# Confederate Battle Flag emblematics



## duckbill (Jul 15, 2008)

I'm wondering what people think of ties, cufflinks, and so on with the Confederate Battle Flag on them? This is, by the way, a *genuine* question, and so let's please keep this thread civil, so that it does not go to the Interchagne.

Personally, owing to their connotations with certain political views that I don't share, I would avoid them.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

The only flag in my wardrobe is an American flag lapel pin that I break out on Memorial Day, Veteran's Day and the like. No other flag paraphernalia, and nor shall there be.



duckbill said:


> I'm wondering what people think of ties, cufflinks, and so on with the Confederate Battle Flag on them? This is, by the way, a *genuine* question, and so let's please keep this thread civil, so that it does not go to the Interchagne.
> 
> Personally, owing to their connotations with certain political views that I don't share, I would avoid them.


----------



## SartoNYC (Feb 22, 2005)

*A fair enough question,*

but you cannot, cannot, cannot get away from the connotations that flag has. I would recommend you think twice.


----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

Don't do it....


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

I love my battle flag cuff links.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

The Confederate Battle Flag is appropriately flown over any Confederate Memorial or cemetery, but beyond that should generally be reserved for museums and archives. As a proud born and bred Southerner I would only wear a lapel pin or any other type of flag ornament that is representative of the U.S. Flag. 

The war is over and I believe that any display of the Confederate Flag or Battle Flag other than noted above is actually showing disrespect for that flag and the men who served under it.

Cruiser


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

duckbill said:


> I'm wondering what people think of ties, cufflinks, and so on with the Confederate Battle Flag on them? This is, by the way, a *genuine* question, and so let's please keep this thread civil, so that it does not go to the Interchagne.
> 
> Personally, owing to their connotations with certain political views that I don't share, I would avoid them.


There's very little to be said about the question that isn't politically charged, and you've already said you personally wouldn't wear it because of the connotations. So, what do you hope to achieve by asking others for their opinions?

I'm not saying you couldn't possibly have a legitimate motive. But with this kind of question you ought to be able to say very clearly what your legitimate motive is. Or else you shouldn't be asking it.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

(k.m.a.)


----------



## gtsecc (Mar 25, 2008)

Sure. Fairly common around Charleston. Best friend wears them a lot; he's black. At prep school up north, there were folks who would assume it was racist. Down here nobody would think that much about it. If you really want to piss someone off, wear the wrong college football team.


----------



## Memphis88 (Sep 10, 2008)

gtsecc said:


> Sure. Fairly common around Charleston. Best friend wears them a lot; he's black. At prep school up north, *there were folks who would assume it was racist*. Down here nobody would think that much about it. If you really want to piss someone off, wear the wrong college football team.


I've never met anyone who displayed the confederate flag who wasn't racist. The dixie outfitters t-shirt trend a little while back pissed me off to no end.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

About a year ago, whilst motoring through our Carolina village, I's stopped at a residential four-way. Opposite was a Camaro sporting Confederate Flag front plate. Groaned slightly at the stereotype lodged twixt me ears. As we passed one espied a gentleman with an abundance of epidermal melanin driving. Go figure.....


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

There's good and bad issues behind every flag. Were those recently wearing Jolly Roger items advocating piracy?

Although I don't have any accessories/apparel with the design, I have no problem with it.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Setting aside the fact that the Confederacy was formed to defend the ability to own slaves (and that's impossible for me to disregard), it's wearing the flag of a "country" that waged war on the United States. I say that's just wrong.

Or, as we consider many of the other clothing questions that come up here, think of the impact this choice of clothing would have on other people. I don't know what your political beliefs are, but many people seeing you in this attire would infer that you are making a statement in support of racism and slavery. Do you want to alienate people who are not racists and ingratiate yourself with those who are?

It can be argued that Confederate symbols do not send a message of racism. Right or wrong, that is analogous to arguing that because the swastika is an ancient design going back thousands of years anyone should feel free to wear it today, ignoring its ties to the Nazis.

Don't do it.


----------



## Pleasant McIvor (Apr 14, 2008)

Yes, it is impossible to escape the connotations that the Battle Flag now has. And it is true that many people who display the flag in any form are racist. But I hope our neighbors to the north can at least attempt to understand (and I notice the location of those in this thread who say that the flag should never be displayed) that many Southerners who revere the flag are showing pride in their upbringing, their families, and their cities and states (not slavery). When I was growing up in the South, I associated modern Southern virtues with the flag: hospitality, gentility, respect, faith, and appreciation of a slow, aloof kind of life, the things that the New South turned to in recovery from the Civil War (or as I was instructed to call it, the War of Northern Aggression). Now I know that the flag is offensive to many, and I would not display the flag in any form for that reason. But, it is also shortsighted (although not equally so) to assume that everyone who wears the flag is racist and wants the South to rise again. If you want to display a Confederate flag, try a different version than the polarizing Battle Flag. No one will recognize it except those who have made an effort to see the South's history, and they will be fascinated rather than disgusted.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

Neither a Yankee nor a Rebel, but foreign-born instead, I have no horse in this race, no ancestors who killed or were killed in this war nor who did anyone wrong (in this country, what villainy they committed elsewhere is another matter). However, a set of Ben Silver Confederate cuff links on Ebay tempted me recently. I confess I had an easy way out: it was for a two-button blazer, not a 3/2, so trad style trumped political incorrectness. Still, the horseback figure on the links was alluring. Like so many things Southern, this item was troubling yet beautiful. The troubling reasons have been spelled out clearly here. Slavery. Emblem of a nation that waged war on this one. True, true. Perhaps the only way out of the quandary presented by the esthetics of the South is, well, esthetic. I pledge allegiance to Tennessee Williams and to the lyricism of his dramatic poetry, refusing to mount the Confederate steed and taking a streetcar instead.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Knowing the historical, racial and political connotations attached to it, I'd say you abstain from it.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Like a couple of the other non-yankees to reply to this thread, I have mixed feelings about the use of the flag. Our state flag still includes the battle flag, like it or not. I don't see that ever changing. I've said it before on this forum and I'll have to say it again; you are an absolute fool if you think the Civil War was waged solely or even primarily because the "good guys" (yankees) thought slavery was evil and the "bad guys" (us southerners) should be taken down because of it. There is no way you could argue about this on an internet forum and get in all of the points for and against each side, it's just too complicated. But a lot of the history books children read these days have certainly "rewritten" the war.

Whether someone from New York or Vermont can understand matters little to me. What this country did to the various indian tribes is just as, if not more, dispecable than anything that occured in the Old South. That doesn't stop the Washington Redskins or Cleveland Indians from having racist mascots. That doesn't stop every man, woman and child in America from celebrating Thanksgiving and not once thinking about the real history of this country and the indians. 

Hogwash.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Threads like this one are to be found everywhere out there in bloggy webland. 

Guys mind taking it somewhere more appropriate?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

duckbill said:


> I'm wondering what people think of ties, cufflinks, and so on with the Confederate Battle Flag on them? This is, by the way, a *genuine* question, and so let's please keep this thread civil, so that it does not go to the Interchagne.
> 
> Personally, owing to their connotations with certain political views that I don't share, I would avoid them.


While I must commend you all on the remarkably civil tone of the exchanges to this point of the thread, the focus of the inquiry is by it's very nature political, rather than sartorial. Had the question asked been broadened to include the wear of all emblematics or even limited to emblematics depicting any political affiliations, it might have been appropriate for this or the fashion forum but, it is what it is. So, we'll see you on the Interchange!


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*A changing symbol*

A few other members have pointed out that they have seen the Confederate flag flown by blacks and whites. I live in the South, and I too have seen the flag displayed by people of myriad racial backgrounds. I think that the symbol of the flag is changing. What was to previous generations a symbol of the Confederacy is seen by younger generations as a symbol of being southerners, and of rebellion in general. As usually happens, what adults have forbidden is embraced by the younger generations in rebellion against authority.

It reminds me of a similar topic that came up in the Interchange a while back, when there was a noose hung in Jena, La. There were protest marches, and cries of racial discrimination, but when the kids involved were interviewed, neither the black nor the white ones knew about the noose as a symbol of racial oppression.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Memphis88 said:


> I've never met anyone who displayed the confederate flag who wasn't racist. The dixie outfitters t-shirt trend a little while back pissed me off to no end.


I avoid them myself, simply because of people like you. I have met many people who wear them who are not racist. But no doubt some wearers are, and there will always be simple-minded people who jump to unfair conclusions. Why incite them.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I have strong emotions with regards to the confederate flag. I can't really put it into words, but it is dear to me. I don't think these deep feelings could ever be truly understood by anyone not of southern origin. These feelings have no relationship to slavery or racism. They are different from my feelings for the American flag that I would fight to defend and under which I very proudly served in the US military. Dear, nonetheless.

Sadly, that flag has been pretty much co-opted (at least, in the minds of many) by folks whom I would never ever associate with. I also sympathize with how it might be viewed by many in the black population of this country. With all that in mind, it would not be something that I could, in good conscious, display.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

the battle flag has been taken over by ******* racists in the same way the swastika was taken over by the nazi. you cannot see a swastika and not think of nazi, likewize you cannot see battle flag and not think of the KKK, to do otherwise is ignore reality


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Setting aside the fact that the Confederacy was formed to defend the ability to own slaves (and that's impossible for me to disregard), it's wearing the flag of a "country" that waged war on the United States. I say that's just wrong.


Let's get our facts straight.

1. The United States of America was formed with the supposed "right" to own slaves referenced in four separate places in its Constitution. If the formation of the CSA permitting slavery was wrongful, then the formation of the USA was wrongful, too, inasmuch as slavery was at least partially abolished at English Common Law prior to the USA's secession from England.

2. The USA was not free of slavery at the time of secession. Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri were all Union states (plus Washington, D.C.), and all had legal slavery until 1864 or 1865.

3. The CSA did not wage war on the USA, but rather the CSA seceded, thereby forming a separate country, legitimately requested the foreign military stationed inside its territory to leave voluntarily, which they refused to do, and were accordingly expelled by force, killing no one. The CSA was then invaded by the USA in an illegal war of foreign conquest, the first of many.

4. The USA has invaded no other country for the supposed purpose of eradicating the slavery practiced in those places.

Therefore, the cartoon version of US history where the pure, gallant North vanquished the corrupt, craven South is plainly inaccurate. It is childish in the extreme.

As for CSA Battle Flag cufflinks, however, I object to the use of statist emblems for any purpose, and find the display of flags on one's clothing in particular to be a little tacky.


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

I'm currently leading the bidding on ebay for a Ben Silver CSA necktie. If JackMcCullough and Cruiser are agin' it, how can I be else but for it? 

I will wear it in honor of Pendleton Murrah, guv of Texas (1863-1865)....an honorable man by all accounts.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

My observation is that people who believe in the sanctity of the CSA battle flag fall into two largely stereotyped groups: ignorant and reverent.

The ignorant probably don't wear cuff links or ties.

The reverent (like myself) tend to follow old rules. Old rules like you shouldn't make something else out of the flag. As such, I don't like American Flag turned into clothes, bandanas, etc.. 

I would fly a real CSA battle flag, but I wouldn't wear CSA cufflinks. YMMV 

If someone had say some old CSA uniform buttons and they wanted to put them on a blazer; then I think that would be interesting.

I reference the one flag wearing exception that I like; which tends to be the Texas flag as a bikini. And I'm not even from Texas. Imagine that. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I reference the one flag wearing exception that I like; which tends to be the Texas flag as a bikini. And I'm not even from Texas. Imagine that. :icon_smile_big:


Confederate flag, Union Jack, Stars and Stripes, or Texas flag, there is just something magical in the transformative power of the bikini.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

agnash said:


> A few other members have pointed out that they have seen the Confederate flag flown by blacks and whites. I live in the South, and I too have seen the flag displayed by people of myriad racial backgrounds. I think that the symbol of the flag is changing. What was to previous generations a symbol of the Confederacy is seen by younger generations as a symbol of being southerners, and of rebellion in general. As usually happens, what adults have forbidden is embraced by the younger generations in rebellion against authority.
> 
> It reminds me of a similar topic that came up in the Interchange a while back, when there was a noose hung in Jena, La. There were protest marches, and cries of racial discrimination, but when the kids involved were interviewed, neither the black nor the white ones knew about the noose as a symbol of racial oppression.


When I was in high school in southern California in the late 50's surfer-identified anglo kids incorporated the iron cross into their regalia. The Chicanos in my high school could not understand why anyone would display an emblem of the country their fathers and uncles had fought against. The anglo kids said they liked the fact that doing so was in opposition to authority. Both groups wore Pendelton wool shirts.

FWIW, I was an anglo surfer on friendly terms with Chicanos. I shared their views of the iron cross. I still have a couple of Pendelton shirts, but have few occasions to wear them.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Take South Carolina for example:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. *Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.* They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. *A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. *

. . .

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. *The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government*, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Or Mississippi:

*Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world*. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and *a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization*. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

*It advocates ***** equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst*.

The causes stated by the other southern states are in the same vein.

https://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

There is no basis for the assertion that the treason and purported of the Confederate states was not motivated by the desire to preserve the institution of slavery. No amount of mockery of the Northern states, or of other instances of racism, takes away from this fundamental fact, set forth in the secessionists' own words.

Neo-confederates and confederate sympathizers can pretend to believe otherwise, but a decent respect for reality demands that we not be deceived.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jack, you're just precious. Does it occur to you why you cannot quote an entire sentence in context and make your point that others have no leg to stand on in their argument? Does the bolded part not mean anything to you?

"*The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist;* *the equal rights of the States will be lost.* The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, *and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."*

My one area of agreement with you is that people who today argue the rights of States are barking up a tree that no longer exists and they should accept the all powerful federal government as it is.

Some quotes from the YellowistDog himself that may enlighten you as to the "right" of the North's position; considering the demands of a "decent respect for reality" that you mentioned.



Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston said:


> I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of *******, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the ***** should be denied everything.





Letter to Horace Greeley said:


> My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

If the question is the legality of secession (although, really, the question is the legality of using an army to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people to prevent secession), then the motives for secession do not matter in the slightest. 

If the states had the right to secede, then their motive for doing so is entirely irrelevant. 

Therefore, a recitation of those motives, however repulsive to modern ears, means nothing.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Phinn said:


> If the question is the legality of secession (although, really, the question is the legality of using an army to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people to prevent secession), then the motives for secession do not matter in the slightest.
> 
> If the states had the right to secede, then their motive for doing so is entirely irrelevant.
> 
> Therefore, a recitation of those motives, however repulsive to modern ears, means nothing.


Exactly this.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

but isnt succession treason?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

If seccession is treason, so is declaring independence.



But, anyway, I much prefer the "Bonnie Blue Flag" or Lone Star as a symbol of the confederacy, but it doesn't seem to be popular unless it's referring to Texas.


----------



## Steve_C (Aug 23, 2007)

young guy said:


> but isnt succession treason?


Does the Constitution permit the federal government to compel a state's membership in the union?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> If seccession is treason, so is declaring independence.


yeah, but then we didn't loose


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Phinn,



Phinn said:


> If the question is the legality of secession (although, really, the question is the legality of using an army to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people to prevent secession), then the motives for secession do not matter in the slightest.
> 
> If the states had the right to secede, then their motive for doing so is entirely irrelevant.
> 
> Therefore, a recitation of those motives, however repulsive to modern ears, means nothing.


I notice you didn't mention the evils of slavery while making your rather flimsy argument. One wonders what that could mean.....

Karl


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

In the 70's my parents belonged to a square dance club in Atlanta, GA. My mom made her own dresses, adorned with lace trim and lots of pleats, which she wore with a crinoline petticoat to make the skirt full. 
My dad wore western wear and black pointed toe cowboy boots. One day my mom bought some fabric block printed with Confederate flags and made a vest for my dad. He wore it and not as a symbol of racism or the Klan or anything else, but knew it was a tongue in cheek poke at the deep south.

I have lived in South Carolina for three years now and I think it is ludicrous that some groups boycotted our state for tourism because the Confederate battle flag flew atop our state capitol. Due to pressure the flag was moved to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers. To this day the NCAA will not allow any of their predetermined championship sporting events to be hosted in SC.

Today, I see the confederate flag as both good and bad. The good is in its heritage as a symbol for states rights; while the bad is a symbol for hate, not heritage. The symbol is a conundrum, and the wearer of the symbol must endure some scrutiny. His demeanor will find him out.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Phinn,
> 
> I notice you didn't mention the evils of slavery while making your rather flimsy argument. One wonders what that could mean.....
> 
> Karl


Weak.

Don't be a coward. Come out with whatever it is you'd like to say.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Beau said:


> I have lived in South Carolina for three years now and I think it is ludicrous that some groups boycotted our state for tourism because the Confederate battle flag flew atop our state capitol. Due to pressure the flag was moved to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers. To this day the NCAA will not allow any of their predetermined championship sporting events to be hosted in SC.
> 
> Today, I see the confederate flag as both good and bad. The good is in its heritage as a symbol for states rights; while the bad is a symbol for hate, not heritage. The symbol is a conundrum, and the wearer of the symbol must endure some scrutiny. His demeanor will find him out.


I personally like the CSA flag, but I also don't see boycotting those that do as ludicrous at all. There's a bunch of stuff other people do that I don't like. If they were flying a flag I thought was stupid that would be reason enough for me. I know of a business that has one in their workplace - a manufacturing facility. If I was offended by that I'd have no problem quitting and working somewhere else or taking my business somewhere else. That's the American way to handle things IMHO. I don't think someone that does this is ludicrous to do so.

I think you will find very few people that endorse the symbol are unwilling to accept the scrutiny. Live and let live; live and let die. Isn't that fair to all sides?

What I don't get is more the people that say the problem is slavery when there obviously isn't any slavery anymore. So, why do they care if someone they consider an "idiot" chooses to fly a CSA flag? Why isn't it the same as say me watching someone go down the street in a car worth $500 with $2,000 rims and a Latin Kings flag in the window? Does their symbol of cultural pride offend me? No. I think it's stupid and just shake my head and laugh at it, but it's their personal expression and I respect the fact they are willing to express that publicly. Only someone who is truly a bigot gets upset about such things. Which is what makes most most of them so funny as well. They can't see they are bigger racist bigots then the people they criticize. Where I live if you see a pickup truck with a CSA flag the best thing to do is keep your mouth shut and mind your own business. Which is the same as any other example of cultural pride, but somehow people think it should be different than the other examples.


----------



## Steve_C (Aug 23, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Phinn,
> 
> I notice you didn't mention the evils of slavery while making your rather flimsy argument. One wonders what that could mean.....
> 
> Karl


My guess is that Phinn meant just what he said: "If the question is the legality of secession ... then the motives for secession do not matter in the slightest." That's really a very simple, though by no means flimsy, argument. Do the states have a right to leave the union off their own accord or do they not?

One wonders whether you read the entire post you selectively quoted. You might have noticed this part: "... a recitation of those motives, however repulsive to modern ears ..."

Is it really so difficult to separate the argument that the states had a right to leave the union from the argument that slavery was an awful institution? The two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive.

Edit: My apologies to Phinn for appearing to speak in his place. That was not my intention; rather, I found the argument put forth insulting in the extreme to those of us who dislike both slavery and unbridled federal power.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Phinn,

Really I wonder what it could mean.

A few questions:

Do you think the Confederacy had any moral legitmacy?

And if so, was that moral legitimacy undermined by the institution of slavery?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Steve,

Your point would be a salient one if the Condfederate states has abolished slavery before they left the Union. Alas they did not. And even if one were to accept the very suspect argument that states had a right to secede, they did not have a moral right to enslave people.

Karl


----------



## Steve_C (Aug 23, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Steve,
> 
> Your point would be a salient one if the Condfederate states has abolished slavery before they left the Union. Alas they did not.


I don't understand your point. The right of the states to secede was not impacted any more by slavery than by the weather. If they wanted to leave, they had the legal right to do so.


Karl89 said:


> And even if one were to accept the very suspect argument that states had a right to secede, they did not have a moral right to enslave people.
> 
> Karl


Do you find the two arguments (1. States had a right to secede and 2. Slavery was, and is, disgusting) mutually exclusive?

Edit: Could not your last comment apply just as well to the colonies that formed this country as the states that tried to leave it?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Steve,
> 
> Your point would be a salient one if the Condfederate states has abolished slavery before they left the Union. Alas they did not. And even if one were to accept the very suspect argument that states had a right to secede, they did not have a moral right to enslave people.
> 
> Karl


So, the Federal government has the exclusive moral right to enslave people?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Steve_C said:


> Does the Constitution permit the federal government to compel a state's membership in the union?


Well, every state agreeing to the Constitution agreed to the Supremacy Clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Jack, you're just precious. Does it occur to you why you cannot quote an entire sentence in context and make your point that others have no leg to stand on in their argument? Does the bolded part not mean anything to you?
> 
> "*The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist;* *the equal rights of the States will be lost.* The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, *and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."*
> 
> ...


Now do you understand this point? I stated that the motivation of the southern states to secede was to maintain human slavery.

In other words, my statement had to do with the motives of the states who decided to secede. By their own words, they decided to secede because they thought that the national government was on a course leading toward abolition of slavery.

In response, you quoted Abraham Lincoln. I am well familiar with those words. In fact, when I was in high school I wrote a paper that was very critical of Lincoln because of these sentiments.

Nevertheless, the statements of Lincoln, explaining what he was doing and why, do not explain why the South was doing what it was doing.

Get it? Regardless of Lincoln's motives, or of the purity of the motives of the Northern states, and I haven't said anything about either one, none of these facts contradicts the fact that the Southern states specifically said they were seceding in order to preserve slavery.


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

The Ben Silver "Great Seal of the Confederacy" items are classy, understated, etc. and still show Southern pride etc. without the negative connotation.

Because at the base level the CS battle flag is a symbol of treason to the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## kkollwitz (Oct 31, 2005)

*In S.C.*

I do occasionally see people wearing the Battle Flag as a lapel pin...it's never occurred to me that they are racist, or support slavery, or that anyone else thinks they are racist or support slavery. I think it's fine to wear if you're careful about who is likely to see it.

For many of us Southerners the Battle Flag is more bittersweet than anything, since everyone I know regrets the sin of slavery but loves the South nonetheless.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Phinn,
> 
> Really I wonder what it could mean.
> 
> ...


Ah, a direct question! How refreshing.

I do not believe the Confederacy had any moral legitimacy, on the grounds that I do not believe that _any_ state has moral legitimacy. Politically, I am an anarchist, inasmuch as a state, by definition, consists of two assertions: (1) that a particular group of people are specially empowered to aggress against everyone else, and (2) that the victims of this aggression do not have the right to resist. The claim that this form of aggression is somehow moral is patently frivolous.

However, I suppose this response does not answer your question. I believe the CSA had _no more moral legitimacy than the USA_ from which it seceded. However, I also believe that it was also _no less legitimate_, as well, since the legitimacy of both sets of states, and the states that comprised them, were (and are) zero.

Therefore, as a matter of political ideology, I have no reason to favor the USA over the CSA. I care about as much about preserving either (or any) state as I care about which team wins the NBA finals.

Nevertheless, it is my legal opinion that _*if*_ one were to accept the proposition that the US government is bound by the terms of its founding charter (although I maintain that the Constitution has no authority and never has), *then* its member states had the option to secede. The proposition that the union memorialized in that document was mandatory, and could be maintained by force of arms against the will of its constituent members, and that membership in that union was something other than mutually voluntary, isn't remotely defensible. It's absurd, and not really worth serious debate.

But, it wasn't settled by debate, was it? These things never are.

I would have more respect for the assertion that the right to rule was acquired by the right of conquest -- an open declaration that might makes right -- rather than rest on this insultingly stupid pretense that such conquest was moral and just. At least it would be honest.

To answer Question 2, my response is: no. Even if I were to assume that these states legitimately existed in the first place, the legitimacy of neither the CSA nor the USA was undermined by the existence of slavery. The USA was founded with a protection and repeated recognition of legal slavery in its own founding document, and had slave states in its membership even as it prosecuted a war against the CSA.

Therefore, if the CSA were undermined by the institution of slavery, the USA was undermined as well.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Now do you understand this point? I stated that the motivation of the southern states to secede was to maintain human slavery.
> 
> In other words, my statement had to do with the motives of the states who decided to secede. By their own words, they decided to secede because they thought that the national government was on a course leading toward abolition of slavery.
> 
> ...


Jack, You are correct in what you are saying in many ways, but you're completely missing the point. The motive for secession is not relevant to the meaning of the Flag.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Jack, You are correct in what you are saying in many ways, but you're completely missing the point. The motive for secession is not relevant to the meaning of the Flag.


huh? no succession - no battle flag, what is you reason for saying that?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

kkollwitz said:


> I do occasionally see people wearing the Battle Flag as a lapel pin...it's never occurred to me that they are racist, or support slavery, or that anyone else thinks they are racist or support slavery. I think it's fine to wear if you're careful about who is likely to see it.
> 
> ...


I am sorry and certainly intend no offense but, try as I might, I cannot comprehend the logic or the emotion behind this position: "I think it is fine to wear (a Confederate Battle Flag as a lapel pin), if you're careful about who is likely to see it." Isn't that like a KKK member claiming it's Ok to rock the Hood and Robes of membership, as long as he/she does so only at their secret meetings!


----------



## kkollwitz (Oct 31, 2005)

It's like the little babyfeet pins anti-abortionists wear...there are places I'm happy to wear them, other places where I'd feel like I was just going to aggravate people.

Or political buttons of any kind: I'd also be careful about where I'd wear them.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> huh? no succession - no battle flag, what is you reason for saying that?


No; my reason is that I have studied and understand the the pre-war history and how the war was ignited. You seem to have a lack of understanding about the timing and purpose of certain events. No offense, so do most people. It serves our Federal government's interest to not teach the history of what really occured. Q: who was President at the time the first states seceded?


----------



## Pleasant McIvor (Apr 14, 2008)

kkollwitz said:


> For many of us Southerners the Battle Flag is more bittersweet than anything, since everyone I know regrets the sin of slavery but loves the South nonetheless.


Well said, sir.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> No; my reason is that I have studied and understand the the pre-war history and how the war was ignited. You seem to have a lack of understanding about the timing and purpose of certain events. No offense, so do most people. It serves our Federal government's interest to not teach the history of what really occured. Q: who was President at the time the first states seceded?


i looked it up, Lincoln was elected 11/6/60 and South Carolina the first to succeed did so on 12/20/60, and your point is it's Lincolns fault? i dont follow


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

ksinc said:


> No; my reason is that I have studied and understand the the pre-war history and how the war was ignited. You seem to have a lack of understanding about the timing and purpose of certain events. No offense, so do most people. It serves our Federal government's interest to not teach the history of what really occured. Q: who was President at the time the first states seceded?


OOH OOH, I know. James Buchanan (D) was president when S.C. seceded. Lincoln (R) was not inaugurated until March 4, 1861.;


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

norton said:


> OOH OOH, I know. James Buchanan (D) was president when S.C. seceded. Lincoln (R) was not inaugurated until March 4, 1861.;


i still dont understand the point of this - what history should i know or be reading to understand this?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> i looked it up, Lincoln was elected 11/6/60 and South Carolina the first to succeed did so on 12/20/60, and your point is it's Lincolns fault? i dont follow


No, my Question is: who was President when South Carolina seceded?

Lincoln is the incorrect answer.

My point is rather harsh, but it is that people that can't answer such relatively simple questions regarding Civil War history are probably not as well educated on the War as they think. So, in fact, they probably shouldn't be telling others what the War means or explaining the more complex questions such as the chronology and logic of secession and the pre-war period.

Other simple follow-up questions of these types of people that will enlighten you as to their subject matter "expertise": Did all the slave-states secede? Did any non-slave states secede too?

Frankly, why would you trust the opinion of someone who couldn't answer those questions without looking them up as to what the Flag meant? I just don't buy such proposals.



young guy said:


> i still dont understand the point of this - what history should i know or be reading to understand this?


Yes; I know you don't understand the point. It seems to reason therefore your conclusions regarding the Flag may be unwarranted.

You ask a good question. The really interesting thing is the History is not really in debate. The Victors never made any real attempt to re-write the History of how the War broke out. Which should make you ask, then why it isn't taught? By the way, to answer your question "which history" to study is The History.


----------



## Pleasant McIvor (Apr 14, 2008)

Jefferson Davis.

(just kidding--and he wasn't yet elected anyway)


----------



## Steve_C (Aug 23, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Well, every state agreeing to the Constitution agreed to the Supremacy Clause:
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


How does that authorize the federal government to compel a state's membership? That applies only to member states, and by no means prevents secession.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> No, my Question is: who was President when South Carolina seceded?
> 
> Lincoln is the incorrect answer.
> 
> ...


but the battle flag is not just history - a relic of the past - im not telling you what history means or why or how the succession took place, the battle flag as is used today is popular as an image associated with ******* racist and kkk thinking - im not saying it cant be used for others or by others its just that if i know a popular emblem has a bad reputation id likely choose another so as not to be confused with the bad stuff


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> but the battle flag is not just history - a relic of the past - im not telling you what history means or why or how the succession took place, the battle flag as is used today is popular as an image associated with ******* racist and kkk thinking - im not saying it cant be used for others or by others its just that if i know a popular emblem has a bad reputation id likely choose another so as not to be confused with the bad stuff


They also use crosses. Is that then what the cross means?

You are correct that today the emblem is popularly associated with the bad stuff. Does that mean those people making the popular association are correct? What if in fact they are just as or even more ignorant than say "******* racist" and "kkk thinking" and they just don't know it?

What really matters; the truth or what is popular?

I respect your choice not to employ the emblem. I think that is wise.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> They also use crosses. Is that then what the cross means?


only if its on fire in someones front yard


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> They also use crosses. Is that then what the cross means?
> 
> You are correct that today the emblem is popularly associated with the bad stuff. Does that mean those people making the popular association are correct? What if in fact they are more ignorant than say "******* racist" and "kkk thinking" and they just don't know it?
> 
> ...




popular association is not always based on knowledge or reason, it it were then the swastika would only be viewed as a thousand(s) year old symbol and represents more than just nazis, however i bet you most people if shown a swastka would say nazi first thing


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

norton said:


> OOH OOH, I know. James Buchanan (D) was president when S.C. seceded. Lincoln (R) was not inaugurated until March 4, 1861.;


Yes; but you can't move the head of the class when you're already there. :devil:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> only if its on fire in someones front yard


You should find these interesting.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-780.ZC.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZD.html


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> You should find these interesting.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-780.ZC.html
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZD.html


thanks yes interesting, symbols are very powerful, must be careful


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> popular association is not always based on knowledge or reason, it it were then the swastika would only be viewed as a thousand(s) year old symbol and represents more than just nazis, however i bet you most people if shown a swastka would say nazi first thing


Yes; we agree that most people are ignorant of history and make incorrect associations.

When the symbol is something that has no meaning to you, it's easy to let the weight of the popular association dictate your behavior.

Does that mean those that perpetuate the popular, but incorrect association are educated and tolerant or ignorant and intolerant?

What is our (the educated people's) obligation to the ignorant and intolerant people who slander those of us who embrace such a symbol?

Isn't that even more complicated when the ignorant are claiming to be the elite? Doesn't the burdern rest on those who claim this elite status to educate themselves first?

What also to do about the racists ******** and kkk types that also display our symbol? As surely they too exist.

Is it enough for those of us who know to simply expose the lack of education of those making such incorrect yet popular associations with simple questions that will lead those who will be educated to go seek the truth themselves? So that it follows, those that are intellectually honest should be intellectually curious and investigate these "simple" questions such as; Did all the slave-states secede or not?


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Isn't that even more complicated when the ignorant are claiming to be the elite? Doesn't the burdern rest on those who claim this elite status to educate themselves first?


What would Lao Tzu do?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

norton said:


> What would Lao Tzu do?


If he knew; he never told anybody.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

young guy said:


> i looked it up, Lincoln was elected 11/6/60 and South Carolina the first to succeed did so on 12/20/60, and your point is it's Lincolns fault? i dont follow


The election of Lincoln by the North was the first time a section of the country had elected a President by itself (Lincoln received no Southern votes). The South recognized that they were now in a Union that was, and would be, controlled by the North to the South's detriment. As a result, they left that Union. The North proved that the South's assessment was correct, as they refused to let the South go.

Keep in mind that Northern states themselves threatened to secede during the War of 1812 during the Hartford Convention. Their threat arrived in Washington at the same time as the news of the victory at the Battle of New Orleans. Ooops. Now threatening to walk out of the country in the middle of a war is much more akin to treason than lawfully seceding.

And there's nothing wrong with the Battle Flag, but I can understand why Yankees might not want to wear it.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

AlanC said:


> The election of Lincoln by the North was the first time a section of the country had elected a President by itself (Lincoln received no Southern votes).


False. The election of 1860 was an election in which the winner was determined by the mechanism established in the Constitution to elect the President of the United States, by means of an election in which all the states participated



AlanC said:


> The South recognized that they were now in a Union that was, and would be, controlled by the North to the South's detriment. As a result, they left that Union. The North proved that the South's assessment was correct, as they refused to let the South go.


And the precise manner in which the South thought the national government would treat the South to its detriment was by moving inexorably toward abolition of slavery. Slavery, and the desire to continue to be able to enslave other human beings, was the basis for the decision by the South to secede.

The other factor, which has not been mentioned yet in this discussion, is that the flying of the Confederate flag over state buildings across the South did not continue in an unbroken chain from 1865 to the present. Rather, after the war the use of the Confederate flag was uncommon, if not entirely unheard of until the middle of the Twentieth Century, when it reemerged as a symbol of Southern resistance to the Civil Rights Movement.

Thus, not only was it originally a symbol of a racist system, when it reemerged as a political symbol in the last century it was again explicitly used as the symbol of a racist system.

Any individual member might come here and say that they personally do not approve of the morality of slavery, and that they also personally condemn the system of Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, and other mechanisms used to suppress black people in the 19th and 20th Centuries. None of that will have any bearing on the fact that the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism in the same way that the swastika is a symbol of Nazism and antisemitism.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> And the precise manner in which the South thought the national government would treat the South to its detriment was by moving inexorably toward abolition of slavery. Slavery, and the desire to continue to be able to enslave other human beings, was the basis for the decision by the South to secede.


Based on what you (we) know of Lincoln and what he said in the debates that seems like it would be pretty stupid of the South to think Lincoln's election would lead to freeing the slaves; doesn't it?

I mean specifically that Lincoln was not an abolishionist himself and even supported the proposal of a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing slave states the right to perpetuate as long as they didn't expand and that as terrorities became new states admitted to the Union they were admitted only as non-slave states.

Didn't Lincoln in fact draw the authority for the Emancipation Proclamation from the very fact that there was no argument in the Union that slaves were "property" and as such used to wage war on the United States granting the Commander in Chief jurisdiction to free them?

A true understanding of this complexity seems to undermine your argument of moral legitimacy; doesn't it?

Did Lincoln call for troops to end slavery or to stop secession? Why exactly did Lincoln call for troops?


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

My old grad school professor would say he could go weeks at a time without worrying about what people in the North were doing.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> The other factor, which has not been mentioned yet in this discussion, is that the flying of the Confederate flag over state buildings across the South did not continue in an unbroken chain from 1865 to the present. Rather, after the war the use of the Confederate flag was uncommon, if not entirely unheard of until the middle of the Twentieth Century, when it reemerged as a symbol of Southern resistance to the Civil Rights Movement.
> 
> Thus, not only was it originally a symbol of a racist system, when it reemerged as a political symbol in the last century it was again explicitly used as the symbol of a racist system.
> 
> Any individual member might come here and say that they personally do not approve of the morality of slavery, and that they also personally condemn the system of Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, and other mechanisms used to suppress black people in the 19th and 20th Centuries. *None of that will have any bearing on the fact that the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism in the same way that the swastika is a symbol of Nazism and antisemitism.*


Yes, but that way is called "willful ignorance."

So, let's see: I support Israel and donate to some Jewish charities. I do not approve of slavery or discrimination. I hate the Nazis and other fascists (like the Federal Government/Union.) I oppose Abortion and support pro-life charities including adoption and single parent facilities. But, if I fly a CSA Flag somehow that trumps the "facts" in your mind so that makes me an antisemitic racist that supports not only the political oppression, but objectification of human beings as property? Are you kidding me? At least tell me you are pro-life? There were no abolishionists in the South? No abolishionists fought in the Confederacy under that Battle Flag? Really?


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

It's typical _reductio ad Nazium_. You know the discussion is over when it happens.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AlanC said:


> It's typical _reductio ad Nazium_. You know the discussion is over when it happens.


Can't we all get along? Come and let's all join our voices in a recital of _John Brown's body!_ :devil:


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Can't we all get along? Come and let's all join our voices in a recital of _John Brown's body!_ :devil:


you mean this ?

Oh, John Brown's body lies a mould'ring in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage whom he ventured all to save;
But tho' he lost his life in struggling for the slave,
His soul is marching on.

John Brown was a hero undaunted, true and brave;
Kansas knew his valor when he fought her rights to save;
And now tho' the grass grows green above his grave,
His soul is marching on.

He captured Harpers Ferry, with his nineteen men so few,
And he frighten'd "Old Viginny" 'till she trembled thro' and thro';
They hung him for a traitor, themselves a traitor crew,
But his soul is marching on.

John Brown was John the Baptist for the Christ we are to see
Christ who of the bondman shall the Liberator be;
And soon throughout the sunny south, the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.

The conflict that he heralded, he looks from heav'n to view;
On the army of the Union with its flag red, white and blue,
And heaven shall ring with anthems o'er the deeds they mean to do,
For his soul is marching on.

O soldiers of freedom, then strike while strike you may
The death blow of oppression in a better time and way;
For the dawn of old John Brown has brighten'd into day,
And his soul is marching on.this?

your a yankee sympathiser LOL

aint the google grand?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> you mean this ?
> 
> your a yankee sympathiser LOL


Yes; that's it. :aportnoy:


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Here is the battle flag that causes me the greatest concern:










If Acorn can pay people to vote, why can't local governments require a poll tax of all voters?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

AlanC,



AlanC said:


> It's typical _reductio ad Nazium_. You know the discussion is over when it happens.


Actually the phrase is reductio ad Hitlerum and was coined by Leo Strauss (another NeoCon conspiracy!)

And yes, slave labor was something the CSA had in common with the Third Reich.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> AlanC,
> 
> Actually the phrase is reductio ad Hitlerum and was coined by Leo Strauss (another NeoCon conspiracy!)
> 
> ...


FWIW, argumentum ad nazium and reductio ad Hitlerum morphed into reductio ad nazium in common usage. You are not wrong, but neither is AlanC.


----------



## BPWilliams (Mar 21, 2009)

jackmccullough said:


> The other factor, which has not been mentioned yet in this discussion, is that the flying of the Confederate flag over state buildings across the South did not continue in an unbroken chain from 1865 to the present. Rather, after the war the use of the Confederate flag was uncommon, if not entirely unheard of until the middle of the Twentieth Century, when it reemerged as a symbol of Southern resistance to the Civil Rights Movement.
> 
> Thus, not only was it originally a symbol of a racist system, when it reemerged as a political symbol in the last century it was again explicitly used as the symbol of a racist system.


That's not really true, sir. Below is an image of the various versions of the Confederate flag being displayed as flags and draped on buildings, all being celebrated and paraded down the streets of New Orleans, circa 1889.

It also enjoyed popularity during the World Wars. U.S. units made up of Southerners used it as their unofficial emblems and even the USS Columbia (after Columbia, SC) flew the Confederate Jack, not to mention it was flown on Okinawa, although it was taken down after three days there because the battle was won by all Americans, not just Southerners. It was used as the symbol that it is, a flag of regional pride. That doesn't really have to do with my point, just saying it didn't magically reappear in the 50's and 60's to be used in inappropriate ways by groups like the KKK that would eventually distort peoples image of it today.

https://img192.imageshack.us/i/vets.jpg/

_"Secession is only illegal in the eyes of those who would no longer control the lands, wealth, and citizens of the seceded region."_


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

ksinc said:


> FWIW, argumentum ad nazium and reductio ad Hitlerum morphed into reductio ad nazium in common usage. You are not wrong, but neither is AlanC.


Yes, see here. I chose 'nazium' over 'Hitlerum' for this context, but either will work.

The reality is, it is the current Federal government (the direct descendant of Lincoln et al) that has the most in common with national socialism. Slavery of various forms, although repugnant to our modern sensibilities, is the historical norm. It came to an end everywhere else without a war. The same would have happened here.

By the way, what happened to all those slaves when the northern states began outlawing slavery? Were they freed...or sold? I think you know the answer. That's one of the reasons there are virtually no blacks in states like, say, Vermont. The north likes to act like it was purer than the winddriven snow on the race question, but it was also northern states that outlawed blacks from moving into their states. And northern cities have certainly shown the way in race relations.

And there's nothing wrong with the battle flag.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

AlanC said:


> Yes, see here. I chose 'nazium' over 'Hitlerum' for this context, but either will work.
> 
> The reality is, it is the current Federal government (the direct descendant of Lincoln et al) that has the most in common with national socialism. Slavery of various forms, although repugnant to our modern sensibilities, is the historical norm. It came to an end everywhere else without a war. The same would have happened here.


Can you share with us the plan and timetable the Southern states had to eliminate slavery?


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

I know you're not really interested in a reasonable dialogue, but I'll bite.

The Confederate Congress passed a law in March 1865 providing for freedom for black slaves in exchange for military service. It was a move designed to tap the manpower needed to turn back the overwhelmingly larger Northern armies. It obviously came too late. The idea had been floated as early as 1861, but most famously by Cleburne (a Confederate officer) in 1863.

See "Confederate Emancipation" by Levine and "April 1865" by Winik for further info. If nothing else, it shows that the mindset of slavery uber alles did not exist in the South.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Murrah said:


> I know you're not really interested in a reasonable dialogue, but I'll bite.
> 
> The Confederate Congress passed a law in March 1865 providing for freedom for black slaves in exchange for military service. It was a move designed to tap the manpower needed to turn back the overwhelmingly larger Northern armies. It obviously came too late. The idea had been floated as early as 1861, but most famously by Cleburne (a Confederate officer) in 1863.
> 
> See "Confederate Emancipation" by Levine and "April 1865" by Winik for further info. If nothing else, it shows that the mindset of slavery uber alles did not exist in the South.


Danang! That's almost as pathetically transparent as the North's plan and timetable to eliminate slavery.

One would have been required to respect Lincoln (and the North) if he had actually argued for freeing the slaves and making free, whole, voting citizens out of them.

There's that whole thing about the letter General Lee wrote his wife about President Pierce. That was pretty weak for a timetable though. Hard to like a lot of things about General Lee IMHO.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

While I'm proud of my Confederate heritage, I tend to avoid wearing the Confederate battle flag because it tends to offend the IGNORANT. After consolidating its victory the Federal Government did a pretty good job of lying to future generations about the causes of the war, atrocities committed by the North, etc. That's the way it goes. What bugs me is that the truth is out there, but ignorant prejudice is a much more convenient path for Liberal bigots to take.

"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision."

--- General Pat Cleburne, CSA


Before "watrerboarding:"


"...They tried to make my uncle Harrison into an informer, but he wouldn't do it. He was only a boy... They tried to hang him, time and again they tried it, 'stretching his neck', they called it, but he didn't say anything. I think he'd have died before he'd said anything. He's the one I'm named after, and I'm happy to say that there were people...around at the time who said I took after him."

--- President Harry S. Truman, speaking about what the Kansas "Red Legs" did to his uncle, at age thirteen during the War Between The States. 

When Truman's mother visited him in the White House, she refused to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom, opting, instead, for accommodations down the street.

Anyway, given the overwhelming and insurmountable willful ignorance and prejudice that has been carefully orchestrated and and worn on the sleeve of so many, I eschew wearing the emblems of the Confederacy because I am a gentleman. (Though I have found that most of these ignorant "experts" only recognize the Battle Flag, and if you wear the Bonnie Blue, they usually don't get it, or think it's the flag of Somalia.)

Now, where can I get some Knights Templar cuff links and ties??????


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Liberty Ship said:


> While I'm proud of my Confederate heritage, I tend to avoid wearing the Confederate battle flag because it tends to offend the IGNORANT. QUOTE]
> 
> living in the upper midwest the only time one sees a battle flag around here is when the klan is protesting somewhere or trying to erect a cross in a public square, or on television in stories related to the klan. ignorance - perhaps, but then for us the civil war is closed issue
> 
> ive learned a lot reading this thread and from some private messages, i dont think everyguy who wear a battle flag is racist or evil but all you guys do need to know that theres a lot of public perception out there to the contrary


----------



## newtothis (Apr 13, 2009)

Memphis88 said:


> I've never met anyone who displayed the confederate flag who wasn't racist. The dixie outfitters t-shirt trend a little while back pissed me off to no end.


Living in Memphis, I've heard it's kind of hard not to become racist. And that's from people who've moved there and had to put up with the crime, violence, robberies, etc. Then again, there is the White diversity loving liberal who flees to the Germantown suburb.

I moved down South from upnorth and the Confederate flag doesn't offend me, I see it quite often too. Seems to be a symbol of pride... It's better than the Mexican flag that I see all over the place now *sign*.


----------



## newtothis (Apr 13, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> I notice you didn't mention the evils of slavery while making your rather flimsy argument. One wonders what that could mean.....


I think people still crying about the history of slavery in the United States should realize that we were hardly alone in having slavery (Portugual, Spain & England, all had much longer histories of slavery and a much larger amount) and I think these efforts would be better spent fighting slavery that still continues to exist in Africa (as it has for hundreds of years), the Middle East, and Asia.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The North has been using the race issue to beat us over the head since the first days of the union. Since the war they've played blacks against whites in the South for their own purposes to the present day. And, ultimately, they always got their way on every major race issue. 

And look at where things are today--better than slavery but hardly where an optimist would have expected it to turn out 150 years ago, or even 40 years ago.

So when are the yankees going to step up and take responsibility for their leading part in screwing things up? Never! They'll just keep on blaming us.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> I ask our first multi-racial president to bear in mind two things during the brief flight between Cairo and Riyadh: The Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt were the earliest, greatest and most tenacious enslavers of black Africans. And the Saudis are the leading sponsors of religious hatred in the world today.


https://www.nypost.com/seven/06022009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_grovelpalooza_172086.htm


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I would only wear anything that had the American Flag on it,that's about it.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

I love them. But, I love what they stand for--states rights, anti-federal control, southern pride.

However, they are taken as racist and segregational by many. Quite a few who wave the flag ARE racist, so that hurts the message of original US government freedoms to be free from federal dictation of every aspect of life. I think, outside of the old south, they are seen as a sign of red neck-trailer park culture.

Wear preferably with people welcome to the attitude and message you present with that flag.



SartoNYC said:


> but you cannot, cannot, cannot get away from the connotations that flag has. I would recommend you think twice.


Yeah, states' rights and personal freedoms are presently taboo. Central government is wonderful.


----------



## Brogue (May 18, 2009)

Isn't it time for a 50 state secession, leaving D.C. to feed and clothe itself?


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I'm afraid that the matter of secession has been decided. However, expulsion is an entirely separate issue that has never really been explored. I suggest that instead of seceding from Washington, that the several states expel Washington, DC. And expel California, New York, and Mass. while we're at it.


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

duckbill said:


> I'm wondering what people think of ties, cufflinks, and so on with the Confederate Battle Flag on them? This is, by the way, a *genuine* question, and so let's please keep this thread civil, so that it does not go to the Interchagne.
> 
> Personally, owing to their connotations with certain political views that I don't share, I would avoid them.


Why would you even ask this question, then? Troll.


----------



## Brogue (May 18, 2009)

Perhaps we need to dispatch freedom fighters from Birmingham or Atlanta to address the situation?


----------



## Busa Dave (Jun 28, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> The Confederate Battle Flag is appropriately flown over any Confederate Memorial or cemetery, but beyond that should generally be reserved for museums and archives. As a proud born and bred Southerner I would only wear a lapel pin or any other type of flag ornament that is representative of the U.S. Flag.
> 
> The war is over and I believe that any display of the Confederate Flag or Battle Flag other than noted above is actually showing disrespect for that flag and the men who served under it.
> 
> Cruiser


Sums up my feelings as well!


----------

