Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


The Rebel Battle Flag - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 06:49 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
James Longstreet
Member


Joined: Thu Aug 3rd, 2006
Location: Arkansas USA
Posts: 89
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Slavery was already on the decline in the 60's, I hardly think it would have lasted into the twentieth century.  Brazil ended slavery somewhere in 1888, and the South was much more developed than Brazil.  And, if you'll recall, the North's war aim was not originally to free the slaves.  In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation was probably just a motive to keep Britain and France from coming to the South's aid.  And you can't really say most Northern soldiers were appalled by slavery.  I mean Lincoln was no Dr. King.  He was a man of his time. 

"If I thought this war was about slavery, I'd resign and offer my sword to the other side."--U.S. Grant
 

Last edited on Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:05 pm by James Longstreet



 Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 06:58 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
23rd Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I must be getting overly-sensitive in my old age. To me there's something abhorrent about the concept that we should have allowed the forced bondage of other human beings because it "eventually" would have died a natural death. Maybe it's just me.



 Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:04 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
James Longstreet
Member


Joined: Thu Aug 3rd, 2006
Location: Arkansas USA
Posts: 89
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Javal, I was not justifying slavery by any means.



 Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:08 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
naakke
Member


Joined: Mon Jul 17th, 2006
Location: Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 22
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Here is an interesting note to insert about what occurs beneath one flag or another.  Those that marched beneath the flag of the United States did not wholly march for the cause of liberating the slave.  Read McClellan's statements on slavery.  Lincoln's early political statements are certainly not unknown regarding his stand on slavery.  When looking at what a flag represents, you have to ask yourself, why were those people marching beneath that flag at that moment in history.  Now, I think just maybe that Shaara and the Turner film makers got a little out of control with the rhetoric.  But I tell you what, Jeff Daniel's line that the Army of the Potomac marched to set other men free is a crock of horse manure. 

Regarding the term Racism, you have to be a real retard to think that just because a man fought to free the slaves that he in any way thought there was some level of equality between him and a freedman.  It all comes down to a small group of radicals (on both sides) driving the moderate mass to extreme reactions.  But the men and women who rallied to, served under, and died for a banner did so because of the cause, not because of a political agenda.  So, the flag represents the ideals of those who died for it.  Racism was present in the South, that is not why they died beneath that flag.  Abolition was present in the North, that is not why they died beneath that flag. 

Unfortunately, after the the country was done hemhoraging, a small group of radicals decided to fly the CBF in the cause of racism.  It royally sucks that they have polluted the icon that way. 



You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:24 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
27th Post
James Longstreet
Member


Joined: Thu Aug 3rd, 2006
Location: Arkansas USA
Posts: 89
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Sounds like all you want to do Indy is tear me down and attack the South.  I am not changing the subject, and if you are referring to me as a neo-Confederate I find that very offensive.  And do you really think that 25 percent of families owned slaves in Arkansas, the poorest and most undeveloped state in the South?  I've read that it was closer to 10 percent, but maybe I'm wrong.  I'm not going to say something I don't have any evidence of.  Arkansas was mostly made up of white farming families in poverty, who intially opposed secession, but when it came the majority joined the Confederate armies and died by the thousands.  That's a good reason to keep the Confederate flag alive.  I don't know how you know for sure he didn't make the quote--I guess you were just there.  The quote is on sonofthesouth.net.

Last edited on Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:26 pm by James Longstreet



 Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:31 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Per the 1860 census





State
Free Population
Slave Population

Arkansas
324,335
111,115

North Carolina
661,563
331,099

Tennessee
834,082
275,719

Virginia
1,105,453
490,865



You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:35 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
James Longstreet
Member


Joined: Thu Aug 3rd, 2006
Location: Arkansas USA
Posts: 89
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Javal, would it be safe to say that most of those slaves were owned by a much smaller group of wealthy planters?



 Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:37 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
31st Post
James Longstreet
Member


Joined: Thu Aug 3rd, 2006
Location: Arkansas USA
Posts: 89
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

That is amazing to me, I was completely wrong.  So was my American history teacher...I guess it was just Arkansas bias.  Thanks for the facts.

Last edited on Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:38 pm by James Longstreet



 Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:42 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I don't know James, and honestly I don't see what difference it makes.

But let's do this... we're hijacking a thread that had some great posts about the Confederate flag. Realizing that the two are related, I would suggest that a full discussion on the slavery issue should have it's own thread. So whoever posts the next post on slavery without linking it to the flag issue, please open a new thread for it. naake, Albert and others have some great flag posts and I can see that we may distract from them if we keep up this discussion here. Much appreciated!



 Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:54 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
33rd Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 555
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Thanks, jaaval!

The slavery discussion in here was getting too heated and uncivil for my tastes!

But, for my two-cents, the issue of slavery was NOT the MAIN issue for either side. Racism in the north was just as bad (i.e New York Draft riots). For people to poke sticks at one another over being a current Southerner or current Northerner is kind of a moot issue at this point in American history anyway.

Additionally, with the average slave costing around $250 (as per the book "River Run Red") it is doubtful that an average Southerner could afford to purchase one, let alone clothe, feed and house one; thus, many slaves were owned by few.

Thanks!

Albert Sailhorst, Scott's TN Battery



 Posted: Tue Jan 2nd, 2007 07:22 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
34th Post
VaMike
Member
 

Joined: Tue Jan 2nd, 2007
Location: Floyd, Virginia USA
Posts: 5
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I have a problem believing that the every day poor white working farmer who had no slaves would fight a war and die to preserve slavery.  I have to believe that there was a greater ideal at stake for all those individuals to fight for.  I despise what the hate groups have done to present the CBF as a racist symbol, but I cannot abandon the Cause it represents because people misrepresent what it  (the flag) stood for.  I have a question.  Why was the CBF composed of a St. Andrews Cross?  Was the CW a holy war?  Was the difference in Northern and Southern religions a cause to war?  Did I just open a can of worms?



 Posted: Tue Jan 2nd, 2007 08:09 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
35th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

There are differences as to why men enlisted and what caused the war.

An example from a later war: Americans enlisted due to Pearl Harbor, but Pearl Harbor did not cause the war.

There are many reasons men enlisted during the Civil War, probably as many as there were enlistees: defense of home and family, peer pressure, adventure, money, escape the draft, to impress a girl and, yes, their view of a noble cause.

Remember that very few people in April 1861 thought a war would be long and desperate.

 

HankC



 Posted: Tue Jan 2nd, 2007 11:09 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
36th Post
Widow
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location: Oakton, Fairfax County, VA
Posts: 321
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Joe, this anecdote is about flags, but not in the Civil War.  Not even in the US.

My brother and his wife lived on the Turkish coast for 11 years, sailing on the Aegean Sea in the summer.  A fellow sailor told them what happened to him and his flag.

The sailor is a Turkish citizen, but educated at Oxford and MIT.  Nuclear physics, I think Rick said.  The man and his wife had been at sea for a while and came into Bodrum Harbor.  His boat was registered in the UK, so he flew the British flag.  Also, as is customary, a small "courtesy flag" of the nation where you are in port.  Rick's friend had a small Turkish flag up in the rigging.

The national flag of the Republic of Turkey is plain red, with a white star and crescent in the middle.  The flag is made of red cloth, and the two emblems are bleached to make the star and crescent.  It's not possible to buy a flag made any other way.  One flag, one quality, no choice.

The Turkish police came to the dock and charged him with desecrating the national flag.  Rick's friend was totally bewildered.  "I'm a Turkish citizen.  What do you mean?"

They pointed to his courtesy flag, red with white emblems.  But the white star was gone.  A perfect star-shaped hole next to the crescent.  The police said he had deliberately cut the star out of the flag.

Desecration of the Turkish national flag is five years in prison.  A Turkish prison.  Nifty way to suppress political dissent.

He was arrested and taken in.  Before his trial, he contacted some friends at the University of Istanbul, science professors.  They proved to the court that the bleach had weakened the fabric, and as it fluttered the fibers just broke and wore out.  The friend beat the rap.

Once again, we are reminded of how lucky we are to live in a country where you are free to buy a tiny plastic flag, a huge silk flag, or no flag.  Patty



You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 02:10 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
38th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

James Longstreet wrote: Slavery was already on the decline in the 60's, I hardly think it would have lasted into the twentieth century.  Brazil ended slavery somewhere in 1888, and the South was much more developed than Brazil.  And, if you'll recall, the North's war aim was not originally to free the slaves.  In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation was probably just a motive to keep Britain and France from coming to the South's aid.  And you can't really say most Northern soldiers were appalled by slavery.  I mean Lincoln was no Dr. King.  He was a man of his time. 

"If I thought this war was about slavery, I'd resign and offer my sword to the other side."--U.S. Grant
 



Slavery was not on the decline in the states that would become the CS; the reverse was true.  There was no economic, cultural or religious incentive to do so and w/ the going price of a good field hand at approx $1000 in 1860 slavery was a sizeable monetary investment.

As to the flag; what does it truly stand for?  Some would say treason and racism... I tend to disagree.  I see the CBF as a symbol of a desperate time and an attitude of standing behind something (right or wrong) when all hope is lost.  Call it perceverence or simple stubborness.  If the person flying it is honoring ancestors that is one thing.  But when is a set of white sheets is hanging (pun intended) in the closet w/ a nice set of eyeholes cut in... I would truly love introducing such an individual to a short drop & sudden stop courtesy of a tall tree & short rope.  I guess the irony of the role reversal would be too much for some.  As it is I figure the ultimate irony for such a person would be judgement to discover God as black & a woman. 

The quote attributed to Grant is a false quote.  He never said it; its been bandied about the net for years but that doesn't make it a legit quote.  IIRC it got started on a League of the South site quoting a supposed Democratic pamphlet... which noone has ever seen an original of.  The foremost scholars of Grants life have repeatedly debunked it... but it keeps turning up. 

Last edited on Mon Mar 19th, 2007 02:23 am by Johan Steele



 Posted: Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 02:48 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
39th Post
2nd. LT. Chapman
Member
 

Joined: Fri Mar 16th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 9
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

You know that after the war the flag was furled and the men who furled it intended it to stay furled. However, we are where we are and we allowed the flag to be used by racist bigots and now many people see it that way. I have five G-G- grandfathers, that I know of, who served in the Confederate army and I belong to the SCV but I rarely fly my flag. In April, it will see a little air.

There really isn't a lot we can do to rehabilitate the flag's reputation. It has become too political and everything political is filled with lies.

 

Julien

Last edited on Sun Mar 25th, 2007 02:03 am by 2nd. LT. Chapman



 Posted: Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 03:43 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
40th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

You know that after the war the flag was furled and the men who furled it intended it to stay furled. However, we are where we are and we allowed the flag to be used by racist bigots and now many people see it that way.

Very well said, Lieutenant; bravo!

My first exposure to the CBF was some time ago when it was used to incite support for Governors Faubus and Wallace. That was a taint on the banner that's lasted until recently when some particularly persuasive gentlemen convinced me that some honestly use it to honor men who valiantly fought under it with their brothers. That we can see today that their "country's" cause was faulty does not detract from their sacrifice.

Unfortunately, the stain remains and will never be overlooked. Fly it; don't fly it. The damage is done.

Ole



 Current time is 08:46 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.5055 seconds (16% database + 84% PHP). 32 queries executed.