NationStates Jolt Archive

I never mentioned the IRS either. My exact statement was:


Right. You mentioned internal revenue. Hence the comment about the IRS. You're the one that equated tax with internal revenue.


A tariff is not a tax, nor (even if you think of it as similar to a tax), does the comparison with taxes imposed by the British hold up, because federal tariffs were actually lowered prior to the Civil War (see below). Tariffs were an issue with the North (which felt they were too low), not the South (which was quite happy with the rate).


Fine. Regardless of the TERM used, the North was charging the South more, leading up to the war.


Far be it from me to correct the Gettysburg National Military Park; however the source you cite (created for young children by the way)


You're implying that it's irrelevant.


is too simplistic and confuses issues from different decades. Also, you have confused the issue of Southern banks paying higher interest rates to Northern banks with the issue of tariffs. The web site includes the two issues together in one paragraph, but they are distinctly different.


Again, it's still all economically related.


You remain way out of your depth. But, hey, don't take it personally. This is my area and I'm guessing that it isn't yours.

Okay, so someone insults me by telling me I'm out of my depth (as opposed to just posting proof the other way, like any decent debater would--which you still haven't done, you've just spouted off info without support), and I'm not supposed to take it personally? Gee....

I guess I'll leave it to those that are deeper swimmers. :rolleyes:

Zaxon, you are amazing. I'm sorry your hurt feelings are clouding your judgment (and reading ability). Haven't cited facts? Did you just skip over the little lesson on tariff history prior to the Civil War? Tariffs were LOWERED prior to the Civil War.

LOWERED.

Not raised.

The NORTH had a problem that the South wasn't paying enough, however the issue of tariffs (or "taxes," which didn't exist) WAS NOT an issue why the South attempted to leave the Union.

Zaxon, you are amazing. I'm sorry your hurt feelings are clouding your judgment (and reading ability).


And the insults keep coming. Nice.


Haven't cited facts? Did you just skip over the little lesson on tariff history prior to the Civil War?


Yes, CITED--IE, post a link backing up what you're saying, instead of hinting at insults....just because you wrote it, doesn't necessarily mean I'm just going to believe you--some stranger on the Internet. I want a bit more than just your word.


Tariffs were LOWERED prior to the Civil War.

LOWERED.

Not raised.

The NORTH had a problem that the South wasn't paying enough, however the issue of tariffs (or "taxes," which didn't exist) WAS NOT an issue why the South attempted to leave the Union.

I'm saying it was economic--I'm sorry I used words that were unacceptable to you. Maybe you should offer to help some historic sites "fix" their posted history.

I'm saying it was economic--I'm sorry I used words that were unacceptable to you. Maybe you should offer to help some historic sites "fix" their posted history.

Ah, so you've gone from saying that the North was taxing the South just like Britain did to the American colonies prior to the American Revolution to now saying there were economic causes of the Civil War. Well, if you are going to get that general - there were economic causes - then we are in agreement. There were also social and political reasons as well if you are going to speak only in broad generalities.

However, that is not what you originally said. You made a direct comparison between the the causes of the American Revolution and the Civil War as sharing the same cause of unfair taxation. Now you whine about being insulted.

You made a mistake. We all do. Man up and admit it.

*Just for you:

Major Tariff and Trade Legislation
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html

Ah, so you've gone from saying that the North was taxing the South just like Britain did to the American colonies prior to the American Revolution to now saying there were economic causes of the Civil War. Well, if you are going to get that general - there were economic causes - then we are in agreement. There were also social and political reasons as well if you are going to speak only in broad generalities.

However, that is not what you originally said. You made a direct comparison between the the causes of the American Revolution and the Civil War as sharing the same cause of unfair taxation. Now you whine about being insulted.

You made a mistake. We all do. Man up and admit it.

*Just for you:

Major Tariff and Trade Legislation
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html


1) You launched the attack with the negative comment first--before citing anything, or attempting to persuade me to your point of view.

2) I supply a valid link, and you disparage it because it was on a site geared toward educating younger folk.

3) You continue to insult throughout your posts (IE "whine about being insulted").

4) You jump on the technicalities because I didn't use words you found acceptable. Taxes and tariffs were synonymous on the link I provided. Yes, it was an oversimplification, but your erudite, snobbish stance on the topic just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Now, it seems you have more energy to continue this than I, so I'll leave my input at this: I'm glad we agree that it was economic factors that cause the war.

...your erudite, snobbish stance on the topic just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I'm glad we agree that it was economic factors that cause the war.

No, we agree economics contributed to disagreements between northern and southern states (just as economics continue to be a source of disagreements between various sections of the country). However, the issue of the tariffs was not a factor in causing the Civl War and, since there were no taxes, neither was that a factor.

The main cause of the war was slavery, pure and simple.

I have never been one of those who find ignorance a virtue, nor learning a vice. Thank you for the compliment of calling me erudite.

that it was not.

it was over states rights

that it was not.

it was over states rights

Wrong.

States' rights was the issue slave owners used in defense of slavery. Had the southern states not had slavery as an institution there would have been no Civil War. State's rights was the philosophical peg upon which the southern states hung the cloak of slavery.

The whole Issue of the Civil war was NOT about Slavery. and I'm sorry if I may seem unsensitive to you screwball PC types. if anything the Slavery angle was an afterthought. something to help get good PR, cause insurrection in the south, etc.

Not according to Southern leadership:

“Our new government is founded upon… the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth….”

Alexander H. Stephens, “Vice President” of the “Confederate States of America”

Not according to Southern leadership:

“Our new government is founded upon… the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth….”

Alexander H. Stephens, “Vice President” of the “Confederate States of America”

:eek: WOW! Facts! You fight dirty, Ogiek. :eek:

I have never been one of those who find ignorance a virtue, nor learning a vice. Thank you for the compliment of calling me erudite.

I'm pretty sure you figured out that it wasn't a compliment.

Smarter-than-thou and I'm-better-than-you attitudes won't help stop ignorance, nor will it facilitate learning.

If you truly want to enhance the knowledge of others (and get them to believe you in the first place), patting them on the head, and saying, "stupid doggie" first, won't get the job done. But, I'm not so sure you want to do that. It seems you like sitting in your smug world, and belittling those that dare to enter. And smite those that don't believe you the first time--like they should because you KNOW.

I hope you're not a teacher in any aspect professionally.

If you truly want to enhance the knowledge of others (and get them to believe you in the first place), patting them on the head, and saying, "stupid doggie" first, won't get the job done. But, I'm not so sure you want to do that. It seems you like sitting in your smug world, and belittling those that dare to enter. And smite those that don't believe you the first time--like they should because you KNOW.

Zaxon, you brought a silly comment to the discussion and are now elevating your wounded ego to martyrdom status. You made a statement comparing British taxation of the colonies with causes of the Civil War that showed a basic lack of understanding of American history. I commented that you were "out of your depth."

Hardly the insult of the century.

Nor was I flaming. I provided you with a cogent discussion of tariff history, facts about the history of American taxation, and a web site showing all major tariff legislation passed by the Congress. If you have an argument to make then make it. You were not nailed to a cross in the course of this rather mild discussion and should therefore stop playing the victim.

Had I been talking about the Confederacy, you might have a point, but no, I'm talking about the African-Americans who have been lynched in the last hundred years by white supremacists who were waving that flag with pride as though they were representatives of the old Confederacy. Try pulling your own head out of your ass, why don't you.

More whites have been lynched then blacks.

You guys sure don't live in the south!!!!!!!!!! Here, every redneck and person wearing that flag, hates BLACK and Jewish people. You guys need to visit the south more often... these people are a disgrace to Americans..... and the world!!!!

You really shouldn't flame! I live in the south and are proud, but I do not hate African Americans or people of the Jewish faith.

More whites have been lynched then blacks.

I don't know what your parameters are, but your statement is not true when looking at the southern states during the height of lynching between the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. I did a graduate research paper on lynching in the south several years ago (well, more than several) and between 1882 (when reliable statistics were first collected) and 1968 (when the classic forms of lynching had disappeared), 4,743 persons died of lynching, 3,446 of them black men and women.

You know, I've seen a few of these confederate-flag bumper stickers that proclaim "Heritage . . . not hate."

However, unless you're saluting Bo and Luke Duke, isn't it more accurately: "Heritage . . . of hate"?

Oh, yeah. Good on ya, Ogiek. Those were some pretty erudite posts and I do hope you're a teacher in some professional capacity.

One note though, I think the slavery/economics break between you and Zaxon is kind of interesting. On the one hand, slavery was an economic issue, seeing as how the economy of the south hinged entirely on free labor. On the other hand, slavery presents a moral issue all its own. I think a big part of the civil war was that, to the south, the economics of slavery was the key issue, while to the north, the human rights aspect of slavery was more significant.

That said, I think it is dishonest to say that the war was driven solely by economics because this reduces slavery solely to an economic issue. It's a nice way to revise the facts and turn attention away from the heritage celebrated by the confederate flag, but it just tain't honest.

I am a native southerner (now transplanted) whose ancestors fought for the South during the Civil War (one from 1st Bull Run until the Surrender to Grant), the Civil War was also a field of study for me way back in college and I am a lifetime student of it.

First of all... if there had not been slavery, there would not have been a Civil War in all likelihood. That said, it was one but not the only one of the causes of the war. Many people either don't know or don't remember that the New England states discussed secession during the War of 1812, and only the victories in upper New York State and Lake Erie in 1813 and 1814 shifted the mood enough to prevent that from occuring.

Most historians agree that prior to the Civil War, the republic was the United STATES of America, and after the war was the UNITED States of America. You were more than a Vermonter or Virginian after the war, but an American while before the war your state was more important. Another important point is that the exact definition of a US Citizen was not established until the 14th Amendment was passed (post civil war), before that there was no such exact concept.

Lee and the other Southern Officers did however swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. They resigned from the Army and went to their home states. Technically they violated that oath, especially the West Pointers. In practice though, most people at the time did not fault their decision for that reason, as going with your state was the norm, and those that stayed with the Federal Army when their state didn't were the exception (by the way, a noted General who lost at Vicksburg, Pemberton, was from Pennsylvania and 'went south' because his wife as a southerner)

My own feeling on the a matter of displaying the Rebel Flag is this. Why is it being displayed? For historical purposes or to add flavor to a theme park (Six Flags comes to mind), or because of family tradition?

Or to foster hatred and show rebellion against Federal rules (common during the civil rights era)

A couple hundred thousand southerners died serving that flag, and for those of us of that ancestry, it means something to us.

In my view, the only people who should have a reasonable gripe against the Rebel Flag would be Americans who had ancestors who were slaves from one of the states that seceded from the Union (and 4 slave states did not, plus slavery was legal even in some of the 'Free' states), and perhaps an occasional Yankee whose ancestors died in in that war and even then I wouldn't be inclined to listen to the Yankee (and most of the Yankee veterans didn't complain in the postwar period)

The South can in no way be compared to Nazi Germany. The points of difference are so vast as to require a thread or paper in themselves. Suffice to say though, the Rebs weren't Nazis, just wrong. Most Southerners at the time by the way called the war a "Rich Man's War, and a Poor mans fight"

Most of those who fought in the South fought to defend their rights (as they saw it), under the concept of State and Individual rights being supreme to Federalism. To a lesser extent and indirectly were they fighting to defend slavery. That doesn't mean they weren't wrong, but does mean they weren't evil.

You sir, share my exact sentiments on the subject. The Confederate flag represents something different for everyone. For some, perhaps it is a way to promote racism and racial superiority. But for most, it's a way to remember our history, our ancestors.

I'm not going to lie. I fly the Confederate flag outside my house, and I always will. I'm a Florida cracker with a tremendous amount of pride for my home. For me, flying that flag is a way of remembering the brave confederate soldiers that died defending their land. As stated here numerous times, not all Southern confederate soldiers were slave holders, or believed in the concept of slavery. Many, such as the respectable General Lee, were disgusted with it. But they had a great deal of pride for their homes, a sort of nationalism. That warrants respect.

At any rate, a flag is flag, a symbol is a symbol. I don't think a symbol calls for the attention the confederate flag has drawn over the years.

You sir, share my exact sentiments on the subject. The Confederate flag represents something different for everyone. For some, perhaps it is a way to promote racism and racial superiority. But for most, it's a way to remember our history, our ancestors.

I'm not going to lie. I fly the Confederate flag outside my house, and I always will. I'm a Florida cracker with a tremendous amount of pride for my home. For me, flying that flag is a way of remembering the brave confederate soldiers that died defending their land. As stated here numerous times, not all Southern confederate soldiers were slave holders, or believed in the concept of slavery. Many, such as the respectable General Lee, were disgusted with it. But they had a great deal of pride for their homes, a sort of nationalism. That warrants respect.

At any rate, a flag is flag, a symbol is a symbol. I don't think a symbol calls for the attention the confederate flag has drawn over the years.

Hmmm. Okay. I understand this position and don't automatically assume someone who flies the battle flag of secession is a racist. I personally have a difficult time looking at that flag, just as I do the Nazi flag or a KKK hood, but...

That said...

The attempt of the southern states to leave the United States was, by definition, traitorous. In fact there has been no more treasonous or traitorous act committed in our nation's history. Not only was it an unAmerican act on the grandest scale, but both slavery and succession were disastrous for the southern states. It is only today, nearly 150 years after the war that the south has begun to recover from the economic and social damage they inflicted upon themselves by their foolish actions.

Secession was nothing to be proud of, nor is that flag, which was only resurrected in the 1950s and 1960s to show opposition to civil rights for Blacks, something in which any southerner should take pride.

You're being too easy on him. He lead armies which fought for the right of slavery. He could have just as easily said "NO THANK YOU", and not had the blood of a thousands on his hands.
Stop lying. They were fighting for southern independence.

That is EXACTLY what makes Lee a traitor.

He swore an oath... to the Union, not to Virginia.

An oathbreaker. To be hated and condemned for all time.
Can you site that oath?

Can you site that oath?

Lee went to West Point didn't he? I don't know how far back it goes, but the Oath of Enlistment is:

I, Robert E. Lee, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Lee went to West Point didn't he? I don't know how far back it goes, but the Oath of Enlistment is:

I, Robert E. Lee, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

I am not sure of the exact wording of the oath at that time, but I can guarantee the reference to the Uniform Code of Military Justice wasn't in it (as that is a post World War 2 code)... more likely would have been called the Articles of War.

One of the problems we have in this thread is that we are looking at it from our viewpoint as 21st Century Americans (or foreign observers)...

at that time, there was considerable disagreement even in the North as to what exactly the Constitution was... an agreement between the various states that was subject to renegotiation or cancelation (after all, it could be amended from the time it was ratified), or a binding permanent union of the states in which Federalism was the supreme authority. Therefore, if you believed the former, you were following your state in withdrawing from that agreement. If you believed the latter, then in your mind your fellow officers and Americans were committing treason.

If nothing else, the Civil War did answer that question

Hmmm. Okay. I understand this position and don't automatically assume someone who flies the battle flag of secession is a racist. I personally have a difficult time looking at that flag, just as I do the Nazi flag or a KKK hood, but...

I personally have a problem with people flying gay pride flags. But you know what? Homosexuals have every right to. As one American citizen to another, I can respect their right to display their gay pride, despite my blatant disapproval of their lifestyle. You should look past your revoltions and accept that everyone is entitled to freedom of speech and expression, even those groups that we may disagree with.

The attempt of the southern states to leave the United States was, by definition, traitorous. In fact there has been no more treasonous or traitorous act committed in our nation's history. Not only was it an unAmerican act on the grandest scale, but both slavery and succession were disastrous for the southern states. It is only today, nearly 150 years after the war that the south has begun to recover from the economic and social damage they inflicted upon themselves by their foolish actions.

By definition, the American's colonies secession from Great Britain could be seen as an act of great treasury. Does that mean we should bar the American flag from public businesses and government buildings? Sure, both situations happened under dramatically different circumstances. The colonies formed their own country because they were being unfairly burderned with taxes on everyday items and abused by the British military (Boston Massacre, Naval Blockades). The South formed their own country because they wanted to retain slavery (though it was indeed economically important). But let's not overlook the facts here. Treachury is treachury, no matter what the intentions were behind the actions. That's why it has no place in this argument. The American flag can be construed as every bit as treacherous as the Confederate.

Secession was nothing to be proud of, nor is that flag, which was only resurrected in the 1950s and 1960s to show opposition to civil rights for Blacks, something in which any southerner should take pride.

This isn't the 50s and 60s. If you take a look around the south, you'll find many of us sport confederate hats, flags, clothing, and bumper stickers as a way of remembering the men who so bravely fought to protect our land. Racism, though still in existence, is not as widespread as it once was. Just because the Confederate flag meant something different in the 1800s or the 1950s and 60s doesn't mean it still stands for the same principles today. At any rate, the flag is what you, personally, see it as. Everyone has a different meaning attached to that flag, therefor it should not be banned.

Can you site that oath?

Also, there is a military Oath of Allegiance. Military history is not my specialty, so I am not certain what it was in the decades before the Civil War, but the current one is:

I, Robert E. Lee, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Not according to Southern leadership:

“Our new government is founded upon… the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth….”

Alexander H. Stephens, “Vice President” of the “Confederate States of America”

before we get too one sided on the arguement on how bad the Southern Leadership was, let us not forget in the 1970s and 1980s the frequent violent protests in Boston over bussing Black kids into Irish neighborhood schools?

Or the 1863 Draft Riots in New York City (briefly but not badly dramatized in Gangs of New York) where the rioters burned down a Black orphanage, killed a child found there (the rest got out thank god).

Just because the Confederate flag meant something different in the 1800s or the 1950s and 60s doesn't mean it still stands for the same principles today. At any rate, the flag is what you, personally, see it as. Everyone has a different meaning attached to that flag, therefor it should not be banned.

Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of banning it. That would be unconstitutional and only ignite passion for this symbol. I just think it is poor manners to fly it.

I know we live in an era when people think symbols have whatever meaning they wish to attach to them, but history counts for something and you cannot ignore that this is the symbol that the KKK, neo-Nazis, and segregationists have chosen to rally behind. Ignore history and pretend things mean whatever you want, but you wouldn't buy that argument from a German flying the Nazi flag who claimed it only represented his country's opposition to communism.

The battle flag of the attempted secession has a history and all the souvenir pop culture commercialization of that symbol cannot erase it.

before we get too one sided on the arguement on how bad the Southern Leadership was, let us not forget in the 1970s and 1980s the frequent violent protests in Boston over bussing Black kids into Irish neighborhood schools?

Or the 1863 Draft Riots in New York City (briefly but not badly dramatized in Gangs of New York) where the rioters burned down a Black orphanage, killed a child found there (the rest got out thank god).

Whoa there, Nelly (I mean New Cynthia). I was not commenting on how good or bad the leaders of the southern states were, nor implying that there was not violent racism in the North (having spent half my life in each region I personally believe there is more racism in the north than in the south today). I posted the quote to demonstrate that Southerners were well aware that the Civil War was about slavery.

That is all I was saying.

I don't think that the black people in the south cared what article said what. The point is, they were slaves, and the south was looking for excuses. Why is everyone trying to complicate (dehumanize) the matter?
You're lying. The north was oppressing the south. The south wanted out. How can you possibly believe they were making up excuses to fight for slavery when the north never claimed any intention of ending it until long after the war began?

Alright, I can buy act and motive are different parts of a whole. However it is still clear that the south's actions and motivations could not even be known, because half the population could not even vote. If everyone had the right to vote, and they voted to cede...
OMG! Do you read your responses? How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't be bothered to correct your misuse of the english language? Welcome to my ignore list.

I personally have a problem with people flying gay pride flags. But you know what? Homosexuals have every right to. As one American citizen to another, I can respect their right to display their gay pride, despite my blatant disapproval of their lifestyle. You should look past your revoltions and accept that everyone is entitled to freedom of speech and expression, even those groups that we may disagree with.


Bingo.

I have a Confederate Flag hanging in my room, alot of my other friends have the Flag on thier trucks and other places. We know it isn't about slavery or racism, just our Southern Pride.

Bingo.

I have a Confederate Flag hanging in my room, alot of my other friends have the Flag on thier trucks and other places. We know it isn't about slavery or racism, just our Southern Pride.

Just what is it in which you are demonstrating pride?

Southern Pride?.... Proud to live in the South?...

Southern Pride?.... Proud to live in the South?...

Yes? Surely you can put together a few words describing just what it is about that flag and what it represents that makes you proud. Of course, being a proud southerner you know the history of that flag and how it has been used and by whom it has been used.

So what is it that makes you so proud when you see it on the back of a pickup?

The Confederate Flag represents the South's History, and I'm proud of it.




That good enough?

<EDIT>Just saw you added more to your question : It makes me proud when I see that other people feel the same, and that they are proud of the History.</EDIT>

The Confederate Flag represents the South's History, and I'm proud of it.

That good enough?


Well, not very specific. I guess you are proud of the KKK, the 4000+ people lynched at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, the segregationists who stood in the doorways of schools, the people who bombed the 16th St. Baptist Church and killed four little girls, the men who beat and killed 14 year old Emitt Till, the folks who murdered Medgar Evans, the killers of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, and countless other atrocities and outrages committed by people who proudly flew that flag as their symbol of white supremacy.

That is part of the South's history that flag stands for and many of the people who look at that flag on the back of your truck associate that history with it and you.

The KKK also marched with the American Flag.


And I don't use it as a "white supremacy" icon.


People associate the Confederate Flag with racism because idiots in white bed sheets started waving it around, raving that they're better than any other race.

The KKK also marched with the American Flag.

And I don't use it as a "white supremacy" icon.

People associate the Confederate Flag with racism because idiots in white bed sheets started waving it around, raving that they're better than any other race.

So, in your world, where symbols can mean pretty much whatever we want them to mean, a person flying a Nazi flag, who claims it is only a symbol of German pride and anti-communism, really shouldn't be burdened with all the other baggage other people associate with the swastika? And someone who puts a Soviet hammer and sickle on their truck can claim they are just proud of their Russian ancestors and are ignoring 62 million people killed under that flag?

Symbols have meaning. You cannot divorce the battle flag of the succession from its history.

The KKK marched with the American Flag, so they used it as white surpremacy symbol. Do you own an American Flag? The Battle Flag is associated with racism when the KKK use it when they spout off with thier white supremacy BS, so I guess the American Flag is racist too?

No they Should Not be removed.

The KKK also marched with the American Flag.


And I don't use it as a "white supremacy" icon.


People associate the Confederate Flag with racism because idiots in white bed sheets started waving it around, raving that they're better than any other race.


Exactly, the Confederate Battle Flag got a bad rap from them idiots. This "rebel" flag most think of is not the only Confederate Flag. There's quite a few more. Most people wouldn't even recognize a Bonnie Blue.

The Southern Cross, AKA "Battle Flag"... Was developed off heraldic symbolism.

The saltire, the X, St. Andrews Cross, in Blue symbolized the Truth of Reformation, Unity and Strength (as derived from Scottish Heraldry), and white border symbolizing Purity in Truth. On a red field symbolizing the blood-stained battlefield of their ancestors.

The KKK marched with the American Flag, so they used it as white surpremacy symbol. Do you own an American Flag? The Battle Flag is associated with racism when the KKK use it when they spout off with thier white supremacy BS, so I guess the American Flag is racist too?
no, because people don't associate it as such
i think a good way to say why the flag should be removed is because while it is a symbol of pride and history to some, it offends a lot of people as well, and there are a dozen other ways to display one's pride which are not offensive

Exactly, the Confederate Battle Flag got a bad rap from them idiots. This "rebel" flag most think of is not the only Confederate Flag. There's quite a few more. Most people wouldn't even recognize a Bonnie Blue.

Heck, the new Georgia flag is based off the "stars and bars" confederate flag, and most people don't notice it.

And anyone who thinks flying a Southern Cross battle-flag means you approve of the KKK, racism and lynchings.... To be consistent, must also believe that anyone flying a US flag approves of Native American genocide, lynchings and racism... In truth, there is no flag of any nation, past or present, that does does not, in some way, bear symbolism of oppression and hate. As such, why not ban the flying or display of ANY symbol?

I fly a US flag, I fly a Confederate Jack, I fly a Virginia State Flag, and I also fly a US Navy flag.... Because it is in honor of my, and my own families history....

William Porcher Miles's proposals never mention the "St. Andrew's cross" it refers either to the national Flag of Scotland, or the naval jack of Russia both before and after the Soviet Union, a blue saltire on a white field.


Festivals : So why is the Battle Flag racist? Because the KKK used it as one of thier symbols? Then you can say the same thing about the American Flag.

no, because people don't associate it as such
i think a good way to say why the flag should be removed is because while it is a symbol of pride and history to some, it offends a lot of people as well, and there are a dozen other ways to display one's pride which are not offensive

I don't give a fuck if some prejudiced asswipe is offended by flags I may display...

Tekania - Exactly


I fly the USMC Flag, the Lone Star Flag and the Confederate Flag.

William Porcher Miles's proposals never mention the "St. Andrew's cross" it refers either to the national Flag of Scotland, or the naval jack of Russia both before and after the Soviet Union, a blue saltire on a white field.


Festivals : So why is the Battle Flag racist? Because the KKK used it as one of thier symbols? Then you can say the same thing about the American Flag.

The Scottish Flag, the Blue "X" on white is the St. Andrews Cross, the adopted symbol of the Scottish Reformation under John Knox.

Festivals : So why is the Battle Flag racist? Because the KKK used it as one of thier symbols? Then you can say the same thing about the American Flag.
again...
no you can't because people dont think so
its not about what happened, it's about what's happening

I'm also descended from Robert E. Lee... through my maternal grandmother.

It was later in the war that the issue of slaves came up.
It was not a war to free slaves at the start, it was against the tyrant north.
The same thing started the American Revolution in the 18th century.

again...
no you can't because people dont think so
its not about what happened, it's about what's happening

So.... If the KKK uses the US flag and the Southern Cross, only the Southern Cross is decried? And anyone who flies it automatically endorses the KKK... But not the US flag?

Festivals, there's a word for the idea you are displaying here.... It's called prejudice.

Ahh, Miles never said anything about the "X" in his proposals for the original design.

I don't give a fuck if some prejudiced asswipe is offended by flags I may display...

Most southerners I have encountered place a higher premium on good manners, but there is no accounting for upbringing.

The difference between the battle flag of the attempted secession and the American flag is that while the American flag does indeed represent slavery, genocide, unlawful wars of aggression, and a whole host of outrages, it also stands for liberty, freedom, basic human rights, and the "better angels of our nature."

The battle flag of the attempted secession represents only treason, war against the United States, defense of slavery, and white supremacy. It was completely forgotten until resurrected by segregationists and murderers in the 1950s opposed to equal rights for Black people. You may want it to stand for something else but you have to willfully ignore history to make that so.

I noticed that the US still has bases named after slimeballs like Lee, Benning, and Hood.

? How much do you actually know about Lee? Firstly, had his home state not sided with the Confederacy he never would have joined them. Secondly he was on of the greater generals of the time. Third, do you actually have any instances of him acting without honor?

So you support a flag that has a history of "slavery, genocide, unlawful wars of aggression, and a whole host of outrages" but you don't support one that is just as bad?


:confused:

So.... If the KKK uses the US flag and the Southern Cross, only the Southern Cross is decried? And anyone who flies it automatically endorses the KKK... But not the US flag?

Festivals, there's a word for the idea you are displaying here.... It's called prejudice.

indeed there is not
go ask ten people on the streets what the us flag stands for and ask then what the confederate "stars and bars" stands for
perhaps you are the one who is not willing to accept reality that the battle flag does indeed represent so much evil
it is unfortunate, but that's the way it is, and surely you are not one who will instigate anger and resentment in the hearts of others?

Ahh, Miles never said anything about the "X" in his proposals for the original design.

The Scottish Flag is the St. Andrews Cross... aka the Saltire.

And it wasn't just slavery, it was against the Northern States trying to control the Southern states. It's only associated with racism because white idiots in sheets stood by it.

The Scottish Flag is the St. Andrews Cross... aka the Saltire.

Ok, just stating that Miles didn't cite the "X" in his proposal for his original design.

So you support a flag that has a history of "slavery, genocide, unlawful wars of aggression, and a whole host of outrages" but you don't support one that is just as bad?


:confused:
hey, i'm not one to burn a flag here
might get arrested you know, or at least never get to fly on a plane again

So you support a flag that has a history of "slavery, genocide, unlawful wars of aggression, and a whole host of outrages" but you don't support one that is just as bad?


:confused:

You are confused because you only read half the post:

The difference between the battle flag of the attempted secession and the American flag is that while the American flag does indeed represent slavery, genocide, unlawful wars of aggression, and a whole host of outrages, it also stands for liberty, freedom, basic human rights, and the "better angels of our nature."

The battle flag of the attempted secession represents only treason, war against the United States, defense of slavery, and white supremacy. It was completely forgotten until resurrected by segregationists and murderers in the 1950s opposed to equal rights for Black people. You may want it to stand for something else but you have to willfully ignore history to make that so.

Most southerners I have encountered place a higher premium on good manners, but there is no accounting for upbringing.

The difference between the battle flag of the attempted secession and the American flag is that while the American flag does indeed represent slavery, genocide, unlawful wars of aggression, and a whole host of outrages, it also stands for liberty, freedom, basic human rights, and the "better angels of our nature."

The battle flag of the attempted secession represents only treason, war against the United States, defense of slavery, and white supremacy. It was completely forgotten until resurrected by segregationists and murderers in the 1950s opposed to equal rights for Black people. You may want it to stand for something else but you have to willfully ignore history to make that so.

The Confederate jack EQUALLY stands for liberty, rights, freedoms, and opposition to tyrany.

Your thoughts are nothing but hypocracy, and that is all they will EVER be.... Because, you sir, are a fucking moron.... You are a prejudiced little bitch.... and you will not be seen on my screen again.... You might as well JOIN the fucking KKK and Aryan nation... you are ONE STEP FROM THEM.... But you are too blinded by your own conceit to see it.... Go fuck yourself....

Just FYI : I love The U.S., I'm not anti-American, i'm just using it as an example of how people are hypocritical about these things.

"The Confederate jack EQUALLY stands for liberty, rights, freedoms, and opposition to tyrany."

Exactly.


You are confused because you only read half the post

The Confederate jack EQUALLY stands for liberty, rights, freedoms, and opposition to tyrany.

Your thoughts are nothing but hypocracy, and that is all they will EVER be.... Because, you sir, are a fucking moron.... You are a prejudiced little bitch.... and you will not be seen on my screen again.... You might as well JOIN the fucking KKK and Aryan nation... you are ONE STEP FROM THEM.... But you are too blinded by your own conceit to see it.... Go fuck yourself....

I knew there was a reason I usually ignore your posts. I have no respect for cowards who slap down fighting words on a bulletin board with no intention or ability to back them up.

It really galls you that the traitorous southern states got their asses kicked by Lincoln and the patriotic North doesn't it? First they enslaved a bunch of people to do the work they were too lazy to do themselves then they got spanked and taught a lesson by a bunch of Yankees.

Man, that must sting.

The Confederate jack EQUALLY stands for liberty, rights, freedoms, and opposition to tyrany.

to 200 million americans, it does not
thank you sir and good night

to 200 million americans, it does not
thank you sir and good night


Did you just pull that # out of your butt?

Did you just pull that # out of your butt?
its the number of people who do not live in the south

So you speak for all of them?

indeed there is not
go ask ten people on the streets what the us flag stands for and ask then what the confederate "stars and bars" stands for
perhaps you are the one who is not willing to accept reality that the battle flag does indeed represent so much evil
it is unfortunate, but that's the way it is, and surely you are not one who will instigate anger and resentment in the hearts of others?

The average person on the street would not recognize the Confederate "Stars and Bars" if I showed it to them....

As for the Southern Cross aka "Battle Flag"... Represents my own heritage, and the lives of my ancestors who died. As well as the Virginia State Flag ("Sic Semper Tyrannis"), My US Naval Jack and my American Flag...

The flag itself is not evil... It represents the past of my Virginian ancestors who fought and died to defend Virginia during the Civil War. The same reason it flies in front of the Confederate Veterans Memorial Chapel in Richmond; which I pass almost every day....

If the flag 'instigates' (bullshit) anger in someone.... That is their problem... Rather than rely on their prejudice to dictate their actions... Because, that is what it is... PREJUDICE....

At that time period? it was 30 million people who lived in the north.

And to all those who think Robert E. Lee, and Jackson were the devil incarnate, evil corrupt traitors, and slave owning white supremicists. Were they racist? Probably by todays standards. Did either of them own slaves? No. Did Grant own slaves? Yes till the after the war.

5% of the southerners owned slaves, the first black soldiers fought from the south(yes I know all of this has been said before, but it might have more of an effect all grouped together) and i would like you yankees to tell the citizens of Terminus(Atlanta) that Sherman and Grant were great men.

And after all of this I just want to say that I am quite liberal, and my friend who is quite conservitive agrees with me. Just think it through.

to 200 million americans, it does not
thank you sir and good night

I don't care... You don't fucking get it.... No one tells me what my symbols stand for... and dictates that I cannot use them...

I don't care if it were 500 million, or a billion... My land, my flags, my symbols... Get it? Majority rule can kiss my ass... Those 200 million can kiss my ass, because what they think, DOES NOT MEAN SHIT....

You can take your fascist rhetoric elsewhere. Nazi....

At that time period? it was 30 million people who lived in the north.

And to all those who think Robert E. Lee, and Jackson were the devil incarnate, evil corrupt traitors, and slave owning white supremicists. Were they racist? Probably by todays standards. Did either of them own slaves? No. Did Grant own slaves? Yes till the after the war.

5% of the southerners owned slaves, the first black soldiers fought from the south(yes I know all of this has been said before, but it might have more of an effect all grouped together) and i would like you yankees to tell the citizens of Terminus(Atlanta) that Sherman and Grant were great men.

And after all of this I just want to say that I am quite liberal, and my friend who is quite conservitive agrees with me. Just think it through.

Actually, by Northern Standards... Lee and Jackson were far-left... Unlike the Yankee's, they believed blacks could be made equals in all respects... Jackson especially... Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was likely the most principled general in the entire war.

Grant was a slave-holder... Lincoln wanted all blacks deported (like any other good ol' Illinois "white-supremicist" would)...

5% of the southerners owned slaves

This is true only if you are counting head of household slave owners. Actually about 25% of white southerners belonged to slave owning families. Your general point, however, is correct - most southerners did not own slaves. So why did they fight for a system based upon slavery?

Well, some aspired to own slaves. Just as most Americans today dream of one day being rich, many poor southern whites dreamed of one day owning slaves (slavery and cotton were just about the only path to wealth in the south). They also took pride in their racial superiority over blacks. No matter how low on society's scale a poor white dirt farmer was he could always take comfort in knowing he wasn't at the very bottom.

The north americans when it came to racism at least were no better, they just werent used to having African Americans in "their" cities.

And in general they were'nt fighting for slavery, it was about the same thing as the American Revolution, taxes. Which Ft. Sumpter was a federal tariff collection point.

I believe strongly in the First Amendment and Free Speech. Eveyone is entitled to thier own opinion. In addition we should all remember our history and learn from past mistakes. While people should be allowed to have thier own views some views should not be carried to power but they will exist reguardless of attempts at censorship. Let them be proud and display thier symbols of hate, at least then we will always know who and what they are.

I really get a kick out of it that all you can do to us is demonize us. I have seen some good arguments, but mostly its just "RACIST BASTARDS!!"

The north americans when it came to racism at least were no better, they just werent used to having African Americans in "their" cities.

And in general they were'nt fighting for slavery, it was about the same thing as the American Revolution, taxes. Which Ft. Sumpter was a federal tariff collection point.

You better watch out.... Within moments some idiot will make the claim that the Tariffs were going down.... And that the tax issue is a lie.... This is, of course, in direct contradiction to the Morrill Tariff Bill of 1860... Which had the South paying 87% of the total tax.... while protecting and subsidizing northern industry.... With tariff prices on southern goods at almost 37% and to increase by an additional 10% over the next 3 years... That was the massive reason for the secession... It was a 'Whig'-ish level Tariff, that was voted in by the Northern states before any secession... And Lincoln, being elected, was a definite to pass it, since he was a former Whig.

Of course, this idiot is going to refference you to a nice little line graph, which will support his position, at least to anyone who can't fucking read graphs... When you notice it is a % of income from merchantile goods... And that the it would, of course, DECREASE in the graph, during the war, in which the Tariffs were not being applied to the South, and therefore their contribution to it would be non-existant... And of course, spiking RAPIDLY right AFTER the war....... when such would be applied...

I don't doubt it.

I really get a kick out of it that all you can do to us is demonize us. I have seen some good arguments, but mostly its just "RACIST BASTARDS!!"

More or less...

"If you fly a Confederate Flag, you support the KKK, and agree with lynching people!"

"You want to fly hate!"

---

There is only one thing I hate.... prejudiced assholes.... As such, I hate the KKK, I hate the Aryan Nation, I hate the Black Panthers, I hate the Nation of Islam, and I hate the prejudiced pricks who judge people as racists for flying a flag... Which is also PREJUDICE... Of course, they do not believe it... because they are allowed to pre-judge people, appearantly...

Do I hate that the KKK use that flag, and the US flag? Yes... does it mean I abandon those flags? No... It means I will show up all those ignorant pricks running around in their bed-sheets, whenever I see them, for the ignorant assholes they are... And beat them senseless with my Confederate Jack...

And I will do the same to the ignorant assholes running around this forum in their "tyrany by majority" motiffs, preaching prejudice and hate on anyone who uses symbols of their ancestral heritage... Especially the ones who are too fucking illiterate to read a fucking graph...

Obviously all the Black Confederate Soldiers (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=black+confederate+soldiers) disagreed with you.

Honestly, does anyone even pay attention to American history beyond the second grade level anymore?


The truth about the Civil War isn't taught in the school systems.

Yes? Surely you can put together a few words describing just what it is about that flag and what it represents that makes you proud. Of course, being a proud southerner you know the history of that flag and how it has been used and by whom it has been used.

So what is it that makes you so proud when you see it on the back of a pickup?

when I lived in Texas (most of my life) I generally had Texas state flag symbols (bumper stickers and the like) on my cars over the years and was proud of Texas history (which includes a 10 year history as an independent republic, 4 years in the Confederacy, wiping out nearly every single Indian tribe in Texas, corruption, glory and everything in between). Not because I admired the dark side of Texas history, but because I admired the glorious aspects of it.

If I lived in Georgia or Virginia I would be inclined to have a Johnny Reb bumper sticker or the like for the same reason.

It simply means I am proud to be from the South...for the same reasons I am proud to be from Texas. I am well aware of the mixed history of the Rebel Battle Flag. If anything, I think white southerners whose ancestors fought in the Civil War should have a grudge against the Klan for stealing a symbol that men shed blood for. On both sides.

You're lying. The north was oppressing the south. The south wanted out. How can you possibly believe they were making up excuses to fight for slavery when the north never claimed any intention of ending it until long after the war began?


A couple of facts to consider... first, if there had not been slavery, there would not have been a fundamental breech that led to war. The South wouldn't have had nearly its entire capital investment locked into slaves and land for growing cotton, and would have not needed to assert its States Rights so desperately. Nor would the loss of that war have so completed destroyed the economic wealth of the South for so long.

On the other hand slavery made the southern English colonies successful economically, so there might not have been a South without it, but thats another long involved thread.

the other fact is this... the Southern States chose to secede after their presidential candidate lost the 1860 Election and in spite of every assurance from Lincoln that he had no interest in attacked the Southern institution of slavery, they refused to listen.

If you look a page earlier you will see some stuff about taxes.

Oh and thank you for being understanding and not like the most of the other people.

And in general they were'nt fighting for slavery, it was about the same thing as the American Revolution, taxes. Which Ft. Sumpter was a federal tariff collection point.

Well, haven't we just done this to death? I recommend:

THE TARIFF HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES By F.W. Taussig
(Henry Lee Professor of Economics in Harvard University)

He writes (in part):

The act of 1857 remained in force till the close of the period we now have under examination. We begin with a high protective tariff in 1832; then follows a gradual reduction of duties, ending in 1842 with a brief period of very low duties. In the four years 1842–46 we have a strong application of protection. In 1846 begins what is often called a period of free trade, but is in reality one of moderated protection. In 1857 the protection is still further moderated, and for a few years there is as near an approach to free trade as the country has had since 1816….On the other hand, free traders not infrequently describe the period between 1846 and 1860 as one of exceptional prosperity, due to the low duties then in force….

The country accepted the tariff acts of 1846 and 1857, and was satisfied with them....agitation on the tariff ceased almost entirely. There is no doubt that the period from 1846 to 1860 was a time of great material prosperity, interrupted, but not checked, by the crisis of 1857.

In 1861 the Morrill tariff act began a change toward a higher range of duties and a stronger application of protection....In the Senate the tariff bill was not taken up in the same session in which it was passed in the House. Its consideration was postponed, and it was not until the next session—that of 1860–61—that it received the assent of the Senate and became law. Hardly had the Morrill tariff act been passed when Fort Sumter was fired on. The Civil War began.

Keep in mind the southern states appointed secession commissioners immediately after the election of Lincoln; before he took office and before the Morrill tariff was passed by the Senate, certainly before it became law.

Tariffs played almost no role in the decision for the southern states to attempt to leave the Union.

You guys sure don't live in the south!!!!!!!!!! Here, every redneck and person wearing that flag, hates BLACK and Jewish people. You guys need to visit the south more often... these people are a disgrace to Americans..... and the world!!!!


You are full of shit!

Books I would recommend A Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods Jr. and A History of the American People by Paul Johnson. The second one doesnt exactaly represent my views on the war, but its still a great book.

Why is it these neo-Confederate secessionists wish to totally white wash the history of the southern states and pretend slavery never existed? They will claim the Civil war was about tariffs or states rights or ANYTHING except slavery.

The thing is most southern whites have confronted and come to terms with their past and are able to move on. It is the reason I believe the south is ahead of the north in race relations (the north has still not confronted its own racism). Yet, these Confederate dead enders (where do they come from?) want to refight the Civil War, only this time they will pretend there was no slavery, just noble whites fighting for their freedom.

The reality is that the antebellum south shackled itself to slavery and was falling economically ever further behind the north. Massachusetts alone produced more manufacturing goods in 1860 than all the Confederate states combined. New York and Philadelphia EACH produced more than twice the goods manufactured by the 11 seceding states. New York had almost as much banking capital as all 15 slave states. By 1860 the population of the southern states (not counting slaves) was about 25% of the nation, yet those same states had only 10% of the country’s capital. Investment in slaves represented half of all the assets in the cotton regions of the South.

Through slavery the South made itself an economic colony of the industrial North. However, the wealthy ruling class of the South prospered from their investment in slaves and cotton and was unwilling to let go of their only source of income, so they dragged down the rest of the region with them.

It was a bad time for the South and it took almost a century and a half to recover. Why hang on to that discredited, disgraceful past or its symbols?

Why is it these neo-Confederate secessionists wish to totally white wash the history of the southern states and pretend slavery never existed? They will claim the Civil war was about tariffs or states rights or ANYTHING except slavery.

The thing is most southern whites have confronted and come to terms with their past and are able to move on. It is the reason I believe the south is ahead of the north in race relations (the north has still not confronted its own racism). Yet, these Confederate dead enders (where do they come from?) want to refight the Civil War, only this time they will pretend there was no slavery, just noble whites fighting for their freedom.

The reality is that the antebellum south shackled itself to slavery and was falling economically ever further behind the north. Massachusetts alone produced more manufacturing goods in 1860 than all the Confederate states combined. New York and Philadelphia EACH produced more than twice the goods manufactured by the 11 seceding states. New York had almost as much banking capital as all 15 slave states. By 1860 the population of the southern states (not counting slaves) was about 25% of the nation, yet those same states had only 10% of the country’s capital. Investment in slaves represented half of all the assets in the cotton regions of the South.

Through slavery the South made itself an economic colony of the industrial North. However, the wealthy ruling class of the South prospered from their investment in slaves and cotton and was unwilling to let go of their only source of income, so they dragged down the rest of the region with them.

It was a bad time for the South and it took almost a century and a half to recover. Why hang on to that discredited, disgraceful past or its symbols?

for the reasons I stated earlier

Every memory of the Rebs must be wiped out.

I noticed that the US still has bases named after slimeballs like Lee, Benning, and Hood.

I had not noticed the Germans naming their bases after Goering or Hitler.


Lee was a great general and a hell of a man, far from a slimeball. Maybe one of the most respectable leaders in our history.

And I will do the same to the ignorant assholes running around this forum in their "tyrany by majority" motiffs, preaching prejudice and hate on anyone who uses symbols of their ancestral heritage... Especially the ones who are too fucking illiterate to read a fucking graph...

Again with the violence?

What seperates you from the KKK or the Aryan nation?

They use violence and you seem to want to answer everything with violence?

Books I would recommend A Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods Jr. and A History of the American People by Paul Johnson. The second one doesnt exactaly represent my views on the war, but its still a great book.

I would also suggest

Lies my history teacher told me
and
Lies across america

both by James Loewen

I would add that any Southern Revisionists probably want to avoid them as they will waste money since the author will obviously lie.....

the other fact is this... the Southern States chose to secede after their presidential candidate lost the 1860 Election and in spite of every assurance from Lincoln that he had no interest in attacked the Southern institution of slavery, they refused to listen.

Not all Southern states seceded for the same reason... Another discrepency never covered in the "official" history books... Nor even close to the same time...

Virginia's secession had nothing to do with who was president, it had to do with what the president was doing...

Lincoln had been President already for 5 months, by the time Virginia officially seceded from the Union by refferendum (That is about 80% of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, voted to secede).

So, from my perspective, the acts of war, was the imposition of Lincoln against the rightfully elected government of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the imposition of Federal Tyrany upon the People of the Commonwealth and their elected Government. And further Federal Acts to the illegal removal of the rightfully elected leaders, and the implacement of a temporary military dictatorship, against the will of the people of Virginia.

As such, thousands of Virginians, black and white, died defending the Commonwealth, their home, from the aggressors in the North; and to which that is the reason I fly a Confederate Jack... In rememberance of the lives given in that war by my Virginian brethren who carried the Confederate Banner in the Virginia militia forces through the war...

Again with the violence?

What seperates you from the KKK or the Aryan nation?

They use violence and you seem to want to answer everything with violence?

Oh please... Violence? Go fuck yourself, you ignorant, pig-headed moron.

"Beat them senseless" with a flag? Appearantly you're in the group of the idiots.... Incapable of understanding metaphor... I'd like to see someone try to beat someone senseless "literally" with a piece of cloth...

Oh please... Violence? Go fuck yourself, you ignorant, pig-headed moron.

"Beat them senseless" with a flag? Appearantly you're in the group of the idiots.... Incapable of understanding metaphor... I'd like to see someone try to beat someone senseless "literally" with a piece of cloth...

:rolleyes:

Are you always determined to come across as less intelligent?

You show signs of intelligence but then you seem to go out of your way to prove otherwise.

A flag usually attached to a pole so beating someone with one is easy.

Let's hear your next profanity prose. I do find them amusing.

:rolleyes:

Are you always determined to come across as less intelligent?

You show signs of intelligence but then you seem to go out of your way to prove otherwise.

A flag usually attached to a pole so beating someone with one is easy.

Let's hear your next profanity prose. I do find them amusing.

Yes, I am determined to come off as less intelligent... Because it let's the people have want they fucking want... To be idiotic prejudiced morons, living in complete vain conceit, in their own personal dreamworld.

As such, I have SERVED under the US Flag, and the NAVY FLAG is in rememberance of both MY OWN an MY FATHER'S service... You walk into my study, and you'll be over-loaded with sub paraphenalia from the USS Hampton SSN-767, which I served on.

But, out in front, right with them the Virginia state flag, and the Confederate Naval Jack...

And, anyone who believes the Confederate flag ONLY stands for racism... Also MUST believe, to be consistent, that the US flag stands for only racism and genocide... The two are connected... If you can associate the US Flag with anything else... The Confederate flag can equally be associated with other things...

In the end... I leave this with my bumper sticker....

"I only drive this way to PISS YOU OFF!"

for the reasons I stated earlier

He's not going to get it... His basis is off of manufactured goods...

The South was agregarian... Mostly farms and Plantations...

I'd like to see the Industrial world live without farms....

Virginia was the most ballanced state, needing little in the way of imports.. being both agregarian and industrial... Probably the reason why it took 4 years, while being consistently outnumbered for the North to beat the Commonwealth in the war (and another 1 year to stomp over the rest of the south)... And even that was a close call (if the mistake at gettysburg had not been made, Washington would have been in the holding of the ANV, while Lincoln would have been receiving Lee's Cease Fire agreement from his own hand, and the war would have been over...)...

In addition, the massive recession that occured over the 10 years after the war.... Was due to the massive loss of Northern Industry through that period... No longer able to run themselves, since the colapse of their substity support structure... Which was the only thing that pushed Northern Industry at the time... The products were of low-quality, and could not compete outside of the US... so the Tarif's relied on high import tarifs into the Southern states for manufactured goods, and then used the Tarif's under the typical Republican/Whig system of Corporate Welfare, substidizing Industry in the North off of all the money received from Tarrifs on products the South needed from overseas... The Entire Northern System of Industry, eventually came to crash in the early 1900's... Because they invented the sweat-shops we all remember from history... The idea of functioning off of government substidies, producing below-standard goods, with corporate owners pocketing all the money (sic. the "capital" he talks about)... As such, that "capital" was nothing more than deceit, lies, and aquired through less than honorable business practices in the North.

Well, I guess I'm the slow learner. After more than 1,200 posts I finally figured out yesterday how to block obnoxious individuals (like Tekania) from my screen.

Not all Southern states seceded for the same reason... Another discrepency never covered in the "official" history books... Nor even close to the same time...

Virginia's secession had nothing to do with who was president, it had to do with what the president was doing...

Lincoln had been President already for 5 months, by the time Virginia officially seceded from the Union by refferendum (That is about 80% of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, voted to secede).

So, from my perspective, the acts of war, was the imposition of Lincoln against the rightfully elected government of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the imposition of Federal Tyrany upon the People of the Commonwealth and their elected Government. And further Federal Acts to the illegal removal of the rightfully elected leaders, and the implacement of a temporary military dictatorship, against the will of the people of Virginia.

As such, thousands of Virginians, black and white, died defending the Commonwealth, their home, from the aggressors in the North; and to which that is the reason I fly a Confederate Jack... In rememberance of the lives given in that war by my Virginian brethren who carried the Confederate Banner in the Virginia militia forces through the war...

I was born in Virginia (Newport News) and my Dad retired to there after serving 4 years in the Navy and 32 years at NASA

Viriginia, and I believe a couple of other states (but I forget exactly which ones) passed their secession ordinances after Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers (which occured after the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter)

Lee resigned shortly after... ironically he would have saved more Virginians lives if he had taken Lincolns offer and crushed the rebellion quickly (does any one doubt that he could have?)

Hindsight is 20/20 of course, and how would anyone have known... few expected the bloodbath that followed.

I'm kind of amazed at how many responses in this thread are in the vein of: "Ain't nobody gonna tell me whut kind of flag I can or cain't hang off my pick-em-up truck."

I don't think anybody really gives a rat's about what flags you want to fly on your individual porch. The question of the thread is whether the confederate flag is appropriate for public signs and displays. Public is the key word here. If you fly a flag off your truck, don't matter how many people see it, that's still private. And to that end, the whole question of whether the flag stands for pride or hate is kind of moot. However you want to slice things, the flag was the symbol of a faction that fought *against the United States*. Remember that whole "preservation of the Union" thing?

In this light, is it acceptable for the flags of other former enemy nations to appear on public signs? Or to be employed in state flags or license plates or for other public uses? Of course not. It's like putting Benedict Arnold on the twenty.

Here's my thoughts, since I started this thread:

I don't believe anything should be banned. Different things mean different things to different people. You do not have the right to not be offended.

That said, I consider the symbols of Dixie to be similar to symbols of the CCCP(USSR), or Nazis: people rallying behind a defeated idea. It's their right to do so of course, but it isn't endearing.

But then, I'm sure my love of pre-WW1 Europe can be construed the same way. :)

the confederate flag (which is the confederate naval jack) does not have any racial or hateful undertones. How do i know? I'm a yankee living in the south for the past 12 years. the confederacy doesn't mean slavery to anyone in the south. well, except of course the NAACP and etc... Be careful who you try to speak for. I'm in the South and I consider the Confederate flag to be a symbol of bigotry.

Who keeps reviving this thread? It's over and done with, I think. You're just repeating the same arguments that have already come through now.

Yes, I am determined to come off as less intelligent... Because it let's the people have want they fucking want... To be idiotic prejudiced morons, living in complete vain conceit, in their own personal dreamworld.

As such, I have SERVED under the US Flag, and the NAVY FLAG is in rememberance of both MY OWN an MY FATHER'S service... You walk into my study, and you'll be over-loaded with sub paraphenalia from the USS Hampton SSN-767, which I served on.

But, out in front, right with them the Virginia state flag, and the Confederate Naval Jack...

And, anyone who believes the Confederate flag ONLY stands for racism... Also MUST believe, to be consistent, that the US flag stands for only racism and genocide... The two are connected... If you can associate the US Flag with anything else... The Confederate flag can equally be associated with other things...

In the end... I leave this with my bumper sticker....

"I only drive this way to PISS YOU OFF!"

Now there you go! Was that so hard? ;)

There is hope for you yet! :p

My father-in-law would love your room. He wanted into the subs but his commander wouldn't let him go. Some kind of BS went down and a few lame excuses with empty promises so when his time came up, he left.

Rather stupid because the man was excellent at what he did.

Any family serve in the Confederate Navy? Just curious as to your choice in having the flag.....

I agree completely. Not only that, but the president of the confederacy even was let to become a professor at a college (AFTER the war!).

The very man who put in motion the bloodiest war of our history (yes I know the north declared war, but the south knew what would happen if they ceaded, and they did it anyway)... is LET GO, to TEACH A CLASS!

This still boggles my mind.
Kind of set the stage for todays universities, preaching hatred.

Kind of set the stage for todays universities, preaching hatred.

Ok I will bite.

hatred as in what?

Ok I will bite.

hatred as in what?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005976

I'm kind of amazed at how many responses in this thread are in the vein of: "Ain't nobody gonna tell me whut kind of flag I can or cain't hang off my pick-em-up truck."

I don't think anybody really gives a rat's about what flags you want to fly on your individual porch. The question of the thread is whether the confederate flag is appropriate for public signs and displays. Public is the key word here. If you fly a flag off your truck, don't matter how many people see it, that's still private. And to that end, the whole question of whether the flag stands for pride or hate is kind of moot. However you want to slice things, the flag was the symbol of a faction that fought *against the United States*. Remember that whole "preservation of the Union" thing?

In this light, is it acceptable for the flags of other former enemy nations to appear on public signs? Or to be employed in state flags or license plates or for other public uses? Of course not. It's like putting Benedict Arnold on the twenty.

Why not? The Flag of the British Empire flies from the Colonial House of Burgesses in Williamsburg, Virginia... Is it not an enemy flag?

The flag flew from properly elected state legislative buildings, and by armed forces of states who, through proper forms of a Republic, choose to leave the Union...

The only real difference between a patriot and a traitor; is who you are fighting for... If you are fighting for your home land, you are a patriot... If you are fighting for those who wish to take your home land, you are a traitor.

George Washington and Robert E. Lee are equally patriots. Who put their service in the hands of the their home land against a foreign power.

If Robert E. Lee, and the thousands of other citizens and soldiers of Virginia's Militia were traitors.... Then George Washington, and the entirety of Colonial America were equally traitors...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005976

I have to admit I don't know ACTA. If they are a conservative group then their study is suspect.

However, it is interesting. From my own views of such "harsh treatment" I have witnessed it myself. However, the student was being an ass and challenging the authority of the professor in the middle of class.

As I have said in the past, there are asshole professors in all philosophical ilks. I have had Liberals, Conservatives, a Liberterian, a couples commies and one socialist.

Guess what? They were bad teachers.

The quotes are interesting. Though I do smile at the Bio professor making comments about Relgion. Probably had to deal with a few fundies telling him/her to teach creationism.

Finally, as with any study that is based on polling, you have to examing the questions and how they were asked.

There was a case in the 70s(of course I blank on the name) where people were polled and asked what they thought about the removal of the act of *forgot name*. Everybody had an opinion. Problem was the act never existed.

Years later I think it was the New York Times, that did a poll as a joke on the anniversery. People had opinions. ;)

For me such harassment has been relativily rare. Maybe I am just lucky.....

Now there you go! Was that so hard? ;)

There is hope for you yet! :p

My father-in-law would love your room. He wanted into the subs but his commander wouldn't let him go. Some kind of BS went down and a few lame excuses with empty promises so when his time came up, he left.

Rather stupid because the man was excellent at what he did.

Any family serve in the Confederate Navy? Just curious as to your choice in having the flag.....

I have several ancestors that were part of Trefelger Iron Works, which built the CSS Virginia (What the Yankee morons keep calling the Merrimac)... I have several ancestors who served in the Virginia's Confederate Navy during the war... and even more in ground forces (In addition to being in blood descent of Robert E. Lee), as well as having ancestors in two of the Indian Nations allied with the Confederacy during the war (Choctaw and Chickasaw)... Mostly the choice of the Naval Jack was consistency... The other 3 flags I fly are all the same size, and rectangular... So the Confederate Naval Jack fits in better... And occationally put up the "Braves" flag "Stars and Bars" in place of the CSA Naval Jack, in memorial of them as well... Thought I'm thinking of possibly flying both, if I can meander another pole out there.

On New Years day, however, I pull down all but the USA flag, and hoist a Greek flag, a South Korean Flag, and a German Flag; because I have three dear friends of those nationalities... And we always have a small party on that day...

I have to admit I don't know ACTA. If they are a conservative group then their study is suspect.


That is exaclty the crap that makes this forum not fun anymore. Just because the study is done by someone you may not agreee with politcaly, you have to question their finidings? Whatever. :rolleyes: I have seen this type of bias in the classroom.

What happened to this being a place to exchange ideas? Anymore, it is a place to attack ideas and beliefs, and to denigrate anyone on the right of any topic.

Who keeps reviving this thread? It's over and done with, I think. You're just repeating the same arguments that have already come through now.

Well, it's an interesting discussion that has spawned quite a bit of debate. I see the same arguments about religion, abortion, gay rights, and liberalism appear on this board every day. The whole community follows a very repetitive cycle; that's what makes it great. Issues like these are hot topics. There will always be a new spin or argument to offer to these broken record player threads. I'm sure more intrigueing viewpoints will surface as this thread continues existence.

Be careful who you try to speak for. I'm in the South and I consider the Confederate flag to be a symbol of bigotry.

But were you raised in the south? Are you a native Southerner? Perhaps you are, but I find there are an overwhelming amount of Southerners who will scoff at your assumption that the Confederate flag stands for racism. I live in Lee County, Florida, and down here the Confederate jack is not an uncommon sight. Most of my friends bear the flag on their shirts, hats, and vehicles, and almost none of them are racist. It's an ancestral thing, and if you are a native of Dixie Land, you should understand that.

This is true only if you are counting head of household slave owners. Actually about 25% of white southerners belonged to slave owning families. Your general point, however, is correct - most southerners did not own slaves. So why did they fight for a system based upon slavery?

Because their economy depended on it. They weren't all just fighting for slavery either, like most American history books and liberal history professors would have you think. Their home was under attack; their farms, their families, and the beautiful countryside they had grown up on were in danger.

Maybe you'll call me a traitor; in fact, I'm almost certain that's the first thing that will pop out of your mouth after you read this. But if Florida were to secede from the states on this day, or if it were to come under attack from our own government, even for legitimate reasons, I would serve my state first and foremost. Florida is my home; it's a beautiful cluster of beaches, marshes, and amazing wildlife. I have lived other places, and none compared to Florida in my eyes. I hold this land dearly in my heart, and if it were ever attacked, I would be among the first to defend it.

That is loyalty to your home. Robert E. Lee was loyal to Virginia, and I'm sure there were countless Southerners who felt the same way. The idea that the whole South was fighting for slavery is preposterous, in my honest to god opinion. I really think it had something to do with their homes coming under threat of destruction. The least you can do is try to understand. So far you've exhibited absolutely no understanding, compassion, or even reason. It's unsettling.

Well, some aspired to own slaves. Just as most Americans today dream of one day being rich, many poor southern whites dreamed of one day owning slaves (slavery and cotton were just about the only path to wealth in the south). They also took pride in their racial superiority over blacks. No matter how low on society's scale a poor white dirt farmer was he could always take comfort in knowing he wasn't at the very bottom.

You know, I can admit that the Civil War was started because of slavery. That was the real issue behind the whole thing. Slavery, and how inhumane it was. However, to call the whole of the south a bunch of vile monsters who all wanted slaves is a bit far fetched to me. Based on the slim percentage of Southerners that owned slaves, I think it's safe to say a large portion of the Confederate army was made up of people concerned about their homeland, culture, and way of life. It's a moot point anyway. Neither of us lived in the 1800s, so neither of us can really conjure up the feeling towards slavery in the south at the time.

I knew there was a reason I usually ignore your posts. I have no respect for cowards who slap down fighting words on a bulletin board with no intention or ability to back them up.

It really galls you that the traitorous southern states got their asses kicked by Lincoln and the patriotic North doesn't it? First they enslaved a bunch of people to do the work they were too lazy to do themselves then they got spanked and taught a lesson by a bunch of Yankees.

Now your true colors are showing. It's just as I said earlier. You're not listening to any of the arguments presented here because you're too caught up in your own viewpoint. You're only willing to give the benefit to one shade of the issue, and that's perfectly demonstrated in that little piece there.

To be so disrespectful as to label the Confederate soldiers as traiterous and lazy is only a clear and shining example of your bias towards the whole debate. Those men had families, children. To join an army, any sort of army (even a traiterous one as you would have us all believe) is a tremendous show of valiance. I don't see YOU picking up a gun and serving our country. Yet you call those that would fight to protect their homeland traiterous and lazy.

You have no compassion in your arguments. You're a despicable human being, and I hope I never chance upon you in the real world. I get it now. Your hatred for the Confederate flag is so strong, you would dishonor the deceased, many of whom didn't even own slaves. I'm afraid anything you have to say from here on out will be ignored. What a brilliant display of ignorance on your part, sir.

Why is it these neo-Confederate secessionists wish to totally white wash the history of the southern states and pretend slavery never existed? They will claim the Civil war was about tariffs or states rights or ANYTHING except slavery.

It was about slavery. What they're trying to tell you is, slavery wasn't the only issue. You should actually listen to people once and a while.

The thing is most southern whites have confronted and come to terms with their past and are able to move on. It is the reason I believe the south is ahead of the north in race relations (the north has still not confronted its own racism). Yet, these Confederate dead enders (where do they come from?) want to refight the Civil War, only this time they will pretend there was no slavery, just noble whites fighting for their freedom.

Certainly hasn't been exhibited here. I don't even no where you're getting this from. Sure is giving me a lot of insight as to what kind of person you are though.

The reality is that the antebellum south shackled itself to slavery and was falling economically ever further behind the north. Massachusetts alone produced more manufacturing goods in 1860 than all the Confederate states combined. New York and Philadelphia EACH produced more than twice the goods manufactured by the 11 seceding states. New York had almost as much banking capital as all 15 slave states. By 1860 the population of the southern states (not counting slaves) was about 25% of the nation, yet those same states had only 10% of the country’s capital. Investment in slaves represented half of all the assets in the cotton regions of the South.

Great. What does it have to do with the Confederate flag? Way to stray off topic, hoss.

Through slavery the South made itself an economic colony of the industrial North. However, the wealthy ruling class of the South prospered from their investment in slaves and cotton and was unwilling to let go of their only source of income, so they dragged down the rest of the region with them.

The argument isn't about whether the Civil War was about slavery or not. The argument was about whether the Confederate flag should be allowed to be exhibited in public places. You're just all over the place...I'm not sure what it is you're trying to make a point about.

It was a bad time for the South and it took almost a century and a half to recover. Why hang on to that discredited, disgraceful past or its symbols?

To honor the deceased, who many of which were just defending their homeland from destruction. What would you know about honoring anything though?

I'm kind of amazed at how many responses in this thread are in the vein of: "Ain't nobody gonna tell me whut kind of flag I can or cain't hang off my pick-em-up truck."

I don't think anybody really gives a rat's about what flags you want to fly on your individual porch. The question of the thread is whether the confederate flag is appropriate for public signs and displays. Public is the key word here. If you fly a flag off your truck, don't matter how many people see it, that's still private. And to that end, the whole question of whether the flag stands for pride or hate is kind of moot. However you want to slice things, the flag was the symbol of a faction that fought *against the United States*. Remember that whole "preservation of the Union" thing?

In this light, is it acceptable for the flags of other former enemy nations to appear on public signs? Or to be employed in state flags or license plates or for other public uses? Of course not. It's like putting Benedict Arnold on the twenty.

Yeah, fuck freedom of speech. Fuck freedom of expression. While we're at it, let's suppress any attempts at displaying gay pride, because I think gays are immoral. Sure, that's my opinion, but so is the idea that the deceased confederate soldiers were a bunch of slave owning slimeballs who were full of hatred for their fellow man and treachury.

I have several ancestors that were part of Trefelger Iron Works, which built the CSS Virginia (What the Yankee morons keep calling the Merrimac)... I have several ancestors who served in the Virginia's Confederate Navy during the war... and even more in ground forces (In addition to being in blood descent of Robert E. Lee), as well as having ancestors in two of the Indian Nations allied with the Confederacy during the war (Choctaw and Chickasaw)... Mostly the choice of the Naval Jack was consistency... The other 3 flags I fly are all the same size, and rectangular... So the Confederate Naval Jack fits in better... And occationally put up the "Braves" flag "Stars and Bars" in place of the CSA Naval Jack, in memorial of them as well... Thought I'm thinking of possibly flying both, if I can meander another pole out there.

On New Years day, however, I pull down all but the USA flag, and hoist a Greek flag, a South Korean Flag, and a German Flag; because I have three dear friends of those nationalities... And we always have a small party on that day...

You are lucky that you still have access to such info. My great-aunt knew the lineage all they way back to the 10th century. She always promised to write things down. People kept nagging her but she was a rather hard headed Scot. The info died with her. :(

I know I had people in the war and it was probably both sides. Since family was in Virginia at one point(the Revolution), Missouri, Kentucky, Tenn, and Alabama.

Some of us are trying track people down. My grandmothers side was easy since she was decended from Angus McDonald(Lord Dunmore's War). We have names and have began the process of searching for military records.

So for now. Peace.

If I came across as suggesting racism or a dumb hick, I apologise. I try not to make it personal. My approach to debate is to "shake the tree" and see what falls out.

Side note: Merrimac? Where did that name come into norm? Was it the Press of the time? Oh and the Yankee Morons use it because that is how it's presented to them. ;)

That is exaclty the crap that makes this forum not fun anymore. Just because the study is done by someone you may not agreee with politcaly, you have to question their finidings? Whatever. :rolleyes: I have seen this type of bias in the classroom.

What happened to this being a place to exchange ideas? Anymore, it is a place to attack ideas and beliefs, and to denigrate anyone on the right of any topic.

:rolleyes:

Ok think before getting emotional. There is a HUGE difference between a group that works for academic freedom and one that belives conservatism is being squashed.

Studies should be reviewed all the time and as said Polling is not a good way to evaluate the situation. You have an article, that does not present the study itself. Polling questions can be devised to get a desired reponce.(ie do you think there are oppresive instructors vs. Have you ever witnessed...).

So yes. If ACTA is a conservative think group then the next thing is to review the study itself. I would say the same for any group for that matter.

Always question the findings.

Florida Oranges,

If what you got out of that paragraph was "fuck freedom of speech" you really weren't paying attention.

I don't care what kind of flag an individual wants to display. They can hang a gay pride rainbow with the confederate x over the top of it. That's private expression and they're free to it.

I read "public signs and displays" to mean things like state flags or roadsigns (Hyuk, welcome to Bucktoothnawhampa, th' most unreconstructed county in all o' Georgia) or confederate flag bunting at the DMV. "Public property" as opposed to "private property." And while individuals are free to celebrate whatever heritage they want, the state isn't free to impose that heritage on those who find it repulsive, say, by clinging to a symbol that, without too much of a stretch, can be seen as pro-slavery.

How was it that you read "public signs"?

Florida Oranges,

If what you got out of that paragraph was "fuck freedom of speech" you really weren't paying attention.

I don't care what kind of flag an individual wants to display. They can hang a gay pride rainbow with the confederate x over the top of it. That's private expression and they're free to it.

I read "public signs and displays" to mean things like state flags or roadsigns (Hyuk, welcome to Bucktoothnawhampa, th' most unreconstructed county in all o' Georgia) or confederate flag bunting at the DMV. "Public property" as opposed to "private property." And while individuals are free to celebrate whatever heritage they want, the state isn't free to impose that heritage on those who find it repulsive, say, by clinging to a symbol that, without too much of a stretch, can be seen as pro-slavery.

How was it that you read "public signs"?


My bad, obviously there was a misunderstanding on my part. Should've read it more thoroughly. No harm done. :)

It is called the USS Merrimac as that was the name of the ship prior to its capture and refit by Confederate forces and refit. It was renamed the CSS Virginia by the Confederate Navy.

And I guess if I'm trying to make a legit point, I shouldn't crack wise about "pick-em-up trucks" and the like. It does make it a little easy to interpret as totally one-sided. :D

It is called the USS Merrimac as that was the name of the ship prior to its capture and refit by Confederate forces and refit. It was renamed the CSS Virginia by the Confederate Navy.

Danke!

My knowledge of the war is about that of an advanced student. Only now starting to read the diaries of certain generals and their adjuncts.....

Preamble to the Articles of Confederation:
"To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


The union is permanent and indissolvable by any body of Government. Game set match.

The Articles were null and void. Saying something is intended to be more perfect is very vague, and could actually mean its more perfect by being non-perpetual. That proves nothing. It's too vague.

Kind of set the stage for todays universities, preaching hatred.

actually Robert E. Lee was made chancellor and president of George Washington College... which after his death was named Washington and Lee College, and is considered an excellent Liberal Arts college

a number of offers were made to Lee after the war, mostly from the North and many of them were worth a large sum of money

Lincoln and Grant chose to send Lee home after the surrender, who are we to disagree with the men who won the Civil War?

Oh, yeah, time for a long-overdue Onion quote:

"The people of Arkansas ought to be ashamed of themselves. Now what's this about a road sign?"

Florida Oranges,

If what you got out of that paragraph was "fuck freedom of speech" you really weren't paying attention.

I don't care what kind of flag an individual wants to display. They can hang a gay pride rainbow with the confederate x over the top of it. That's private expression and they're free to it.

I read "public signs and displays" to mean things like state flags or roadsigns (Hyuk, welcome to Bucktoothnawhampa, th' most unreconstructed county in all o' Georgia) or confederate flag bunting at the DMV. "Public property" as opposed to "private property." And while individuals are free to celebrate whatever heritage they want, the state isn't free to impose that heritage on those who find it repulsive, say, by clinging to a symbol that, without too much of a stretch, can be seen as pro-slavery.

How was it that you read "public signs"?

a few points.... the thread long ago digressed from public signs but what the heck...

for me, it is ok to fly the Confederate Flag (of which there are several types) at an historic site, or any kind of historical themed event or place (Six Flags comes to mind). Perfectly reasonable, especially in the South.

It is not reasonable to fly it over the court house for example, instead of the American Flag. It isn't reasonable to wave it around at a Klan rally and as a native southerner and descendent of Confederate veterans it makes me mad to see those ignorant rednecks do that.

It is reasonable to incorporate it into a state flag in my opinion because it does commorate one of the most important single events and times in US history. And if when debating on whether to keep it that is brought up in reasoned debate I can live with it. If on the other hand, the state legislature involved said we keep it to show we are prejudiced etc, then it shouldn't be there.

Personally, I think all state symbols like that ought to be decided by referrendum but I don't live in one of those states.

As far as the Merrimac/Virginia discussion goes...

the USS Merrimac was a wooden steam / sail mixed frigate of the US Navy, and was burned by the Navy to prevent its capture by the Rebs. The Rebs raised her sunken hull, refitted her and rebuilt her as a the first armored warship in history (to actually see battle) and recommissioned her the CSS Virginia. So the CSS Virginia fought the USS Monitor (not the Monitor vs Merrimac).

You are lucky that you still have access to such info. My great-aunt knew the lineage all they way back to the 10th century. She always promised to write things down. People kept nagging her but she was a rather hard headed Scot. The info died with her. :(

I know I had people in the war and it was probably both sides. Since family was in Virginia at one point(the Revolution), Missouri, Kentucky, Tenn, and Alabama.

Some of us are trying track people down. My grandmothers side was easy since she was decended from Angus McDonald(Lord Dunmore's War). We have names and have began the process of searching for military records.

So for now. Peace.

If I came across as suggesting racism or a dumb hick, I apologise. I try not to make it personal. My approach to debate is to "shake the tree" and see what falls out.

Side note: Merrimac? Where did that name come into norm? Was it the Press of the time? Oh and the Yankee Morons use it because that is how it's presented to them. ;)

When the Yankee's abandoned Norfolk Naval Shipyard, they burned several ships in the drydocks on their way out....

One of the ships being built, the Merrimac... was in dock, but partially in the water, her lower hull survived the fire... The lower portion of the hull was used to built the CSS Virginia... Hense, the yankees call it the "Merrimac" because that was what the original hull was to be named... Eventhough they destroyed her, and the hulk was used in the construction of the new vessel, the first Iron Clad, CSS Virginia. The Yankee's of course refuse to accept that the ship, which only contained about 1/4 of the original parts of the Merrimac, was indeed a new ship, and not merely a refit "Merrimac"... Much like they refuse to abide by actual Battle Names, choosing to name them after rivers and Union generals, as opposed to place names, as was common of that period (Sic. "Bull Run" for the Union is actually Manassas.)

seriously. why hasn't this died yet?

they're the same stale arguments going back and forth. no one gives a shit except for the NAACP and rednecks. everyone else is going on with their lives because the CSA was defeated, thankfully.

who really gives a shit about the confederacy? a fucking yokel? who cares...

It is called the USS Merrimac as that was the name of the ship prior to its capture and refit by Confederate forces and refit. It was renamed the CSS Virginia by the Confederate Navy.

No USS... The US didn't use prefixes for line ships for several more decades...

It was just the Merrimack, before the Union forced in retreat in Norfolk burned her...

The Confederates merely used the Hulk as the framework for the CSS Virginia.... The Merrimack was destroyed, usage of the name for the CSS Virginia is improper use of Naval Terminology... As the Merrimack was officially struck from the Registrars of the Union Navy as destroyed.

The Merrimack had been officially decommisioned in Feburary, 1860... more than a year prior to Virginia's secession from the Union.

The fact that she is frequently called "Merrimac" (though I too use this name sometimes in refference to the Yankee's who still love revisionist history), since the "Merrimac" was a steamer which served from the Union Navy in 1864-1865... And it was the hulk of the Merrimack, which was served the US Navy from 1856-1860, which was used for the construction of the CSS Virginia...

Now your true colors are showing. It's just as I said earlier. You're not listening to any of the arguments presented here because you're too caught up in your own viewpoint. You're only willing to give the benefit to one shade of the issue, and that's perfectly demonstrated in that little piece there.

To be so disrespectful as to label the Confederate soldiers as traiterous and lazy is only a clear and shining example of your bias towards the whole debate. Those men had families, children. To join an army, any sort of army (even a traiterous one as you would have us all believe) is a tremendous show of valiance. I don't see YOU picking up a gun and serving our country. Yet you call those that would fight to protect their homeland traiterous and lazy.

You have no compassion in your arguments. You're a despicable human being, and I hope I never chance upon you in the real world. I get it now. Your hatred for the Confederate flag is so strong, you would dishonor the deceased, many of whom didn't even own slaves. I'm afraid anything you have to say from here on out will be ignored. What a brilliant display of ignorance on your part, sir.

That particular response was aimed at baiting Tekania, who has been a vile, foul-mouthed, obnoxious, bigot throughout this entire thread. He hates Lincoln and the United Sates and I knew that post would get his goat.

I am surprised you would chose to align yourself with that cretin. Up until today your threads have been well thought out, reasonable, and argued with conviction, but not rancor.

To honor the deceased, who many of which were just defending their homeland from destruction. What would you know about honoring anything though?

Now where did that come from (or the rest of your undignified response)?

Southern hospitality?

I have lived in the South for 25 years (in the very state you are so eager to die for) and in all that time I have not encountered as many ill-mannered southerners as I have in the past two days in this thread.

I have stated on more than one occasion that I believe the south has done more to overcome its racist background than have the northern states. I also said that I do not automatically assume you are a racist or bigot because of your defense of the battle flag of the attempted secession.

However, I do see that flag as representative of racism, bigotry and a disgraceful past. You may chose to believe that the slavery, segregationist, KKK, and neo-Nazi implications of that flag have no meaning for you; but that argument is little different from a 6 year old sticking up his middle finger and then trying to convince mom that it is "only a finger." He is correct that it is a finger, but we all know that it is also a symbol for "fuck you."

The rest of the world knows what that flag represents as well.

I find it curious that you have chosen to honor your dead ancestors from nearly 150 years ago. Tell me, do you honor all your long dead ancestors? I mean, perhaps you had relatives die in the American Revolution. Do you fly the "Betsy Ross" flag to honor them? How about your fallen relatives from the old countries? Do you fly British or French or whatever other flags they died under? How about those ancestors from the Middle Ages? Should you fly some heraldry to do them justice?

Or here is a better idea. How about honoring your ancestors by flying the flag they were born under and the flag of their nation when they died - the American flag.

But, isn't the American Flag a symbol of "slavery, genocide, unlawful wars of aggression, and a whole host of outrages"?



But, it looks as if none of us will change our views, so this thread is pretty much done with?

But, isn't the American Flag a symbol of "slavery, genocide, unlawful wars of aggression, and a whole host of outrages"?



But, it looks as if none of us will change our views, so this thread is pretty much done with?
no, it isn't
yes, let a moderator lock this thread already

no, it isn't

Why isn't it?

It was the flag that flew over forts assigned to the duty of forced relocation and extermination of entire Indian Nations....

It was the flag that flew from New England merchant vessels, trading Rum for Slaves...

It is the flag most commonly carried by the Klan....

As far as I can tell, it represents just that...

If your claim is that it does not... Then neither do the Confederate flags...

But, it looks as if none of us will change our views, so this thread is pretty much done with?

LOL. Since when is a thread judged by the number of people who change their views? That is a rare occurance indeed.

LOL. Since when is a thread judged by the number of people who change their views? That is a rare occurance indeed.

Good point. :)

LOL. I meant it's kinda useless to argue with each other when we won't really listen to each others arguements.

no, it isn't
yes, let a moderator lock this thread already

The very fact that you feel this way is why the thread should NOT be locked.

it should be locked because it is old and tired. there is nothing new being said that wasn't said 120 years ago by the actual veterans that knew what they were talking about and still being said since then. here it's all what people have been told by someone else, filtered through someone else's biases.

oh, and no one is going to change their minds, so arguing is pointless. this thread should be locked.

it should be locked because it is old and tired. there is nothing new being said that wasn't said 120 years ago by the actual veterans that knew what they were talking about and still being said since then. here it's all what people have been told by someone else, filtered through someone else's biases.

oh, and no one is going to change their minds, so arguing is pointless. this thread should be locked.

You're right. Let's lock the other half of the threads that do the same, just because they annoy you. :rolleyes:

If you don't like this thread, don't read it. Unsubscribe! Only you can prevent forest fires!

Do you walk up to people at parties and tell them to stop talking about something you've discussed an hour earlier, too? Sheesh.

it should be locked because it is old and tired. there is nothing new being said that wasn't said 120 years ago by the actual veterans that knew what they were talking about and still being said since then. here it's all what people have been told by someone else, filtered through someone else's biases.

oh, and no one is going to change their minds, so arguing is pointless. this thread should be locked.

That could pretty much be said of ANYTHING. I mean, why make the movie Matrix? Plato wrote the story in his Allegory of the Cave 2,500 years ago.

Sorry...2,400 years ago.