Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Confederate flag still making waves


Henry

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Air Sarge

So I ask, what does this say for these four upstanding individuals? Who here could be considered a bigot and more importantly, what does it say for how they were brought up? Just a question.

Obviously a case like this doesn't speak highly of the individuals OR how they were raised. However ... does this matter? It doesn't take away from the fact that the flag incited the act ... for whatever reason.

With the way things are in schools now, is it prudent to have another reason to worry about safety? (These are not necessarily my feelings, simply one side of the argument.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Brave. That is why I lean towards the school uniform thing. But until they eliminate Cinco De Mayo week (sp) , and Muslims making a pilgrimage to Mecca week and all the other observences they have in government schools now, I don't think they can tell someone not to wear Southern stuff. What is unfortunate about the Confederate flag is the fact that it was taken over and used by the klan, and white trash and other low lifes to promote their effed up causes.

Got any more reasons for the war starting? GOtta run, I'll check back in a couple of days, unless I ship out. Later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by SmootSkins21

I don't like the Confederate flag. The flag represents a hatred for African-Americans and for America. No other flag represents so much hate.

What about the Nazi Flag? Obviously the confederate flag is bad but i dont think it beats the swastika as a sign of hate.

On a similar note. Some friends of mine who are still at university made a shirt which had a red star on it. It was banned by the people in charge. Ive seen the shirt and in my opinion there was nothing really that bad about it. Does anyone thing a red star ala communism falls into the same category as the swastika and the confederate flag as offensive symbols that should be banned?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an issue like this at my kid's school recently.

Apparently a black kid wrote an editorial in the newsaper about how the confederate flag should be banned from the school because of it's racist connotations.

A white kid wrote a scathing letter to the editor which sent the large black minority into a tizzy.

There was supposed to be a "rumble" of sorts between the "rednecks" and the black kids but it never happened because of a huge police presence.

I'm amazed at the racial divisions that still remain, even among youth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by OrangeSkin

I'm amazed at the racial divisions that still remain, even among youth.

People learn (both the good and the bad) from their parents. It takes a LONG time and a lot of generations to change such deep-seated prejudices.

Too bad we still have to spend so much time and energy accepting those around us, though it still happens all over the world so I guess we're not unique. Sometimes human nature bites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we ban wearing Skins uniforms, then we should ban them all.

I'd rather just allow people to express themselves as they see fit (within reason, ie swearing, nudity etc)

What I oppose is randomly saying no to one thing, while allowing another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

henry....I was politely pointing out the hyprocisy of true democrat power politics. when it comes to the real power positions and calling the shots that party has been and remains a white boys club (with some smattering of women). there hasn't been one major appointment of an African American by any recent democratic president. Neither has the senate or the house placed an African American in a position of real power (leaders, whips, etc.). The republicans may be no better (although they, at least can point to Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, J.C. Watts). let's be forthright about the cynicism in the democratic party - get out the black vote by labelling every republican who breathes a racist.....but not delivering in terms of real power.....cuz someone would have to give up that power and I don't see anyone lining up on the dem side of the fence to do that. heard any good rumors in the dem party lately about African American (or any minority) candidates for the presidency?

african americans themselves are going to have stop shooting themselves in the feet with one-sided political litmus tests when it comes to their candidates and intellectuals getting a chance to sit at the table with the big boys & girls. however, they shouldn't be fooled either by how the power structure uses them.

and for the record....I don't really care or support end-state based slection processes. i want leaders with vision. there seems to be a distinct shortage of these types across the board. truly a color-blind problem!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that some people here (you know who you are) are unable to discuss any topic without trying to blame it on the democratic party? Sad.

Let's see, some racists want to fly the Confederate flag. This is some how related to a black person never being on the Democratic ticket? Give me a break. Everyone knows the GOP will never attract black voters in mass until they stop the pandering to the racists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

because my good fellow...there are idiots out there like you who, without a silver of fact, are willing to label whole masses of people as racists. idea fascists like you have to be fought at every opportunity. it just so happens that you are democrat - a freebee as it were!

no more free passes. you will be called out at every turn. the game is no longer to call someone a racist and place them on the defensive - a tactic that worked for the carville's of the world and one toleratred by guilt-ridden politico's afraid of their own shadows. the moral onus is being tossed back. your qualities, logic and actions are now subject for review and social condemnation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by fansince62

because my good fellow...there are idiots out there like you who, without a silver of fact, are willing to label whole masses of people as racists. idea fascists like you have to be fought at every opportunity. it just so happens that you are democrat - a freebee as it were!

no more free passes. you will be called out at every turn. the game is no longer to call someone a racist and place them on the defensive - a tactic that worked for the carville's of the world and one toleratred by guilt-ridden politico's afraid of their own shadows. the moral honus is being tossed back. your qualities, logic and actions are now subject for review and social condemnation.

If you right wingers go that course you will lose for sure. I hope you do it. Instead on focusing on fixing what's wrong with yourselves you spend time pointing to others. I love it.

It really is ironic that you complain about name calling when you excel at that very thing! LOL!

Kilmer,

I didn't mean you. I don't often agree with you but I think you actually think things through and don't just go with your party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Brave

Lovely! :doh:

Another decent thread going down the toilet due to political bickering.

:gus:

I am shocked! Not here on Extremeskins??? :laugh:

Still - I think that these tpye of discussions will almost always bring forward more emotion than logic...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Al, I don't think you give African Americans enough credit if you think they're overwhelming allegiance to the Democratic party is simply a product of Democratic spin. And if the Republican party shares your opinion, they will never win over very many minority voters.

But whatever. That has really nothing to do with the issue in this thread. I'm not sure how a debate on the Battle Flag of the Army of the Potomac and free speech turned into another 'this is what's wrong with the Democrats' thread, but it's too bad. Things were going pretty good there for awhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Henry...go back and follow the flow. gbear opened the gates with his comments on republicans. everything was fair game after that. also...my comments came directly from African Americans I discussed this with at work. Obviously, their allegiance goes beyond spin. My key point is that the dems haven't delivered when it comes to power sharing/promotion: and this was an idea seeded by the African Americans I work with, not something spun out of whole cloth.

brave/EG et al.......one thing I can confidently state is that logic is the least of the concerns in the overwhelming percentage of these threads. the preponderance of posts make unsupported, unsubstantiated statements about historical events; or consequential predictions reft of any argument (e.g., attack Iraq and we'll see an x-fold increase in attacks on Americans....oh really, and how do you know this?); or simply broadbrush whole groups of people without a second thought (who really are the racists and bigots here?!). no one should be offended when fire is returned. this is an old game that has been played out for longer than I can remember.

how we get from wearing a confedrate flag on tee-shirts to all southerners are residual racists is beyond me. does nayone have a special purview into the minds of all southerners? has anyone on this board conducted a poll the rest of us are unaware of? how we pass from symbols with imputed values that do differ around the country and among interest groups to blanket statements about entire cross sections of the southern white population is mind-boggling. where's the support? no one should be surprised if some of us decide to call out some of the more intellectually fraudulent posters from time to time.

color me a bad boy. you know how we right wingers can be!!! as tho anyone has a clue how I vote or conduct myself in everyday life.

or another way...is there racism in the South? you bet. does that mean every white southerner is a racist? half? 1/4? posters are grouping together a lot of folks with absolutely no evidence to support their assertions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Henry...go back and follow the flow. gbear opened the gates with his comments on republicans. everything was fair game after that.

Ah. Didn't realize you were responding to gbear. Have at him. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get upset over this whole issue. My great great grandfather was a confederate general. I am proud of my heritage.

To say that the southerners were traitors is so lame.... that's the same as saying that the US is full of traitors because that's what we were in the eyes of the British. The North vs. South was more than just over slavery... To make a point, the New York Draft riots were much harsher on blacks than anything the south did.

I agree as well that it makes me angry that a black person can wear a malcom x shirt but a white person cannot wear something with the stars and bars on it.

Sure, the confederate flag does represent hate to some people who are idiots to begin with..

It's a shame that those shallow minded people chose to use the confederate flag as their symbol, but they use the american flag as well, should we ban that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by codeorama

I get upset over this whole issue. My great great grandfather was a confederate general. I am proud of my heritage.

To say that the southerners were traitors is so lame.... that's the same as saying that the US is full of traitors because that's what we were in the eyes of the British.

Yes, the founding fathers WERE traitors to the crown. No arguement there. But since they won the war, they were no longer British it didn't matter. At this point I'm not real concerned if the somone from England sees the American Flag on my shirt and takes it to mean I no longer wish to be part of the British Empire.

Now, the Confederates, also traitors, lost the war and thus remained citizens of the United States. That's a big difference. Whatever else the Battle Flag of the Army of the Potomac may represent, it most definately represents Virgnia's willingness to use force against the United States to seperate itself from the Union. Why anyone would today glorify a symbol based on such sentiments is beyond me.

The North vs. South was more than just over slavery... To make a point, the New York Draft riots were much harsher on blacks than anything the south did.

Sorry, but that is some serious rationalization you are practicing there. There were some riots that involved black people being hurt or killed in New York from 1861-1864? And that is somehow equated to centuries of slavery and another 100+ years of post-war oppression? Are you telling me no free Black man, woman or child was hung, burned or otherwise tortured in the south ever?

I agree as well that it makes me angry that a black person can wear a malcom x shirt but a white person cannot wear something with the stars and bars on it.

A white person most certainly should be able to wear whatever he wants. It should be perfectly legal to wear a swastika on your t-shirt and walk down Main Street proclaiming you have nothing against Jews, but darn it, your great granddaddy was Erwin Rommell and besides Hitler did some great things for the German economy and culture in the 1930's and furthermore Stalin, who sided with the Allies, was even worse so we shouldn't be so judgemental and should stop associating the Third Reich with only the bad stuff. And the rest of the country should be allowed to formulate opinions based on such displays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Henry, Hitler did do a lot of good things for Germany in the early-mid thirties. His policies brought a broken, defeated nation in the throes of the Great Depression out of a period of staggering inflation, where their money was so worthless it was used to wallpaper the walls in the homes of Germans, to a nation that came very close to taking over a good portion of the world. Fortunately, Hitler was a military idiot, and that was one saving grace. It's good to see that some people are actually reading some history.

Now, the Confederates, also traitors, lost the war and thus remained citizens of the United States. That's a big difference. Whatever else the Battle Flag of the Army of the Potomac may represent, it most definately represents Virgnia's willingness to use force against the United States to seperate itself from the Union. Why anyone would today glorify a symbol based on such sentiments is beyond me.

Let me set a couple of point straight here. Virginia didn't use force in the war first. South Carolina did, and did so pretty much as an independent act in response to Lincoln trying to resupply Ft Sumter. Lincoln did this deliberately to provoke a responce from South Carolina and the confederacy. Virginia was the last state to suceed from the union, and did so only reluctantly. It was the union that began the War of Northern Aggresion by marching south into Va (Manasses) to try and force the union back together. You do know that our own Constitution allows the people to throw off the government if they deem it becomes too oppressive? That's basically what the south did. Slavery was only one issue that started the war. States rights held a lot more meaning back then, and it was held in high regard by individual southern states.There was very little in the way of centralized government. There was no income tax (instituted by Lincoln to pay for the war) or other government burdens. There were in essence, two countries living side by side. One industrialized and one agricultrual. It came to a point that the government in DC was making policy that favored the north and did very little for the south. It was able to do that because the north had more representatives in government by way of population than the south did. The election of Lincoln pretty much cemented that those policies were going to continue. Slavery did not become a war issue until after Lincoln was pretty much assured that the north would win after the battle of Gettysburg, three years after the war started.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my point about Hitler, Air Sarge. Despite many positives he oversaw for Germany, the overwhelming negatives are what most people see when they look at the Swastika. To a lesser extent, this also applies to the Confederate Flags, most notably Lee's Battle Flag.

I'm not a big fan of calling the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression. That implies that the division between the north and south still exists today, and somehow the north by of winning the war is still imposing it's will on the reluctant south, which by all rights should be a nation independant of the US, to this day. That attitude, in my opinion, is part of the problem.

But that's just my opinion. One fact of which I am certain is that the Emancipation Proclamation was announced in September of 1862 and issued in January of 1863, whereas the Battle of Gettysburg was fought in July of 1863. So slavery was an issue long before the outcome of the war was assured. And it was the Army of the Virginia, waving the Stars and Bars, that marched into Pennsylvania with it's eyes on Washington. What may have started as a 'war of northern aggression' necessarily turned into a war of southern aggression. Now, Virginia may not have thrown the first punch, so to speak, but they had the biggest muscle, and jumped right into the fray with it. Richmond was established as the Capital of the Confederacy right after SC fired on Sumter.

I am perfectly willing to concede that slavery was not the ONLY issue involved in the conflict. But let's not diminish it's significance either. It was a very big aspect of the war. The single biggest aspect. State's rights was a factor as well, but largely as it applied to slavery. Representation in the government was a factor, but largely as a slave-state vs. free-state issue. Unfair taxation was an issue, but mostly the unfair taxation of slaves as property.

Here is the 'Declaration of Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union":

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#SouthCarolina

Slavery is by far the biggest reason cited. First, non-slave states don't return fugitives, as outlined inthe fourth amendment. Then "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."

The link also includes Mississppi's version. Here are the first three sentences:"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. 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."

And Georgia's first two lines: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

And lastly, Texas. Less specific, but here in paragrph three: "[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

Admittedly I skimmed over Mississippi, Georgia and Texas, but South Carolina was quite clear. Their desire to maintain the institution of slavery, and the north's perceived unwillingness to cooperate with this continuation of slavery was the reason for secession. The pwers that be in the north, most notably Abraham Lincoln, felt that keeping the union together was more important than letting the secessionist go on their way with slaves in tow. I happen to think that was the right call. When you wear the symbol of the mightiest secessionist army, you imply that you don't.

Anyway, I understand your respect for the great military minds that fought for the south. Jackson, Longstreet and Lee are some of my favorites as well. But that doesn't mean you have to approve of their cause. Sorta like respecting Emmitt Smith as a player, but still hating the Cowboys. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Air Sarge, Great response.

Slavery is the "surface level" reason for the Civil War that basic entry level social studies teaches in middle and high school. As Air Sarge has pointed out, slavery was clearly not the focal point. Any in depth look will reveal the issues involving the rights of the states. It has also been proven by Lincoln's own writings that freeing the slaves was more of a tactical move than one of his own passion. By freeing the slaves, it caused great confusion in the south among the slaves, many of which assumed that they were free which was not true. The South had succeded and was no longer part of the Union, Lincoln had no jurisdiction over the South.

But as someone else has already stated, many of the southern slave owners had already freed their slaves and they were more like employees or family. Sure, there were still morons who treated them like animals, but not all.

Finally, It's funny, in most historical literature that you read, the Northern military did not treat the Southerers as traitors after the war. They were brothers on a different side of a political issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Code, the quotes above were not taken out of some fourth grade primer. They were taken from the Southern equivalent of the Declaration of Independance. These documents, had the south won, with lines such as "the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time" would be enshrined in a museum somewhere for all of posterity.

I'm not making this stuff up. Slavery and the constitutional issues regarding slavery were by far the biggest reasons given by the secessionists for secession.

It's like looking at a chocolate cake with chocolate frosting and saying "This isn't about the chocolate. There are eggs and milk and vanilla extract, and the frosting has pink flowers on it. There's a lot more going on here than chocolate."

Sorry, but it's a chocolate cake nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing personal here Sarge, but I felt the need to comment:

Originally posted by Air Sarge

It was the union that began the War of Northern Aggresion by marching south into Va (Manasses) to try and force the union back together.

Two words: Fort Sumter

The Confederacy fired the first shots. Calling the American Civil War the "War of Nothern Aggresion" is simply Lost Cause mythology.

You do know that our own Constitution allows the people to throw off the government if they deem it becomes too oppressive?

Care to post the relevant section?

People have an intrinsic right to rebel, but there is no right to rebellion expressed in the Constitution.

Slavery was only one issue that started the war.

This, I agree with. However, there would have been no war without slavery. It was a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of the war.

States rights held a lot more meaning back then, and it was held in high regard by individual southern states.

Primarily because "states rights" meant the continuation of slavery.

It came to a point that the government in DC was making policy that favored the north and did very little for the south. It was able to do that because the north had more representatives in government by way of population than the south did.

This is true, and part of the reason the North/South tensions came to a head at the time they did is that political power was swinging towards the North. The South had enjoyed a disproportionate advantage in the House for decades due to the inclusion in the Constitution of slaves (non-voting people) as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation.

Slavery did not become a war issue until after Lincoln was pretty much assured that the north would win after the battle of Gettysburg, three years after the war started.

Slavery was a Southern war issue the entire span of the war. Read the secession documents. Slavery holds pride of place as a reason for seccesion. I suggest this site as an excellent online repository of primary source material.

EDIT: I just saw that Henry beat me to the punch on this. My link is the home page for the site he linked.

The North did not make slavery an issue until the Emancipation Proclamation, which was enacted after the battle of Antietam, not the battle of Gettysburg.

EDIT: Again, Henry beat me to the punch. Durn.

I agree with the portion of your thesis which indicates that the ACW is a more complicated subject than commonly perceived.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...