Confederate flag?


PDA






Rebel Gunman HK
December 22, 2004, 07:12 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041222/ap_on_re_us/confederate_prom_dress

Just came across this story and wonder why people have a problem with the confederate flag? I honestly don't know why. Will someone please explain to me why people are offended by it?

If you enjoyed reading about "Confederate flag?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PMDW
December 22, 2004, 07:15 PM
Probably the same reason some people don't like the Nazi Party flag.

Arc-Lite
December 22, 2004, 07:17 PM
I think it represents a very honorable group of men, who fought for their country....the problem I believe, comes when people highjack it, and turn it into some without honor...sadly what it stood for then, and now after the highjacking is much different. Arc-Lite

lycanthrope
December 22, 2004, 07:20 PM
I think a lot of people feel it represents a racist sentiment.

Rebel Gunman HK
December 22, 2004, 07:20 PM
But what meaning is it that is offensive? Who is hijacking it?

Valkman
December 22, 2004, 07:20 PM
Many people equate the Confederate Flag with racism. I do not, and I really hate it when racist groups use this flag in their cause. I equate that flag with one of the finest armies this country ever produced - if Lee's Army would've had the number of men and resources that the North did the outcome would've been very different.

schizrade
December 22, 2004, 07:21 PM
Just came across this story and wonder why people have a problem with the confederate flag? I honestly don't know why. Will someone please explain to me why people are offended by it?

Probably because one of the issues they fought the north over was keeping slavery. That is a cornerstone of the Civil War. The same goes for the Swastika. It has been used for 1000's of years but one nasty use has made it taboo. It is now tainted, just like the Confederate flag. Simple as that.

iluvG.R.I.T.S
December 22, 2004, 07:23 PM
Alot of people associate it with slavery which is wrong.It represents the confederate states and was the battle flag of the southern states during the civil war.Which was fought for states rights and really didnt have much to do with slavery.Most of these kids that fly iit on their big ole trucks do it just to piss people off and have no clue what its really about.

Roland of Gilead
December 22, 2004, 07:27 PM
I love the south. Why do people insist on using Lee's battle flag and calling it the Confederate flag? The Stars and Bars is the Confederate flag, not Lee's battle flag.

I think people are offended by Lee's battle flag because it was hijacked in the 60's by the new KKK.
Around here the really old people tell you that after the Civil War, the Klan wasn't about racism, it was an order of "knights". They were about the only law other than the yankee occupiers. If a man stayed drunk and didn't take care of his family, the Klan would visit him one night, maybe rough him up, let it be known it was in his best interest to work and support his family.
The Klan was hijacked by racists in the 1920's and 30's, and they in turn hijacked Lee's flag, and used it publicly a lot in the Civil Rights Era.

Do you think that girl was wearing that dress to commerate the men who died in the civil war? Do you think she was wearing it to display "Southern Pride"? Do you think she was wearing it to thumb her nose at minorities who might take offense?

I don't know her motivations, but I think no matter what they were, her removal from the prom was a bit extreme. I think if she lost some scholarship offers like I heard reported on the news, I'd like to know from where, 'cause I'll be sure never to donate to schools who support such a anti-free speech policy.

Arc-Lite
December 22, 2004, 07:30 PM
rebel..I do not find it offensive...because I see it as it was ment to be...ANYONE who miss uses it, for their personal beliefs, is highjacking it. I respect it, because it stood for the men of OUR country, doing what THEY believed. Arc-Lite

mbs357
December 22, 2004, 07:35 PM
The swastika is a religious symbol in Asia, it's just tainted by the Nazis.
I consider the Confederate Flag a symbol of the south, my home, and the part of the country I love the most. In a way, you can kinda understand the south's position in the Civil War. The slaves were their major source of income. Agreed that slavery in America was the worst form of slavery every conceived and should have been destoyed sooner than it was and that the southerners on their plantations should've gotten off their lazy rears and picked their own cotton, but you can see where they're coming from. So to me, the Confederate Flag represents detirmination to fight for our way of life...I am saddened that that way of life was a living through slavery...I am also insulted that they fought for their freedom to use slaves...

Rebel Gunman HK
December 22, 2004, 07:38 PM
Thanks for the posts. I had no idea that the KKK used the flag as theirs. So I take it that it is mostly black people who have a problem with the flag being used based on the Klan's involvement and not the Confederate states that it originally represented?

I just so happen to have bought a shirt a few years ago that had a confederate flag with a neat skull on it that said "Rebel" on it. I bought it cause I'm rebellious and I thought it looked cool. I bought it on a Army base in the PX in Virginia when I was assigned there. Never even knew I was wearing something over the years that might of made me a target.....

Anyhoo thanks for the education!

Rebel Gunman HK
December 22, 2004, 07:41 PM
Oh yea. What is the difference between Lee's battle flag and the Confederate flag? Anyone have pics?

Arc-Lite
December 22, 2004, 07:50 PM
It is the same with the air head gang bangers...wear the wrong color T shirt and it could get you killed...same in Jamaica, one color, one party, the other color, the other party....and they kill each other during elections. Even small reptiles are smarter then this !!! Highjack a flag, highjack a color... geeeezzzzz give me a break !!! Arc-Lite

Sleeping Dog
December 22, 2004, 07:53 PM
Hey Rebel,

Heck yes, that Stars-n-Bars T-shirt will make you a target. But so will a Stars-n-Stripes T in some 'hoods.

Wanna feel safe? Get a sky-blue United Nations flag bandana to wrap your skull in. Nobody'll dare mess with you then. :rolleyes: (Safety tip: Don't forget to take it off as you enter the saloon) :)

Anyway, besides the association with the Klan, some folks associate the Stars-n-Bars with the Confederacy, and associate the Confederacy with slavery, and there might have been a little racism wrapped up in the slave business. So it's easy to see why some may not like that flag. Even though most southerners who fought were not slave-owners.


Regards. (And I was just kidding about the UN Flag. Really. Don't wrap one around your head)

Tory
December 22, 2004, 07:55 PM
"Around here the really old people tell you that after the Civil War, the Klan wasn't about racism, it was an order of "knights". They were about the only law other than the yankee occupiers. If a man stayed drunk and didn't take care of his family, the Klan would visit him one night, maybe rough him up, let it be known it was in his best interest to work and support his family."

What insultingly inane drivel.

The Ku Klux Klan was formed by hardcore, unrepentant Confederates, notably the brilliant cavalryman Nathan Bedford Forrest, to suppress blacks from exercising their newly-acquired rights, primarily voting. It used terror in all forms, from dressing as ghosts (hence the "sheet" uniform) to scare the superstitious ex-slaves to rape, beatings and lynchings.

These allegedly non-racist "knights" grew so violent that even their most prominent proponent, Forrest, quit the organization in disgust. It faded until D.W. Griffith's racist film, "Birth of a Nation," which portrayed blacks as lecherous beasts slavering for white girls to rape, came out. It legitimized the Klan, which grew rapidly in the '20's and was responsible for most of the beatings, lynchings and murders of the Civil Rights era of the '60's.

For those who actually want a clue, look into the murder of Violet Iuzzo (run off the road by Klansmen for driving civil rights workers), Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney (civil rights workers released to the Klan by the local PD; beaten, killed and buried in a coffer dam, made into the film "Mississippi Burning"), and the bombings in Birmingham, Alabama (6 little girls killed in just ONE church bombing).

That said, if a girl wants to wear a Confederate flag, the First Amendment should protect her. Period.

I fly the Stars & Bars; i.e., the First Pattern CSA flag, on the birthdays of R.E. Lee, T.J. Jackson and Jefferson Davis. I have no more use for PC fascists than I do for Klan apologists! :barf:

DRZinn
December 22, 2004, 08:03 PM
Unfortunately, the meanings of things change, and not always to what the original users intended. Case in point: the swastika, which was originally a symbol of the sun. Like it or not, what the swastika means now is Nazism. Same thing with that flag. What it meant was states' rights. What it means now, like it or not, is racism. Does that mean everyone who flies it, wears it, or puts it on their truck bumper is a racist? Of course not, but the meaning is what it becomes.

To look at it another way, we and the white supremacists have one thing in common: the belief in states' rights. What it means to them is the right to own slaves. What it means to us is much more complex, and has a lot to do with individual rights, the polar opposite of the white supremacists' goal. But if you talk to a KKK Grand Wizard (or whatever they call themselves) and mention states' rights, it means slavery.

mountaindrew
December 22, 2004, 08:03 PM
What I never hear mentioned in these debates is the fact that beyond being about slavery, it is a symbol of rebelion. To some thats not a good thing. It is a symbol of the enemy who instigated one of the bloodiest and horrible wars ever fought by the United States. It is the same as flying a Nazi swatstica in support of what the nazis stood for.

The confederacy was an enemy of the United States. The war they insisted upon fighting caused the death of many of our ancestors, on both sides.

The fact that they fought to protect a corrupt and evil way of life only make the symbolism that much more repugnant.

Roland of Gilead
December 22, 2004, 08:16 PM
QUOTE:

For those who actually want a clue, look into the murder of Violet Iuzzo (run
off the road by Klansmen for driving civil rights workers), Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney (civil rights workers released to the Klan by the local PD; beaten, killed and buried in a coffer dam, made into the film "Mississippi Burning"), and the bombings in Birmingham, Alabama (6 little girls killed in just ONE church bombing).

How interesting you rebuke my comments about the original 1860's Klan, who's original founder quit when it became too racist (isn't that what I said) by citing events inthe 50s and 60s, which I specifically said was the new,unapoligetic, nothing but white supremacist Klan who ruined the Confederate Flag for everyone by waving Lee's battle flag in their faces while threatening black students.
Anyway, who would I believe, people who were told by their parents, who actually lived here and saw it or someone who actually lived thru and saw Mississippi Burning?:rolleyes:

Was it the Klan that lynched those young, black men in NYC (omitted from the film Gangs of New York 'cause everyone knows its only Southerners who are racist).

BTW, could you show me one, single, repentant Confederate? I have lived in AL or TN my whole life, traveled the whole country and some far flung parts of the world, and I have never encountered such a person.

Hkmp5sd
December 22, 2004, 08:26 PM
Probably because one of the issues they fought the north over was keeping slavery. That is a cornerstone of the Civil War.
Not trying to sidetrack this thread, but you really need to study the "Civil War" if you believe that. In addition, look at how the federal government operated before and after the war. The war was about states rights.

It is a symbol of the enemy who instigated one of the bloodiest and horrible wars ever fought by the United States.
The South wanted to leave the union, not take over the entire country. Many historians and Constitutional scholars believe they were justified in doing so under the Constitution as it existed at that time. It was the North that invaded the South.

iluvG.R.I.T.S
December 22, 2004, 08:39 PM
The whole reason the south wanted to leave the union and did had nothing to do with slavery.Lincoln him self said "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so." .The South left over trade and tarrifs that the north was imposing. This website explains it very simply http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/Q&A/civil_war_wasn.htm

Arc-Lite
December 22, 2004, 08:48 PM
...and so it goes...the highjackers highjacking the highjackers... don't you just love it !!! if they would have all worn plaid shirts...would plaid shirts be racist?? Arc-Lite

lycanthrope
December 22, 2004, 09:01 PM
Only to the Irish maybe......

joab
December 22, 2004, 09:07 PM
Roland of Gilead
Take it from someone whos family roots goes back to the inception of the Klan. And someone who's father left Alabama trying to hide from this legacy. And who's paternal grandfather and great grandfathers were Exalted Cyclops in the Klan
Tory is right.

The difference between me and your "old folks" is that I am truly embarassed by the association and have no reason to rationalize my family's involement.Why do people insist on using Lee's battle flag and calling it the Confederate flag? The Stars and Bars is the Confederate flag, not Lee's battle flag. Fell a little short here too.
The Stars and Bars was the first falg of the Confederacy. In the final version the St Andrews Cross battle flag was incorporated on a field of white with a braoad red verticle bar
It's the Confederate Naval Jack that is used nowadays not the Army of Northern Va's

joab
December 22, 2004, 09:25 PM
Rebel Gunman
Check Here (http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/southflg.html) for pics
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/bugman/posting/10096852.jpg

CannibalCrowley
December 22, 2004, 09:54 PM
This is not a free speech issue. It's already been settled many times that one's first amendment rights don't carry over into school. She was even told in advance not to wear the dress in question, but she decided to do it anyway. They likely would have done the same thing if she wore a dress with a swastika, so I really don't see the problem here.

The flag is heavily associated with racism, that's a fact. It doesn't matter if you think it shouldn't be viewed as such, because it is. Unless you have a time machine that won't be changing anytime soon so you might as well accept it. The fact is that racist groups both past and present use the battle flag, erase this and the stigma around the flag will disappear. Until then it will be seen as a racist symbol, just like the swastika and the Roman salute are associated with the Nazis.

JPL
December 22, 2004, 09:59 PM
"Which was fought for states rights and really didnt have much to do with slavery."

Then why does the Confederate constitution mention slavery something like 33 separate times as being a protected right?

Slavery was an integral part of the "states rights" that the South was fighting for.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csa.htm

See also Jefferson Davis's first message to the Confederate Congress, in which he lays out the history of slavery in the United States as part of the case for secession from the union.

Valkman
December 22, 2004, 10:35 PM
It doesn't matter if you think it shouldn't be viewed as such, because it is.

Not by me it isn't. Mostly people who don't know their history view it as such, I believe.

Unless you have a time machine that won't be changing anytime soon so you might as well accept it.

That's great - if most people also want strict gun control because they're ignorant I guess I should just knuckle under to that too? I don't accept what I don't believe. I know what the Confederate Flag stood for and about the men that fought for it, and it had nothing to do with racism so I will not accept it.

BryanP
December 22, 2004, 10:44 PM
but you can see where they're coming from.

No, I can't. Slavery was morally abhorrent. As such, so were the people fighting to keep it as the law of the land.

RoyG
December 22, 2004, 10:57 PM
Rebel Gunman HK, try looking here Flags of the Confederacy (http://www.ConfederateFlags.org)

R.H. Lee
December 22, 2004, 11:09 PM
I've got 3' x5' Confederate Navy Jack hanging in my office at home, and a small 3" x 5" CNJ on my desk at work. So I guess I must be a skinhead racist nazi. :rolleyes: Bite me.

Tory
December 22, 2004, 11:10 PM
"How interesting you rebuke my comments about the original 1860's Klan, who's [sic] original founder quit when it became too racist (isn't that what I said)"

No, it is NOT what you said. You posted inanities about the Klan being "knights" coercing slackers and drunks into working to support their families ("the Klan wasn't about racism, it was an order of 'knights'. ....If a man stayed drunk and didn't take care of his family, the Klan would visit him one night, maybe rough him up, let it be known it was in his best interest to work and support his family.").

You then went on to state "The Klan was hijacked by racists in the 1920's and 30's..." Wrong again. The Klan was:

1. Racist at its INCEPTION;
2. Violent at its INCEPTION; and
3. Became so extreme in its own founder's time that Nathan Bedford Forrest QUIT it.

For those of us who can read a calendar, that's DECADES before your spurious time of "the 1920's and 30's."

"BTW, could you show me one, single, repentant Confederate? I have lived in AL or TN my whole life, traveled the whole country and some far flung parts of the world, and I have never encountered such a person."

You're on: Gen. James "Pete" Longstreet, Commander, First Corps, ANV. He:

1. Had the temerity to suggest that Gen. Lee was occasionally imperfect (Gettysburg, for one); and

2. Became a Postmaster under a REPUBLICAN administration. :what:

I stand by my documented assertions and leave you to your self-serving "Song of the South" myths of noble Klansmen saving hapless darkies from them nasty ol' drunks. :barf:

Arc-Lite
December 22, 2004, 11:13 PM
yes the south had slavery...and that was changed, long ago...and yes some do associate this flag with racism..accepting this flag belief then, makes it true and correct? or not accepting it,allows for a change, to begin and the highjacking and negitive association to end. like we have carried this baggage to long.... might be time to wake up, to stop being so focused on the differences, and stop carring all the crosses of the past....and realize tomorrow is what we make of it...The Confederacy were Americans, fighting the Americans of the Union, key word here, Americans... sad time, many vitims then,still many victims today...maybe time to wake up!!! Arc-Lite

Michigander
December 22, 2004, 11:25 PM
I respect it, because it stood for the men of OUR country, doing what THEY believed. Arc-Lite

...The Confederacy were Americans, fighting the Americans of the Union, key word here, Americans...

I'm assuming by "American" you mean a citizen of the United States of America?

Once the southern states (legally) seceeded from the United States of America, they were no longer citizens of the United States of America.

joab
December 22, 2004, 11:32 PM
See also Jefferson Davis's first message to the Confederate Congress, in which he lays out the history of slavery in the United States as part of the case for secession from the union. You can compare that to Lincoln's first innaugeral speech"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."
Grant and Sherman were both slave owners, Lee was not.
Grant holds the distinction of being the last president to have owned slaves
The Emancipation Proclamation only freed southern slaves
The Confederate constitution prohibited importation of slave the U.S. laws did not even do this at the time.
It should also be noted that slaves were not shipped into the south, they were bought fromthe North.

It is distasteful to me that a war started simply to maintain federal supremecy has been reinvented to include as a noble purpose something that was simply a collateral occurance

Arc-Lite
December 22, 2004, 11:47 PM
Mich...sure ok, the rest of that sentence was.."SAD TIME MANY VICTIMS THEN,STILL MANY VICTIM TODAY,MAYBE TIME TO WAKE UP" Arc-Lite

joab
December 22, 2004, 11:55 PM
Became so extreme in its own founder's time that Nathan Bedford Forrest QUIT it. Actually he did more than quit. He disbande the organization.
He did it not because he saw the light, but because prosecutions of the terrorists were starting and he was distancing himself from them.

DMF
December 23, 2004, 12:03 AM
It was the North that invaded the South. Well I think it's you that need to study the history of the Civil War. The war was fought because the Confederate states committed acts of war, and gave Lincoln (and the US Congress) an excuse to fight, win, and re-unite the Union. Confederates attacked US territory, and gave the Union the justification for fighting the war. I know many don't like to hear that, and claim those attacks by the South were somehow justified, etc, etc., but anyone here willing to research Ft. Sumter and the other attacks on US territory and troops, prior to Sumter, can see the truth. The truth is the South chose war by attacking the US, and they lost.

I predict this thread will now devolve into another "refighting" of the Civil War, by those who weren't born then, but because of the geography of their birth are sore about the South losing, and deny the facts. Oh wait that's already begun . . . :rolleyes:

joab
December 23, 2004, 12:10 AM
Confederates attacked US territory, and gave the Union the justification for fighting the war. I know many don't like to hear that, Not true. The South had legally seceded, it was no longer federal possession. They were evicted squatters refusing to leave.I predict this thread will now devolve into another "refighting" of the Civil War, by those who weren't born then, but because of the geography of their birth are sore about the South losing, and deny the facts "If you can't support your position attack the other sides intelligence" is another tried and true and tired technique as well.

DMF
December 23, 2004, 12:25 AM
The South had legally seceded, it was no longer federal possession. They were evicted squatters refusing to leave. Sorry, but you are wrong. That territory was the property of the US government, legally transferred to the US Government by those states, prior to secession. Claiming that the property in question belonged to the states is false, and would be the equivalent of you selling me a piece of your property, and then unilaterally deciding you wanted it back at a later date.

I'm not attacking anyone's intelligence, I'm pointing out that many people refuse to be objective about the debate. The facts are clear, but many refuse to see them, as your post about "evicted squatters" shows.

bogie
December 23, 2004, 12:29 AM
I don't care if _you_ do not equate the confederate flag with racism.

Enough people do, many of 'em with a pretty fair amount of reason, to the point that I cringe every time I see an NRA bumper sticker on the same vehicle as a rebel flag. People who are ambivalent on the firearms issues are transformed from fence-sitters to downright antis in seconds, when the "redneck racist" stereotype is confirmed for them.

Flaggots, you need to come 150 years into the future, and fight another war.

FWIW, I also bitch about this thing to gun show promoters. I've seen booths selling Klan Krap, Nazi Bleep, etc., and gone and bitched. There's a big difference between someone selling "collector" stuff, and someone selling your basic "Illinois Nazi" junk. I hate Illinois Nazis.

Heck - there was one gun show where some bleep had his poor wife floggin' t-shirts with pictures of dead 1940s war criminals on 'em, while he wandered around and tried to gain converts. Pitiful.

joab
December 23, 2004, 12:41 AM
When the Soth seceded the confiscated all federal properies with the exception of a few minor forts, Sumpter among those.
The north had been steadily and trying to increase the miitary presence within the fort.
In January a private commercial ship attempting to resupply and reinforce the fort in violation of federal pledges not to escalate or reinforce the fort, had been fired on and turned away.
On April Lincoln sent another "supply ship" accompanied by warships to Charelston harbor .
The south faced with the option of sitting around with one thumb up their butt and one in their mounth swapping every once in awhile or enforcing thieir soveriegnty decided to drive the squatters out.
In retrospect it was an unnecessary action that mey have been one of the greatest mistakes of the war

For those that insists on characterising all southeners as still fighting the war. Please find another lame battle cry.
The war is over. We know that.
We lost. We got over it.
Reconstruction made sure that we were sufficiently punished

The revisionist history of the thing is what is irritating us now

Cortland
December 23, 2004, 12:50 AM
Sorry, but you are wrong. That territory was the property of the US government, legally transferred to the US Government by those states, prior to secession. Claiming that the property in question belonged to the states is false, and would be the equivalent of you selling me a piece of your property, and then unilaterally deciding you wanted it back at a later date.
Right... So I guess when the American Colonies seceded from Britain --- oops, I mean declared independence (have to get these terms straight) --- we should've let the British keep all of their forts and military installations. After all, they were the legal possessions of the U.K., right? To do otherwise would be completely unjustified! :rolleyes:

DMF
December 23, 2004, 01:07 AM
Sorry, but you are wrong.
The southern batteries returned fire on Sumpter, which fired on them after they had fired on a federal ship entering Charelston harbor. Amazing! :rolleyes: You outright lie about what happened at Sumter, but even your lie would support my claim that the South attacked the Union, and started the war.

Here's a little history lesson for you: http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/civwar/html/cw_000201_fortsumteris.htm

I quote the relevant parts, but feel free to read the whole detailed text at the link above.

. . . The national government decided to resupply and reinforce Anderson with 200 additional soldiers, to bring the garrison up to half the strength for which Fort Sumter had been designed. To minimize provocation, it chartered a civilian ship, Star of the West, instead of sending in a warship with the supplies and reinforcements. But the hotheaded Carolinians fired on Star of the West when it attempted to enter the harbor on January 9, 1861, forcing it to turn back and scurry out to sea. Lacking orders and loath to take responsibility for starting a war, Anderson did not return the fire. The guns of Sumter remained silent, and the United States remained at peace. . .

. . . But amid the cacophony and the agony, Lincoln evolved a policy and made a decision. The key provision of his policy was to separate the question of reinforcement from that of resupply. The president decided to send in supplies but to hold troops and warships outside the harbor and authorize them to go into action only if the Confederates acted to stop the supply ships. And he would notify southern officials of his intentions. If Confederate artillery fired on the unarmed supply ships, the South would stand convicted of attacking "a mission of humanity," bringing "food for hungry men."

Lincoln's solution was a stroke of genius. It put the burden of deciding for peace or war on Jefferson Davis's shoulders. In effect, Lincoln flipped a coin and told Davis, "Heads I win; tails you lose." If Davis permitted the supplies to go in peacefully, the American flag would continue to fly over Fort Sumter. If he ordered Beauregard to stop them, the onus of starting a war would fall on the South.

Lincoln notified Governor Francis Pickens of South Carolina on April 6, 1861, that "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort." In response, the Confederate cabinet decided at a fateful meeting in Montgomery to open fire on Fort Sumter and force its surrender before the relief fleet arrived, if possible. Only Secretary of State Robert Toombs opposed this decision. He reportedly told Davis that it "will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornets' nest.... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."

Toombs was right. At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the batteries around Charleston harbor opened fire. After thirty-three hours in which more than four thousand rounds were fired (only one thousand by the undermanned fort), the American flag was lowered in surrender on April 14. The news outraged and galvanized the northern people in the same way in which the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor eighty years later galvanized the American people. On April 15 Lincoln called out the militia to suppress "insurrection." Northern men flocked to the recruiting offices; southern men did the same, and four more states joined the Confederacy.

DMF
December 23, 2004, 01:12 AM
Right... So I guess when the American Colonies seceded from Britain --- oops, I mean declared independence (have to get these terms straight) --- we should've let the British keep all of their forts and military installations. After all, they were the legal possessions of the U.K., right? To do otherwise would be completely unjustified! You seem to forget the colonist had to fight and WIN a war to get their independence. The Confederates decided to start a fight that it didn't win.

DMF
December 23, 2004, 01:14 AM
Oh joab, why did you delete your post? Ashamed of being caught in a lie?

joab
December 23, 2004, 01:17 AM
Oh joab, why did you delete your post? Ashamed of being caught in a lie? That was taken from a letter written by a witness at the time of the attack.
I could not substantiate it so I deleted it and substituted more convential sources

joab
December 23, 2004, 01:19 AM
I have not resorted to calling you an idiot please don't resort to calling me a liar

lycanthrope
December 23, 2004, 01:21 AM
But to get back on track.........

If your daughter brought some kid to prom with "666" and a swastika on his forhead, he's gonna get the "look".

Symbols take on the meaning of the culture. Even words have differing meanings these days.... (For)(Unlawful)(Carnal)(Knowledge) was just an acronym, but is not appropriate for general discussion in school and had the title of the most wicked profanity at one time.

History is history. What's it mean now?

Intentions are what's offensive........isn't that the basis behind self-defense? Does it matter what the weapon is if the intent to kill is there? What was her intention?

Don't get distracted by the shiny objects hiding in the details.

DMF
December 23, 2004, 01:22 AM
The revisionist history of the thing is what is irritating us now :evil: Oh that's rich!

You complain of revisionist history in a post that was a complete deletion of your original lie, then replaced with your slanted interpretation of the events at Fort Sumter. The irony of that is just priceless.

DMF
December 23, 2004, 01:24 AM
I have not resorted to calling you an idiot please don't resort to calling me a liar I didn't resort to anything, you posted a lie, and I called you out on that fact. The truth hurts.

joab
December 23, 2004, 01:31 AM
I posted the recounted version of a charleston resident call him a liar. I also deleted that within a couple of minutes

But I guess that makes you a liar when you said that the union troops were legally in the fort even though they had to sneak in at night in violation of the assurances of the sitting president

Cortland
December 23, 2004, 01:49 AM
You seem to forget the colonist had to fight and WIN a war to get their independence. The Confederates decided to start a fight that it didn't win.
No kidding. But you said the Confederates were not justified in their actions. Are you telling me that the colonists are justified because they won, but the Confederates were in the wrong because they lost? I fail to see how the Confederates were any less justified than the Colonists. Sure the Confederates lost, but that's not relevent if the question is "who was right and who was wrong?"

joab
December 23, 2004, 01:49 AM
There are all sorts of war rumors and speculations afloat in the city. I have it from good authority that a dispatch has been received to day, by the Government, to the effect, that this morning, as a government vessel, unarmed and loaded with provisions for Ft Sumpter, attempted to enter the Charleston harbor. She was fired into by some of the rebel batteries, that Ft Sumpter thereupon fired one gun at the assailing battery as a signal that the vessel must not be molested, whereupon all the batteries of the harbor opened a general cannonade, and five Government War Ships laying outside immediately crowded up and together with Ft Sumpter opened fire upon the infernal traitors, and that the battle is now raging. (http://pastvoices.com/usa/jsteele1861.shtml)

And this part made me rethink the postingIt is possible of course that the dispatch is untrue, but at all events there is an immense excitement and buzz here,

DMF
December 23, 2004, 01:51 AM
Joab, please try to stick to reality when debating. I said the territory was legally owned by the US, now whether or not Buchanan promised to maintain the status quo, does not change the fact that Sumter was US territory. It also does not change the fact that Major Anderson had a responsibility to protect the men at Fort Moultrie. Anderson moved 84 men into Sumter from Fort Moultrie in an effort to avoid a violent confrontation with the Confederate soldiers who had surrounded the men at Moultrie. That is much different than attacking an unarmed, civilian supply ship on January 9, 1861, and much different than attacking the supply ships on April 12th 1861.

No lie on my part, just the facts. Fort Sumter was the property of the US, and the US had every right to protect both that property, the soldiers within, and the other US soldiers who were vulnerable to attack at Fort Moultrie.

joab
December 23, 2004, 02:01 AM
Cortland
The winner writes the history books and enforces the their version of history on the school systems And outlaws teaching the other sides facts. Just as they did "The War of Northern Agression" school books

I still have my copy of the "Southern History of The War" which was written before during and shortly after the war.

This is also why it's now know as the "Civil War" , which it never was instead of the "War for Southern Independance" which is what it was

DMF
December 23, 2004, 02:07 AM
No kidding. But you said the Confederates were not justified in their actions. Are you telling me that the colonists are justified because they won, but the Confederates were in the wrong because they lost? I fail to see how the Confederates were any less justified than the Colonists. Sure the Confederates lost, but that's not relevent if the question is "who was right and who was wrong?"The Confederacy had no legal claim to that property. It was postulated that it was in fact territory that belonged to the state, and they had the legal right to evict the Union troops, and this is incorrect. The Colonist too no legal ground to stand on, and would have surely suffered far greater penalties under the King had they lost, than the Confederates suffered after the Civil War.

Now subjectively opinions vary on the moral justification for each cause. It is my OPINION that the colonists were morally justified, although violating established law, in fighting British rule. However, it is also my opinion that the South had no moral justification for attacking Sumter. There was no great moral goal that the South was seeking by attacking Sumter. It was foolish pride that took the South into a war it could not win, when they attacked Sumter. Davis knew Lincoln wanted an excuse to fight for reunification, and he gave it to him.

joab
December 23, 2004, 02:18 AM
I said the territory was legally owned by the US Depends on who you talked to at the time. Thats the knid of difference of opinion that makes horse races and starts warsIt also does not change the fact that Major Anderson had a responsibility to protect the men at Fort Moultrie. Anderson moved 84 men into Sumter from Fort Moultrie in an effort to avoid a violent confrontation with the Confederate soldiers who had surrounded the men at Moultrie. Also doesn't change the fact thatAnderson was under the control of the CIC who had pledged not to take such actions. Nor the fact that he refiused to vacate the fort becasue he was under orders to keep it. If he had left he may have been discharged and have had to go home to the slaves he owned but was supposedly fighting to freeThat is much different than attacking an unarmed, civilian supply ship on January 9, 1861, and much different than attacking the supply ships on April 12th 1861. On Jan. 7, 1861, news reached Charleston that the Star of the West had departed New York with armed troops bound for Charleston. The expensive first order Fresnel lens was removed from the lighthouse and buried on Morris Island. The Charleston Light was converted to a lookout tower for the cadets from the Citadel, South Carolina's military college. Cadets were also positioned on Morris Island, out of range of Federal troops in Fort Sumter, manning a battery of four 24-pounder field howitzers to guard the main ship channel. (http://www.savethelight.org/1862.htm)
Ships carrying military men and material are not considered civilianThere was no great moral goal that the South was seeking by attacking Sumter. It was foolish pride that took the South into a war it could not win, when they attacked Sumter. Davis knew Lincoln wanted an excuse to fight for reunification, and he gave it to him. At least we can agree on something

joab
December 23, 2004, 02:24 AM
If nothing else DMF
I'd say the passion of our opinions on this matter will help Rebel Gunman and others see why that symbol is not well recieved in many circles
And why it is and should be discouraged , if not banned, as appropriate school wear.

JPL
December 23, 2004, 02:47 AM
"Lincoln's first innagural address..."

The point of your bringing that up is?

Confederate states seceeded BEFORE Lincoln was sworn into office.

"The south had legally seceeded..."

Under what mandate did it "legally seceed?

No Constitutional provision gave it that ability, it was never recognized by any other government.

If the claim of secession is considered to be "legal," then forced reunification through suppression of the rebellion must also be considered legal.


"The Confederate constitution prohibited importation of slave the U.S...."

Incorrect.

The importation of slaves into the United States from Africa was outlawed in 1808.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, it shall not be lawful to import or bring into the United States or the territories thereof from any foreign kingdom, place, or country, any negro, mulatto, or person of colour, with intent to hold, sell, or dispose of such negro, mulatto, or person of colour, as a slave, or to be held to service or labour."

That's extracted from the act, passed in 1807, that made it illegal to import slaves after January 1, 1808.

Grant's wife owned slaves, Grant did not prior to the his marriage to her.

Given the laws of the day, the wife's property became the husband's.

Grant's family never owned slaves -- his Father was an abolitionist.

Grant did own one slave in the late 1850s, apparently a grant from his father in law.

Robert E. Lee's wife owned slaves, he freed them around 1850.

By the way, Robert E. Lee was opposed to southern secession, believing it to be wrong, both legally, economically, and morally.

Derek Zeanah
December 23, 2004, 02:53 AM
Not my forum, but I'm calling this one.

We've been here before, and this issue'll likely never be resolved. As a general rule there might be an appropriate forum for refighting the war of northern agression, but THR ain't it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Confederate flag?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!