Confederate flag flies again..

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

That's me on the right. When I order a crash dive on my boat, I'm the only one who needs to rush forward. This saves mayhem and bruising of others as the hatches are tight and the the ubootwaffers can stay at their posts.

[Armistead]

Most aren't aware the Confederate battle flag only became a symbol of hate in the 1930's onward.

" Beginning late in the 1930s, however, two things happened more or less at the same time: first, the battle flag became a fixture of pop culture, representing the generic Old South of the film Gone with the Wind (1939); and second, it was adopted by the third incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. Previously, the Klan had displayed only the United States flag during its marches, but as the organization was pushed by law enforcement out of such Midwestern redoubts as Indiana and back into the South, it garbed itself in more explicitly southern symbolism."

The battle flag itself was designed because in early battles you could hardly tell the flags apart and Gen. Johnston saw the need. Another problem with early CSA flags were large white backgrounds, which sometimes the enemy thought were flags of surrender.

Here is the history of CSA flags.
http://txscv.tripod.com/csa.htm

In reality, blacks and others don't hate the battle flag itself because it was used in the CW, but that it became a symbol of some hate groups much later. In that, they wanted it banned from certain places. I can understand that. However, now people want the right to deny even the historical use of it. The next step is to make it even illegal for private citizens to fly it.

Recently a local black collar professor wrote this after the 150th Gettysburg commemoration.

"After the 150th commemoration, I no longer think the Confederate battle flag belongs at Gettysburg, Antietam, Shiloh, or any other battlefields. They should be banned. Any planted at monuments should be uprooted and thrown out"

I have just as much right to celebrate my heritage and history as anyone, yet some would deny that right.

Talk about sore winners.

We could learn from these guys.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I have just as much right to celebrate my heritage and history as anyone, yet some would deny that right.

Slavery is nothing to celebrate.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Slavery is nothing to celebrate.

No it isn't, but neither are sneak attacks, and there's the Japanese flag, and no complaints. You can respect and even honor your past without saying it's all good.

Some of my ancestors fought with Lee, and some of my ancesters were Normans back in the day. It is what it is.

[Simmy]

[QUOTE=Takeda Shingen;2098172
Nothing changes the fact that slavery was the core issue behind the American Civil War.You can wish it all you'd like, and I am sure you will. But, when you put your fingers in your ears it is time for me to claim my victory and ride off into the sunset again. And yes, before you ask, it isn't hard at all to be this good. In fact, it is very, very easy.[/QUOTE]

“my paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or 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.”
Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley

Many Blacks didn't see Lincoln has their “Great Emancipator”.

Many of Lincoln’s critics, especially African-Americans, go so far as to claim that he was no friend of blacks and did not want to risk the political fallout that would surely result from emancipation, but was eventually forced by circumstances to do so. In the words of Julius Lester, “Blacks have no reason to feel grateful to Abraham Lincoln. How come it took him two whole years to free the slaves? His pen was sitting on his desk the entire time.”

Many also have questioned the real significance of the Emancipation Proclamation, arguing that it was merely a piece of propaganda and that it actually freed no slaves. As Richard Hofstadter wrote, “had the political strategy of the moment called for a momentous human document of the stature of the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln could have risen to the occasion.” Instead, he produced a document with “all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading.” In addition, the document he issued only freed slaves where the federal government had no power. It did not apply to slaves in the loyal slave states or in those parts of the Confederacy under Union control. Indeed, Lincoln did not free the slaves; they freed themselves.

Editorial
March 2004
by Mackubin T. Owens
ashbrook.org

Seems not all Blacks agree with your assessment.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No it isn't, but neither are sneak attacks, and there's the Japanese flag, and no complaints. You can respect and even honor your past without saying it's all good.

I don't disagree. The United States has done (is doing?) some pretty despicable things, and we still wave the flag. But the difference there and with the Japanese flag, or even the Rising Sun flag, is that those flags have been used for a very long time, and long before WW2. There's the precedence of history. The flag isn't a symbol of one act, or one war, or one political issue. It's a symbol of a nation.

The Confederate battle flag has no other symbolism or history than the rebellion of the South in the Civil War. A rebellion fueled by the desire to maintain the institution of slavery. It's a symbol of the Confederacy, which owed it's entire existence to that desire.

That's the difference in my mind.

Originally Posted by Simmy

Seems not all Blacks agree with your assessment.

The fact that the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery doesn't mean that the South wasn't fighting to keep it. That editorial is no rebuttal at all.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Another problem with early CSA flags were large white backgrounds, which sometimes the enemy thought were flags of surrender.

Wonder how someone could mistake the confederate flag for a flag of surrender whilst looking over his shoulder, and running at breakneck speed back across the Potomac?

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Simmy

“my paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or 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.”
Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley

Many Blacks didn't see Lincoln has their “Great Emancipator”.

Many of Lincoln’s critics, especially African-Americans, go so far as to claim that he was no friend of blacks and did not want to risk the political fallout that would surely result from emancipation, but was eventually forced by circumstances to do so. In the words of Julius Lester, “Blacks have no reason to feel grateful to Abraham Lincoln. How come it took him two whole years to free the slaves? His pen was sitting on his desk the entire time.”

Many also have questioned the real significance of the Emancipation Proclamation, arguing that it was merely a piece of propaganda and that it actually freed no slaves. As Richard Hofstadter wrote, “had the political strategy of the moment called for a momentous human document of the stature of the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln could have risen to the occasion.” Instead, he produced a document with “all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading.” In addition, the document he issued only freed slaves where the federal government had no power. It did not apply to slaves in the loyal slave states or in those parts of the Confederacy under Union control. Indeed, Lincoln did not free the slaves; they freed themselves.

Editorial
March 2004
by Mackubin T. Owens
ashbrook.org

Seems not all Blacks agree with your assessment.

Not really. Lincoln was just smart enough to know when to play his cards whatever the political climate. I think it clear Lincoln was anti slavery, but not to the point he would let it interfere with his political goals. His political timing was about perfect. No, he didn't really care about slavery, until it suited his purposes. Like him or not, he was political genius.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by em2nought

Wonder how someone could mistake the confederate flag for a flag of surrender whilst looking over his shoulder, and running at breakneck speed back across the Potomac?

But you can't blame men for following their Generals.

[Simmy]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Not really. Lincoln was just smart enough to know when to play his cards whatever the political climate. I think it clear Lincoln was anti slavery, but not to the point he would let it interfere with his political goals. His political timing was about perfect. No, he didn't really care about slavery, until it suited his purposes. Like him or not, he was political genius.

Your right.
My post was aimed at Takeda Shingen's comment about the Cival War being about slavery. It was, when it was convenient for him (Lincoln) to make it so.
Most Blacks don't think he was their white knight which is why they are in the Democratic Party and not the Republican Party.

[Simmy]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Not really. Lincoln was just smart enough to know when to play his cards whatever the political climate. I think it clear Lincoln was anti slavery, but not to the point he would let it interfere with his political goals. His political timing was about perfect. No, he didn't really care about slavery, until it suited his purposes. Like him or not, he was political genius.

Your right.
My post was aimed at Takeda Shingen's comment about the Civil War being about slavery. It was, when it was convenient for him (Lincoln) to make it so.
Most Blacks don't think he was their white knight which is why they are in the Democratic Party and not the Republican Party.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Simmy

Your right.
Most Blacks don't think he was their white knight which is why they are in the Democratic Party and not the Republican Party.

That is about the most illogical statement I have seen in some time.
The Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party of today are vastly different in almost every respect from the Republican and Democratic parties of 150 years ago.

Hell they are vastly different from the parties that they where 50 years ago much less 150.

Man this whole revisionist history thing is very trendy it seems.It must have a lot to do with the general dissatisfaction that people of varying political views have.I guess it makes people fell better to create a subjective version of history that suits their ideals.

I am in no way denying that the idealized version of official history that most learn in school is the best.You can learn a more objective version even at a community college or by reading a few books and thinking for yourself it is also useful to understand when an author has an agenda.That is why with any subject that I have an interest in I like to read about it from multiple sources.

You got double posted by the way.

Oh, I regret to inform everyone that Mackubin T. Owens is white.Or he has a very serious skin condition.
http://ashbrook.org/wp-content/uploa.../06/OwensM.jpg

[Simmy]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

That is about the most illogical statement I have seen in some time.
The Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party of today are vastly different in almost every respect from the Republican and Democratic parties of 150 years ago.

Hell they are vastly different from the parties they where 50 years ago much less 150.

Well you are simply going off what I said and did not read the article did you?
That's quite plain.
The fact is, Blacks joined the Democratic Party almost as soon as the war was over and the greatest part of them are still in that party. The reasons for so have nothing to do with your reasoning.

[Stealhead]

You clearly did not read that article that much is clear.The word "democratic" is not even used once in the entire editorial.

Let me link it for you so you may read it.... http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-owens-04-guelzo/


Let us see the last paragraph Stealhead why certainly;

"The Emancipation Proclamation may lack the rhetorical elegance of the Gettysburg Address or the Second Inaugural, but Guelzo makes it clear that the Proclamation is the most epochal of Lincoln’s public pronouncements. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is the definitive treatment of emancipation. Allen Guelzo deserves our immense gratitude for returning this critical document to its place of honor in the history of the American Republic."

You where using an article to prove the statements of Takeda Shingen wrong yet fail to realize that the author of the article holds the same view that Takeda does.


First African American congressman Hiram Rhodes elected into office in 1870 party Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels
Here is a list of every African American person elected to federal office during Reconnection all Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Reconstruction

Anyway keep doing your revisionist thing.Also look up the term "Dixiecrats"

[Wolferz]

It was all about cotton.