New Flag Flies Over Georgia Today

[sm]

Might as well jump in the fire.

No secret , I'm for less gov't meddlin-period. No gun laws, none of this pc malarky. Me- the Confederate flag symbolizes my dissent with gov't meddlin.

Colonists, as pointed out-rebelled , many others have come to our shores for freedom, they too rebelled . So yeah, I'm a rebel born and raised in the South. My poor sharecropper ancestors rebelled too. I have more of that rebel gene in me than others in my family, and not just those above the Mason-Dixon either. Word is the spelling of our last name was changed to distinguish "us" from the bunch that went along with the crowd. My ancestors fought/ rebelled to keep individual freedoms.

Symbolic, historical meaning for me in that context.

I understand and apppreciate opposing view of the flag and symbolism. Most on this board share a common interest, and I share this regardles of north/south/race/creed religion/sexual preference... etc. I may not always agree, but I respect you. I just ask for the same, and take note of why I choose to feel the way I do.

 

[El Tejon]

Tom, of course, there are northern racist individuals, see Chicago or South Boston. However, many Northern states prohibited slavery from their beginning, such as the states formed from the Northwest Territories--but I don't throw stones or up on any soapbox, I simply point to history.

No one is arguing that the South is not important to the USA. I am pointing out the history of the South and, in particular, what the people of Georgia did in '56. The reason behind the current flag change is racism which has a long history (all over).

I don't know how many slaves Rodney King owned. But if he fought for the "right" to own fellow human beings, he was wrong.

JPM, the official reason the South gave about "states rights" was concern over keeping their slaves. This was the reason dead tree for the CSA.

 

[Tom B]

Don't forget about North Boston and Harlem! Some extreme racism there! I suppose men like Washington, Jefferson and Madison were traitors also. They owned slaves. They rebeled against the government. Evil men under your definition. Bull Hockey!

 

[El Tejon]

In the 1820s when the New England states threatened to leave the Union, a Southern president declared that he would fill the trees with the bodies of those traitors responsible. It was right to stop treason then and in the 1860s.

Washington, Jefferson and Madison all agreed that slavery was a great evil, but being Southerns they were born into that culture which defended/depended upon it. I do not recall any of those three advocating violence against the United States of America to defend slavery as happened in 1861.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Why not just let the people of Georgia decide what flag to fly, without input from Yankees and other foreigners?

The high and mighty, moralistic viewpoints of many people were not welcome in the 1860's, 1960's, and even today.

Get off your high horse, and tend to your own business.

 

[MeekandMild]

Timewise this is about right. Now is about the time that most of the folks are dying who can recall their grandparents telling them about how really bad was the Rape of Georgia. Schoolbook history just isn't as real for most folks as first person oral accounts.

I figure probably about the youngest children who would have had vivid memories of Shermans war against the children would have been about ten years old in 1865 and their youngest grandchildren who would have sat at their knees listening to their stories would all be dead or in the nursing home now.

In 1956 these same grandchildren would have been young leaders of the community. Talking about blacks as well as whites as Sherman left a lot of blacks to starve that year and a lot of black children's mamas were raped by the yanks.

(Among the old black folks I knew growing up, Mr. Tejon, there were things they talked about which they thought were worse than slavery and segregation. Losing the civil war was one of those things and Sherman was another. You wouldn't know a revisionist if they bit you in the bohunkus.)

 

[Tom B]

Under your definitions I suggest you take a look at the origins of the American flag. It to was conceived by men you and the crown would call "evil racist rebels". As far as New England leaving the union in 1820, I don't think the southern states opposed it then nor would they now. Anyway this thread is in no way firearms related so it should end now as we all have expressed our opinions of one another in great detail and further discussion would be pointless. Have a great day!

 

[cuchulainn]

I've got a half-dozen ancestors who died fighting underneath that flag, and none of them were slave owners.

Me too. Most of my ancestors in the 1860 were running around Europe. But those who were here were dirt poor farmers in Virginia. My mother was a Richmond girl born and bred. I was raised and educated in Virginia (Heck, there was a fellow in the class ahead of me in college named Robert E. Lee V. He had first-son to first-son link to a famous general who had some influence on the war). I even own some clothing with that "evil" flag on it.

Now that I've got my Southron bona fides established, I'll repeat that I see both sides.

Tom BSecondly the flag at issue here is not the "Confederate Battle Flag" <snip> The flag in question is the Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Huh? The Battle Flag is the flag of the AoNV. Well, I guess you are correct if your point is that there actually was not one "Battle Flag" but many. However, the flag in question was a battle flag, and given that the most significant and most successful Confederate army -- made up of units from all 11 (13) states -- fought under that flag, it's not much of a leap to call the AoNV's battle flag the Confederate Battle Flag.

As I said before, a military flag does not belong atop a civilian government (but I respect the right of Georgians to decide that, in as much as the got the chance to do that).

El Tejon The flag change of 1956 was a direct racist statement against Yankee action that made them stop abusing blacks.

On that, you are correct. Historical fact. And it was a sign of their historical ignorance that they put a military flag over a civilian statehouse. The new flag modeled on the Stars and Bars, IMHO, is fine. It is a civilian flag. It honors the history of a sizable portion of the citizenry, but it does not have a direct and strong link to 1956. (Speaking of the Stars and Bars, anyone take a good look at the North Carolina flag lately?)

El TejonThe modern economy has brought us lots of revisionist history from the New South recently. But it is a false, free-good history.

True enough as far as it goes, but there's also been a lot of feel-good, revisionist mythology in recent decades about virtuous boys in blue marching south to selflessly sacrifice their blood on the altar of freedom. Spare me the pretense at a moral high ground.

Was the war about slavery? In part, yes. Was slavery immoral? Absolutely. Is that all there was to it? Nope, and to say otherwise is to simply partake in the same type of cartoonish, morality-play historical revisionism as those who deny a slavery connection. Frankly, both sides engage in a false dichotomy when they focus on the sole argument of "slavery" vs. "not about slavery." It was both "about slavery" and "not about slavery."

Someone brought up an analogy to the recent Iraq war, and let me run with that: Like with the Civil War, people are engaging in single-issue false dichotomy debates. Even if we get a video tape of W saying, "Hee, hee, hee, Mr. Vice President, I'll finally avenge my father's name, we'll get all that oil and your buddies with get all those reconstruction contracts," that doesn't prove that the war was not also about WMD, rooting out terrorist training camps, and freeing the people of Iraq.

Sometimes, both sides of a war have both virtuous reasons for fighting and immoral reasons.

Similary, to you Yankees, proof of a connection to slavery does not eliminate that the Rebs also had virtuous reasons for fighting, reasons that ought to be near and dear to the heart of an RKBA proponent -- and proof of the virtuous Yankee goal of ending slavery (regardless if it came a tad late in the war) does not excuse the Yanks from their immoral role in destroying the power balance between the feds and the states.

To you Rebs, flip the above around.

*******

As for what region was more racist? Midwesterners in particular have no place to claim any regional high ground whatsoever. It is telling that the resurgence of the Klan in the early 20th century was stronger in the Midwest than the South. And like Tom B, the biggest racist pigs I've ever met came from the Midwest not the South, including one distant in-law from Indiana.

****

As for Malcolm X hats, I knew a guy who bought a red one with a blue X, and he painted 13 tiny stars on the X

 

[Gmac]

Well I sure am glad another SYMBOL is gone, now everyone pat yourself on the back because you DID SOMETHING! I suspect Georgia has more pressing matters that should have been dealt with instead of this exercise in stupidity.

 

[Glock Glockler]

El Tejon,

Why shouldn't New England have been "allowed" to seceed, if they so choose?

Were the colonies wrong in seceeding from England?

At the end of the day, people want to get a deal that is good for them and live a happy life, so if a bunch of people decide that they all benefit by joining forces, like as a state or nation, what's wrong with that?

OTOH, if some of them think they can do better for themselves by going off on their own, what's wrong with that? Should a person be able to divorce their spouse, or should they be considered a traitor and hung from a tree?

A "union", is by definition, a voluntary joining of entities, so it is incorrect to think of somehting as a union of one of the partners is there by duress. At that point, there is no more of a Union that in the Soviet Union, which sent tanks and soldiers to various places within it's borders to prevent people from doing what the Southerns wanted to do in the 1860s.

 

[El Tejon]

Cuch, but the proof that the American Civil War was about slavery comes from the Southern states and individuals who stated that their attempted succession was about slavery. The North fought to free slaves; the South fought to keep them. Other factors involved? Yes, of course. But one cannot ignore the elephant in the room. Watching the Southern revisionists ignore slavery is like watching the Left ignore the Second Amendment.

Glock, the attempt of the Southern revisionists to link the Founding Fathers with the CSA is misguided. The American colonists wanted the ancient rights of Englishmen, power over themselves. The South wanted the right not to be interfered with as they owned other people, power over others.

Why did Andrew Jackson threaten to hang the Yankees and the Southern states scream "traitors" to those Yankee states which wished to leave the Union in the 1820s? Because it was levying war on the United States of America. That is treason, exactly what the CSA attempted.

Gmac, if the symbol on the Georgia state flag is so stupid and insignificant, then why did the people of Georgia put it on the state flag in '56? It meant something, right?

I agree it is a matter for the people of Georgia. I disagree as to its importance, or lack thereof. I am glad it is gone.

 

[Glock Glockler]

The South wanted the right not to be interfered with as they owned other people, power over others.

Didn't the US Supreme Court of the US govt give it's thumbs up to that in Dred Scott? Seems rather hypocritical to criticize the South for doing what your govt claimed is completely kosher.

If what you say is true, then the fact that the South was paying the majority of the taxes in the form of a tarrif, and that money was being spent on corporate welfare projects in the North, had absolutely nothing to do with the war. I guess the expansion westwards had nothing to do with it either, as the North would loose a lot of money and power if the foreign goods shipped west
were to come through low tarrif Southern ports as opposed to high tarrif protectionist Northern ports.

Nahhh, that had nothing to do with it. It was all about morality, money and power had nothing to do with this or any other war.

 

[El Tejon]

Glock, according to the Southern state governments, the CSA Congress and Southern leaders such as Robert E. Lee, the Civil War was about slavery. The 1956 flag change in Georgia was about racism as well. Good to see that evil symbol is gone.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Why, El Tejon, do you consider the Confederate Battle Flag a symbol of hate, and not a symbol of defiance toward an increasingly onerous federal government that continually reduces states rights?

 

[El Tejon]

Lone, because it was an emblem of the CSA which was founded on hate, oppression and racism.

There is no "state right" to deny another person his civil rights. That's why we have the 14th Amendment, § 5 in particular.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

El Tejon,

Racism, hate, and oppression were as prominent in the North as in the South.

Lincoln himself did not want to make human rights an issue in the Civil War, and only did so because he thought, quite correctly, that the Emancipation Proclamation would add a moral element that would rally the country, and in fact the world, to the side of the US.

 

[Erik]

What Mr. March said....

 

[cuchulainn]

The North fought to free slaves; the South fought to keep them.

Most accounts have Northern soldiers fighting to "preserve the Union." Most of them couldn't have given a rat's knee about setting free people they saw as inferiors.

Some northerners fought to free the slaves and some southerners fought to keep them.

OTOH...

Watching the Southern revisionists ignore slavery is like watching the Left ignore the Second Amendment.

Some northerners fought to increase the power of the federal government and some southerners fought to stop that. Watching the Northern revisionist ignore this encroachment by the federal power is like watching the Left ignore the Second Amendment.

 

[Byron Quick]

El Tejon,

Abraham Lincoln stated on many occasions that the purpose of the war was to preserve the Union not to free the slaves

This is not an exact quote unless I'm lucky: If I can preserve the Union without freeing slaves, I will do so. If I can preserve the Union by freeing slaves, I will do so.

So, basically, your position is that Lincoln was lying?

Jim and El Tejon: Tell me, y'all both know exactly why the 1956 flag was adopted. I assume that you both have read the minutes of the debate of the bill enabling this adoption? And that this reading is what lead you to your conclusion?

Another question for El Tejon? Who said this...and was he abetting treason?:

"The people of the United States have the constitutional right of amending the Constitution of the United States, or the revolutionary right of overthrowing it."

 

[Jim March]

The various "pro-Southerners" here keep dragging the conversation back to the Civil War.

That's NOT the issue here. It's about the "war" against civil rights that was going full-bore in 1956.

One of the last remnants of that war just came down.

 

[Byron Quick]

Facts about the 1956 Georgia flag: (as opposed to assumptions by folks who failed to do basic research): The flag before this was based on the First National and was designed by Georgia Confederate veterans in the late 1800's. The legislature added the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia in 1956 - NOT, according to the legislative record - to resist school desegregation, but to raise consciousness about the deteriorating battle flags of the state collection. Georgia started one of the first flag conservation movements in the country. The school desegregation proposal came three weeks after the flag law was changed. Even the Atlanta Journal newspaper, in a 1992 investigation of the change, stated that no evidence exists to link the change with racial motives. However, people in this country just prefer to believe mythology (like Washington throwing the silver dollar across the Potomac River) rather than facts - time and time again.

Funny, you didn't answer my question, Jim. The legislative record of the 1956 flag change DOES NOT support your premise that is was a symbol of resistance to civil rights for anyone.

 

[El Tejon]

Bryon, no, Lincoln wasn't lying. I am certain many in the North would have preferred to free the slaves without the South declaring war.

However, the statements on the other side, from General Lee to the Southern state governments to the CSA Congress all say that the South tried to leave because of slavery. The North defended itself against this and freed the slaves.

Flag preservation now? So they wanted to preserve a symbol of evil by putting on the state flag of Georgia as civil rights legislation was pending in Washington? What a conwinkydink!

 

[Coronach]

prior to the War of Southern Treason

How different was that from the war of Colonial Treason, in 1776?

Because, silly. Treason never prospers. In 1776 the rebels won. In the 1860s they did not.

Mike

 

[CZ-75]

I'm suprised no one has mentioned Indiana was once known as the "Klan" state, with more Klan members than in any other state, approximately 300K during the 1920s, or that the Klan controlled Indiana state govt. during the mid-1920s and probably would have for some time to come hadn't the state leader/grand whatever, Stephens (correct name?) been charged with raping Ms. Oberholzer (sp?) to death and the infatuation died out in the ensuing disgust.

My father can remember folks from Logansport, Peru, Kokomo, Wabash, etc. driving over to Marion in the '40s and '50s, b/c they wanted to start trouble with the blacks who lived there in a pretty high concentration.

 

[El Tejon]

CZ, yes, and Red as well. But as you said their evil died a quick death (thank God) and the state government never put Klan's symbol on the Colorado or Indiana flag.