Confederate battle flag

[kencat]

I know that some people consider this flag as a symbol of slavery and the opression of blacks. I have always considered it as a symbol of bravery. To engage in battle Napoleon style knowing that it was better to die in battle than to go back home a coward. What say you. A Yankey

[carver]

Originally Posted by kencat

I know that some people consider this flag as a symbol of slavery and the depression of blacks. I have always considered it as a symbol of bravery. To engage in battle Napoleon style knowing that it was better to die in battle than to go back home a coward. What say you. A Yankey

Every state in the Union had people that owned slaves when the Civil War broke out. Lincoln himself owned slaves that were given to his wife by her father as a wedding present. Lincoln did not free them until after the war. As to the flag you speak of, here in the south many of us still fly it. My great-grand-father fought for it.

[wpage]

Under the 1st amendment it is a persons right to express his view.
It is a interesting banner. Some folks find it offensive.

[AL MOUNT]

This is the CURRENT Mississippi state flag.....

God Bless the South

[45nut]

These days I do not find it humorous that people really believe that the War of Northern Aggression was fought to free the slaves in the Southern States. All that does is show ignorance of the facts.

Does no one remember the riots in the Northern states when Lincoln read the Emancipation Proclamation because they thought the free slaves would move north and take their factory jobs?

Unlike all other races, Caucasians may not have or show any ethnic pride. Especially if it has to do with the Flags of Our Father's. I was born in Dixie and am proud of my heritage and my ancestors. None of my folks were rich enough to own any slaves and most of them on my Daddy's side fought for the North.

The Confederate Battle Flag may be misused by the neo nazi crowd, but that does not mean that the flag itself is a symbol of slavery and the oppression of black people.

How about this: Why don't we consider the black tribes that sold the captured black tribes into slavery to the slave traders to be the real racists here?

To me it is both a symbol of bravery and simplicity, but also of Honor and Duty. It also represents the last stand of the idea of the Republic as our Founders intended.

James Madison wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the new federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former (federal powers) will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.

[carver]

Well said 45nut. I wonder if any one really looks at the demographics of this war? The South was poor, all the power, and money was in the North. The South felt that they were at a very bad disadvantage, Politically, and financially (taxation with out representation). Look at those states today. We are still considered the arm pit of America. The states that fought for the South are still the poorest states in the Union. Just like all wars, this is what this war was about, power, and money. But the winner usually gets to write history the way they see it. Even if it isn't true.

[jim brady]

Kenkat - that flag is a symbol of honor and bravery. My Great Great Gandfather fought for the Union. The causes of the War were many, and great and nobel men fought on both sides. Thank God that the War ended as it did and left our nation intact.

"The War of Northern Agression"!!!!! I am still laughing on that one!! My family - being settlers in Missouri from the 1840s - still take differing views of the War. The fact is that we would never have survived as a Nation - neither the Confederacy or the Union - had the South permantly seceeded. Europe was ready to re-colonize the South, and unfortunately, the "Southern Aristocracy" was more than willing for that to happen.

Kind of funny how certain groups say that the War was all about slavery, then at the same time complain that things are still the same today. Had it not been for a Northerner (Ely Whitney) slavery would have died of natural causes at about the same time that it was abolished by law. And there were actually Africans who volunteered to serve in the Confederate Army at the end of the War.

[45nut]

Jim,

Nice post Sir.

The War of Northern Aggression. What else can you call it, since it was they who invaded us, Sir?? I really like that one too. It can be said to be about many things but, States rights and the idea of The Republic was the reason for secession and the invasion of the Northern States.

The idea that once a state joined the union, it could not secede, is false and one propagated by Lincoln and his administration. It was certainly not what the Founder's thought and considered just.

Good article here

[Jim K]

I also respect the bravery of soldiers who fight for a cause, even if that cause is wrong. But all the ranting and justifying doesn't really obscure the fact that the war WAS about slavery; other issues could have been resolved without a fight.

It was not only a matter of racism but of economics. Tobacco and cotton, the principal crops of the South, were labor intensive. Their production required cheap labor to be profitable and compete with Turkey and other countries in the world market, and slavery was the cheapest labor there was.

Of course, the South needed to justify slavery to itself by claiming that blacks were inferior, and slavery was needed to "educate" and "civilize" them (most plantation owners did damn little of either). Southerners also feared that if the slaves were freed, they would turn on their former masters and exact revenge for generations of slavery. While for the most part that didn't happen, the fear was reasonable, especially when the Union army recruited blacks and sent them south with arms. And of course those fears led to the nation's first gun control laws, written to keep blacks from owning or carrying arms; most of those laws dated from before the war, but they were reinforced and became more widespread after the war. Fear of armed blacks kept the CS army from recruiting freed blacks, and a proposal to free slaves who "were volunteered" by their masters went nowhere, even though it had the backing of General Lee.

If anyone doubts that gun control still is intended to keep blacks from being armed, ask why the severity of gun control laws in our states and cities is exactly in proportion to the number of blacks in the population (though CA fears the Mexicans more).

So, in addition to all the other problems that grew out of the South's "peculiar institution", we have gun control, still designed to keep blacks "in their place."

Jim

[Shooter45]

Slavery wasn't an issue until later in the war as Lincoln ( slave owner himself ) used it to gain support. If the war was indeed about slavery in the beginning, it would have never taken place because most of the Southern army owned no slaves. The gov't tried to tax the profitable South and it backfired.

[jim brady]

Slavery was an issue, but only of secondary importance. The primary issues were 1.) State's Rights vs Federal Control, and 2.) the Northern alliance of states imposed unfair taxes on cotton and tobacco exported by the Southern states.

The Emancepation Proclamation was issued in 1863 - well into the War. President Lincoln (In my view the greatest President we've ever had) was an abolishionist who indeed wanted to end slavery, but had to wait until 1863 to have the political backing to do it.

Kind of funny as to how opinions differ to this day among even those of our generation. I think that depending on where you were educated and raised you will think the single most important issue were either slavery or State's Rights. I do not think those as Jim K are wrong in their views.

The arguement over Federalism or a de-centralized government continue to this very day. Just look at the Arizona controversy, and all they are trying to do is enforce Federal laws that are already on the books. I'm not at all sure that the problems that divided us in the 1860s could have been resolved in any other way.

[Shooter45]

http://thefirearmsforum.com/showthre...ern+aggression

[Cavik]

From what I understand: Abraham Lincoln was made president without the support of a single Southern state, and they assumed he wouldn't support them. When, in fact, Lincoln just wanted to keep the Union intact. He might have at least tried to solve their problems to keep them from seceding if they had just given him some time. But they got angry, and seceded from the Union even before Lincolns inauguration.

After that, Jefferson Davis decided that he didn't want United States soldiers in Fort Sumter (which was on Confederate land); where the first shots of the civil war took place, from Confederates, onto US soldiers; because they refused to leave. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

Because of all this, to me, the Confederate flag represents selfishness, arrogance, and anger. It represents the unjustified killing of your countrymen. I definitely don't think of it as a symbol of slavery and the oppression of blacks, though, because three-fourths of the white Southern population was in no way connected to slavery.

[Alpo]

If Lincoln was such an "abolishionist who indeed wanted to end slavery, but had to wait until 1863 to have the political backing to do it", then why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free the slaves belonging to" persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States", leaving slavery legal in states (such as Maryland) that did not join the Confederacy. Why was slavery not outlawed in the Northern states until the passage of the 13th Amendment, December 6, 1865, almost 8 months to the day AFTER the surrender?

[kencat]

Hi; I'm the guy who started this thread.The reason behind it is simple.When visiting Atlanta,GA. from MN. I bought a Confederate battle flag license plate at the Andersonville Prison Site. When we got home I decided to install it on my truck. My wife said it was not a good idea,that a lot of people would think it was in bad taste. I thought it was my way to show my respect for those southern soldiers who gave there life during the civil war. Ken

[jim brady]

Alpo, my reasoning for the statement that President Lincoln was an abolishionist who had to wait until 1863 to issue the Emancipation Proclaimation and that only slaves in states still in rebellion is that the Proclimation was in part punishment for those states and persons still in rebellion.

Maryland was a slave state, and was very nearly a Confederate State as well. The Union government had to tread lightly dealing with Maryland or the population could have easily joined the South. There were in fact two volunteer Regiments with the same designation - one was Union and the other was Confederate.

At that time, many in the Northern states could not justify the War primarliy to free the slaves. The War began mostly to save the Union. I am not sure at all that President Lincoln could have reversed the root causes for the War. Fort Sumpter was fired on before he took office. By then hostilities were in motion.

It's been 140 years and emptions still run high over the Civil War. Kenkat, your wife was likely right in that it may not be a great idea to have Confederate flags or symbols on your car in Minnesota. As Cavik states, to some the Stars and Bars or the Bonnie Blue Flag are a symbol of repression, while to others it has a more noble sentiment.

As a side note - a few years ago I was driving my British TR-6 sports car thru a shopping mall parking lot here in Colorado. It had a small British "Union Jack" and "TR6" on the rear fenders as it's logo. An elderly black lady saw this and chased me on foot yelling obsentities at me. She thought the Union Jack was a Confederate flag.......

[Alpo]

"in PART punishment"? It was absolutely punishment. Lincoln did not care about the plight of slaves. He said that if he could save the Union by freeing all the slaves, he would. If he could save the Union by keeping all blacks as slaves, he would. It had nothing to do with the slaves. It was all about keeping the country.

We were at war. Wars cost money. One of the few ways the South had to raise money was from their agricultural products. By freeing the slaves that belonged to people that were "engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States" (and only to those people), it did away with the agriculture work force. It was the same theory as Sherman's March to the Sea. "Burn all the fields. Kill all the livestock. If we totally destroy everything they have, they are going to have to quit."

[jim brady]

I stand by my "In PART - punishment" statement because President Lincoln WAS an Abolishionist, and his personal desire was to end slavery. Not that the original basis of the war was to end slavery, because his primary objective as President was the restoration of the Union. The 'punishment' part was to penalize wealthy slave owners in those states still in rebellion.

You are absolutely correct in that he stated that if he could end the war and restore the Union by freeing no blacks - he would have done so. But again the opportunity to do begin the abolishment of slavery came in 1863.

General Sherman was also correct in his assesment that that he needed to break the will of the civil population to support Confederate military operations by bringing the war to civilians on the scale that he brought. War was no longer an abstract ideal, but reality for those at home supporting the war effort. I think we agree on both points.

[45nut]

Originally Posted by 45nut

James Madison wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the new federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former (federal powers) will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.

What shooter said, and I'll quote James Madison again so we can understand what States Rights means. The individual sovereign States were to set laws taxes etc in their respective states. Period. Unlawful tariffs or taxes was what caused The Revolutionary and Civil War in this country. And I fell certain that it will (cap and tax, health care BS) cause the next one.

Be sure to read some real history as opposed to the revisionist crappola that tole you the Civil War was all about slavery.

http://mac110.assumption.edu/aas/Intros/emancproc.html

And a little more:

"Race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known." --Alexis De Tocqueville, “Democracy in America”

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/317749.html

[henry77]

I still my 3x5' Confederate Flag that I purchased in 1964 when as a freshman, I entered The University of Mississippi. It has been flown from trunk of car going to ball games, hung on the wall and carefully maintained.

The flag is like my guns. They will have pulled from my cold dead hands.

[Jim K]

In fact, I once owned a Confederate flag, bought in Montgomery, Alabama, when I was on TDY. (A very nice city, by the way; I enjoyed my stay.) But it wasn't the battle flag, it was the national flag with the three bars ("the stars and bars").

I kept that on my desk, in a government office, for years and no one looked at it twice. Had it been the battle flag, I am willing to bet I would have been told to remove it. I think that goes to show how little people actually know about the Civil War.

Incidentally, Ft. Sumter was not "on Confederate land"; like all other U.S. forts, then and now, it was on land owned by a legal entity called "the United States", the same way my house is owned by an entity called Jim K. So it was the property of that entity, no matter what person or state owned the surrounding land or which state it was in. The CS was saying, in effect, that it now had replaced the US and held title to the fort as the lawful successor to the US. That, of course, Lincoln could not accept; if the CS could lay claim to Ft. Sumter, it could lay claim to the US capitol and the White House. Such claims could only be resolved by war.

Jim

[Alpo]

That's an interesting theory. But (for example) we have military bases in Germany. These bases are US soil. But if the German government said, "We no longer wish to have a foreign military presence in our country. Pack up your stuff and get out.", I don't think we would say, "Sorry guys, but while that piece of land is inside your country's borders, it is US soil, and we are staying here." We'd leave.

South Caroline decided they were no longer part of the USA, but were part of another county, the CSA, and did not want US troops occupying their country. "Get out". It's the same thing.

[Alpo]

Also, your house is owned by an entity called "Jim K.", under the laws of the United States of America. If the Peoples Republic of China took over the country, tomorrow, it would not matter that your house is owned by you, under US law. We would now be living under PRC law, and private ownership of property may no longer be legal. So your house would no longer be owned by you. With a new country could come new laws, and you can't rely on the way it was in the "old country".

[Jim K]

Originally Posted by Alpo

Also, your house is owned by an entity called "Jim K.", under the laws of the United States of America. If the Peoples Republic of China took over the country, tomorrow, it would not matter that your house is owned by you, under US law. We would now be living under PRC law, and private ownership of property may no longer be legal. So your house would no longer be owned by you. With a new country could come new laws, and you can't rely on the way it was in the "old country".

True, although the CS recognized private property. The CS simply said, we are taking over, and won't tolerate any foreign army on "our" soil. The US had said the same thing "four score and seven years" before, to the British. In both cases, it took a war to settle the real estate dispute.

BTW, the war was not a "Civil War" or a "War of Northern Aggression", it was a war of secession, the same as the Revolutionary War. And it was a war between nations, not a true civil war, even though one nation did not recognize the other (nor did any other nation). Lincoln did goof at one point, though, in ordering a blockade. Under international law, a nation does not blockade itself, it merely closes its ports. So technically, declaring a blockade was a de facto recognition of the CS, though no one pointed it out at the time.

Jim

[Alpo]

I agree absolutely. If Jeff Davis had been trying to run a coup, and take over from Abe, it would have been a Civil War. But, since we had no interest in running the United States, but wanted to leave it, it was, as you said, a war of secession.

I've never called it the War of Northern Aggression, as that makes it sound like they started it. It's the War Against Yankee Aggression (although sometimes I refer to it as the "2nd American Revolution"). We started it, but it was because of the aggressive acts of the North. Very similar to the aggressive acts of Goige T'oid (as they say in Chicago), when the American Colonies waged their War Against British Aggression.