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 JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 02:25 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
42nd Post
TimHoffman01
Member


Joined: Wed Nov 9th, 2005
Location: Mechanicsville, Virginia USA
Posts: 74
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Actully the Army of Tennessee did feature some units who used a rectangular St. Andrews cross design in the late war (1863-64 thereabouts), if I remember correctly it was meant to differentiate them from the ANV.  That said, they still used it with unit designations and I believe their pattern also had a border, as did the square ANV pattern.  It was not plain as the knockoffs are today.  Also the Naval Jack was rectangular.  How often CS naval ships actually used it as opposed to Nationals of the various patterns, I can't say.



 Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 02:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
43rd Post
HankC
Member


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

  back to top

JDC Duncan wrote: ole & all :

  the St Andrews Cross was square.  The flag you are refering to, what the general public refers to as the "Rebel Flag", the rectangular St Andrews,

When one thinks of the rebel flag it is of a blue St Andrews cross with white stars on a red background. It does not matter if it is square, rectangular or circular; on a flagpole or on a bikini...

HankC



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


 Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 03:30 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
45th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Read Coski's Book The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled EmblemIt is an eye opener no matter whether you stand on either side of the fence or right smack dab on top of it.  Excellent book.



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


 Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 05:17 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
47th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Yes, please don't derail the thread with that, Javal has warned us about doing such things, besides I am in deep mourning at our loss :(;)



 Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 05:22 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
48th Post
HankC
Member


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

  back to top

JDC Duncan wrote: Sir:

I understand your point; and it is the same as my point.  When the general public thinks of the "Rebel Flag", they think of any emblem with any variation of the St Andrews.  I am saying that I believe this flag, a rectangular St Andrews, was not flown by the Armies of the Confederacy, and would like some confirmation or repudiation of that.  I believe this flag was of a much later time period, specifically the 1920s, but as I said, I can't locate a reliable source on this issue.

regards,

JDC

 


My own opinion is that flags are symbolic. The content and context count - not the shape.

As an interesting aside, they were made square for ease of manufacture.

HankC



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


 Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 05:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
50th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

JDC:

Have you been to Ft. McKavett before?  If not you are in for a treat and speaking of relics notice all the 100 year old+ tin cans lying on the ground around the cookhouse, when I wrote that in many cases relic hunters pick up items that are a dime a dozen I was thinking of all those "relics" lying on the ground at Ft McKavett.



 Posted: Sat Mar 24th, 2007 02:32 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
51st Post
susansweet
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 1420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Dave, thanks for the title of the book. I heard the author interviewed on NPR last year and put the book on my mental list to get . I was thinking of it reading the post but couldn't for the life of me remember what it is called. Now I will write it down

sigh my dear laptop crashed and burned yesterday I am working on a I swear Civil War era iMac It does just keep working though although it is 5.0 dial up. New computer on it's way . Remember all back up files. I have learned Oops thread stealing . So anyway I always thought the square was Army of NV. The other the Navy flag, I have learned her in California our UDC flies the Stars and Bars for meetings. Which is funny as other have no clue what it is .
Again thanks for the title and author .
Susan



 Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 07:34 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
52nd Post
TimHoffman01
Member


Joined: Wed Nov 9th, 2005
Location: Mechanicsville, Virginia USA
Posts: 74
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hi Susan (and others),

   Your post reminded me of two interesting personal annectdotes fairly recently:

   My father (NJ Yankee that he is) was visiting my mother's side family reunion this past July in upstate NY.  While there he noted the flag that was flying in front of a neighbor's house.  He remarked on it to my uncle (who was hosting) who said something along the lines of "yeah, we noticed he was flying a revolutionary flag there, but something about it just looks a little different from how I've always seen the Betsy Ross flag."  My father thought that was very humerous and tried explaining to him, and other family members, that it was, in fact, a Confederate flag known as the Stars & Bars.  They didn't believe him at first, since it wasn't the "cross flag."

   The second annectdote was during a recent trip with my in-laws to Williamsburg.  They have the state flags of all 13 colonies flying at the visitor center.  As we walked by I started chuckling and my brother-in-law asked what was funny.  I asked if he rememberd the controversy surrounding the Georgia state flag and demands that the battle flag be taken off it. He said he did.  I then pointed out the Georgia state flag and asked him if he couldn't see what was funny.  He just looked at me.  I should probably point out that he also happens to be from NJ and also isn't the most into history beyond 1900.  I pointed out that, excepting the Georgia state seal, the new pattern state flag was, in fact, the Stars & Bars, 1st national of the Confederate States.  He also asked if the S&B wasn't the one with the "crossed bars."

   These just go to show how recent events, far more than actual history, often color or completely change symbolism, meanings and even memories.  I've always felt that the battle flag was a military flag and needed to be kept that way - displayed only in Museums, in the hands of actual reenactment units, and possibly on military memorials, but NOT on houses, and flapping in camps.  I was actually surprised how many CS Reenactors at a recent event agreed with that, but had been over ruled by a more vocal minority who were intent on making political statements and who believed (whether the rest of us do or not) that if they curtail flying it at all, then they will lose any ability to fly it at all, even where it should be. 

    The question to me, has not so much been "what does it really mean," since it is clear that it means two very different things to different groups of people and NEITHER can be said to be wrong.  The actual question is more along the lines of "what do we do about it?" and "can preceptions be recovered such that it can be shown in its proper historical context without others having an immediate negative response?"



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


 Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 12:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
54th Post
remember the 54th
Member


Joined: Tue Mar 13th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 8
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

809722

TEST



 Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 07:07 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
55th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

   The Confederate Navy used two Navy Jacks during the war. The second, called: "The Southern Cross" was used from 1863 on. It was indeed rectangular, with the same general outline as the St. Andrews Cross, only with a different coloration. Some sources call it a precursor to the Battle Flag.

 

Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



 Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 05:14 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
56th Post
Old Sorrel
Member


Joined: Thu Mar 15th, 2007
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 66
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hi all,

In my personal opinion I have no problem with flying the Conf. flag as long as its done to honer the men that fought under it. The flag itself is not racist, its the idiots that use the flag in a racist way, they are racists.

 Its like the old saying, guns dont kill people, people kill people. The gun had nothing to do with it. Just like the Conf. flag cant stop people from using it the wrong way. Its part of our history peeps.

When I go camping at Gettysburg, I fly both the Conf. and the American flag. I honor both.  Both gave up lives for what they believe in.

                               OLD SORREL



 Posted: Fri Mar 30th, 2007 03:59 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
57th Post
Digger
Member


Joined: Fri Mar 30th, 2007
Location: Torrington, Connecticut USA
Posts: 5
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ultimately, the North's financial well being depended on tariffs, and forcing the south to purchase goods from the north.  This was the main reason for the pressure put on the south by the north.  Slavery was at the time not the primary focus or reason for discord and tension.  Massachusetts had a law that forbade "freedmen" from settling within it's borders.  Sounds pretty darn racist to me.

Remember, the slave trade was started by, and profits were enjoyed by the north.  Don't be foolish in thinking that the North was innocent in the institution of slavery.  In addition, the North only abolished slavery, as it was an unworkable model for thier economy.  Instead they created indentured servitude, and treated the irish workers worse than slaves.  Beatings, evictions, slums, etc. were typical. 



 Posted: Fri Mar 30th, 2007 05:18 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
58th 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

Digger wrote: Ultimately, the North's financial well being depended on tariffs, and forcing the south to purchase goods from the north.  This was the main reason for the pressure put on the south by the north.  Slavery was at the time not the primary focus or reason for discord and tension.  Massachusetts had a law that forbade "freedmen" from settling within it's borders.  Sounds pretty darn racist to me.

Remember, the slave trade was started by, and profits were enjoyed by the north.  Don't be foolish in thinking that the North was innocent in the institution of slavery.  In addition, the North only abolished slavery, as it was an unworkable model for thier economy.  Instead they created indentured servitude, and treated the irish workers worse than slaves.  Beatings, evictions, slums, etc. were typical. 


Have you ever read the words of the Politicians themselves; the Declaration of Causes are quite clear that Slavery was at the forefront; it's detailed in the CS Constitution and made patently clear by the words of Stephens the CS VP and others.

Tarriffs are a feel good smoke screen propogated by the Lost Cause after the war.

The North was not innocent; nor did the US start the War or Secession.  The war was started by the CS over slavery... paint it any way you like but Slavery was the root cause of Secession.



 Posted: Fri Mar 30th, 2007 05:36 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
59th Post
Digger
Member


Joined: Fri Mar 30th, 2007
Location: Torrington, Connecticut USA
Posts: 5
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

It was the main reason that the south was willing to and did secede, however, it wasn't the main reason that the north had for going to war.  The north went to war to protect it's own financial interests (also the reason the south seceded.)  The old saying is true with a twist (Cher chez l'argentte)  "follow the money".   



 Posted: Fri Mar 30th, 2007 09:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
60th 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

Digger wrote: It was the main reason that the south was willing to and did secede, however, it wasn't the main reason that the north had for going to war.  The north went to war to protect it's own financial interests (also the reason the south seceded.)  The old saying is true with a twist (Cher chez l'argentte)  "follow the money".   
The US was attacked... war started.



 Current time is 11:39 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 0.4656 seconds (11% database + 89% PHP). 36 queries executed.