Confederate flag

[jamil]

Slavery was a means to an end for the Union, what better way to Polarize a population to support a war than to fabricate or exploit a reason and drive the people to war, (Think Bush and WMD's)

Having lived in Mississippi for several years with famous civil war battle locations close by, this is a topic that deeply interests me. But in the literature I've read from period authors on both sides, the facts do not support this. Can you please cite some reputable references? I would much prefer quotes with context from original period authors, and not modern works from conspiracy theorists.

Before the Civil War when refering to America it was The United States are America meaning that the whole of the country is derived and defined from the seperate states forming a mutually beneficial union. Basically at that time it was understood that the power of the union and Federal Government was Granted and allowed by the individuals states. Basically States > Federal Government. Federal Power was at the will and consent of the governed in the individual sovereign states.

Post Civil War it became the United States Of America. Basically it was a radical change from our founders intentions. It was a sucessful Coup. The Federal Government had effectively removed all power from the sovereign states and defined itself has it saw fit. Government > States. The states are now just part "OF" America. The power of the government is no longer strong at the will of the people.

I don't recall seeing that phrase in pre-civil war literature. Can you cite enough references for a reasonable person to conclude that this was as common as you say? On that one I don't even care if they're reputable, as long as they are from the period.

The Men and women who honorably and gloriously died in the service of the Confederacy did so to continue on the legacy of our founding fathers. They believed in a central federal government that would unify the states but still answered to the will of the people, and while there could be a small central government the states still remained sovereign. Supreme Executive power derives from a mandate from the masses.

I don't doubt that a great many people died in the service of the Confederacy believing they were fighting for liberty. The Southern Aristocracy believed they needed slavery to maintain their status. Poor Southerners didn't have such needs, but still needed a reason to fight. The states' rights mantra served that purpose. It's funny that the same southern congressmen who whined about states' rights had no problems imposing their views on other states.

I don't disagree that an unfortunate result of the civil war was a more centralized government than was originally conceived by our founders. Even though the South brought up some valid points about states' rights, the Civil War was indeed more about slavery more than it was anything else. States rights was just a red herring.

 

[firehawk1]

Slavery was a means to an end for the Union, what better way to Polarize a population to support a war than to fabricate or exploit a reason and drive the people to war, (Think Bush and WMD's)

Oh PALEEZE........ Now EVERYTHING is Bush's and LINCOLN'S fault. Will there EVER be a time when we stop scapegoating George W. Bush? Where in the world were you brainwashed into believing this kind of crap? This is nothing more than an attempt to apply a modern day OPINION as FACT to an event that occurred 150+ years ago.

Sometimes the modern day Paul Revere wannabe types need to get a grip on reality, and trying to apply current events/policies/opinions to an event that happened 150+ years ago isn't it....

 

[DragonGunner]

Easy to tell here on INGO who still loves the Confederacy....an still don't or refuse to acept the facts.....I have never liked the Confederacy flag, just down the road from me was a graveyard with Yankee soilders. I'm from Indiana, the North. Perhaps if I was a Southern Reb I would hold to the Confederate flag an what it stood for to the South. But I wasn't brought up that way.The people I have seen with that flag are usually bonehead rebels that haven't grown up yet. Fly it if you want though....

 

[spec4]

Not to mention the conflict on new states being admitted, whether they would be slave states or not. This thread can go on forever I fear. IMO, displaying the rebel flag is a kind of "in your face" thing. Similar to Mexicans draping the Mexican flag on their cars and riding around on Cinco de Mayo which I understand isn't even a holiday in Mexico.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I see nothing wrong with it. Some people say it represents racism. I do not see it that way. It's freedom of speech rather if you like it or not.

 

[mrjarrell]

A lot of great people died and sacrificed for that flag,and it represents our people and land.

The same can be said of the Confederate flag. Some people have a pride of place and it means something to them.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Of all the issues I care deeply about and wrestle with on a daily basis...this has never been one of them.

People get too caught up in symbols. I left the American Legion over it, they were spending a metric buttload of money promoting an amendment to ban flag burning while veterans were getting sub-par medical care, job placement assistance, and active duty personnel were living in asbestos filled barracks. The people are more important than the flag, and the resources should have been used accordingly. No one fights and dies for the flag, that's horse ****, you fight and die for your friends and family, the PEOPLE in your life.

 

[foszoe]

I hail from WV, a state formed because of the war. I remember one black person in my entire high school and he left in two years. I have heard both sides of the flag issue for a long time.

I was not raised in an environment where non whites were disparaged but when we drove through certain poorer sections of town, I was told to lock my doors.

I saw the flag flown by both types, those with positive ties to southern history and those who flew it with racist undertones. The issueI saw was the first group out of politeness would listen to racial speeches civilly and not speak out against it thus creating an environment of tolerance towards racism. This type of talk would be witnessed by some who by talking through the grapevine would convey a message to minorities that members of both groups, historical ties and actual bigots, held racial biases so that minority groups would perceive the racial problem to be much bigger.

I have never flown a confederate flag out of respect for minority groups but I fall into the group that appreciates it from a historical point of view and it did and has stood for TWO things. State rights AND slavery, then and now.

However, in this election cycle where it doesn't matter why you oppose the president's reelection bid you are racist for some reason, I have at times thought I might as well put the flag out in the front yard and be called a racist for a somewhat legitimate reason even though in my own heart and mind I would simply be recognizing one of the most important periods of our country's history.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Baloney. I believe is state's rights, but the primary state's right that was at issue in the Civil War was slavery. If not, why not exercise your state's right to free the truly oppressed, not just those who feel politically oppressed? The Confederacy had some good points, but supporting the systematic dehumanizing of men and women overrides them all. The Confederacy came down on the wrong side of that issue and that stains everything. And should.

How would most African-Americans react to the Confederate flag? That matters to me. Why would I ever want to paint myself with the same colors as those who saw slavery as destiny and African-Americans as sub-human?

The historical re-writers want it to desperately not be about slavery. Its about state's rights! The rights to completely and totally violate an individual's rights to the point he is property.

Then reconcile that view with the posts about state's rights to eminent domain, asset seizure, etc. WELLLL, they way I see it if the state wants to let a man own another man, that thar's all right, but if the state wants to take that man's property gained in criminal activity, that's way beyond their authority.

I'll have it both ways, please.

 

[hornadylnl]

Of all the issues I care deeply about and wrestle with on a daily basis...this has never been one of them.

People get too caught up in symbols. I left the American Legion over it, they were spending a metric buttload of money promoting an amendment to ban flag burning while veterans were getting sub-par medical care, job placement assistance, and active duty personnel were living in asbestos filled barracks. The people are more important than the flag, and the resources should have been used accordingly. No one fights and dies for the flag, that's horse ****, you fight and die for your friends and family, the PEOPLE in your life.

In another thread, they're talking about having funerals for the flag. Flag worship seems no different to me than worshipping false idols an old book talks about. Patriotism isn't captured in a piece of cloth.

I was a member of the American Legion for 1 year. I'd be surprised if they didn't spend my years dues in mailings to me alone, let alone the subsequent years and years of mailings I've received since then.

 

[foszoe]

The historical re-writers want it to desperately not be about slavery. Its about state's rights! The rights to completely and totally violate an individual's rights to the point he is property.

Then reconcile that view with the posts about state's rights to eminent domain, asset seizure, etc. WELLLL, they way I see it if the state wants to let a man own another man, that thar's all right, but if the state wants to take that man's property gained in criminal activity, that's way beyond their authority.

I'll have it both ways, please.

I don't think state's have rights, they have powers granted to them by their citizenship.

 

[poptab]

Because it was the Virginia state motto, and he wanted to identify himself with Virginia and the Southern cause. And he shouted it after killing (shooting) Lincoln.


"Hell let loose on earth cannot be subdued by the beating of angels' wings." And it was closer to 750,000, mostly by disease. Many founding fathers and later political leaders feared the inevitable Balkanization that would result from the breakup of the Union. Disjointed, petty states fighting over perceived slights and minor differences. They saw it happen far to often in too many places to believe it couldn't happen here. So it was OK for Jackson to enforce Union at the point of a sword, but not Lincoln?

As for the first part, Lincoln was a tyrant. He suspended habeus corpus, jailed over 3000 dissenters, deported an elected congressman and committed many other abuses of power.

I read 600 to 650 thousand but whats another 100 thousand. What does it matter if they died from disease or injury? The disease was still a direct result of war.

Fear is no reason to go to war with your own people. No one knows what would have happened if Lincoln had not decided to go to war with the south. We do know what happened in other countries. Slavery was abolished without war. Though, it was not until half way through the war that Lincoln freed the southern slaves.

What makes you think I would approve of Jackson's actions against South Carolina if that is what you are referring to? I dont even approve of Washington's use of troops during the whiskey rebellion. Presidents do not get a free pass just because they are president. Even our founding father's were far from perfect.

I am not some sort of southern sympathizer. I grew up in Indiana. I can, however, read the constitution and know the limits of the federal government. Though, I do not understand why people defend Lincoln as if he is some sort of saint. None of our presidents were saints. That is exactly why there is a constitution limiting the powers of president.

 

[Effingham]

Before the Civil War when refering to America it was The United States are America meaning that the whole of the country is derived and defined from the seperate states forming a mutually beneficial union. Basically at that time it was understood that the power of the union and Federal Government was Granted and allowed by the individuals states. Basically States > Federal Government. Federal Power was at the will and consent of the governed in the individual sovereign states.

Post Civil War it became the United States Of America.

I know the point you're trying to make, but you're not doing it well. Even BEFORE the Civil War, it was "United States *OF* America." (Look at the Constitution.)

The point you are trying to make is that "Before the CW, it was 'the United States *are* XYZ'. After the CW, it was 'the United States *is* XYZ'."

 

[Steelman]

Don't talk to me about me about historical accuracy, buddy. I read my government issue textbook, with government issue opinions and received a government issue "A" for my efforts.

 

[Lucas156]

You've been so conditioned by tv and liberal media that you are unable to view things from an unbiased perspective. The American flag is just as tainted as the confederate flag when it comes to slavery. If you believe otherwise you still haven't freed your mind and seen how history books have been changed by the winners. Don't believe everything you read.

 

[Solitaire]

Not to mention the conflict on new states being admitted, whether they would be slave states or not. This thread can go on forever I fear. IMO, displaying the rebel flag is a kind of "in your face" thing. Similar to Mexicans draping the Mexican flag on their cars and riding around on Cinco de Mayo which I understand isn't even a holiday in Mexico.

It's funny that you compare the flag of an actual nation to the defeated banner of a group of traitors who tried to tear this nation apart so that they could continue to own other human beings. But at least the Mexicans have an excuse.....Cinco De Mayo IS an actual holiday that is celebrated in Mexico. What are these pretend rebels celebrating? Lee's surrender?

The revisionists on this board trying to say that the Civil War was not about slavery remind me of the holocaust denying president of Iran. The fact that any one of these yahoos would fly a rebel flag in INDIANA speaks volumes about their mentality.

 

[Steelman]

It's funny that you compare the flag of an actual nation to the defeated banner of a group of traitors who tried to tear this nation apart so that they could continue to own other human beings. But at least the Mexicans have an excuse.....Cinco De Mayo IS an actual holiday that is celebrated in Mexico. What are these pretend rebels celebrating? Lee's surrender?

The revisionists on this board trying to say that the Civil War was not about slavery remind me of the holocaust denying president of Iran. The fact that any one of these yahoos would fly a rebel flag in INDIANA speaks volumes about their mentality.

It's true because the History Channel said so.

TV (teacher...mother...secret lover)

 

[Lucas156]

I don't think state's have rights, they have powers granted to them by their citizenship.

They have powers granted to them by the federal government now.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If you're not southern, then you probably shouldn't be flying the flag. It's unsettling to see a guy from Michigan with the Stars and Bars, when knowing full well, in the south he'll always be a Yankee.

 

[Steelman]

If you're not southern, then you probably shouldn't be flying the flag. It's unsettling to see a guy from Michigan with the Stars and Bars, when knowing full well, in the south he'll always be a Yankee.

I'm a direct descendant of Robert E. Lee, but reside in Indiana. I wonder if you could review my case and issue a permission slip for me to own a piece of my heritage.

Oh please sir, it would mean sooo much to me.