the outside world thinks about the SCV's PR department or lack thereof.

tompritchett
06-02-2008, 03:14 PM
I may be a trace arrogant sometimes, but I can only speak to my perspective on this topic, as a former member for 4 years of the SCV,who left after seeing the extremists within the League of the South and the Southern Party take over aspects of the membership in my particular camp and area as a whole. There are indeed several people on this thread who speak without that perspective, but I don't see them or myself telling you how to run your organization, merely showing what the outside world thinks about the SCV's PR department or lack thereof.

With their "in your face" attitude to the rest of the U.S. their confrontational style and their constant complaints about political correctness, I am starting to wonder which set of ancestors they are really trying to honor - those that unsuccessfully in the 1860's against the Union or those that resisted the Civil Rights reforms in the 1960's.

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 03:16 PM
I have been a member of the SCV to the limits as I have said in this thread and others....

I can look any man dead in the eye and say in spite of their warts and overall kookiness at times, perceived or otherwise, I have never witnessed anything that remotely resembles the trappings of a "modern hate group" in my personal involvement in the SCV.

I speak this with a pure heart, mind and conscience.

* This does not include Yankee hate.

Malingerer
06-02-2008, 03:23 PM
I have been a member of the SCV to the limits as I have said in this thread and others....

I can look any man dead in the eye and say in spite of their warts and overall kookiness at times, perceived or otherwise, I have never witnessed anything that remotely resembles the trappings of a "modern hate group" in my personal involvement in the SCV.

I speak this with a pure heart, mind and conscience.

* This does not include Yankee hate.
That's one of the most convincing things I've seen written yet on this issue.

firstmdes
06-02-2008, 05:35 PM
I have been a member of the SCV to the limits as I have said in this thread and others....

I can look any man dead in the eye and say in spite of their warts and overall kookiness at times, perceived or otherwise, I have never witnessed anything that remotely resembles the trappings of a "modern hate group" in my personal involvement in the SCV.

I speak this with a pure heart, mind and conscience.
For the sake of those brave souls who lost their lives for the Confederate States of America, I hope your experience is the norm.

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 05:51 PM
For the sake of those brave souls who lost their lives for the Confederate States of America, I hope your experience is the norm.

I sleep well knowing I will face my maker one day.

The Yankee part is partially lemon juice in the eyes of my spoon mates from north of the M/D.

I would be interested to hear RL's and Georgia Frame's direct exp with discourse worthy of the "modern hate group" badge.

PJ while very vitriollic doesnt seem to offer much first hand exp of hate group, criminal activity ?

Hardcore in your face dog headed often objectional Southron-ness, you bet.

Hate group ? Not here.

hendrickms24
06-02-2008, 05:54 PM
So whats your view point on the Nation SCV leadership?
Just wondering,

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 06:10 PM
So whats your view point on the Nation SCV leadership?

Just wondering,

Great question.

1) I have NEVER voted (Camp, State or National level)
2) Never been to a regional or state or meeting.
3) Rarely if ever attend Camp meetings - parades, Lh, ceremonial grave stuff yes.

That being said. I get the magazine and a host of emails and other crapaphenalia.

I have witness alot of what is talked about in this thread...in your face flag, stuff. more focus on todays issues that the veterans

But never any white supremacy, skinhead, violence type stuff at all. SCV doesn't put up with it...you dont see it on websites camp newsletter, in the press

he!! look at the SPLC intelligence reports amount to...nothing substantive or worthy of FBI watch list inclusion..

but I am just a fatcat on the internets

Ross L. Lamoreaux
06-02-2008, 06:52 PM
Like Chris, I was never exposed to any hate mongering while in the SCV. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite, as at one event that was set up as a Southern Heritage festival in the Channelside area of Tampa, the SCV led the charge to have a Neo Nazi/Aryan group escorted out. No, I've never met firsthand any organized racist movement within the guise of the SCV. What I witnessed firsthand though was scarier in my mind - many key members of the camps joining forces with the League of the South and the Southern Party. No racial posturing there, but with a vocal group who espoused the forming of a "seperate" southland again. I know that much of that was just showboating, as most people even within those groups knew that there would never again be an opportunity to seceed, but their efforts at southern honor and heritage never started and ended with Confederate veterans, it began and ended in modern day politics. The SCV was founded as a non-political organization to honor the past, and the movement to become pro-active in heading off "heritage violations" is increasingly crossing the line to the "in your face" movement, with little regard to minority thought. I am truly all about the adage "heritage not hate", and I put my money where my mouth is when it comes to southern life, heritage, history, etc., but never at the expense of denigrating other regions, races, heritages, or influences. I will however admit with all that I have that the SCV in my inside view down here in Florida never, ever espoused racism or discrimination outside of a dim view of those with Northern roots or leanings.

CivilWarBuff1863
06-02-2008, 06:54 PM
As far as I'm concerned I don't think people should get offended when they just see a flag. I mean for Pete Sakes it's JUST A FLAG!

Would it be any different if Germany raised up the Swastika and stuck it in Berlin to honor their fallen soldiers from WWI and WWII?

I say: "**** no! It wouldn't be any different."

The people that fought and died under those sort of flags needs to be recognized. Whether if they fought for the wrong or right reasons. They fought and died for their country and they made "the last full measure".

Soldiers of yesteryear are still soldiers today.

hendrickms24
06-02-2008, 07:21 PM
Like Chris, I was never exposed to any hate mongering while in the SCV. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite, as at one event that was set up as a Southern Heritage festival in the Channelside area of Tampa, the SCV led the charge to have a Neo Nazi/Aryan group escorted out. No, I've never met firsthand any organized racist movement within the guise of the SCV. What I witnessed firsthand though was scarier in my mind - many key members of the camps joining forces with the League of the South and the Southern Party. No racial posturing there, but with a vocal group who espoused the forming of a "seperate" southland again. I know that much of that was just showboating, as most people even within those groups knew that there would never again be an opportunity to seceed, but their efforts at southern honor and heritage never started and ended with Confederate veterans, it began and ended in modern day politics. The SCV was founded as a non-political organization to honor the past, and the movement to become pro-active in heading off "heritage violations" is increasingly crossing the line to the "in your face" movement, with little regard to minority thought. I am truly all about the adage "heritage not hate", and I put my money where my mouth is when it comes to southern life, heritage, history, etc., but never at the expense of denigrating other regions, races, heritages, or influences. I will however admit with all that I have that the SCV in my inside view down here in Florida never, ever espoused racism or discrimination outside of a dim view of those with Northern roots or leanings.


Thanks guys for taking time to reply.

firstmdes
06-02-2008, 08:33 PM
Would it be any different if Germany raised up the Swastika and stuck it in Berlin to honor their fallen soldiers from WWI and WWII?
I am fine with the Confederate flags being flown to honor those who fought for it (as long as it is done with class). I will object to the Nazi flag though! If Germany wants to honor its war dead and war veterans, then Germany should fly the flag of the Weimar Republic, not that of Nazi Germany. The Nazis were anti-nearly everything. Millions of Jews died at the hands of these people and that is not all:

Gypsies
Slavs
Catholics
Homosexuals
Mentally Disabled

And I know I missed a few hundred thousand who were murdered! The Nazi regime was founded on hate and hate alone. Hitler preyed on the depressed and beaten Germans and turned their fear to violence. Except for historical interpretation reasons, that flag should be retired from sight, never to be unfurled again! No one can compare that flag and its symbolism to the Confederate flag, battle or national. I may no agree on some of the principles on which the C.S.A was founded, but at least they can claim some reasons other than ethnic superiority.

As an aside, I also thank Chris and Ross for sharing their SCV experiences. It does help put some things into perspective.

Ronnn
06-02-2008, 09:14 PM
I may not agree on some of the principles on which the C.S.A was founded, but at least they can claim some reasons other than ethnic superiority.

Yea, but that was a fairly large part of it. While I'd take slavery over genoicide any day, both practices were very, very wrong. I won't continue further on this because the Nazis were a despicable political party, and I feel like pointing out the obvious parallels from a constitutional standpoint would just get me labeled a Nazi Lover, which I'm not, by any measure.

Suffice it to say that one can't 'pick and choose' constitutional protections, and most of the same arguments in favor of flying Confederate flags might also be applicable to the Nazi Flag, from a legal standpoint. There are Americans, like I mentioned earlier, who might claim the same essential right to honor their relatives. Luckily so far, they have not made an issue of it, for obvious reasons, I suspect. But in todays inceasingly liberal and decreasingly moral society, it may in the future become an issue.
We find the Nazi flag to be a terrible symbol of an opressive and murderous regime. Some folks see the Confederacy in a similar, though maybe watered-down, manner.

It isn't a matter of wishing there weren't paralels . . . there certainly were, like it or not, particularly from a black perspective. And we also can't forget that it isn't just a reenactor issue. I do know before I got into reenacting, most of the folks I knew/know who 'proudly' flew/fly the Confederate battle flag were/are in fact pretty racist, and I do mean 'most'.

Just because the flying the flag can be rationalized reasonably does not mean it's always being reasonably flown. It really does come down to the root motivation, and those of us who fly it for valid reasons should be ready to explain ourselves politely and reasonably to anyone who asks, particularly to those who have strong reasons for suspicion of our motivation.

Like it or not, the Confederate Battle Flag IS often flown for the wrong symbolism, and that isn't an exception to the rule either. Sittin right here in the middle of the Georgia/ Alabama line gives me a window seat to this unfortunate reality.

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 09:31 PM
I do know before I got into reenacting, most of the folks I knew/know who 'proudly' flew/fly the Confederate battle flag were/are in fact pretty racist, and I do mean 'most'.




Here is one of those racist CS flag flyers..rekon he is teaching lynching or branding ?

http://florida-scv.org/Camp556/images/nelsonroland.jpg

Ross L. Lamoreaux
06-02-2008, 09:45 PM
The great Mr. Nelson Winbush, a very proud descendant of a black confederate. Just spend 5 minutes with this gentleman and he'll change a few previously held notions of the Confederate State of America. I've been blessed to spend some real quality time with his gentleman, and I've rarely met anyone so articulate about a cause (black,white, purple, or otherwise) and someone so willing to go against the grain in presenting a message. I'll never forget him talking to a few of us at a living history/SCV presentation and saying "black is just a darker shade of Rebel gray." You'd have a harder time taking the battle flag from him than most of hardest rednecks you'll ever meet. Just when you think you have everything figured out about the south and the CSA, you meet someone like Mr. Winbush to remind you about what you don't know.

FloridaConfederate
06-02-2008, 09:50 PM
I love the guy. Really.

Duuuuuude when he is gone. Oi!

He lived among relative(s) who knew and served under NBF first hand.

Amazing.

Me at the same LH....... fat and absolutely farbulous..Ive dropped 45lbs since that pic !

http://florida-scv.org/Camp556/images/chrisroland.jpg

tompritchett
06-02-2008, 11:02 PM
I have been a member of the SCV to the limits as I have said in this thread and others....

I can look any man dead in the eye and say in spite of their warts and overall kookiness at times, perceived or otherwise, I have never witnessed anything that remotely resembles the trappings of a "modern hate group" in my personal involvement in the SCV.

While I do not doubt what you are saying nor do I believe that the vast majority of the rank and file of the SCV have any racist leanings, I sincerely ask whether you can honestly say the same thing about Lyons, Wilson and some the senior SCV leadership that they have surrounded themselves with.

tompritchett
06-02-2008, 11:14 PM
I may no agree on some of the principles on which the C.S.A was founded, but at least they can claim some reasons other than ethnic superiority.

From the various readings that I have done, Southerners in the 1850 and 60 did justify slavery because racial superiority of the white race over the blacks. In fact, I have even read arguments where the white race was doing the blacks a favor by exposing them to our "superior" culture. Going forward in time 100 years, I remember being raised under the premise that while individual blacks were okay, as a race they were inferior to us whites. "Blacks don't have the discipline to play college basketball". Nazi's were not the only group to consider themselves superior to others; they were just more methodical about trying to purify themselves of what they viewed as inferiors.

tompritchett
06-02-2008, 11:18 PM
The great Mr. Nelson Winbush, a very proud descendant of a black confederate. Just spend 5 minutes with this gentleman and he'll change a few previously held notions of the Confederate State of America.

Ross, IMHO the issue with the flag today has far more to do with what happened in the 1950s and 60s than in the 1860 with the CSA. As long as the SCV is unwilling to accept that, they will continue to but heads with most people and will continue to allienate moderates such as myself who grew up during those times.

Ross L. Lamoreaux
06-02-2008, 11:24 PM
And that sir, has been my point in this entire dialogue. "To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we will commit the vindication of the cause for which we fought. To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which you love also, and those ideals which made him glorious and which you also cherish. Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations." SCV Charge, Lt Gen S.D. Lee. I believe wholeheartedly in those words, but education must be tempered with moderation.

tompritchett
06-03-2008, 06:26 AM
And that sir, has been my point in this entire dialogue. "To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we will commit the vindication of the cause for which we fought. To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which you love also, and those ideals which made him glorious and which you also cherish. Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations." SCV Charge, Lt Gen S.D. Lee. I believe wholeheartedly in those words, but education must be tempered with moderation.And that sir, has been my point in this entire dialogue. "To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we will commit the vindication of the cause for which we fought. To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which you love also, and those ideals which made him glorious and which you also cherish. Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations." SCV Charge, Lt Gen S.D. Lee. I believe wholeheartedly in those words, but education must be tempered with moderation.

I have no problem with that cause and support it fully. I have no problem with the flag when used in an historically correct setting or when used specifically used to honor fallen Confederate soldiers. I do have a severe problem when the entire focus of an organization seems to be push the display of the flag, with all its modern baggage, whenever and wherever possible. I can remember participating in a Confederate Memorial march and cemetary service in Richmond several years ago. When we got to the cemetary it seemed to me and almost all the other members of the unit that the vast majority of the services and speeches there were more about the flag than the men or the history (the exception - a group that was replacing aging and oftern wooden grave stones of Confederate veterans). Needless to say, I have never attended another SCV memorial service for Confederate veterans.

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-03-2008, 07:05 AM
I have never attended another SCV memorial service for Confederate veterans.



You haven't been missed.

firstmdes
06-03-2008, 07:54 AM
From the various readings that I have done, Southerners in the 1850 and 60 did justify slavery because racial superiority of the white race over the blacks. In fact, I have even read arguments where the white race was doing the blacks a favor by exposing them to our "superior" culture. Going forward in time 100 years, I remember being raised under the premise that while individual blacks were okay, as a race they were inferior to us whites. "Blacks don't have the discipline to play college basketball". Nazi's were not the only group to consider themselves superior to others; they were just more methodical about trying to purify themselves of what they viewed as inferiors.
Tom, I agree with the point about racial superiority being used to justify slavery. My real point, which I may not have written very clearly, was that the Nazis decimated the European populations of numerous ethnic (and other) populations. The Confederacy, as I have been told over and over in other threads, was founded on more than just slavery. If I can overlook the thinness of this argument, I can give the C.S.A. more credit than Nazi Germany.

Furthermore, my response was not about whether the Nazi flag should fly in the U.S., it was about whether the German government should fly the flag in honor of the war dead and war veterans of Germany. I believe that Germany would receive so much external protest that they would never dare to officially fly it.

Just my two cents...

firstmdes
06-03-2008, 07:57 AM
And that sir, has been my point in this entire dialogue. "To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we will commit the vindication of the cause for which we fought. To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which you love also, and those ideals which made him glorious and which you also cherish. Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations." SCV Charge, Lt Gen S.D. Lee. I believe wholeheartedly in those words, but education must be tempered with moderation.
Ross, thanks for posting this. It is good to see the words so we have a chance to compare the original purpose of the SCV to its actions of today.

firstmdes
06-03-2008, 08:05 AM
You haven't been missed.
Again, I ask: Why are you so hostile? Your posts contribute little or nothing to the discussion except for anger. I think you need to take a step back, take a deep breath and come back to the forum when you can carry on an adult discussion. Your actions only reinforce my preconceived notions of SCV members. Thank God for Ross and Chris being the voice of reason or I would have written the SCV off as a fringe group long ago.

If you all truly want to educate the masses about the Confederate flag, maybe you should work on your approach to interacting with non-members. Maybe, if you presented some positive information about the SCV and its purpose you might win over some hearts and minds. Or do you just want to continue spreading hate?

RebelBugler
06-03-2008, 08:33 AM
Ross, IMHO the issue with the flag today has far more to do with what happened in the 1950s and 60s than in the 1860 with the CSA. As long as the SCV is unwilling to accept that, they will continue to but heads with most people and will continue to allienate moderates such as myself who grew up during those times.

Applying the same standards, would it not be fair to recognize how many of us in the South feel about Abraham Lincoln's despotic actions and the devastation he allowed to be inflicted on innocent civilians? Would it be reasonable to remove memorials and statues to Lincoln, so as not to offend those of us that do not see him as the "Great Emancipator" but rather as an elected official who willingly trampled the US Constitution?

Even at the new Gettysburg Visitors Center, Lincoln is falsely portrayed as having enlightened views on the issue of race while actual documented evidence illustrates otherwise. A few notable and verified quotes by Abraham Lincoln worth considering

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races.I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

FloridaConfederate
06-03-2008, 08:33 AM
Again, I ask: Why are you so hostile?


for me:

Because everyone is not squared away like you to know there may be other realities in life outside of their knowledge and experience.

FloridaConfederate
06-03-2008, 08:37 AM
Ross, IMHO the issue with the flag today has far more to do with what happened in the 1950s and 60s than in the 1860 with the CSA. As long as the SCV is unwilling to accept that, they will continue to but heads with most people and will continue to allienate moderates such as myself who grew up during those times.

Lets talk specifics.

Please share your exp and knowledge with SCV activity and issues in the 50's /60's

Please share your exp and knowledge of modern SCV racial activity and issues.

Frenchie
06-03-2008, 08:48 AM
Even at the new Gettysburg Visitors Center, Lincoln is falsely portrayed as having enlightened views on the issue of race while actual documented evidence illustrates otherwise. A few notable and verified quotes by Abraham Lincoln worth considering

Now this is just disingenuous. You know too much to not be aware that, for his time, his views were enlightened. You know what "present-ism" is, and you're deliberately using it to smear Lincoln when you and I and 'most everyone else reading this knows otherwise.

As for the SCV and those members who have weighed in here so far, my opinion is that what I read several years ago about how the organization was being taken over by extremist groups with a racial agenda is being confirmed.

Malingerer
06-03-2008, 08:52 AM
for me:

Because everyone is not squared away like you to know there may be other realities in life outside of their knowledge and experience.
Doctor - heal thyself.

FloridaConfederate
06-03-2008, 08:58 AM
As for the SCV and those members who have weighed in here so far, my opinion is that what I read several years ago about how the organization was being taken over by extremist groups with a racial agenda is being confirmed.


I am interested to know what info in this thread or otherwise lead to that conclusion.

Really lets see it..... spell it out.

I am not arguing really. That's a tall charge.

I want to see how and from what someone I have felt honest in his postings before draws this conclusion ?

Or is that something, like, most around here, thrown out for its "sting value".

So the floor is yours...put on your evidence of SCV extremist racist agenda.

Pvt Schnapps
06-03-2008, 09:22 AM
Again, I ask: Why are you so hostile? Your posts contribute little or nothing to the discussion except for anger.

I think Terry and Elliott are writing from a profound sense of grievance stemming from ancient injustice. Something so terrible was done to their ancestors that it has affected them to this day.

Years of enslavement, disenfranchisement (de jure then de facto) followed by more years of overt and covert discrimination -- it does make it hard to be objective about your oppressors.

Personally I've felt similarly about Italians ever since Caesar's campaign against the Helvetii.

Present company excepted, of course.

hanktrent
06-03-2008, 10:49 AM
And that sir, has been my point in this entire dialogue. "To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we will commit the vindication of the cause for which we fought. To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which you love also, and those ideals which made him glorious and which you also cherish. Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations." SCV Charge, Lt Gen S.D. Lee. I believe wholeheartedly in those words, but education must be tempered with moderation.

Very enlightening. The phrase cognitive dissonance comes to mind.

vindication of the cause... Okay, I can handle that. "Look at the violence and anarchy in Liberia today. See, the negroes who stayed here are better than the ones you shipped back to Africa." Um, wait, no. That won't fly. Here, this is better: "Look at the high taxes, regulations, and government intrusion in your lives. See, states rights and a smaller federal government would have solved that."

So by definition, the "cause" needs to be spun so it can be vindicated according to the opinion of the modern world, which is a difficult and complex thing, and not necessarily compatible with the attitude of studying history wherever it leads.

the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which you love also... Lots of easy things in that category: bravery, loyalty, love of home, gallantry, honor. No sweat.

But it gets trickier. Superiority of the white race? That the south should secede today? That the U.S. government is cruel and oppressive?

If someone does believe any of those things today, they'd consider it part of the mission of the SCV, rightly so. But if someone else doesn't believe it today, it would be dropped from the mission, because it wouldn't fit the "you love also" clause.

The debate then hinges not on what the Confederate soldier loved, but what we love today. Easy to define for an individual, very hard to define for an entire group.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

FloridaConfederate
06-03-2008, 10:50 AM
Here is an updated list of SCV brass.

Please use this to search criminal records in repsective communites and search for racist hate group type activties on their part. I am making it easy for you.

Get back to us.


Commander-in-Chief
Christopher M Sullivan
P O Box 50765
Columbia, SC 29250
803-376-5078


Lt. Commander-in-Chief
Ronald E. Casteel
1222b Duane Swift Pkwy
Jefferson City, MO 65109
573-761-3007

Chief of Staff
Donald G Shelton
110 Apple Grove
Nicholasville, KY 40356
859-885-3248

Adjutant-in-Chief
Mark Albert Simpson
105 Winterberry Ct
Spartanburg, SC 29301
864-576-4561

Judge Advocate-in-Chief
Roy Burl McCoy
5964 Winchester Rd
Lexington, KY 40509
859-294-0300

Chaplain-in-Chief
Dr. Cecil A. Fayard Jr
689 Harmony Rd
Duck Hill, MS 38925

Chief of Heritage Defense
Darryl Felton Starnes
7306 Mcclellan Rd
Mechanicsville, VA 23111
804-779-3653


Army of Northern Virginia Department

Department Commander
Robert Michael Givens
2698 Broad St
Beaufort, SC 29902
843-521-0558

Department Councilman
Bragdon R Bowling Jr
2720 Rettig Rd
Richmond, VA 23225
804-658-1785


Army of Tennessee Department

Department Commander
Charles Kelly Barrow
621 Forrest Ave
Griffin, GA 30224
770-412-1646

Department Councilman
Edward Mcnatt Butler
3575 Vista Circle
Cookeville, TN 38506
931-537-3300


Army of the Trans-Mississippi Department

Department Commander
Luther William Norred
16526 Karen Rd
Madera, CA 93636
559-645-4153

Department Councilman
Charles E McMichael
7994 Blanchard-furrh Rd
Shreveport, LA 71107
318-929-4848


Past Commanders-in-Chief
2004-2006 Denne Sweeney Ferris, TX Click for details
2002-2004 R. G. "Ron" Wilson Easley, SC Click for details
2000-2002 Edwin L. Deason Oklahoma City, OK Click for details

Blockade Runner
06-03-2008, 11:23 AM
Again, I ask: Why are you so hostile? Your posts contribute little or nothing to the discussion except for anger. I think you need to take a step back, take a deep breath and come back to the forum when you can carry on an adult discussion. Your actions only reinforce my preconceived notions of SCV members. Thank God for Ross and Chris being the voice of reason or I would have written the SCV off as a fringe group long ago.

If you all truly want to educate the masses about the Confederate flag, maybe you should work on your approach to interacting with non-members. Maybe, if you presented some positive information about the SCV and its purpose you might win over some hearts and minds. Or do you just want to continue spreading hate?

The views that have been expressed by individuals that I personally know, and who I greatly respect are in no way vitriolic. I do sense a feeling of frustration in their writing because I believe they feel that they are expressing the same opinions over and over again and no one on this forum is listening, or absorbing, what they are stating. Again, as I previously noted, much of history (not just the WBTS) is a matter of interpretation and perspective.

Let's take Lincoln as an example. Many of us believe he was a despot and warmonger. We research and find information that agrees with our opinion of him. You look at him as hero. And likewise, you look for information and sources to back up you preconcieved notions about him. Nothing is wrong with any of that, but we will never agree. I think, for that reason, many of the people who post on this forum are not our "target audience" for changing people's opinions concerning either the Battle Flag or the SCV. Ideally, we need to get our message out to young people before they are indoctrinated, by what I consider, are misguided educators.

Again, my instincts tell me that no matter how many altruistic things that we can point out that are done by the SCV, there would still be detractors of us on this forum. (e.g. - The honoring of the black Union soldier in Southern MD.) This is indeed unfortunate, but I recognize that it's the nature of the beast.

Frenchie
06-03-2008, 12:08 PM
I am interested to know what info in this thread or otherwise lead to that conclusion.

An article in a magazine 'way back when the great ruction happened in the SCV. Can't remember the names, etc., but I do recall that the writer was also one who criticized the NRA for electing Harlan Carter because of his (as the writer perceived them) extremist views, and made much over the allegations that Carter had killed a man without justification.

firstmdes
06-03-2008, 12:20 PM
The views that have been expressed by individuals that I personally know, and who I greatly respect are in no way vitriolic. I do sense a feeling of frustration in their writing because I believe they feel that they are expressing the same opinions over and over again and no one on this forum is listening, or absorbing, what they are stating. Again, as I previously noted, much of history (not just the WBTS) is a matter of interpretation and perspective.
Thank you for explaining to me what you feel the others may be thinking. The reason I have a hard time with the above explanation is that those for whom you are speaking have not really posted anything of any great length. They post one or two seemingly vitriolic sentences in response to my postings. The posts never have much meat and only state a point with no supporting information. One can say it is a beautiful day during a thunderstorm, but it would be nice to explain why one thinks that so others can get a better understanding of the statement. Yes, history is open to interpretation, but please show supporting evidence as to why you interpret it as you do. I may be convinced to change my mind about things, but certainly not by just having someone declare it so.


Let's take Lincoln as an example. Many of us believe he was a despot and warmonger. We research and find information that agrees with our opinion of him. You look at him as hero. And likewise, you look for information and sources to back up you preconcieved notions about him. Nothing is wrong with any of that, but we will never agree.
I for one have never said that Lincoln is my hero. There are aspects about him and accomplishments of his which I respect and even applaud, but he is not my hero. I understand that no one is perfect. On the contrary, we all have our faults and imperfections. This being said, you too must admit that those who you and your acquaintances idolize also have faults. I cannot understand how a modern thinking man can ignore the fact that human bondage is wrong. (I understand that mid-19th Century ideas were different, but let's not champion slavery!)


I think, for that reason, many of the people who post on this forum are not our "target audience" for changing people's opinions concerning either the Battle Flag or the SCV. Ideally, we need to get our message out to young people before they are indoctrinated, by what I consider, are misguided educators.
I agree, for some different reasons, that our education system needs some retooling. But your organization has a great opportunity to "educate" people who are involved in the very era, the very history in which you wish to educate people. Do you really want to "indoctrinate" the young people or show them the other side of the story so they can decide what may be the truth. Surely, history is not all one way or the other; it must be in the middle.


Again, my instincts tell me that no matter how many altruistic things that we can point out that are done by the SCV, there would still be detractors of us on this forum. (e.g. - The honoring of the black Union soldier in Southern MD.) This is indeed unfortunate, but I recognize that it's the nature of the beast.
No matter what you believe, someone in this world will attack you and tell you that you are wrong. Be it religion, politics, history, the color of your house, people will attack you. The best reaction is not an aggressive counterattack, but a well thought out response which might get the opposition thinking. It annoys me to no end when the "us vs. them" talk sprouts up. None of us were there and we are not enemies today. We are all Americans whether we like it or not.

I again thank Chris and Ross for their level-headed responses to this and other threads. They have made me think and challenge my beliefs about the SCV. For a long time, I have thought nothing positive about the SCV, but well-thought and well-written responses that these men have posted here have cracked my beliefs in this group. Surely, the SCV has done good things and surely they are not all neo-Nazi racists. My point...maybe 5th Alabama Infantry and others who have posted here would have been more effective had they changed their tactics. Educate me. Tell me what the SCV has done that warrants congratulations (i.e.: the USCT gravestone). Help break down the negative facade that has built-up around the SCV and maybe future threads will not become so heated! You have a chance to make an ally, don't insure that I remain an enemy.

FloridaConfederate
06-03-2008, 12:29 PM
John you are a honorable man.

If you ever make it to Florida look me up.

I would like to share my family, culture and values with your's. We have a guest house and its yours.

I urge in my own case for all to go to

www.tampascv.org and monitor the activities of the local camp.

If anyone in earshot wants to show up unannounced at a meeting...the next would be great w/ the big flag issue...show up. It is in the newsletter.

or let me know and I will escort you unannounced.

Like I said they will be surprised to see me at a meeting but really suprised when I show up with a Yank guest in tow.

tompritchett
06-03-2008, 12:50 PM
I believe that Germany would receive so much external protest that they would never dare to officially fly it.

It didn't stop the Japanese from putting the names of convicted war criminals on their memorial for soldiers killed in WWII.

Pvt Schnapps
06-03-2008, 12:51 PM
Here is an updated list of SCV brass.

Please use this to search criminal records in repsective communites and search for racist hate group type activties on their part. I am making it easy for you.

Get back to us.


Commander-in-Chief
Christopher M Sullivan
P O Box 50765
Columbia, SC 29250
803-376-5078


Lt. Commander-in-Chief
Ronald E. Casteel
1222b Duane Swift Pkwy
Jefferson City, MO 65109
573-761-3007

Chief of Staff
Donald G Shelton
110 Apple Grove
Nicholasville, KY 40356
859-885-3248

Adjutant-in-Chief
Mark Albert Simpson
105 Winterberry Ct
Spartanburg, SC 29301
864-576-4561

Judge Advocate-in-Chief
Roy Burl McCoy
5964 Winchester Rd
Lexington, KY 40509
859-294-0300

Chaplain-in-Chief
Dr. Cecil A. Fayard Jr
689 Harmony Rd
Duck Hill, MS 38925

Chief of Heritage Defense
Darryl Felton Starnes
7306 Mcclellan Rd
Mechanicsville, VA 23111
804-779-3653


Army of Northern Virginia Department

Department Commander
Robert Michael Givens
2698 Broad St
Beaufort, SC 29902
843-521-0558

Department Councilman
Bragdon R Bowling Jr
2720 Rettig Rd
Richmond, VA 23225
804-658-1785


Army of Tennessee Department

Department Commander
Charles Kelly Barrow
621 Forrest Ave
Griffin, GA 30224
770-412-1646

Department Councilman
Edward Mcnatt Butler
3575 Vista Circle
Cookeville, TN 38506
931-537-3300


Army of the Trans-Mississippi Department

Department Commander
Luther William Norred
16526 Karen Rd
Madera, CA 93636
559-645-4153

Department Councilman
Charles E McMichael
7994 Blanchard-furrh Rd
Shreveport, LA 71107
318-929-4848


Past Commanders-in-Chief
2004-2006 Denne Sweeney Ferris, TX Click for details
2002-2004 R. G. "Ron" Wilson Easley, SC Click for details
2000-2002 Edwin L. Deason Oklahoma City, OK Click for details

Because you made me curious, I just started with the first name (Sullivan) and on the first hit came back with a blog that discusses his editorship of "The Southern Partisan," his position in the "Neo-Confederate" movement, that movement's ties to the League of the South, and various racist and separatist initiatives.

Clearly this fellow's an opponent, but what's interesting is that even the ensuing Google hits on the first page are void of any reference to historical research or historical activities other than the polemical. There's little here about honoring the past and a lot to do with the sort of contemporary politics that Hank refers to.

I didn't get to the second name but, to tell the truth, I don't want to hit any more sites like the first one. I'd rather do my research in the 19th century.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2006/08/southern-partisan-editor-elected-head.html

firstmdes
06-03-2008, 12:58 PM
It didn't stop the Japanese from putting the names of convicted war criminals on their memorial for soldiers killed in WWII.
So true. For some reason Japan seems to be a special case for the world. I guess we all want their cars and electronics!

FloridaConfederate
06-03-2008, 01:07 PM
A "Blog". What would you say if a Southener cited a blog ?

FWIW - What does the blog say other than call names ?

Really...share the hate the blogger discovered in 2006

I have made statement about lessons learned from my ancestors before

Those People, when called out don't support arguments with facts, he will shift focus using emotions. Good for words not meant to be backed up.

tompritchett
06-03-2008, 01:08 PM
Applying the same standards, would it not be fair to recognize how many of us in the South feel about Abraham Lincoln's despotic actions and the devastation he allowed to be inflicted on innocent civilians? Would it be reasonable to remove memorials and statues to Lincoln, so as not to offend those of us that do not see him as the "Great Emancipator" but rather as an elected official who willingly trampled the US Constitution?

First and most importantly, there is no one still alive who was a direct victim of the total war tactics used by the Union and by Lincoln's abuse of the Constitution (of course, Confederate officials were guilty of some of those same abuses but that is a topic for another thread). I reconcile both Lincolon's and Davis's acts as those of men who were doing all that was in their power to preserve their respective nations. Personally, I truly believe that, had I been an officer in the U.S. Army at the time of his muster call, I would have tendered my resignation and volunteered to fight for the Confederacy. Lincoln is honored today by most Americans because he renunited the Union and with his Gettysburg Address set in motion the freeing of the blacks both in the North (inequality under the law) and the South. But by no means were all his actions saintly nor the consequences of his actions without harm to all segments of what is today the U.S.

Pvt Schnapps
06-03-2008, 01:18 PM
A "Blog". What would you say if a Southener cited a blog ?

FWIW - What does the blog say other than call names ?

Really...share the hate the blogger discovered in 2006

I have made statement about lessons learned from my ancestors before

Those People, when called out don't support arguments with facts, he will shift focus using emotions. Good for words not meant to be backed up.

The question that occurred to me after I saw that citation was, what would a Google search on the president of the Sons of Union Veterans turn up?

And is it really so slanderous to associate someone with a journal they publish and a movement they support?

tompritchett
06-03-2008, 01:27 PM
Lets talk specifics.

Please share your exp and knowledge with SCV activity and issues in the 50's /60's

My knowledge of the 1950's and 60's has nothing to do with the SCV but rather with how the flag was used. In terms of expertise, I grew up in KY, SE TN and Central GA during that time period and I saw it both first-hand and on the TV almost nightly. I grew up being taught the whenever someone did something to upset you or was pulling your chain, it was perfectly acceptable to reply with "I've killed n****s for less than that". (The scary part is that we were all from white-collar families and none of us considered ourselves racists like those KKK hoodlums that were killing and burning.) I had a Confederate flag front license plate on my car and moved up North and the first thing one of my neighbors said to me after seeing the license plate was "oh, you must hate n****s too. The county North of where I went to college, flying a Confederate flag meant that no blacks were welcome to move into that neighborhood. I am not claiming that the SCV was involved in any of this but I am saying that this is the modern history and heritage of the battle flag.


Please share your exp and knowledge of modern SCV racial activity and issues.

My modern exposure to the SCV is very limited. I had followed the Lyons attempted takeover of the SCV. I attended a memorial march in Richmond which ended at the cemetary. There the program was much more focussed on the modern politics associated with the flag and then current politicians than on recognizing and honoring the fallen Confederate soldiers in the cemetary. The one SCV member that was associated with my previous unit and his wife used the "n" quite often in private conversations. Outside of these interactions and the posts that I have seen here, again my experience with the SCV is limited. Personally, I have no problem with the stated goals and mission of the SCV and even support them. It is just from what I have been reading here about the Wirz cereminy, the flag controversies, and my limited exposure, I have to sometimes wonder if that mission has been lost in the desire to push the flag.

FloridaConfederate
06-03-2008, 01:29 PM
And is it really so slanderous to associate someone with a journal they publish and a movement they support?

Share the racism and hate you or a blogger discovered in journals and movement ?

Come on. Put up.

I'll give you the last word...but something tells me it aint gonna be factually supported.

tompritchett
06-03-2008, 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchie
As for the SCV and those members who have weighed in here so far, my opinion is that what I read several years ago about how the organization was being taken over by extremist groups with a racial agenda is being confirmed.


I am interested to know what info in this thread or otherwise lead to that conclusion.

Specifically it was the post much earlier in the thread that linked to an article about the semi-coup by Wilson that appeared to be partially orchestraed by Lyons. Obviously, that article was talking about something that occurred in the past, and based upon the list of officers that you posted, appears to have been rectified.

hanktrent
06-03-2008, 02:09 PM
You post hypothetical as follow up to a line by line of the Charge with examples of racist dogma. Shall we do the same with the Pledge of Allegiance for comparison sake ?

Sure, why not? But actually, my line-by-line showed how the SCV specifically can not promote racist dogma, or even describe historical racism in the Confederacy, if it truly wants to follow its mission to vindicate the cause of Confederate veterans to most of America today.

What makes me hesitate joining the SCV (yes, I'm eligible, of course), has nothing to do with modern racism or neo-Confederacy or anything like that.

The sticking point, for me, is the mission to make the past look good to the present. If the mission is the same for the SUV, I'd hesitate joining them as well, for the same reason (yeah, I'm eligible--border state ancestors, still south of the Mason Dixon line).

The problem is, it doesn't bother me in the least to be totally against modern racism while at the very same time genuinely respecting my slave-owning ancestors for who they were. They were them; I'm me. They lived in their time and place; I live in mine. So it's hard for me to act defensive about the un-P.C. things they did.

I can totally get behind the sentiment: Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations. But I see it conflicting directly with the charge to: [vindicate] the cause for which we fought.

That's where I'd be stuck. I can't present what I believe is the true history of the South in such a way that it will vindicate the cause to modern people. Even though I can argue a dang good case for vindication, as long as I don't have to personally believe all the points are true or spin it to convince most modern people, e.g. the Liberia example.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

FloridaConfederate
06-03-2008, 02:18 PM
Sure, why not? But actually, my line-by-line showed how the SCV specifically can not promote racist dogma, or even describe historical racism in the Confederacy, if it truly wants to follow its mission to vindicate the cause of Confederate veterans to most of America today.

What makes me hesitate joining the SCV (yes, I'm eligible, of course), has nothing to do with modern racism or neo-Confederacy or anything like that.

The sticking point, for me, is the mission to make the past look good to the present. If the mission is the same for the SUV, I'd hesitate joining them as well, for the same reason (yeah, I'm eligible--border state ancestors, still south of the Mason Dixon line).

The problem is, it doesn't bother me in the least to be totally against modern racism while at the very same time genuinely respecting my slave-owning ancestors for who they were. They were them; I'm me. They lived in their time and place; I live in mine. So it's hard for me to act defensive about the un-P.C. things they did.

I can totally get behind the sentiment: Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations. But I see it conflicting directly with the charge to: [vindicate] the cause for which we fought.

That's where I'd be stuck. I can't present what I believe is the true history of the South in such a way that it will vindicate the cause to modern people. Even though I can argue a dang good case for vindication, as long as I don't have to personally believe all the points are true or spin it to convince most modern people, e.g. the Liberia example.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

I get it and agree. I think for the most part that is consistent to my way of posting across the fora.

I would like to one day, maybe at a great event, shake your hand....I would leave you alone beyond that. I have said it here before you and others (the meanies) in the early days of the AC mentored and impacted my development of researched based M/M/M culture

Army30th
06-03-2008, 04:27 PM
This whole thread has been very interesting. I didn't read every post, because I just don't have enough time to give.

However, there are good and bad on all sides and edges of the proverbial coin. A lot of southerners were honest in their beliefs of racial superiority. But how many northerners were just as honest in that same belief?

It's not two different nationalities....it's the same race and group of people.

And although he changed his mind later in during the war, Lincoln originally said in the 1858 presidential debates with Douglas, that he (Lincoln), was "not in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races."

My personal experience with the SCV is: was a member to reflect upon the deeds and memorialize my ancestors. Within the local chapter, things were fine. But it's what I heard about in national conventions that I didn't like. What I heard may or may not be true, and it has been too many years in the past to get into an argument about.

However, that being said, my local chapter was far more on displaying the flag than memorials to confederate dead.

FloridaConfederate
06-03-2008, 04:31 PM
Like I said to much us not enough them. No arguments here.

But when you cry out racist hate group and offer no credible support..look for me everytime.

Come up with something credible and watch me and thousands of others shake the rafters at SCV.

Since he was directly pointed out in a "drive by"

Here are his own words from the referenced publication.


http://www.southernpartisan.net/2007/10/24/the-power-of-symbols/


The Power of Symbols

By CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN • October 24th, 2007

Okay, kids. This is a pop quiz on current affairs. I’ll give you the basic facts and you tell me where it’s happening.

A culture war is rapidly heating up. Ordinary citizens have become increasingly concerned about the cost of illegal immigration, the rise of the welfare state, and multiculturalism enforced by liberal elites.

Things have gotten so hot that the Economist magazine (one of the world’s best-known journals of leftist opinion) published a recent article explaining “the culture war” in this place as a crude reaction to a laudable effort by liberals to “redraw national identity” and to “make amends for past wrongs to indigenous peoples.”

Rejecting the policies of the left and reconnecting with their ancestors, ordinary citizens are now displaying their traditional flag whenever they can: at political gatherings, public places, private homes and wherever people gather. Meanwhile, leftist policy makers are, of course, deeply concerned about such displays of militant nostalgia and have proposed that the old flag be redesigned to something more acceptable in the modern world. Sound familiar? Where do you think this is happening? Georgia? Mississippi? Alabama? South Carolina?

Well, yes. There too. But the set of facts outlined above describe what’s happening today in Australia.The good people Down Under are fed up with militant modernism and the Labor Party’s relentless drive to destroy all tradition. And the Australian flag has become a symbol of renewed pride for ordinary citizens and a link to their ancestors, whose lives and sacrifices they refuse to trivialize or to discredit in the false name of progress.

American Southerners understand. Consider for example recent events in Georgia. Herculean efforts were made by secular progressives to eradicate the 1956 Georgia flag which included the Confederate battle flag design. As you may recall, a committee of soulless boosters attempted to replace the flag with a horrendously bland banner—the Barnes flag— which was replaced with another design after Governor Roy Barnes was defeated.

Mississippi found a better way. The same leftist legions agitated for years to replace the state flag and to strip away its Confederate symbolism. But Mississippi politicians were clever enough to allow the issue to be decided by public referendum.

In South Carolina, the state flag has so far escaped attack because its traditional design is merely a lone palmetto tree with a crescent moon, and the heathens are not well enough informed to understand its Confederate roots. So, instead they attacked the easier target: the Confederate battle flag which flew atop the capitol dome.

In 1996, there was a public referendum on the GOP primary ballot in South Carolina asking voters whether the battle flag should continue flying atop the statehouse.

The flag won with a whopping 76%, attracting the largest primary voter turnout in state history. Still, four years later, the South Carolina legislature voted to move the flag from the dome to a Confederate soldiers’ monument on statehouse grounds, where it still flies and where the attack on its existence continues unabated.

In 2000, when the South Carolina Senate was debating removing the Confederate flag, Sen. Harvey Peeler warned his colleagues that if that one flag came down from the dome a thousand would go up across the state.

They didn’t care. After all, they claimed flags on private property were of no concern to them, as long as that particular one wasn’t in “a place of sovereignty.”

Sen. Peeler was right, of course, as the Confederate flag is more visible and displayed more frequently than ever by ordinary South Carolinians. My sense is that the same is true of the ’56 Flag in Georgia, and generally true throughout the South.

An interesting byproduct of the Confederate flag debate here in South Carolina is the prominence of the state emblem: the Palmetto Flag. Little more than a decade ago, it was rare to ever see the state flag outside an official setting. Now, however, the Palmetto emblem is everywhere: on cars, boats, clothing; and it seems that just about every third business has it in its logo.

One cannot help but conclude that this newfound affection for the symbol of South Carolina is a direct result of the attack on the state’s Southern heritage.

Flags and symbols have power, and ordinary folk everywhere are turning to traditional symbols as a way of resisting the Left’s relentless drive to eradicate or redefine history. There is a cultural war and it is being fought in spots all across America and around the world. It is a war waged by socalled progressives against those who honor the past and respect tradition.

Southerners, like our distant cousins Down Under, instinctively cling to their flags as symbols of their country and their heritage; as heraldic devices, resplendent with the symbols of a precious cultural inheritance.

Just as instinctive, however, is the spirit that motivates those who see the South’s unique culture as something to be feared and fought against, who see the Confederate flag and her vexillological offspring as obstacles to a society uniform in thought and action.

These enemies of our heritage do not want the Confederate flag—or any of these state flags, for that matter—in any place of prominence or honor. Nor do they want them on bumpers, doorframes, t-shirts or anywhere else.

Their goal is simple: they want them gone. But the more they try to rub out Southern identity, the more tenaciously people display the symbol of their revered ancestors, the symbol of which those very ancestors were so justifiably proud.

Confederate Sergeant Barry Benson described it thusly:

“Oh how it thrilled the heart of a soldier, when he had long been away from the army, to catch sight again of his red battle flag, upheld on its staff of pine, its tatters snapping in the wind.

“‘A red rag,’ there will be those who will say. ‘A red rag tied to a stick, and that is all!’

“And yet that red rag, crossed with blue, white stars sprinkling the cross within, tied to a slim, barked sapling with leather
thongs cut from a soldier’s shoe.

“This red rag my soul loved with a lover’s love.”

Pvt Schnapps
06-03-2008, 04:48 PM
Share the racism and hate you or a blogger discovered in journals and movement ?

Come on. Put up.

I'll give you the last word...but something tells me it aint gonna be factually supported.

There's some hate here that's spread around a bit among the group you listed. Didn't have to look far, either:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=273


Apparently Sullivan's a moderate compared to some, according to the same site:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=813

But folks can check out Southern Partisan for themselves and agree or disagree as they wish:

http://www.southernpartisan.net/

And all things considered, I don't know if I'd slap them with the charge of racism and hate. It's more like paranoia and resentment, and it's kinda sad.

Can I go back to the 1860s now?

FloridaConfederate
06-03-2008, 05:01 PM
And all things considered, I don't know if I'd slap them with the charge of racism and hate. It's more like paranoia and resentment, and it's kinda sad.

I can live with that.

I know you dont care, but I respect that you would make such a statement after further digging into the matter (and I am sure you and many others have been diggin!).

RebelBugler
06-03-2008, 07:08 PM
Now this is just disingenuous. You know too much to not be aware that, for his time, his views were enlightened. You know what "present-ism" is, and you're deliberately using it to smear Lincoln when you and I and 'most everyone else reading this knows otherwise.

As for the SCV and those members who have weighed in here so far, my opinion is that what I read several years ago about how the organization was being taken over by extremist groups with a racial agenda is being confirmed.

It appears that discussing Lincoln's shortcomings has somehow touched a raw nerve. What is disingenuous about factually quoting the man's own statements? Obviously, you believe that examining Lincoln's words from the perspective of our contemporary society is inappropriate because he lived in a different time. Yet, it is perfectly acceptable to judge the Confederate States and its leaders by 21st Century standards. Clearly, I understand present-isms, as well as the application of fair and balanced standards. It is patently unfair to vilify the 19th Century South using one set of criteria while deifying Lincoln using another.

As to the SCV's alleged racial overtones, perhaps you may be interested in a recently announced SCV Ceremony to honor Confederate Soldier Weary Clyburn of South Carolina. Mr. Clyburn, who was Black, served with distinction as a soldier in an integrated Confederate unit. This was undoubtedly an enlightened view as well. A news article discussing Mr. Clyburn's Confederate Service may be found at

http://www.jamesmillerscv.org/index_files/Page480.htm (http://www.jamesmillerscv.org/index_files/Page480.htm)

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-04-2008, 05:56 AM
A message from the Florida SCV Division Commander


Tampa Flag Raising

Gentlemen,

Tomorrow, the 200th Anniversary of the birth of President Jefferson Davis, will be a banner day for the Florida Division. We will raise our GIANT Battle-flag at 7am, and the press will be on hand for the event. You can expect to see major coverage on your TV tomorrow evening.

Today, Cdr. Dawson and I were run ragged with press interviews. I know that Doug's interview was played on CNN, and that he was contacted by several newspapers.

I did an interview with the Tampa Tribune, ABC News New York, and was the feature in the 5PM drive home on the Bud Heddinger Show (radio).

Here is a story with some pictures of our "test raising" in April. They got a couple of things wrong, but for the most part, it's a pretty good story.

Please broadcast this email to all your friends.

National Headquarters reports being besieged with calls and donations this AM. I know of at least one new member joining, and I have gotten many supportive emails and calls, from as far away as Rhode Island.

DO NOT let the media pundits make you believe that the world will hate this flag...that sure isn't the feedback I am getting from the street.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4978568&page=1

God Bless Jefferson Davis!

John Adams
Co-Chmn, Flags Across Florida

Ross L. Lamoreaux
06-04-2008, 06:58 AM
I will say this much, since I live about a mile and half away from the site, that the "media pundits" were definitely going a mile a minute the last two days. My thoughts on this matter regarding the flag choice has already been aired frequently on this forum, so I won't expound on that, but let it suffice to say there is an uproar in Tampa and Hillsborough County the likes I've never seen before. There was a big to-do a few years ago when the county commisioners decided to take the battle flag off the county seal that it had been on for decades (the seal had four quarters with symbols of the county's historical past) and I'll admit to being angered at the time when they did it without a vote or referendum, but the political pressure to do so was more than the political pressure to keep it. That was pretty big news until this flagpole and flag. The Tampa Tribune printed on the front page artwork that put the size of the flag into perspective with other large flags in the area, and the only flag larger in the county is the ones the Buccaneers fly off of the stadium, and you can see that one about 6 miles away. I drove Interstate 4 myself to take a look at the battle flag, and I could see that 3 1/2 miles away, and it would have been farther but there are a couple of curves in the road. My feelings now are quite mixed - I'm pleased to see that there is quite a bit of dialogue about Confederate history and particularly the local history (many people interviewed didn't even know Florida was in the Confederacy) but I'm upset about the people who have some right to be angry with seeing a flag bigger than most houses as an "in your face" FU to them. The SCV suceeded in finding a high impact spot, as 200,000 cars pass that spot every day. I can't say I've always been happy with things the NAACP or ACLU have done (thats for sure), but when you hear repeatedly "One man's heritage is another man's hate", they've got a point. This flag won't be going away soon, the SCV is firmly entrenched with all the right permits, its on private property, and they've dotted the i's and crossed the t's, but the negative publicity from this is absolutely killing any mainstream support, and is over shadowing all the good they do with dedicating new grave markers for confederate vets, school presentations and public appearances. I'll leave this rant with one quote I heard on the radio from one of the local SCV members when asked why they chose to fly such a large battleflag and his answer was, "Because this is a battle and we're taking it to the naysayers and people who are out to kill our heritage". He's right to a certain point, but by bringing a battle, you're bringing on casualties and the first casualty is public opinion.

1stMD5RgmtANV
06-04-2008, 07:38 AM
Why don't they just fly the First Confederate National flag, rather than the battle flag.

Certianly, 99% of people who drive by won't recognize it, but it would spark more of a curious interest instead of a militant interest. It would give the Sons of the Confederacy a real opportunity to educate rather than put them in a position of having to perpetually be defending themselves.

It's a shame the way the Confederate battle flag has been abused, perverted, and otherwise manipulated/molested, but what has happened has happened.

FloridaConfederate
06-04-2008, 07:48 AM
.....but by bringing a battle, you're bringing on casualties and the first casualty is public opinion.


The poll on the region's largest newspaper puts it 78% for - 21% against.

Big county commission meeting this morning 9:00 EST.

A commissioner has vowed public ally to use all of her powers to get it taken down....even though it has all permits and approvals as issued by her staff.

RebelBugler
06-04-2008, 08:05 AM
The poll on the region's largest newspaper puts it 78% for - 21% against.

Big county commission meeting this morning 9:00 EST.

A commissioner has vowed public ally to use all of her powers to get it taken down....even though it has all permits and approvals as issued by her staff.

This illustrates a point about the nature of government, going all the way back to the WBTS. If a governmental official doesn't like the end result, despite strict compliance to all laws and regulations, usurp the law for your interpretation of the greater good.

As I understand the issue, the flag is on private property and conforms to all appropriate Federal, State and local regulations. Therefore, the sponsors should be able to exercise their 1st Amendment rights unimpeded.

firstmdes
06-04-2008, 09:01 AM
As I understand the issue, the flag is on private property and conforms to all appropriate Federal, State and local regulations. Therefore, the sponsors should be able to exercise their 1st Amendment rights unimpeded.
Everyone probably knows my feelings about the hidden agenda this flag represents, but I must agree with Terry on this one. If the rules have been followed in getting this pole and flag raised in their current location, then there is nothing that can be done. Maybe detractors should place an equally large Stars and Stripes on an adjacent lot?

sbl
06-04-2008, 10:00 AM
"..Maybe detractors should place an equally large Stars and Stripes on an adjacent lot?.."

Larger.

FloridaConfederate
06-04-2008, 10:04 AM
According to the first and only speaker to speak on this issue this far this morning before the BOCC on public TV, an opponent..after she broke a noose she alluded to violence and getting ugly as a solution if it isn't removed.

firstmdes
06-04-2008, 10:09 AM
According to the first and only speaker to speak on this issue this far this morning before the BOCC on public TV, an opponent..after she broke a noose she alluded to violence and getting ugly as a solution if it isn't removed.
So, she seems to be saying that her perceived injustice is serious enough to hurt people over? I always love the "let's use violence" approach to political disagreements.

FloridaConfederate
06-04-2008, 10:35 AM
So, she seems to be saying that her perceived injustice is serious enough to hurt people over? I always love the "let's use violence" approach to political disagreements.

I dont speak for her, the transcripts are available

edited I am sure the talking heads will highlight her and she was the opponent at noon, 6, and 11. Test for Echo.

The county attroney is stating they are in full compliance legally.

FloridaConfederate
06-04-2008, 10:42 AM
Now comms are pushing to get a private property owner work with the NAACP to change the site and monument.

FloridaConfederate
06-04-2008, 10:50 AM
Adjourned.

Hillsborough County can do nothing.

Pleaded SCV to work with community.

Frenchie
06-04-2008, 12:55 PM
It appears that discussing Lincoln's shortcomings has somehow touched a raw nerve.

Raw nerves are all over this issue, starting with those who support this in-your-face flag.


What is disingenuous about factually quoting the man's own statements? Obviously, you believe that examining Lincoln's words from the perspective of our contemporary society is inappropriate because he lived in a different time. Yet, it is perfectly acceptable to judge the Confederate States and its leaders by 21st Century standards. Clearly, I understand present-isms, as well as the application of fair and balanced standards. It is patently unfair to vilify the 19th Century South using one set of criteria while deifying Lincoln using another.

No, it is not acceptable to judge the Confederate States and its leaders by 21st Century standards. I've never said nor done so, and I don't expect to be accused of such nonsense again. If we're to intelligently discuss what and why they did what they did, it has to be done in context with their times.

On the other hand, what happened then isn't really the issue. That huge flag is the issue. ASAIC it's tantamount to saying, "We resent your being offended and we're going to rub it in your face."


As to the SCV's alleged racial overtones, perhaps you may be interested in a recently announced SCV Ceremony to honor Confederate Soldier Weary Clyburn of South Carolina. Mr. Clyburn, who was Black, served with distinction as a soldier in an integrated Confederate unit. This was undoubtedly an enlightened view as well. A news article discussing Mr. Clyburn's Confederate Service may be found at

What some individual SCV members and franchises do doesn't necessarily reflect the organization as a whole, much less the beliefs and intentions of the leaders. Also, I challenge the phrase "integrated Confederate unit" and calling Mr. Clyburn a "soldier". Let's talk about the way things were then: We know how the Confederate government felt about black soldiers. Unless the term "soldier" is cheapened to include personal servants who accompanied officers and wealthy enlisted men, or cooks and teamsters, who picked up a musket and shot back at the Yankees, then there were no black Confederate soldiers until the last, desperate days of the War.

tompritchett
06-04-2008, 03:13 PM
Maybe detractors should place an equally large Stars and Stripes on an adjacent lot?

The current one or one from the Civil War era?

tompritchett
06-04-2008, 03:16 PM
Unless the term "soldier" is cheapened to include personal servants who accompanied officers and wealthy enlisted men, or cooks and teamsters, who picked up a musket and shot back at the Yankees, then there were no black Confederate soldiers until the last, desperate days of the War.

Slaves yes, but Forest in 63 actively recruited freemen from West Tennessee.

BlacknBlue1864
06-04-2008, 05:58 PM
Slaves yes, but Forest in 63 actively recruited freemen from West Tennessee.Source please.

Georgia Frame
06-04-2008, 08:27 PM
This thread should probably be closed, I think most of what you can cover on the topic is covered...

My final thought is that I wish those in the SCV would pay more attention to R. E. Lee, instead of S. D. Lee.

Kevin Dally

RebelBugler
06-04-2008, 09:20 PM
Raw nerves are all over this issue, starting with those who support this in-your-face flag.

Also, I challenge the phrase "integrated Confederate unit" and calling Mr. Clyburn a "soldier". Let's talk about the way things were then: We know how the Confederate government felt about black soldiers. Unless the term "soldier" is cheapened to include personal servants who accompanied officers and wealthy enlisted men, or cooks and teamsters, who picked up a musket and shot back at the Yankees, then there were no black Confederate soldiers until the last, desperate days of the War.

You challenge the phrase "integrated Confederate unit"? Hopefully, I have not exposed another raw nerve. I realize that Lincoln and the Union government opposed the use of Blacks as soldiers, causing Frederick Douglass to remark
"Colored men were good enough to fight under Washington. They are not good enough to fight under McClellan. They were good enough to fight under Andrew Jackson. They are not good enough to fight under Gen. Halleck. They were good enough to help win American Independence but they are not good enough to help preserve that independence against treason and rebellion. They were good enough to defend New Orleans but not good enough to defend our poor beleaguered Capital"

Subsequently, the Union did allow Blacks to serve by establishing the segregated United States Colored Troops. It would be pointless to rehash the disparate treatment between the Union soldiers and the USCT.

You are certainly free to challenge whether Mr. Clyburn was a soldier or whether his unit was integrated, if you so desire. Perhaps you could share information with us that would contradict the statements of Mr. Clyburn's very own daughter. Rest assured that Confederates make no racial distinctions in the grave markers of their soldiers.

Pvt Schnapps
06-04-2008, 09:43 PM
"598. Colored soldiers receive the same pay, allowances, and bounties and are in all respects on the same footing as white troops. The administration of colored troops is, therefore, the same as that of white troops."

August V. Kautz, Customs of Service for Non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers, 1865.

RebelBugler
06-04-2008, 10:14 PM
"598. Colored soldiers receive the same pay, allowances, and bounties and are in all respects on the same footing as white troops. The administration of colored troops is, therefore, the same as that of white troops."

August V. Kautz, Customs of Service for Non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers, 1865.

According to the Militia Act of 1862, soldiers of African descent were to receive $10.00 a month, with a optional deduction for clothing at $3.00. In contrast, white privates received thirteen dollars per month plus a clothing allowance of $3.50.

This injustice continued until June 15, 1864, when Congress granted equal pay for all black soldiers.

It appears the Union Army may have delegated Blacks to the role of laborer, teamster or cook versus traditional soldiers. "I fear that many high officials outside of Washington have no other intention than that these men shall be used as diggers and drudges" commented General Daniel Ullman, commander of the Corps d'Afrique.

Frenchie
06-04-2008, 11:53 PM
Hopefully, I have not exposed another raw nerve.

But that's exactly what you're trying to do, and congratulations, you've succeeded. I can only take so much intentional subtextual poking with a sharp stick before I walk away. Good luck trying to convince anyone outside your little circle of the rightness of your cause, but I doubt your abrasive style will help you much when trying to win the public over to seeing things your way.

tompritchett
06-05-2008, 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tompritchett
Slaves yes, but Forest in 63 actively recruited freemen from West Tennessee.
Source please.

The Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest by John Allan Wyeth. At this time I have not found the specific page but I will continue to look for it.

jthlmnn
06-05-2008, 12:20 AM
Terry,

I don't see as you have responded to Frenchy's challenge. Instead of providing the evidence (the closest you came was a vague allusion to statements by Mr. Clyburn's daughter) you switched the topic to African American troops in the Union army. What you posted was, to my knowledge, true and accurate, but also irrelevant to the issue. In addition, it is well documented that a couple hundred thousand men of color served in the U.S. military during the CW, as soldiers and sailors. We can also document many regiments & batteries that served as combat troops. As you stated in your own posts, the pay inequity was eventually addressed and justice served. So your position is not, in any way, strengthened by this sidetrip.

So, to the original issue: What is the evidence that Mr. Clyburn was a full-fledged Confederate soldier, with equal pay and equal rights and responsibilities? I am honestly curious, so please, be specific. The argument as to whether this would have been common or an anomaly I will leave be for the moment.

Pvt Schnapps
06-05-2008, 07:38 AM
According to the Militia Act of 1862, soldiers of African descent were to receive $10.00 a month, with a optional deduction for clothing at $3.00. In contrast, white privates received thirteen dollars per month plus a clothing allowance of $3.50.

This injustice continued until June 15, 1864, when Congress granted equal pay for all black soldiers.

It appears the Union Army may have delegated Blacks to the role of laborer, teamster or cook versus traditional soldiers. "I fear that many high officials outside of Washington have no other intention than that these men shall be used as diggers and drudges" commented General Daniel Ullman, commander of the Corps d'Afrique.

I think Fred Shannon attributed that to a Comptroller General decision (probably related to earlier, unauthorized enlistments of blacks) that limited pay for black soldiers to that of an African undercook while, instead of providing a clothing allowance, authorized the deduction of an amount equal to an officer's allowance for servant's clothing.

A number of regiments, and their officers, refused to draw their pay until this was rectified. It later was, as you point out, and back pay was authorized.

While some northerners might have felt that black soldiers should be relegated to support roles, I don't believe that was ever policy. It is difficult to determine whether their use in garrison roles and guards on the lines of communication had to do with race or simply when they came into the field. They increasingly took on active combat roles and by the end of the war more than 200,000 were raised.

By contrast, despite the need for manpower and the urgings of Cleburne and Lee, the Confederacy did not authorize or raise black soldiers until 1865. From what I've read, it seems that as many as two companies of these were raised in Richmond and briefly saw action in the retreat to Appomattox. Free blacks and slaves did provide the Confederacy with valuable support throughout the war as laborers, teamsters, cooks, officers' servants, craftsmen, and the like. There are many anecdotal accounts of individual blacks taking up arms for the south.

You are right in pointing out racism in the north. You are right if you maintain that blacks provided a significant contribution to Confederate armies in the field. But any inference that the military experience of blacks in northern and southern armies was functionally equivalent, or even similar, is incorrect. Certainly by the end of the war, Kautz stated the simple truth.

RebelBugler
06-05-2008, 08:13 AM
Terry,

I don't see as you have responded to Frenchy's challenge. Instead of providing the evidence (the closest you came was a vague allusion to statements by Mr. Clyburn's daughter) you switched the topic to African American troops in the Union army. What you posted was, to my knowledge, true and accurate, but also irrelevant to the issue. In addition, it is well documented that a couple hundred thousand men of color served in the U.S. military during the CW, as soldiers and sailors. We can also document many regiments & batteries that served as combat troops. As you stated in your own posts, the pay inequity was eventually addressed and justice served. So your position is not, in any way, strengthened by this sidetrip.

So, to the original issue: What is the evidence that Mr. Clyburn was a full-fledged Confederate soldier, with equal pay and equal rights and responsibilities? I am honestly curious, so please, be specific. The argument as to whether this would have been common or an anomaly I will leave be for the moment.

In my original posting, I included a link to a news article
http://www.jamesmillerscv.org/index_files/Page480.htm (http://www.jamesmillerscv.org/index_files/Page480.htm)
from the ENQUIRER-JOURNAL in which Mr. Clyburn's daughter discusses her father's Confederate service. My comment was that Mr. Clyburn was a
Confederate soldier, serving in an integrated unit. Frenchy challenged this assertion, claiming that the Confederacy only used blacks as laborers and that they were not truly soldiers. I personally accept the commentary of Mr. Clyburn's daughter as to whether her father was or was not a Confederate soldier.

For the sake of fairness and fair play, I pointed out that the same assertions and arguments challenging Mr. Clyburn's status as a soldier were certainly applicable to Blacks serving in the Union Army as well and cited examples.

firstmdes
06-05-2008, 08:39 AM
The current one or one from the Civil War era?
Civil War era!

firstmdes
06-05-2008, 08:42 AM
Rest assured that Confederates make no racial distinctions in the grave markers of their soldiers.
And we thank them for this! I appreciate the fact, and said so in a different thread, that the SCV have assisted in placing a headstone for a USCT member as well. Great job!

Pvt Schnapps
06-05-2008, 09:00 AM
In my original posting, I included a link to a news article
http://www.jamesmillerscv.org/index_files/Page480.htm (http://www.jamesmillerscv.org/index_files/Page480.htm)
from the ENQUIRER-JOURNAL in which Mr. Clyburn's daughter discusses her father's Confederate service. My comment was that Mr. Clyburn was a
Confederate soldier, serving in an integrated unit. Frenchy challenged this assertion, claiming that the Confederacy only used blacks as laborers and that they were not truly soldiers. I personally accept the commentary of Mr. Clyburn's daughter as to whether her father was or was not a Confederate soldier.

For the sake of fairness and fair play, I pointed out that the same assertions and arguments challenging Mr. Clyburn's status as a soldier were certainly applicable to Blacks serving in the Union Army as well and cited examples.

That newspaper article doesn't document anything other than family tradition. It doesn't provide any information that would allow one to verify the story -- not the name of the unit, date of enlistment, time of service, where he served, what rank he held, etc.

Rank would be especially important, since we know blacks were officially enrolled in the U.S. army as "African under cook" well before taken in as combat soldiers.

I did a quick search of the "Soldiers and Sailors" system to try to identify this gentleman. I'm sure the Confederate records are incomplete, which might explain why I couldn't find any Weary Clyburn. I found a couple of 'W.' Clyburns, but it wasn't clear whether these were or weren't duplicates of the several "William" Clyburns. Anyway, this might provide a starting point for anyone who actually wanted to do the work necessary to document Mr. Clyburn's service, in whatever capacity it was.

More than anything this poorly researched account seems to show how the posthumous enlistment of blacks into the Confederate army serves a modern rather than historical purpose. I also refer to my last post and repeat that the experiences of blacks in the northern and southern armies were very different, and to describe them as comparable is at best inaccurate.

Blockade Runner
06-05-2008, 10:37 AM
But that's exactly what you're trying to do, and congratulations, you've succeeded. I can only take so much intentional subtextual poking with a sharp stick before I walk away. Good luck trying to convince anyone outside your little circle of the rightness of your cause, but I doubt your abrasive style will help you much when trying to win the public over to seeing things your way.

This is precisely what I mean by not altering anyone's convictions based on logic or evidence. Nearly everyone on this forum has concrete opinions. Those heartfelt beliefs will never change, they (beliefs) are intransigent.

firstmdes
06-05-2008, 11:07 AM
This is precisely what I mean by not altering anyone's convictions based on logic or evidence. Nearly everyone on this forum has concrete opinions. Those heartfelt beliefs will never change, they (beliefs) are intransigent.
Beliefs might be difficult to change, but I would not say they were intransigent. I have already stated that the posts by Ross Lamoreaux and Chris Rideout have made me change some of my preconceived notions about the SCV. I believe Frenchie is more annoyed at the style by which some SCV members have gone about "defending" the organization and their efforts. One does get more bees with honey, so one should avoid the personal attacks and sarcastic remarks when defending the SCV and maybe the pro-SCV posters will start winning over the anti-SCV members. At the very least, some preconceived notions will begin to crack.

The war ended 143 years ago. I think we can put down the slings and arrows and begin to have civil conversations about the war, its causes and its aftermath.

tompritchett
06-05-2008, 12:29 PM
Civil War era!

That was what I thought you might have meant. Now, the next question, since the number of states changed during the war, would you use the 1865 flag?

tompritchett
06-05-2008, 12:39 PM
Beliefs might be difficult to change, but I would not say they were intransigent. I have already stated that the posts by Ross Lamoreaux and Chris Rideout have made me change some of my preconceived notions about the SCV. I believe Frenchie is more annoyed at the style by which some SCV members have gone about "defending" the organization and their efforts. One does get more bees with honey, so one should avoid the personal attacks and sarcastic remarks when defending the SCV and maybe the pro-SCV posters will start winning over the anti-SCV members. At the very least, some preconceived notions will begin to crack.

Excellent post. I know that my beliefs on a lot of issues regarding the war have evolved over the years from discussions here that have sparked further research as well references posted by members in defence of their particular stances. I know that I was glad to hear about the educational efforts of local SCV chapters that were post by Russ and, if I remember correctly, Mr. Rideout. Similarly, the snide and sarcastic comments made by others directly towards me for some of my posts only reinforce some of my more negative beliefs about some aspects of the SCV. However, I am more than willing to concede that, like every organization, the SCV have good apples, who are truly in it for honoring those that died in defense of the Confederacy and her beliefs, and some not so good apples, who would rather turn the organization into more of a fringe group that could call less about what the mainstream feels about them and would rather push their own personal agendas over honoring the fallen.

tompritchett
06-05-2008, 12:42 PM
The Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest by John Allan Wyeth. At this time I have not found the specific page but I will continue to look for it.

I should also add that he was not targeting exclusively freemen. Rather, in instructions he gave to one of his recruiting officers sent into Western Tennessee and Westen Kentucky, he specifically listed freedmen as one of the pools from which to look for potential recruits.

firstmdes
06-05-2008, 12:46 PM
That was what I thought you might have meant. Now, the next question, since the number of states changed during the war, would you use the 1865 flag?
That is a tough one. I can see arguments for the different flags, but I would say the 1861 flag. That being said, we would have two flags to choose from:

33 stars - July 4, 1859 to July 3, 1861
34 stars - July 4, 1861 to July 3, 1863 (Kansas was added in January 29, 1861)
http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmah/flag.htm

I suppose since Kansas was in the Union prior to the beginning of hostilities, we should us the 34 star flag.

Any other opinions out there?

Frenchie
06-05-2008, 01:21 PM
A replica of the 33 star flag that flew over Ft. Sumter.

sbl
06-05-2008, 01:58 PM
"A replica of the 33 star flag that flew over Ft. Sumter."

A BIG one.

BlacknBlue1864
06-05-2008, 06:14 PM
The Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest by John Allan Wyeth. At this time I have not found the specific page but I will continue to look for it.

It is actually called "That Devil Forrest: Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest" by John A. Wyeth


I should also add that he was not targeting exclusively freemen. Rather, in instructions he gave to one of his recruiting officers sent into Western Tennessee and Westen Kentucky, he specifically listed freedmen as one of the pools from which to look for potential recruits. Undoubtedly a small pool at best. I wonder how many (if any) freemen they were actually able to enlist?

hanktrent
06-05-2008, 07:25 PM
There are two editions on google books, Life of Lieutenant-General Nathan Bedford Forrest from 1908, full view, and a 1989 edition with the title That Devil Forrest: Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, in partial view.


I should also add that he was not targeting exclusively freemen. Rather, in instructions he gave to one of his recruiting officers sent into Western Tennessee and Westen Kentucky, he specifically listed freedmen as one of the pools from which to look for potential recruits.

This is from the 1989 edition p. 254 (http://books.google.com/books?id=skGjjKeIZ1QC&pg=PA254&vq=negroes&dq=free+men+intitle:forrest+inauthor:John+inauthor :Allan+inauthor:Wyeth&lr=&as_brr=0&output=html&source=gbs_search_s&cad=5&sig=fOQXlC0D2UllLH4ngAhV3xmVNm4)


General J. G. Stevenson, another of these post commanders, on the 11th of December informed General Hurlbut at Memphis that Forrest was conscripting every man in West Tennessee capable of bearing arms, and taking all Negroes fit for soldiers.

Odd phrasing: "conscripting" men capable of bearing arms, but "taking" Negroes fit for soldiers. A couple paragraphs later:


The citizens of this section of the Union must have been impressed with the fact that a state of war really existed. The Federal authorities had already established recruiting bureaus, and had been doing all in their power to induce the male citizens, black and white, eligible to military service to enlist in the Union army; and now Forrest and his lieutenants were calling for volunteers, and conscripting all those who would not answer to the call.

While one could read the first paragraph to mean Forrest was conscripting both blacks and whites to be soldiers, the second paragraph opens it up to the interpretation that Forrest was conscripting [white] men, while simply "taking" Negroes to prevent them from enlisting in the Federal army but not necessarily conscripting them as soldiers himself.

Since it's a limited view on google books, is there anything elsewhere in the book to clarify what he was doing with the Negroes he "took"?

I searched the 1908 edition, but couldn't find anything to indicate he was recruiting Negroes as soldiers. Is there something there?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

peedeeguard
06-05-2008, 10:56 PM
As a Southerner and American I think that if a property owner wants to fly the battle flag he or she has that right. I am one of those who have chosen to use the 3rd National Flag for my front license plate. In the case of the battle flag flown over the S.C. State Capitol it was put there in protest of desegregation. That is a slap in the face to the Confederate soldiers and it should have been removed. That is my biggest pet peeve, the battle flag being used as a racist symbol. And boneheaded moves such as that top the list.

As for the three fellows passing out literature at a NASCAR race, it was a poor choice to wear the "Turner Diaries" shirt. He put a racist stain on what they were trying to accomplish. That is what anyone who wants to preserve our Southern Heritage should avoid at all cost. It is everyone's right to wear what they want, but if you are trying to educate the public on why the Confederate Battle Flag should be allowed at races, don't prove the opposition's side by your wardrobe choice. I have always lived in N.C. and have been to my share of races, and at the Southern 500 and the Rebel 500 and I have seen the Battle Flags being flown out of the windows of the winners on their victory lap. To me the Battle Flag has and will remain a symbol for NASCAR, which started in the South.

Last of all, I quit the SCV years ago when the dude with ties to racist groups ran for commander. He should have never been allowed to throw his hat into the ring. I still do Confederate Memorials, grave dedications, and living histories with some members of my old SCV group, but until the SCV comes right out and denounce racism ,I will honor my ancestors on my own. And I will keep going to schools to educate the kids on the war, not the politics, but the daily grind of the common soldier, Reb and Yank. Also I want to teach these Southern kids of today to have pride in their ancestors, accent, heritage, and the Southern Soldier.

And last of all, I think whatever Abe Lincoln was Savior of the Union or a warmonger, we would have fared better in the South after the Civil War if he was allowed to live.

Just wanted to throw my dog into this hunt.

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

tompritchett
06-06-2008, 01:45 AM
There are two editions on google books, Life of Lieutenant-General Nathan Bedford Forrest from 1908, full view, and a 1989 edition with the title That Devil Forrest: Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, in partial view.

It was also reprinted by Barnes & Nobles in 2006.

BlacknBlue1864
06-06-2008, 02:34 PM
Odd phrasing: "conscripting" men capable of bearing arms, but "taking" Negroes fit for soldiers. A couple paragraphs later:

While one could read the first paragraph to mean Forrest was conscripting both blacks and whites to be soldiers, the second paragraph opens it up to the interpretation that Forrest was conscripting [white] men, while simply "taking" Negroes to prevent them from enlisting in the Federal army but not necessarily conscripting them as soldiers himself.

Since it's a limited view on google books, is there anything elsewhere in the book to clarify what he was doing with the Negroes he "took"?

I searched the 1908 edition, but couldn't find anything to indicate he was recruiting Negroes as soldiers. Is there something there?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Thanks, Hank. Good quotes. Nice speculation. It sure beats the usual "I read it in this book, so it must be true" stuff.

firstmdes
06-06-2008, 02:43 PM
Thanks, Hank. Good quotes. Nice speculation. It sure beats the usual "I read it in this book, so it must be true" stuff.
Even better is the "I saw it on the Internet, so it must be true" stuff!!

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-14-2008, 06:11 AM
The poll on the region's largest newspaper puts it 78% for - 21% against.

Big county commission meeting this morning 9:00 EST.

A commissioner has vowed publicly to use all of her powers to get it taken down....even though it has all permits and approvals as issued by her staff.



The poll is now 88% for, only 11% against. No , multiple voting is not permitted. Yes, I know it's not a scientific sample.

MAndres
06-14-2008, 02:17 PM
"for what its worth, the flag we use as a camp color, a second national, was flown in flagrant violation of Multi-National Force orders for exactly 10 minutes in Iraq." -Bobby Hughes


Gotta love those 1st Cav guys! Good job, brother!



Matt Andres
Co. H, 104th Illinois
Operation Iraqi Freedom '06-'07

Ross L. Lamoreaux
06-14-2008, 06:15 PM
The poll is now 88% for, only 11% against. No , multiple voting is not permitted. Yes, I know it's not a scientific sample.
I am absolutely sure it has nothing to do with the dozens of emails sent out by individuals in the SCV to make sure to vote in the poll and to forward it to friends and family. I've received 24 emails so far since the poll opened.

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-14-2008, 06:23 PM
I am absolutely sure it has nothing to do with the dozens of emails sent out by individuals in the SCV to make sure to vote in the poll and to forward it to friends and family. I've received 24 emails so far since the poll opened.


I'm sure it was. The other side has the same opportunity.

Pvt Schnapps
06-16-2008, 02:45 PM
I am absolutely sure it has nothing to do with the dozens of emails sent out by individuals in the SCV to make sure to vote in the poll and to forward it to friends and family. I've received 24 emails so far since the poll opened.

The term in the DC area for manufactured "grass roots" support is "Astroturf." Congressmen recognize it, so do most other folks.

Malingerer
06-16-2008, 03:00 PM
The pole is now 88% for, only 11% against. No , multiple voting is not permitted. Yes, I know it's not a scientific sample.
Are you talking about the flag pole or an opinion poll? Spelling matters sometimes.

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-16-2008, 03:06 PM
Are you talking about the flag pole or an opinion poll? Spelling matters sometimes.


You got me . Good catch.

Sgt_Pepper
06-16-2008, 03:08 PM
Are you talking about the flag pole or an opinion poll? Spelling matters sometimes.

Quite right, Mr. Julius. I have corrected the spelling in previous posts.

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-22-2008, 09:02 AM
From Fox News

Controversial Confederate Flag Raising Ceremony
by FNC News Crews
By Orlando Salinas


I thought I’d only see Caucasians attending a controversial Confederate flag raising ceremony, early on Saturday morning in Tampa, Florida. That’s what I get for thinking.

But there they were- a smattering of African Americans, mixing it up with Caucasian bikers wearing Confederate flag jean jackets and caps. But what really caught my eye was seeing some of those same African American folks also sporting the controversial symbol on their bodies too.

Right smack dab at the politically powerful junction of Interstate 4 and I-75… hoisted 139 feet up in the in the air, was what most Americans call the flag of the Confederacy, but what is more correctly referred to by historians as “a soldiers flag.”

And that flag is huge, 50 feet by 30 feet, about the same size as the U.S. flag, flown over over mega-sized car lots across the country. Car dealers fly the stars and stripes partly out of patriotism, and partly for publicity. And the sons of Confederate veterans, Florida division, is no different.

Marion Lambert, who owns the sliver-size piece of property where the flag has been displayed, calls himself a proud member of the sons of Confederate veterans, who says his local organization would never defend the painful issue of slavery. And, as I watched Caucasian and some African Americans, hoist that heavy flag 139 feet in the air, there was a collective but “Out of tune” rendition of “I wish I was in Dixie,” and yep, African Americans folks were singing it too, and off key as well.

The local chapter of the NAACP has condemned this event. Calling it racist, and an abomination to millions of Americans, both African American and Caucasian . I was told it would not talk anymore to the media about this issue, saying it would only bring more publicity to the sons of confederate veterans. I pushed a little more, and was told the national NAACP, had given orders to the local chapter, to no longer talk to the press, saying it would only hurt Senator Barack Obama, the presumed Democrat presidential nominee, “Who needs the votes of those kinds of people in Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Ohio.” I asked “What do you mean those kinds of people?” His response- ‘’You know what i mean.’’

Throughout the morning, motorcycles rumbled in and out of the parking lot, making it hard to hear, and these folks wanted to be heard. Marion Lambert told me he wants people to notice the flag, wants people to ask, “Why is that huge flag being flown here in Tampa.”

Lamberts answer was simple enough: “I want people to talk to us, let us tell ‘em we’re not for slavery, we’re not for racism, we don’t hate minorities. We just want to show pride and reverence to our ancestors. We don’t agree with the slavery part, it was wrong, but we can’t ignore this flag. It represents our southern heritage, the good that we want to remember, and the bad part we should never forget.”

So there it was, white and black folks, some sitting on cinder blocks, smoking pipes. One elderly African American man wearing a suit and a Confederate tie, back-slapping and joking with a younger Caucasian man wearing so many Confederate symbols, he looked like the poster child for the event. The local NAACP has called these Confederate flag-supporting blacks “out of touch,” saying they don’t represent black America.

I asked the older black man in the Confederate tie, what he thought about the NAACP’s comment, he said “I’m about as black as it gets, I’m the grandson of slaves, I’m a U.S. war veteran, and I’m just as proud of this (Confederate) flag, because it represents my heritage too. And the NAACP doesn’t represent all of black America either.”

Sure wasn’t what I expected to hear.

Georgia Frame
06-22-2008, 10:34 AM
I'm still thinking there are far better ways of preserving/honoring the past WBTS.

I can't help but think that many acres of Battlefield land could have been preserved through the Civil War Preservation Trust, with the money spent on the land and Flag. What will the cost be to maintain & replace the Flag in the future?

To each his own, the land was bought, flag purchased, they have the right... but, does anyone care enough to ask "Should we do this?"

Money for this project could have been better invested.

Kevin Dally

tompritchett
06-22-2008, 11:41 AM
I asked “What do you mean those kinds of people?” His response- ‘’You know what i mean.’’ emphasis mine

An interesting turn of words coming from the NAACP. Dare I say - reverse racism?

Frenchie
06-22-2008, 12:20 PM
I'm not sure about that, Tom. Instead of "white people", I think the man may well have meant, "white people who could easily decide not to vote for Sen. Obama because of the NAACP making a big stink about this flag". Or something like that. Maybe. One thing I do know, I have two nieces and a nephew who are partly black, and if they are offended by huge, in-your-face reminders of the shameful past that are set up by people who have a grudge, then I have to listen and take their feelings into account.

tompritchett
06-22-2008, 12:54 PM
One thing I do know, I have two nieces and a nephew who are partly black, and if they are offended by huge, in-your-face reminders of the shameful past that are set up by people who have a grudge, then I have to listen and take their feelings into account.

I can understand why they are upset and remember I am the one who continuously brings up the black stain that was placed on the flag in the 20th Century because of it symbolic use in the fight against the Civil Rights reforms. However, I found it most interesting that the NAACP chose to use the exact same language to describe white Southerners proud of their heritage that white Southerners used to describe blacks in the 60's (20th Century not 19th). As far as reverse racism, I have seen enough of it up here when black leaders such as Al Sharpton are trying to rile up the urban black communities in order to cement their standing in those communities. Unfortunately, I have seen some of the Northern chapters of the NAACP feed into those hate messages rather than focus on some of the more fundamental problems that have ravaged the urban black youth (e.g. an almost total breakdown in the urban public education system, teenage unwed mothers, rampant drug use and the crime it generates, etc.)

Frenchie
06-22-2008, 01:00 PM
Oh, no argument here, Tom, I dig everything you said. I live in Baltimore, where the problems are in a concentrated solution, as it were (and the NAACP HQ is here, too). And truth be told, my three young relatives are too busy with graduating and parties to spend much time thinking about these matters. On the other hand, My Lovely Bride attends a church with some really wonderful black people who have no use at all for the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson and people like them. Things are not bad everywhere.

reb64
06-23-2008, 06:40 PM
Someone kept calling it the "stars and bars" in the interview. I hope we all know it is not the flag also called "the stars and bars". This is the battle flag in question. If it were the stars and bars many would just ignorantly think it Rev war or something.

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-23-2008, 08:09 PM
Someone kept calling it the stars and bars in the interview. I hope we all know it is not the flag also called "the stars and bars'. this is the battle flag in question. If it were the stars and bars many would just ignorantly think it rev war or something.


I saw that too on Fox News. All the amateurs make that mistake. It totally wipes out any credibility they might have.

Ross L. Lamoreaux
06-23-2008, 08:24 PM
I saw that too on Fox News. All the amateurs make that mistake . It totally wipes out any creditability they might have.
It does indeed bother me too that they can't get the names of the flags straight, whether it be print or broadcast media, but to the other 99.5% of the population of the United States, I'm sure they could care less what a flag is called, its what they perceive it to stand for that is infinitely more important. I'm sure Fox News is quivering that they have no more credibility with you, along with all the other media outlets that don't know the difference between what the flags are. As a historian, I do, but the media aren't historians, they are more sociologists. Whether its called the "stars and bars" , the Confederate battle flag, or "the flag on the top of the Dukes of Hazzard car", it is still a powerful symbol with two different meanings to two differing groups of people. Credibility with the news? I place more emphasis how they choose to depict a news story rather than a trivial piece of semantics. I'm not too sure I'm happy with any of the media's coverage of this event literally in my back yard, as it makes my community look like a bunch of ignorant hicks, which I know is not the case. Despite my disagreement with the type of flag chosen to be flown, I know that the people involved in the project are pretty good folks, albeit a little militant.

5 th Alabama Infantry
06-23-2008, 08:46 PM
It does indeed bother me too that they can't get the names of the flags straight, whether it be print or broadcast media, but to the other 99.5% of the population of the United States, I'm sure they could care less what a flag is called, its what they perceive it to stand for that is infinitely more important. I'm sure Fox News is quivering that they have no more credibility with you, along with all the other media outlets that don't know the difference between what the flags are. As a historian, I do, but the media aren't historians, they are more sociologists. Whether its called the "stars and bars" , the Confederate battle flag, or "the flag on the top of the Dukes of Hazzard car", it is still a powerful symbol with two different meanings to two differing groups of people. Credibility with the news? I place more emphasis how they choose to depict a news story rather than a trivial piece of semantics. I'm not too sure I'm happy with any of the media's coverage of this event literally in my back yard, as it makes my community look like a bunch of ignorant hicks, which I know is not the case. Despite my disagreement with the type of flag chosen to be flown, I know that the people involved in the project are pretty good folks, albeit a little militant.


Actually, Fox News did a pretty good "fair and balanced" job with the story.

Texasbutternut
07-09-2008, 10:27 PM
On July 4th, to celebrate the Independence Day for the First American Revolution, the Florida SCV flew the world's largest Betsy Ross flag. Here's a link to the story (http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=6914980&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1)

And here's a link to a Fox News story about the CBF (http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=1711589&referralPlaylistId=search|confederate)

For info about Black Confederates, try H.K. Edgerton's informative site (http://www.southernheritage411.com/index.shtml). H.K. is a former President of the Asheville, NC NAACP; he wears a Confederate uniform and carries a CBF wherever he goes to honor his ancestors who fought for the Confederacy.



Hank Van Slyke
3rd Texas Lt. Artillery
Illegitimi non carborundum


"And what is good, Phaedrus,
And what is not good --
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"

40AcreMule
07-11-2008, 08:40 PM
On July 4th, to celebrate the Independence Day for the First American Revolution, the Florida SCV flew the world's largest Betsy Ross flag. If it was the DAR flying the world's largest Betsy Ross flag it would mean only one thing: heritage.

But when the SCV flys the Betsy Ross flag it means something else: politics.

When they were still headquartered in Arlington, VA, George Lincoln Rockwell's American Nazi Party used to fly the Betsy Ross flag from their building. The Communist Party USA also used to, on occasion, fly the Betsy Ross flag from their bookstore in Adams Morgan in DC.

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why such subversive organizations would want to fly the Betsy Ross flag (klan groups also frequently carry it too). The Betsy Ross flag represents revolution. To the commies and the nazis and the klan it represents a desired revolution in the established order of things, that their way is indeed closer to what the founding fathers intended.

I think the SCV message is similar. Many SCV chapters are becoming less about heritage and more about far right-wing, states rights politics. They are calling for a neo-secessionist revolution and a complete restoration of the Lost Cause mythology at the expense of objective historical facts. The whole "blacks fought for the CSA by the thousands" myth that the SCV is currently promoting among their members is a vain attempt to try an attain acceptance in the eyes of a racial minority that has, for the most part, strongly objected to the Lost Cause myth and the flag that represents it.

Rented_Mule
07-12-2008, 10:41 AM
Look for a bill in the first session post-inauguration to officially, once and forever, amen determine the Confederate flag a symbol of hate. What intellectually honest politicians are going to stand up against it in today's new paradigm? Me thinks not many.

Your individual rights end where it becomes offensive to society or a major societal demographic being specifically targeted.

Grasp the concept its called "responsible freedom".

Please keep your responses on the topic of that defeated flag and flying it 140 some odd years later.

Swag
07-12-2008, 02:24 PM
Just a thought on what Rented Mule had to say. If they do indeed decided to vote and pass a bill that forever abolishes the flying of the confederate battle flag, do you all think that this will also have an overall effect on the Civil War historical interpretative community; more importantly the confederate portrayals? Would they then not be able to fly said flag while doing interpretations?

reb64
07-12-2008, 03:21 PM
I think the SCV message is similar. Many SCV chapters are becoming less about heritage and more about far right-wing, states rights politics. They are calling for a neo-secessionist revolution and a complete restoration of the Lost Cause mythology at the expense of objective historical facts. The whole "blacks fought for the CSA by the thousands" myth that the SCV is currently promoting among their members is a vain attempt to try an attain acceptance in the eyes of a racial minority that has, for the most part, strongly objected to the Lost Cause myth and the flag that represents it.


Perhaps were getting tired of compromising and bending over. if we cant display our symbols in public then were going private, sic semper tyranus and dont tread on me!

5 th Alabama Infantry
07-12-2008, 03:24 PM
Just a thought on what Rented Mule had to say. If they do indeed decided to vote and pass a bill that forever abolishes the flying of the confederate battle flag, do you all think that this will also have an overall effect on the Civil War historical interpretative community; more importantly the confederate portrayals? Would they then not be able to fly said flag while doing interpretations?


The federals will just come on to the field alone and shoot into the sky.

reb64
07-12-2008, 03:24 PM
Look for a bill in the first session post-inauguration to officially, once and forever, amen determine the kkkonfederate flag a symbol of hate. What intellectually honest politicians are going to stand up against it in today's new paradigm? Me thinks not many.

Your individual rights end where it becomes offensive to society or a major societal demographic being specifically targeted.

Grasp the concept its called "responsible freedom".

Please keep your responses on the topic of that defeated flag and flying it 140 some odd years later.


The dem donkey symbol represents racism to me, since it was the symbol of the dixie crats and robert byrd, ex-lan recruiter and third in line to become president, will you ban it forever?

firstmdes
07-12-2008, 03:27 PM
Just a thought on what Rented Mule had to say. If they do indeed decided to vote and pass a bill that forever abolishes the flying of the confederate battle flag, do you all think that this will also have an overall effect on the Civil War historical interpretative community; more importantly the confederate portrayals? Would they then not be able to fly said flag while doing interpretations?
I don't think the flag should be outlawed! Seems a bit ridiculous to me. If we outlaw it, does it also come out of history books and removed from all other aspects of life? I would argue that any politician trying to do this would be sure to fail in the effort and his/her political career. It will not happen anytime soon...

Pvt Schnapps
07-12-2008, 03:30 PM
Look for a bill in the first session post-inauguration to officially, once and forever, amen determine the kkkonfederate flag a symbol of hate. What intellectually honest politicians are going to stand up against it in today's new paradigm? Me thinks not many.

Your individual rights end where it becomes offensive to society or a major societal demographic being specifically targeted.

Grasp the concept its called "responsible freedom".

Please keep your responses on the topic of that defeated flag and flying it 140 some odd years later.


Do you have any evidence that any national politician any where really wants to waste energy or political capital on alienating the block of voters that respect that flag and have it pasted all over their bumpers?

Al Sharpton doesn't count.

sbl
07-12-2008, 03:57 PM
"Look for a bill in the first session post-inauguration...."

I'm going out on a limb here but in the cast of a post Obama inauguration the Congress and administration will be WAYYYYYY too busy to seriously consider this. Let's not go all knee-jerky here.

Swag
07-12-2008, 05:00 PM
Good replies, that is pretty much what I was thinking as well. Really, what politician is going to waste their time and money to pass a bill to ban a "symbol" not to mention a historical symbol, that is part of our nations history, whether we like it or not we have to accept it. I think our major problem is that the masses are not aware of its true meaning, and what it actually stood for, rather they automatically assume it is and was a message of hate. Then again could we blame them, due to the fact that the media and certain organizations portray it as such.

sbl
07-12-2008, 05:44 PM
Nobody asked, but I don't have a problem with the variations of Confederate flags being used in the context of Historical events and museums. Face it..it is a "cool" flag.

We really do know the difference between CW/WBTS settings and either the in-your-face displays or just a "Rebel" with a Battle Flag bumper sticker.

Rented_Mule
07-12-2008, 06:35 PM
The congressional black caucus has drafted a bill (which I have read) to enter in the appropriate legislative session. There are provisions for banned items to be used in a historical context and setting but they will require further clarification and work IMHO. It is as an intimidation item and in an offensive, non-historical fashion that such uses will be prohibited and rightly so.

There is no need for wasting time by politicians, it is a simple vote. The no-brainer of the century.

I am certain there are not too many who will stand up and vote against such a thing. Aren't you ? With all thre branches of government and ultimately SCOTUS, we have the next 8 years to work for complete racial reform in this Country.

We will raise our heads together, united and be proud to be an Americans again.

sbl
07-12-2008, 06:56 PM
"We will raise our heads together, united and be proud to be an Americans again."

Dean,
I don't know yet if you are trying to provoke folks here or you mean it yet, but I've always been proud of being an American. I just don't like the folks in the administration that have been giving the "brand" a bad name.

firstmdes
07-12-2008, 08:38 PM
There is no need for wasting time by politicians, it is a simple vote. The no-brainer of the century.
I don't think it will be as easy as you think!

RebelBugler
07-12-2008, 09:37 PM
Look for a bill in the first session post-inauguration to officially, once and forever, amen determine the kkkonfederate flag a symbol of hate. What intellectually honest politicians are going to stand up against it in today's new paradigm? Me thinks not many.

Your individual rights end where it becomes offensive to society or a major societal demographic being specifically targeted.

Grasp the concept its called "responsible freedom".

Please keep your responses on the topic of that defeated flag and flying it 140 some odd years later.

Responsible freedom? Sounds more like tyranny.
Fortunately, there is still a 1st amendment right, protected under the Constitution.

Who determines that a major societal demographic is being specifically targeted? So where do you expect to find all these intellectually honest politicians....in Congress? Do you suppose Alcee Hastings of Florida might be a suitably intellectually honest politician to propose this? I don't think so!

Texasbutternut
07-12-2008, 11:48 PM
The whole "blacks fought for the CSA by the thousands" myth that the SCV is currently promoting among their members is a vain attempt to try an attain acceptance in the eyes of a racial minority that has, for the most part, strongly objected to the Lost Cause myth and the flag that represents it.

Not a myth, but actual fact. The crime is the effort to erase this part of history. Check H.K. Edgerton's site (http://www.southernheritage411.com/index.shtml) and here (http://www.flatfenders.com/scv/bc.htm).

Happy weekend!

Hank Van Slyke
3rd Texas Lt. Artillery
illegitimi non carborundum

Ross L. Lamoreaux
07-13-2008, 12:07 AM
Mr. Van Slyke, I mean no disrespect to you, but please don't fall prey to the SCV's revisionist historical interpretation - they are just as guilty as the north when it comes to changing/bolstering/boosting facts in their favor. I am a fan of H.K as well as having the utmost respect for other African-American Confederate proponant Mr. Nelson Winbush. They have all the right in the world to be proud of their ancestors , and in Nelson's case, documented Confederate ancestor, and I think it takes alot more cojones than I have ever had to take a very politically charged, non PC stand on their view of the battleflag, and black Confederates in general. The problem is, the historical record and reality. Almost every serious academic or historian agrees that there were at most a few hundred blacks (the highest estimate at around 800) who ever served in the service of the Confederate military - about 350 black sailors and about 450 black combatants, and of the army combantants, the vast majority started as servants, cooks, or laborers, and found themselves armed in certain circumstances, but few started out armed. I've read a variety of good, persuasive books on black Confederates, but none of them could prove any more than the above mentioned numbers. Again, I state that I am very much a fan of Mr Edgerton and Mr Winbush, but they aren't historians. They are however, much more informed and proactive than the average man when it comes to the War Between the States.

RebelBugler
07-13-2008, 08:32 AM
Interesting that there will be an upcoming grave marking ceremony honoring a Black Confederate, Weary Clyburn, in the next week. One of Mr. Clyburn's daughters, along with other family members, will be attending. It seems Mr. Clyburn considered himself a Confederate soldier!

PRESS RELEASE: 7/9/08


Forgotten Soldier To Be Honored

How do you measure loyalty and friendship? Mr. Weary Clyburn is an example of both and more. Weary Clyburn was a childhood friend of Frank Clyburn, growing up on the Clyburn plantation, hunting and fishing together. Weary was a slave belonging to Frank’s father. That scene was not uncommon in the South as the “Gone with the Wind” plantations were far and few between, compared to the smaller working farms where smaller numbers of slaves worked along side the farmers that owned them. In many cases, the sense of community between the two was closer then the communities of modern times. When Frank joined the Confederate Army, he was sent to Columbia, SC for training. A short time later, Weary shows up in Columbia telling Captain Clyburn that he wishes to join him. He joined his friend out of a sense of loyalty and friendship. Through the years of the war, Weary served along side Frank in Co. E, 12th South Carolina Infantry. Weary was reported to have carried the wounded Frank Clyburn off the battlefield, on two different occasions saving his life. According to Ms. Mattie Clyburn Rice, a living daughter of Weary Clyburn, he also served General Robert E. Lee towards the end of the war. Like many men during the war Weary, a slave, chose to be part of the Confederate Army. Weary lived out the later parts of his life and raising a family in Union County, North Carolina and is buried in an un-marked grave in Monroe.

On Friday, July 18th, at two separate ceremonies, Weary Clyburn will be honored for his faithful friendship, heroism under fire, and devotion to the principals in which he believed.
At 11:50 AM, the press will be allowed into the general business meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans convention where Ms. Mattie Rice and her family will be there to see her father honored. Then at 3:30 a new headstone will be dedicated at the Hillcrest Cemetery. The Monroe event is being sponsored by the North Carolina Sons of Confederate Veterans in cooperation with the City Of Monroe. Mayor Kilgore is proclaiming that day “Weary Clyburn Day” in Monroe. The ceremony will feature Earl Ijames, NC State Archivist, and Nelson Winnbush.

Please visit our website for directions. www.jamesmillerscv.org (http://www.jamesmillerscv.org/)
Schedule:
11:50 AM Cabarrus Arena 4751 Hwy 49 Concord NC
3:30 PM Hillcrest Cemetery, Stafford St. Monroe NC

Contact: Michael Chapman 704 385-8211 cell 704 219-2484

A press conference will be held immediately after the 3:30 ceremony at the cemetery

40AcreMule
07-13-2008, 11:52 AM
Not a myth, but actual fact. The crime is the effort to erase this part of history. Check H.K. Edgerton's site (http://www.southernheritage411.com/index.shtml) and here (http://www.flatfenders.com/scv/bc.htm).

Happy weekend!

Hank Van Slyke
3rd Texas Lt. Artillery
illegitimi non carborundum I'm not disputing that some blacks did fight in CS ranks. SOME. It is the recent attempts to try and portray them as having done so by the tens of thousands that is a myth.

Also, there are attempts to spread the lie that the CS ranks were "fully integrated." Hogwash. Sure, some (SOME) blacks served side by side with "Massa" in the ranks and carried a musket and fought. But were they considered equals by white CS soldiers? Hardly. They were looked upon as little more than regimental mascots by white soldiers. They were the proverbial obedient dogs called "Uncle Toms" later generations. They were to blacks during the Civil War what "Kapos" were to Jews during the Holocaust: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kapos.html

http://members.aol.com/neoconfeds/trclark.htm

Swag
07-13-2008, 01:03 PM
In response to rebel buglers post, I think its a wonderful idea that you are commentating Clyburn.

RebelBugler
07-13-2008, 01:34 PM
I'm not disputing that some blacks did fight in CS ranks. SOME. It is the recent attempts to try and portray them as having done so by the tens of thousands that is a myth.

Also, there are attempts to spread the lie that the CS ranks were "fully integrated." Hogwash. Sure, some (SOME) blacks served side by side with "Massa" in the ranks and carried a musket and fought. But were they considered equals by white CS soldiers? Hardly. They were looked upon as little more than regimental mascots by white soldiers. They were the proverbial obedient dogs called "Uncle Toms" later generations.

I haven't seen anyone claiming that there were tens of thousands of blacks fighting for the Confederate States. Nor have I seen anyone claiming that the CS ranks were fully integrated. For that matter, I didn't realize the Union forces were integrated, fully or partially

Were they considered equals by white CS soldiers? What would be your basis of comparison....the equality shown to Blacks serving in the US Colored troops by their white Union soldiers? "They were often denied essentials such as uniforms and shoes, and were given pay unequal to that of white soldiers. A refusal in June 1864, by Private Sylvester Ray of the 2nd U.S. Colored Calvary, finally pushed Congress to grant equal pay for USCT, and the action was deservedly made retroactive."

I wouldn't know anything about them being viewed as regimental mascots by white soldiers and certainly wouldn't refer to them as "the proverbial obedient dogs called Uncle Toms by later generations" as you have alluded.

Frenchie
07-13-2008, 04:22 PM
We will raise our heads together, united and be proud to be an Americans again.


Dean,
I don't know yet if you are trying to provoke folks here or you mean it yet, but I've always been proud of being an American. I just don't like the folks in the administration that have been giving the "brand" a bad name.

Oh, he means it. People on the fringe don't realize that there really can be honest differences of opinion. I think that as far as he is - as far as he can be - aware, anyone who disagrees with him knows he's right but is being intentionally wrong, bad, evil and lying. That we do not see things as he does can have no other explanation, because he can't imagine any other explanation.

By the way, am I the only one who noticed he started right off calling us all haters and racists? That was all of us, not just the Confederate apologists.

40AcreMule
07-13-2008, 05:47 PM
I haven't seen anyone claiming that there were tens of thousands of blacks fighting for the Confederate States. Then you need expand your horizons more. Read some of the articles and letters-to-the editor that have been published in North and South Magazine over the past two years about the "black confederate" issue. In case you are not familiar with it, North and South is the most scholarly CW periodical being published today. (Seems that few on these forums bother to read it.) But one thing I've noticed is that academic credentials and legitimate historical sources mean nothing to most of the whites who go out of their way to continue to bang the drum about how wonderfully loyal tens of thousands of slaves and free blacks were to the Confederacy.


Nor have I seen anyone claiming that the CS ranks were fully integrated. This forum does not exist in a vacuum. In the big world outside, "massive black confederates" propaganda is being cut from whole cloth and pushed as gospel.


Were they considered equals by white CS soldiers? What would be your basis of comparison....the equality shown to Blacks serving in the US Colored troops by their white Union soldiers? "They were often denied essentials such as uniforms and shoes, and were given pay unequal to that of white soldiers. A refusal in June 1864, by Private Sylvester Ray of the 2nd U.S. Colored Calvary, finally pushed Congress to grant equal pay for USCT, and the action was deservedly made retroactive." I never said that blacks were always treated as equals in the Union forces. The point I have been trying to make is that certain people are pushing a false notion that blacks served in CS ranks by the thousands.

A personal story: At two events last year I had members of the SCV come up to me acting like they were my best friends because I'm a person of color. Almost immediately they started in about how blacks served in the CS ranks as soldiers by the thousands... the thousands. One even told a bogus story about how CS officers in Georgia had raised an entire brigade of blacks, led them in some obscure battle I'd never heard of, and then disbanded the entire group after the fight, vowing among themselves to never reveal that they had broken CS laws and armed blacks. How convenient. No historical record. That story was total apocryphal BS.

The other guy kept telling me that white Union officers who recruited former slaves for the army would nonchalantly pull out a pistol and shoot any black who didn't join up. There were indeed a couple of incidents like this that occurred, but he made it sound like it occurred at the wholesale level and that thousands of blacks were gunned down by white Union recruiters. This idiotic story goes hand-in-hand with the whole "blacks served in CS ranks by the thousands."

Bottom line:

A handful of blacks served in CS ranks. That fact is an odd footnote of history. Thousands of blacks were used as slave labor or hired to dig trenches, drive wagons and serve as cooks in the CS army. HOWEVER, they were not soldiers, no matter how many wishful-thinking white, southern, amateur historians who explore the CS pensions records think so.

http://www.bitsofnews.com/images/graphics/cartoons/5-12-08.png

tompritchett
07-13-2008, 11:20 PM
It is interesting that while indeed USCT were at the vanguard of the Federal troops capturing Richmond, they were held back so the white Federal troops would be the first to actually enter the city.

Frenchie
07-13-2008, 11:27 PM
And the specially-trained colored troops were pulled out of the lines at Petersburg only hours before the mine was blown because either Burnside or Meade or both felt that if the attack failed, they'd be accused of deliberately sending them in to be slaughtered.

hendrickms24
07-14-2008, 08:02 AM
Bottom line:

A handful of blacks served in CS ranks. That fact is an odd footnote of history. Thousands of blacks were used as slave labor or hired to dig trenches, drive wagons and serve as cooks in the CS army. HOWEVER, they were not soldiers, no matter how many wishful-thinking white, southern, amateur historians who explore the CS pensions records think so.

http://www.bitsofnews.com/images/graphics/cartoons/5-12-08.png


Mr. Ford,
I couldn't have said it any better. When I was talking to my wife about this subject (she is not big into history.) She said something that I had never thought about before. Would Southern soldiers been okay with the fact that Blacks in the army were being paid the same amount as they were? NO and I think she is right! I personally have never read anything about white northern soldiers being upset that Blacks were not paid equal wages. The reason behind this is “White” people north and south back in the 1800’s did not look at Blacks as being equals plain and simple.

5 th Alabama Infantry
07-15-2008, 06:15 AM
They're still after us.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_re_us/naacp_convention_5

sbl
07-15-2008, 06:30 AM
"They're still after us."

As opposed to when "us" were after "them?"

Is it really that important in the 21st century to antagonize your fellow Americans?

5 th Alabama Infantry
07-15-2008, 07:02 AM
"They're still after us."

As opposed to when "us" were after "them?"

Is it really that important in the 21st century to antagonize your fellow Americans?

I agree . I'm very tired of being antagonzed.

sbl
07-15-2008, 08:42 AM
Sure is tough on white folks.

I really hate it when bullies claim to be the victims. Let's get real here. I already wrote I felt that period displays of the various designs of the Confederate should be allowed. Work for that to educate Americans instead of blaming an organization that has reacted for years of murder and death threats.

5 th Alabama Infantry
07-15-2008, 08:52 AM
Sure is tough on white folks.

I really hate it when bullies claim to be the victims. Let's get real here. I already wrote I felt that period displays of the various designs of the Confederate should be allowed. Work for that to educate Americans instead of blaming an organization that has reacted for years of murder and death threats.


We agree again:

SCV

28,000 to 30,000 members

Assets, maybe 2 million dollars


NAACP

Several hundred thousand members

Assets Multiple millions


Who's the Bully ?

sbl
07-15-2008, 10:18 AM
It's more a matter of the how many white to black Americans as to who got lynched back then when the NAACP was formed. As to assets of the two organizations, more Americans support justice with their cash as opposed to tin foil kepi-ism. Simple as that.

tompritchett
07-15-2008, 12:46 PM
Let's get real here. I already wrote I felt that period displays of the various designs of the Confederate should be allowed.

If I remember correctly, the current location of the flag is at not "near" the memorial for Confederate soldiers that died during the war. While I am not a fan for the general flying of the battle flag because of its more recent history of use in the 20th Century, I see nothing wrong with it being displayed at a memorial honoring those for whom the flag was a banner to be defended.

sbl
07-15-2008, 01:51 PM
"..I see nothing wrong with it being displayed at a memorial honoring those for whom the flag was a banner to be defended..."


Yes That's where education comes in rather than confrontation. There are several Confederate graves on in my area that folks have decorated with the Battle flag or the Stars and Bars. That's appropriate and I'd stick up for it.

reb64
07-15-2008, 07:26 PM
It's more a matter of the how many white to black Americans as to who got lynched back then when the NAACP was formed. As to assets of the two organizations, more Americans support justice with their cash as opposed to tin foil kepi-ism. Simple as that.


Lynching is a heinous crime devoid of color preference. People of all shades were lynched for suspected actions.

hendrickms24
07-15-2008, 08:08 PM
Lynching is a heinous crime devoid of color preference. people of all shades were lynched for suspected actions.


Mr. Hayhurst,
You are right about people of all shades being lynched for suspected actions but most of the lynching tend to be "white" on "Black" or "White" on "not so White."


In 1891, the largest mass lynching in United States history took place in New Orleans. After a court of law had found 11 Italian immigrants not guilty of the murder of a police commissioner, angry locals took the law into their own hands and lynched 11 innocent people. During this time, immigrants were often stereotyped as violent, gang members or anarchist supporters.

The reason for this type of hatred was due to the fact that Italians would sharecrop, and work along side of blacks as well as treat black as equals.. So other "Whites" did not like this and considered Italians just "White Ni**ers."
So if the NAACP wants to fight against issues that are in their face or discriminatory against them so be it. If you feel hurt by their actions or discriminated against by them multiply it by ten and maybe you can feel like blacks of the early 1900's and earlier.

sbl
07-15-2008, 08:33 PM
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchstats.html

Lynchings: By State and Race, 1882-1968 *

State White Black Total

" " " "

Total 1,297 3,446 4,743

*Statistics provided by the Archives at Tuskegee Institute.

Yes, they probably deserved it....

There's enough data here to say it's something Black Americans are sensitive about. Lynching shows a failure of justice in that the poor and helpless could be messed with instead of getting a fair trial.