I am very glad to see the tone in this thread is not getting ugly. Its good that we can disscuss this issue as adults. I really feel for the guys who think of the confederate flag as racist. I also agree the the KKK disgraces the Confederate Flag and also anything else they touch. Fear and Hate can accomplish nothing in the Black mans stuggle for equal rights. I am a White man and I have never minded working with or for Blacks. Some of the Soldiers who I most respect are Black. They served with honor and I am proud that I was able to learn how to be a Soldier from men like them! I promise you if more people knew the truth about our history this country would be better for it.
Blacks Helped tame the West and their efforts are part of the reason America is such a great country today.
I pray that someday all Americans of all races will live and work together without all the Hate and fear of one another that we see in world today.

If that is so...

I can only imagine you ALSO think all guns are evil.

You see, Hitler used machine guns, bolt action rifles, self-loading handguns etc etc in attemting to impose his narrow views on the rest of the world.

If you can look at the Confederate battle flag, which the KKK has illegitimately adopted and hijacked forr their purposes, and see racism, then to be logically honest and consistent you MUST consider all guns evil, as Hitler also used them for his evil intents.

Either that, or you are simply regurgitating what you heard in the Marxist* re-education day camps (aka "public schools")

*  (see Marx's Ten Measures of Marxism, specifically item 10)

I've always liked your style, garandman [;)]

For those of you who still don't get it, go back and read fattym4's post.

White Power groups have adopted the "Stars and Bars" as one of their symbols.

...because of this, people assume the worst when they see it.

During WWII, the Allies adopted the first few bars of Beethoven's "5th Symphony" to represent Allied victory (da-da-da-duh= morse for "V").

The Germans subsequently banned the playing of Beethoven (even though he had been considered a cultural hero).

Symbols pack a wallop.

Which draws a PRETTY STRONG parallel to those who are trying to ban the public display of the COnfederate Battle Flag.

...it does indeed.

A little empathy for those who are reminded of their enslaved ancestors and the hatred of their skin color, when they see it.

Imagine every time you see a certain symbol, you wonder if it is:

a. A proud symbol of someone's heritage.

or

b. A symbol of an organization that wants to lynch you and your children.

Don't outlaw the flag.
Don't deny that it is a proud symbol of one's heritage.
Don't accuse EVERYONE who flys it of being a racist.
BUT, show a little empathy.

Well said.

Major Murphy,
You are right on with your posts.
Thanks for sharing you thoughts with us.

SportsmanSupply.  

Well, I take a little offense to the "Liberal"label you pin on me with out knowing me from Adam and basing that on a post about an event that happened long before either of us were born.

As for the southern STATES that were the former confederacy being an "occupied territory", is it safe to extrapolate that line of reasoning to include that the whole continent is occupied territory that is rightfully that of the various tribes that came long before we did?

Liberal I am not.  Educated I am.

As "liberal" as it sounds, you must understand that even if this whole civil war was fought, at least from the confederacy perspective, on the grounds of freedom of the states from overbearing gov't. it still is irrelevent to the stability and cohesion of the union.  As hard as it is for some to swallow, there are certain sacrifices that must be made in order to maintain a society and for it to grow and be prosperous.  Amoung these is some form of rule.  Without any there would be anarchy.  That rule must be controlling enough to support the agenda of the nation as a whole and also allow personal liberty within it's confines.  So far, ours is the best compramise that has been found as is evident by our enormous growth of economic, military, and globally influencial  might.  

Given the text of the constitution and the authority of the same the south was in violation for seceeding because the constitution maintains in broad language that the practice of slavery is unlawful and unconstitutonal.  To seceed on the basis of states rights is moot.  Because the rights of the states does not include that of imposing slavery on any human.  If they seceeded on the grounds of states rights regarding say taxation than the argument would be a little more cohesive as taxation on the state level is not the business of the federal gov't.  The rights of men are the business of the federal gov't. As a matter of fact these rights are the foundation of the whole system!  

The war was fought to ensure the longevity and prosperity of the union which it has accomplished.  It was also fought to ensure that the rights of free men was the foundation of our society.  Slavery was an issue but the main issue was to ensure that men would not be subject to states laws that would violate the same as defined in the constitution. Which is the law of the land, state or not.  

As for the constitution not existing in it's original form?  Well it's there, buried under two hundred years of legislative crap!  It's hard to notice in the busy day to day ramblings of work, kids, and mortgage payments.  But, if you doubt it look around, you will see it at the local recruiting station, your district justice's office, the voting booths at the next election, and the nice AR's we all here keep with the right to bear.  

But to reiterate, liberal I am not.  There is often more than meets the eye in such discussions.

I would also like to point out how refreshing it is to see adults debating a topic that normally becomes a shouting match in such a mature way.

I believe the Civil War was about State's Power's (because state's can't have rights, only powers[;)]).  While the Fed Gov does have some authority, it cannot create a whole new law without the consent of 2/3 of the states.  It's called an amendment.
Neither the North nor the South had the votes to get slavery either abolished or legalized at the time.  It was already going out the door, but the Fed Gov needed to show it's control over the states.  They made it impossible for the south to do anything BUT suceed from the Union.
As far as the way the Constitution and it's freedoms were seen at that point in time, only white land-owning males were considered "We the people..."  and "all people are created equal...".  This is what has been changed by several amendments in the legitimate way over the years.

Well, using your logical and consistent approach I should be able to fly a swastika and everyone should get warm fuzzies when they see it.  After all it was a Christian symbol of peace and love before Hitler got his hands on it.  Also using your logical and consistent approach I view firearms and a useful and meaningful tool.  As many people throughout time have used them to put food on their table.  See, I personally am not offended by the Confederate flag.  I could care less if somebody wants to fly it.  However, the first impression I get of someone when I see it is this person is probably racist.  I wasn't brainwashed to feel this way.  It's from my own personal experience.  Like it or not first impressions stick for a while.  

Yes I know what I write and I understand it and the implicaions of the text.  

I mean I could agree with you guys and state that the south is an occupied territory, the civil war was justified, Lincoln was a tyrant, states have the right to enslave people aside from what is stated in the constitution, along with that they also have the right to wage war against the union for violation of the same which they agreed upon when they ratified the constituion, the south will rise agan.....blah, blah, blah.  But rational thought and logic prohibit that.

I mean why don't these occupied territories revolt?  Being such, why do the citizens of this territory allow this tyrrany to continue?  From the dialog on this board it would seem to me that these citizens would not stand for such a great injustice.  Why does this demographic voluntarily participate in the business of the occupying gov't?  Why are there no talks to barter some independence from this power or outright battle to be free?

Obviously some of you folks have very little comprehension of the historical facts.  It's one thing to know facts but it takes a little more to understand the meaning behind the facts.

Oh, by the way, I studied/am studying physics, basically thats rocket science in laymans terms, and I do quite well thank you.  As per the "educated my lilly white rebel ass" comment.  

I don't know now, I may take up a cause for the defeated south, it seems they are in a perilous and dire situtation being occupied by a foriegn gov't and all the other stuff I've been reading.

Also I need to retake those history and economics undergrad classes, I guess I missed something.  Oh and reread the constitution, find the part where it says the states have the right to grant power to one race of citizens to enslave another race.

Yeah, your right, I'm not very sharp afer all, I can't believe I missed all that! Lol!

Valkyre,
My apoligies for calling you a Liberal. A true Liberal would not have the balls to post his opinion on this board. He would just attack us for having a different view than what is P.C. in todays sick world. I strongly dissagree with you but I respect your point of view. Its has really been nice to see all the posts on this thread have been so adult for a change. Again I am sorry I called you a Liberal. I guess thats almost a bad as calling someone a Commie or a queer. I kinda lump them all together. You are no Liberal in the true sense of the word. I just think you have a liberal viewpoint on this particular issue. I am glad to discuss this issue with someone like yourself who is educated and I am trying to see things from your perspective. I just can't see why you don't think the South had the right to determine their own form of government. If they could determine that they wanted to be a part of the United States then they had the right to leave the Union any time they wanted too. Look at your history books and you will that other states threatend to leave the Union and they were not located in the South.

SportsmanSupply, right back at ya!  Someimes I get a little pissed being labeled a "liberal".  No harm done and I thoroughly enjoy the debate!  Some folks like to get personal and that gets me a little salty but you seem to b a stand up and rational fella!  [8D]


Here's one for ya,

A guy was drining in a bar,  he's all loaded up, stands up and shouts, "All liberals are f**king assholes!".  A guy at the other end of the bar stands up and voices his offense to the comment. The drunk guy says, "Whats your problem, are you a liberal?"  He says, "No I'm a f**king asshole"

Doorgunner 84 no flame intended, but I believe Hitler took the swatika from the eastern religions. He was into worship of the dark side, and the eastern religions in some ways presented him with certain symbols. I find it interesting when La Raza wants to make the whole southwest into Aztlan (sp) complete with their own flag, no one objects when their symbols are worn or displayed. As have been posted by others, when certain african americans groups (I dispise the seperation ability that it gives) display their flags and symbols, it is prefectly permissible. Why then for those who choose to wear or display the stars and bars there is a seperate set of standards. As far as the kkk goes, they are no different than skin heads or any other hate type group, they suck.

Longstreet, on the eve of the confederates bid to take Little Round Top in Gettysburg, told Britain's envoy to the CSA, a Major Henderson I believe, that the south should have freed the slaves FIRST then seceded from the Union!

Valkyrie,
LMFAO. Thats a good joke. Never heard it before.
I'll remember it.

I've also seen the Swastika in American Indian art.  I can see your point on other groups displaying their flags and furthermore agree with you.  The way I see it what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.  Like I said before I could care less what flag people display.  However, If somebody flies a confederate flag I don't think they should get pissed off when they are associated with racism.  Don't fly a Rainbow flag if you don't want people to think your gay.  


I just want to say that this has been an interesting topic and I'm glad that it hasn't gotten out of control or turned into a flame session!

The Stars-n-Bars is the First National Flag of the Confederacy.
The Battle Flag (equal on all four sides) is known as the St. Andrew's Cross.The rectangular St.Andrew's Cross is known as The Naval Jack.
The Battle Flag or Naval Jack is not the Stars-n-Bars.
Second National Flag was known as the Stainless Banner.  

personally, i dont feel like his flag, or my flag for that matter is old glory. that in no way makes myself (cant speak for the other guy) a lesser patriot.

im 100% for states rights... and i hold the 3rd national flag in dear respect, because it was the last flag to fly for freedom. the csa was the last freedom movement (to date) here in the usa.

secession? sure... lets all seceed. yankees too, if you folks got the balls to do it ;)...

imo, reclaiming america would be easier to do on a state by state level. even that would be hard enough....

there are a number of replies to this topic (good topic by the way!) and im growing tired of reading them all... so im just going to post some stuff. sorry if im repeating anyone.

only about 20% (some say 15%) of the confederate soldiers owned slaves. hmmmmm... why did the other 80% fight, if they didnt own slaves? hint: they sure as hell werent fighting over slavery rights.

lincoln promised, if elected, to raise tariff on the south from 20% to 40%. that would have caused many southerners to go bankrupt. but i guess thats not a good enough reason to say "we secede" is it? (full sarcasm)

here, right from the horses mouth:

"i will say, then, that i am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races--  that i am not, nor ever have been, in favour of making voters or jurors of negros, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and i will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races.... i, as much as any other man, am in favour of having the superior position asigned to the white race" -abe lincoln

good job abe! david duke would be proud.

did you folks know that blacks fought for the south?

check it out.... "After their capture one group of white Virginia slave owners and Afro-Virginians were asked if they would take the oath of allegiance to the United States in exchange for their freedom. One free negro indignantly replied: "I can't take no such oaf as dat. I'm a secesh nigger." A slave from this same group, upon learning that his master had refused, proudly exclaimed, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take." A second slave agreed: "I ain't going out here on no dishonorable terms." On another occasion a captured Virginia planter took the oath, but slave remained faithful to the Confederacy and refused. This slave returned to Virginia by a flag of truce boat and expressed disgust at his owner's disloyalty: "Massa had no principles." Confederate prisoners of war paid tribute to the loyalty, ingenuity, and diligence of "kind-hearted" blacks who attended to their needs and considered them fellow Southerners."

Ervin L. Jordan, Jr.

you are right my friend, your 'massa' truly had no principals. you were a better man by far!

.........................

...................

also.... "Well-to-do Creole Negroes . . . carried themselves with a military bearing; as they informed a commanding general on a later occasion, they came of a fighting race: "Our fathers were brought here as slaves bacause they were captured in war, and in hand to hand fights, too. Pardon me, General, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood.""

Benjamin Quarles

cowardly white blood huh? im not going to disagree with you on that one, and im even white.

what do you have to say, general nathan bedford forrest? we all know you started the original kkk and must be the worst racist that ever lived. give us your comments.

"These boys stayed with me, drove my teams and better Confederates did not live. . . . Those [black Southerners] among us during the war behaved in such a manner that I shall always respect them for it. . . . I have always felt kind towards them and always treated them kindly." -gen. forrest

i guess you arent the racist we thought you were.

so... what do yall reckon the south was fighting for? all i can come up with is FREEDOM.

now... just why did lincoln make such a big to do over slavery? it was all very sudden and abrupt. ill let you in on a little secret. heres the deal:

lincoln couldnt get enough support from the north to keep fighting! so he (like any wise and crafty politician) decided to run the souths reputation into the ground.

slavery was always a touchy issue for the religious folks of that day, i am sure. what better way to gain support of the northern churches/congregations than by making the south out to be evil and godless?

i love the south. but all in all, i seriously doubt the south will rise again.

however, i do believe that state secession would be the easiest way to reclaim america. bring it on...

[%(]