Confederate Flag (stickers etc...boo)

[Adamski47]

When I see a confederate flag sticker on a car/truck I do not think "the south" or "racism" all I think of EVERYTIME is how the symbol to me is synonymous with "uneducated." Plain and simple.

You are a #### fool if you think that piece of #### flag stands for anything. Get a job and move out of your mom's basement please.

####ing pathetic.

Edit: Bleeped out my (equally ignorant but necessary) swear words.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Where the hell did that come from?

[NoMyths]

But how else will we know that they're a rebel, like everyone else bearing the stars and bars?

[Adamski47]

Where the hell did that come from?

It was just on my mind today after seeing some dude muscle his way down the freeway in his truck covered with confederate flag stickers. It just put me in a bad mood all day. Sorry, just wanted to vent. It's disgusting.

[duckman]

You can always put the "You lost. Get over it." sticker on your car.

[NoMyths]

You can always put the "You lost. Get over it." sticker on your car.Down here that's a good way to get a car keyed. :p

[Rizon]

Just be happy knowing you have all your teeth.



















You have all your teeth, right?

[duckman]

Down here that's a good way to get a car keyed. :p
Damn, I thought that was because of my "Bad Cop. No Donut." sticker. :p

[sachmo71]

When I see a confederate flag sticker on a car/truck I do not think "the south" or "racism" all I think of EVERYTIME is how the symbol to me is synonymous with "uneducated." Plain and simple.




Sadly, I do as well...but I'm working on it. :(

[Ksyrup]

But how else will we know that they're a rebel, like everyone else bearing the stars and bars?
Gun rack.

[Ksyrup]

On a separate but related issue, whenever I see any kind of bumper sticker on a car, I can't help but think I'd never want to loan the owner of that car any of my property. I've never quite understood the willingness of people to ruin their cars. I refuse to even allow the dealership to put its stupid insignia on my trunk.

[Toddiec]

This brings up a related question that occurred to me last night while watching the addiction that I like to call "television". I saw a trailer for the new Dukes of Hazzard and I wondered if they were going to keep the confederate flag on the General Lee in the movie. I did not look close enough at the trailer so I couldn't tell for sure. It is an interesting debate if they should stick to remaking the original series or if they should remove it to reflect the increased P.C. of the current time.

[Wolfpack]

Well, if they got rid of the flag, why stop there? The car's named after the leader of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, an army that fought under the same banner that's on the roof.

[Sun Tzu]

Yes they are keeping the rebel flag on the hood of the car. They are also keeping the dixie horn as well. It's only fitting seeing as how the name of the car is the General Lee.

As far as being upset by seeing somebody with a confederate flag sticker/banner/insignia on their vehicle...you have absolutely no idea why they have that sticker there. You getting that upset over what someone else chooses to do with their own vehicle makes you ignorant in your own right.

[Sun Tzu]

dola -

Now when I see somebody driving around here with a Dallas Cowboys sticker on their car, well that calls for nothing less than five continuous minutes of cursing.

[Honolulu_Blue]

As far as being upset by seeing somebody with a confederate flag sticker/banner/insignia on their vehicle...you have absolutely no idea why they have that sticker there. You getting that upset over what someone else chooses to do with their own vehicle makes you ignorant in your own right.While it's true you really shouldn't "judge a book by its cover", I don't think drawing inferences about someone from what they decorate their car (or house, or otherwise) with makes one ignorant. Certain symbols stand for some pretty clear ideas. I mean, would you think someone "ignorant" if they saw someone wearing a cross and made the assumption that "this person is Christian"? Such symbols aren't the some total of a person, but certainly enough for you to draw an inference and to get annoyed. Hell, I got annoyed/angry whenever I see a Hummer on the road. This is not like judging someone by the color of their skin. Whoever it is went through the trouble of buying the symbol and then goes ahead and displays it proudly.

[Honolulu_Blue]

This brings up a related question that occurred to me last night while watching the addiction that I like to call "television". I saw a trailer for the new Dukes of Hazzard and I wondered if they were going to keep the confederate flag on the General Lee in the movie. I did not look close enough at the trailer so I couldn't tell for sure. It is an interesting debate if they should stick to remaking the original series or if they should remove it to reflect the increased P.C. of the current time.
I saw a trailer for that movie over the weekend... God that looks fucking abysmal. Awful. Atrocious. Pathetic.

[SelzShoes]

As far as being upset by seeing somebody with a confederate flag sticker/banner/insignia on their vehicle...you have absolutely no idea why they have that sticker there. You getting that upset over what someone else chooses to do with their own vehicle makes you ignorant in your own right.
I don't get upset by it, but I wonder why people want to affix a symbol of TREASON to thier belongings.

[Neon_Chaos]

This brings up a related question that occurred to me last night while watching the addiction that I like to call "television". I saw a trailer for the new Dukes of Hazzard and I wondered if they were going to keep the confederate flag on the General Lee in the movie. I did not look close enough at the trailer so I couldn't tell for sure. It is an interesting debate if they should stick to remaking the original series or if they should remove it to reflect the increased P.C. of the current time.
I saw the trailer for the new Dukes movie, and I believe that the Confederate Flag isn't on the hood but on the roof of the car.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I saw the trailer for the new Dukes movie, and I believe that the Confederate Flag isn't on the hood but on the roof of the car.
You are correct. It is on the roof of the car.

It still looked horrible this movie.

[Ksyrup]

Even Cooter's pissed about this movie.

[Klinglerware]

I don't get upset by it, but I wonder why people want to affix a symbol of TREASON to thier belongings.

The treason angle is interesting and I don't understand why it isn't pushed more by those people who are against its display. Confederate flag supporters readily dismiss the racism argument, but don't seem to fight the treason argument as hard (probably since the idea of a flag that is symbolic of an act of treason that actually happened is much more tangible). Confedarate flag supporters on this board have said as much: basically, "don't bring racism into this argument, but treason is fair game"...

[JonInMiddleGA]

You are a #### fool if you think that piece of #### flag stands for anything. Get a job and move out of your mom's basement please.

Although I don't "do bumperstickers", I'll just say that I'd be happy to compare incomes with you sometime if you'd like. Bet you're closer to "mom's basement" than I am.

I'd take you to task in more detail & with more fervor, but then I see where you're from & figure you can't help it, it'd be like picking on someone with a birth defect.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Confedarate flag supporters on this board have said as much: basically, "don't bring racism into this argument, but treason is fair game"...

Just as an anecdotal case in point, I wouldn't dispute your quoted statement.

[Ksyrup]

Having lived in both places, I'd say Michigan and Georgia have a lot in common. There are plenty of birth defects to go around.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I'd take you to task in more detail & with more fervor, but then I see where you're from & figure you can't help it, it'd be like picking on someone with a birth defect.
But I'm from Michigan... :confused:

[rkmsuf]

The Confederate Flag is stupid.

Thank you and good day.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But I'm from Michigan... :confused:

I believe the "Handbook of Comedy" suggests that a distinct "silent pause" is the way for me to go here.

:D

[Klinglerware]

As a post-script to my earlier post: this is America and I wouldn't want restrictions on it's display by private citizens. But I do think that those people who do decide to display should reflect on what the Confederate flag means as a symbol to both themselves and others and on how one's respect for the Confederacy jibes with one's love for America, etc...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Having lived in both places, I'd say Michigan and Georgia have a lot in common. There are plenty of birth defects to go around.
Two favorite stories about Georgia:

A group of friends and I drove to Atlanta (from Michigan) one night to visit another friend. We have seen signs for "Waffle House" at every exit south of Cinci. So, finally the repetition pays off and we stop at a "Waffle House" about 45 minutes north of Atlanta.

The waitress there (sans a few teeth) comes to our table and asks us to place our order. We do and it's pretty obvious we're from the north. She asks "Where y'all from?" We say Michigan. She replies "Ohhh weee! Yankees! Wait 'til Earl gets in. He'll love this!" So we nod, smile, and finish our order.

A few minutes later Earl comes in and sits at the bar. He's a big ole boy. He's wearing a hat that reads "Keep the South Clean, Send a Yankee Home." So the waitress calls over to Earl and says, "Hey, Earl. We've got some Yankees here." She nods to our table. Earl turns around in his stool and eyes us down. He then says "Only two things come from the North: Yankees and bad weather." He gives us a bit of a snarl and turns back around to start his meal.

Second story:

A friend of mine from law school and a bunch of his friends were headed down to Florida for Spring Break. They were in undergrad. A bunch guys from New York driving a black SUV. So they go tearing through Georgia and get pulled over by a cop for speeding. The cop gets out of his car and he's straight out of central casting. Big guy, hat, mirrored-shades, all of that. He walks up to the SUV and says:

"Boy. Aint nobdy go through Georgia that fast."

Without missing a beat, the guy from New York replies:

"Sherman did."

He spent the night in jail.

[Huckleberry]

The flag they almost exclusively display was the Confederate battle flag or the Navy Jack. It was a symbol used by those taking up arms against the United States of America. It is 100% treasonous.

Usually it doesn't bother me and I'll only comment on it if I'm asked. I usually ask why they don't display the Stars and Bars if it's Southern Pride they're showing. Most of the time they're knuckleheads that don't know the difference.

The only time I've taken action against such a display was on the 4th of July. My brother-in-law had his flag flying at the in-laws and I took it down and threw it on the ground. I then had to explain to him what he was doing and he hasn't flown it, at least with me around, since.

[KWhit]

Actually, we had a discussion on this a year or two ago.

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=6671

It's my opinion that the confederate battle flag is racist - at least it is now. It may not have started out that way, but it was used in the 1950's by southern governments as a protest against federally mandated racial integration.

Like it or not, to a great many Americans, the symbol connotes white power.

[Poli]

Just be happy knowing you have all your teeth.

You have all your teeth, right?
No, thanks to the blasted Navy. :)

[Bo Jackson's Hip]

I have a masters degree and I'm proud of my heritage. So take that. :)

[Bo Jackson's Hip]

Actually, we had a discussion on this a year or two ago.

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=6671

It's my opinion that the confederate battle flag is racist - at least it is now. It may not have started out that way, but it was used in the 1950's by southern governments as a protest against federally mandated racial integration.

Like it or not, to a great many Americans, the symbol connotes white power.

Much in the way that guns don't kill people, people do, flags are incapable of being racist(s).

[CraigSca]

Personall, I couldn't care less about a Confederate flag on a car, and I admit I'm surprised about the fervor presented in the first post. Get over it - the guy chooses to mess up his car/truck, so what?

When I see a Confederate flag, I don't think racism...really I just see pride in living in the south (though I don't think I'd ever go so far as to put such a flag on my car that could POSSIBLY denote something negative like that - then again, I do walk around with a t-shirt that says "Your favorite band sucks"). Really, Texans do the same thing - putting their flag on their car, "don't mess with Texas", etc. I guess the only differences are the additional connotations that the Confederate flag has attached to it. Again, personally, I see very little difference, ymmv.

[Bo Jackson's Hip]

Like it or not, to a great many Americans, the symbol connotes white power.

Then they're the ones that are uneducated.

[Huckleberry]

I have a masters degree and I'm proud of my heritage. So take that. :)
Do you display the Stars and Bars or one of the battle flags?

[sterlingice]

I believe the "Handbook of Comedy" suggests that a distinct "silent pause" is the way for me to go here.

:D
Well played, Jon :)

SI

[Klinglerware]

I have a masters degree and I'm proud of my heritage. So take that. :)

I must admit, the topic of why people display the confederate flag fascinates me. If I may ask (not trying to be rude here), what does the symbol mean to you? What does your pride in your heritage mean, and how is it encapsulated in the symbol?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Then they're the ones that are uneducated.
I wouldn't call people who associate the Confederate flag with racism "uneducated." Like it or not, the flag was used and is still used today (by some) as a symbol for racism. While someone may just be putting the Confederate Flag on their car to display Southren Pride, you can't ignore the fact that the symbol has been used to "display" other ideas and that certain people, very well educated people, may associate those ideas with that symbol.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Well played, Jon :)

SI
Come on, now! I set him up for that! A nice, big grapefruit of a pitch to the old fella...

[Bo Jackson's Hip]

Do you display the Stars and Bars or one of the battle flags?

Neither; contrary to popular belief, the Stars and Bars originated as a Confederate Naval flag on CSS ships and was only later adopted by field units in battle.

I don't display them, not because I don't want to be labelled a racist, but because what they mean to me is personal to my beliefs and own feelings. I don't feel the need unlike other "causes d'celebrare" (sic)to "project" my beliefs onto others.

If its wrong of me to be proud of my ancestors that fought in the 13th AL Infantry "Tallassee Guards" for a cause that they "at the time" believed in then I don't want to be right. (1$ to that preacher in Coming to America)

[Samdari]

Then they're the ones that are uneducated.

Apparently you are the one who is uneducated - with a complete lack of reading comprehension ability. KWhit is right - some have overtly used that flag as a symbol of their racist views. People who know that and then associate that symbol with racism are not uneducated or unintelligent at all. If you consider it a symbol of something other than resistance to racial equality, then you should blame the racist perception some have of that flag on those who advanced it as such, planting that perception in so many people's minds and not on those who actually have that perception.

[Bo Jackson's Hip]

Apparently you are the one who is uneducated - with a complete lack of reading comprehension ability. KWhit is right - some have overtly used that flag as a symbol of their racist views. People who know that and then associate that symbol with racism are not uneducated or unintelligent at all. If you consider it a symbol of something other than resistance to racial equality, then you should blame the racist perception some have of that flag on those who advanced it as such, planting that perception in so many people's minds and not on those who actually have that perception.

I am well aware that certain people have used that flag as a symbol of their racist views. I grew up in a small town in Alabama, so you don't have to remind me about those aspects of society. I however see the distinction with being proud of your heritage and your ancestors and being racist. Some apparently do not.

Just curious, should all the people that are against the Iraq war or feel that it is unjust, illegal, etc. be ashamed of their fathers, grandfathers, brothers and sisters that are fighting it?

[Dutch]

Where the hell did that come from?

Just making sure everybody knows he's smart enough to judge mean people when he see's their bumper stickers.

[KWhit]

Then they're the ones that are uneducated.If you are as educated on the issue as you claim to be, I'm sure you'll be able to explain to me why the Georgia state flag was changed to incorporate the confederate symbol in 1956.

I'm also sure you know who Denmark Groover is, but for the others reading this thread, he's the Georgia House floor leader who in 1956 sponsored the legislation to add the Southern Cross into the state flag. He also has since admitted that the flag was changed to a protest of court-ordered integration.

The timing couldn't make it more obvious. The entire 1956 session of the GA legislature was devoted toward twarting the federal government's institution of Brown v. Board of Education. The incorporation of the confederate battle flag was a thinly veiled "screw you" to the federal gov't - specifically as it related to racial integration.

[JonInMiddleGA]

KWhit -- I believe you're failing to make an important distinction between "opposing integration" & "opposing Federally-ordered integration".

You're welcome to disagree, but I believe that it's a valid distinction, albeit infinitely more distinctive today than in 1956.

I'll even go so far as to say that the circumstances of legal integration are a major component of the poor state of racial affairs in Georgia today.

[Huckleberry]

Neither; contrary to popular belief, the Stars and Bars originated as a Confederate Naval flag on CSS ships and was only later adopted by field units in battle.
http://www.confederateflags.org/images/1nat12an.gif

That is the Stars and Bars. The original Confederate National Flag.

http://www.confederateflags.org/images/sbr2.gif

The second Confederate National Flag. Mostly white.

http://www.confederateflags.org/images/3natl1.gif

The third and final Confederate National Flag.

http://www.confederateflags.org/images/AoT.gifhttp://www.confederateflags.org/images/AMeL.gif

A sample of some battle flags.

[sterlingice]

Come on, now! I set him up for that! A nice, big grapefruit of a pitch to the old fella...
I couldn't tell if it was intentional or just the result of years of Red Wings brain damage (oh, it's good to have hockey back!) ;)

SI

[Huckleberry]

http://www.confederateflags.org/images/AoT.gif

equals

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/flags/jap-flag-ww2.gif

as far as I'm concerned. Flags symbolizing the taking up of arms against the United States of America.

[Ksyrup]

Warm out today.

Warm yesterday.

Even warmer today.

[KWhit]

KWhit -- I believe you're failing to make an important distinction between "opposing integration" & "opposing Federally-ordered integration".

You're welcome to disagree, but I believe that it's a valid distinction, albeit infinitely more distinctive today than in 1956.

I'll even go so far as to say that the circumstances of legal integration are a major component of the poor state of racial affairs in Georgia today.
I'll agree with you that Georgia lawmakers were certainly making the point that the state should have the ability to decide to integrate or not. That's why they took a symbol from the confederacy. Sure, it was partially a states-rights vs. federal-rights issue to the GA lawmakers. But let's face it, at its core, opposition to integration was because white people wanted to keep black people as far away from them as possible.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://www.confederateflags.org/images/AoT.gif

equals

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/flags/jap-flag-ww2.gif

as far as I'm concerned. Flags symbolizing the taking up of arms against the United States of America.

Then you should learn more about the men who fought under the former.

(Heck, probably the latter too for that matter, there were honorable men who fought under it as well).

FWIW, we're about as far apart on this subject as we can be, to the point that your comment probably qualifies as "use of fighting words" if it was made in my physical presence ... but I sincerely respect your willingness to say what you believe without trying to dance around it.

Given the tracks that my train of thought around this subject usually follow, the word "honorable" comes to mind as being appropriate.

[Crapshoot]

Personall, I couldn't care less about a Confederate flag on a car, and I admit I'm surprised about the fervor presented in the first post. Get over it - the guy chooses to mess up his car/truck, so what?

When I see a Confederate flag, I don't think racism...really I just see pride in living in the south (though I don't think I'd ever go so far as to put such a flag on my car that could POSSIBLY denote something negative like that - then again, I do walk around with a t-shirt that says "Your favorite band sucks"). Really, Texans do the same thing - putting their flag on their car, "don't mess with Texas", etc. I guess the only differences are the additional connotations that the Confederate flag has attached to it. Again, personally, I see very little difference, ymmv.

The connatations that fought for slavery and what not - I guess that doesnt make much of a difference ? Hey, its their car - and they can put what they want on it. But everytime I see one, I'm inclined to think of some dumb redneck as well. Its a symbol of treason (hilarious given the self-proclaimed "patriots" ) and racism - pretty hard to distance those things from it.

[Crapshoot]

KWhit -- I believe you're failing to make an important distinction between "opposing integration" & "opposing Federally-ordered integration".

You're welcome to disagree, but I believe that it's a valid distinction, albeit infinitely more distinctive today than in 1956.

I'll even go so far as to say that the circumstances of legal integration are a major component of the poor state of racial affairs in Georgia today.

That may be, but did Georgia and most of the South have any record to suggest they would have conceded these basic human rights themselves ? Perhaps a secession would have been for the best. I'm sorry Jon, but when a state fails to show even a basic amount of respect to its citizens, it deserves the federal government to mandate rights its too chickenshit to enforce.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll agree with you that Georgia lawmakers were certainly making the point that the state should have the ability to decide to integrate or not. That's why they took a symbol from the confederacy. Sure, it was partially a states-rights vs. federal-rights issue to the GA lawmakers. But let's face it, at its core, opposition to integration was because white people wanted to keep black people as far away from them as possible.

I don't disagree with you, in fact, I was sort of making the same point (or at least intended to) -- that I believe the former (state v. federal) is much more
an issue for those of us living today than for those who lived through that era.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Perhaps a secession would have been for the best.

I agree wholeheartedly ... but that was sorta the point of the whole exercise wasn't it?

I rarely use the phrase "Occupied City of Atlanta" without a certain amount of sincerity.

[KWhit]

I don't disagree with you, in fact, I was sort of making the same point (or at least intended to) -- that I believe the former (state v. federal) is much more
an issue for those of us living today than for those who lived through that era.
Fair enough. I thought it sounded like you were agreeing with me, but then I came to my senses and thought, "Jon and I agreeing on something in this thread? No way!"

[illinifan999]

So it would be ok to drive around with a swastika bumper sticker with a flag with a swastika on it?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Fair enough. I thought it sounded like you were agreeing with me, but then I came to my senses and thought, "Jon and I agreeing on something in this thread? No way!"

Nah, we seem to be in agreement about the hierarchy of motivations in the 50's.
But fear not ... we likely draw different enough conclusions about the aftermath that we're well covered on the disagreement scale ;)

[Toddzilla]

I understand - esp. having been born and raised in Virginia - the tremendous honor and virtue held by many men that fought under and defended the Confederate battle flag. Under different circumstances I may even display one myself...

HOWEVER

I also recognize the terrible hatred, bigotry, and negative associations most people - justifiably so - have for this flag and the people that display it now. I respect that - and them - and wouldn't display a Confederate flag for others to see and be subject to.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I couldn't tell if it was intentional or just the result of years of Red Wings brain damage (oh, it's good to have hockey back!) ;)

SI
That said, Jon's reply was better than expected. He didn't just hit a homer run it was out of the park, over the Green Monster, into the Bay, all that jazz...
:)

[revrew]

I personally wouldn't display the confederate flags because of the biblical principle of "not causing a weaker brother to stumble." Though the flag stands for noble causes as well as ignoble, and though I should be perfectly free to display such a flag, I would not use my freedom in that way, out of respect for those who would so stumble over it, seeing it as encouragement to be racist or rebellious, or out of respect for those who would view it in fear that I meant a racist message.

That said, I do object to considering the flag "treasonous." Treason agianst what? Though it's rarely ever discussed today, even some modern scholars read into our founding documents a consistutionally legitimate "right to secede." At the time, there were many that saw association with the United States as an individual state's prerogative, rather than a conscripted necessity. Many in law and government believed those states had the right to form a new nation. When they did, it was the United States of America that built an invasion army against the Confederate States of America and violated the latter's territory. Who took up arms against whom?

Frankly, all the heat and anger against the flag is largely unjustified. It is not a symbol of racism, not a symbol of rebellion, and not a symbol of treason (though individuals have taken it to mean all those things). Even so, good conscience and biblical direction would instruct us to reserve display of the flag except in situations whose purpose is clearly defined (such as a part of a historical display or even state flag).

[Huckleberry]

Then you should learn more about the men who fought under the former.I know plenty about them. I'm from a former Confederate State, remember?

(Heck, probably the latter too for that matter, there were honorable men who fought under it as well).

FWIW, we're about as far apart on this subject as we can be, to the point that your comment probably qualifies as "use of fighting words" if it was made in my physical presence...Why are they fighting words if you agree with the comparison? What I said is true, both flags were used to represent those actively engaged in warfare against the United States of America. And you yourself now concede that there were almost certainly honorable soldiers in both camps.

So what about a truthful comparison should drive you to physical retaliation?

[Pacersfan46]

Much in the way that guns don't kill people, people do, flags are incapable of being racist(s).

Having a gun can imply your willingness to inflict harm upon a person though. Why else do you have a gun, but to hurt someone? Whether in self defense or otherwise. Apply that to the flag analogy.

[rkmsuf]

Having a gun can imply your willingness to inflict harm upon a person though. Why else do you have a gun, but to hurt someone? Whether in self defense or otherwise. Apply that to the flag analogy.


two words

cat hunting

[Greyroofoo]

I'm from michigan and I don't really understand how the stars and bars stand for treason.

[Pacersfan46]

two words

cat hunting


I'll be sure to hide my cat from you.

[Huckleberry]

I'm from michigan and I don't really understand how the stars and bars stand for treason.
First, to clarify, this:

http://www.confederateflags.org/images/AoT.gif

is not the Stars and Bars. It is a battle flag that was flown when engaged in warfare against the United States of America.

Now, Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:

Section 3.</EMP> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Pretty straightforward. The Confederate Battle Flag represents the levying of war against the United States. That is the Constitutional definition of treason.

[JPhillips]

Who took up arms against whom?

First shots fired at Fort Sumter by Confederate forces.

I don't doubt that the Union would have invaded anyway, but your implication that the Union started the fighting is completely wrong.

[rkmsuf]

yeeeeeeeeeeeee haaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


tension breaker. had to be done.

[Schmidty]

This thread proves one thing: Flags are stupid.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That is the Constitutional definition of treason.

But that definition seems to take us back to a question of whether the members of the CSA were part of the USA at the time of the fighting -- in their minds they weren't ... therefore rendering "treason" an impossibility (just as there's plenty to accuse, for example, Germany or Japan of during WWII, but treason isn't on the list).

As the saying goes, history (among other things) is written by the victors ... therefore, the War of Northern Aggression provided a precedent that States do not have the "right" to secede from the Union. In reality, what was proven was more along the lines that a given group of States did not have the might to successfully defend the right to secede and therefore lost it.

[Aylmar]

First, to clarify, this:

http://www.confederateflags.org/images/AoT.gif

is not the Stars and Bars. It is a battle flag that was flown when engaged in warfare against the United States of America.

Now, Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:


Pretty straightforward. The Confederate Battle Flag represents the levying of war against the United States. That is the Constitutional definition of treason.

How many Confederate leaders were convicted of treason after the North won the war? You would have thought, for such treasonous actions, they would certainly have hung Jefferson Davis. He's an easy mark, right? President of the CSA? He's the ringleader! How about Lee? He was responsible (indirectly) for thousands and thousands of Union deaths. When did his trial commence? I mean, they are traitors, right? Where is the criminal prosecution? These should be open and shut cases. Hang those men!!

The trick is the definition of war, yes? The North invaded the South time and time again. The Confederates could claim that they were simply defending themselves against an aggressive government out to subjugate the rights of the southern states. Victors make the rules (see Texas v. White in 1869), and the Civil War is no different. But the idea that the situation was as black and white (traitors vs. patriots) as you are making it out to be is preposterous.

[Adamski47]

Although I don't "do bumperstickers", I'll just say that I'd be happy to compare incomes with you sometime if you'd like. Bet you're closer to "mom's basement" than I am.

I'd take you to task in more detail & with more fervor, but then I see where you're from & figure you can't help it, it'd be like picking on someone with a birth defect.

This threat might work in your neck of the woods but seriously, a bet? Why don't we whip our dicks out and measure thoughs instead?

Take your thesaurus back to the county library before it is overdue.

I'm done reading this thread and am removing my subscription. Enjoy!

[sachmo71]

This threat might work in your neck of the woods but seriously, a bet? Why don't we whip our dicks out and measure thoughs instead?

Take your thesaurus back to the county library before it is overdue.

I'm done reading this thread and am removing my subscription. Enjoy!


Jon hath been burned. :(

[JPhillips]

Aylmar: Lincon and Grant were the major reasons that Davis and other leaders didn't get executed. There was great popular support for punishing the South, but Lincoln's wishes and Grant's actions at Appomatox luckily carried the day. Both men realized that the fighting would end only if it could be replaced by a new national unity. Credit should also be given to Lee in particular for refusing to sanction a guerilla war.

Its very frustrating to read all of these "noble cause" arguments. The Civil War wasn't fought between an aggressive North and a passive South. Remember that the South fired the first shots, they stole tons of Federal property and they also invaded Northern territory numerous times. There was never any intention by either side to sit back and see if a peaceful resolution could be found.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This threat might work in your neck of the woods but seriously, a bet? Why don't we whip our dicks out and measure thoughs instead?

Take your thesaurus back to the county library before it is overdue.

I'm done reading this thread and am removing my subscription. Enjoy!

Spare me, you sanctimonious p.o.s. You were the one who raised the income issue, not me. I just decided to take you up on it, since you had decided to let your oh-so-wise "student" mouth write a check your ass isn't likely to be able to cash.

You took the shot at income-levels, I offered to prove just how far off base you are ... and we see how willing you are to go there, I believe that makes my point.

Come back & see us when you've grown up a little, m'kay. In the meantime, stick to your homework.

[Aylmar]

This threat might work in your neck of the woods but seriously, a bet? Why don't we whip our dicks out and measure thoughs instead?

Take your thesaurus back to the county library before it is overdue.

Sounds like you should spend some time there checking out a dictionary. thoughs? I mean, a typo I could see...but that's not even in the ballpark.

[rkmsuf]

you don't want me whipping my dick out and making you all feel inadequate



ps - It's big.

[Aylmar]

Its very frustrating to read all of these "noble cause" arguments. The Civil War wasn't fought between an aggressive North and a passive South. Remember that the South fired the first shots, they stole tons of Federal property and they also invaded Northern territory numerous times. There was never any intention by either side to sit back and see if a peaceful resolution could be found.

You could also look at Lincoln's order to resupply Fort Sumter. He knew it would lead to war well before he issued it. It can be argued that Lincoln needed a war to strengthen the resolve of the states remaining in the Union in order to put it back together again. The CSA made overtures to Lincoln before Sumter for a resolution. He spurned them. The inclusive branding of the south as traitors is probably just as frustrating for me as the noble cause argument is for you. As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[JPhillips]

Aylmar:I agree with you. I'm not arguing for a good/evil branding. Both sides knew that the decision to seceed meant war and both sides did all they could to destroy the other.

[dawgfan]

Spare me, you sanctimonious p.o.s. You were the one who raised the income issue, not me. I just decided to take you up on it, since you had decided to let your oh-so-wise "student" mouth write a check your ass isn't likely to be able to cash.

You took the shot at income-levels, I offered to prove just how far off base you are ... and we see how willing you are to go there, I believe that makes my point.

Come back & see us when you've grown up a little, m'kay. In the meantime, stick to your homework.

Gee, an income comparison between a student and someone in what, their mid-30's? Yeah, that's a reasonable comparison.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Gee, an income comparison between a student and someone in what, their mid-30's? Yeah, that's a reasonable comparison.

Again, I wasn't the one who raised the income issue, Mr. Yankee Know-It-All-Don't-Know-Jack brought it up.
I just thought it was time someone called it for the b.s. comment it was.

Somehow though, I'm not surprised that you would have a problem with it.
I really don't give a fuck, but I'm not surprised.

[dawgfan]

Again, I wasn't the one who raised the income issue, Mr. Yankee Know-It-All-Don't-Know-Jack brought it up.
I just thought it was time someone called it for the b.s. comment it was.

Somehow though, I'm not surprised that you would have a problem with it.
I really don't give a fuck, but I'm not surprised.

Is it a B.S. comment? Compare apples to apples.

Per capita income in 2004:
Michigan: $31,954
Georgia: $30,051

And to your other point, I'm really not surprised you're acting like a jerk, so I guess we're even.

[rkmsuf]

Ok, they are whipping their dicks out. Everybody clear out.

[Huckleberry]

Given that they were citizens of States that willfully joined the USA and that the Constitution gives Congress authority regarding the territory of the United States (Article IV), they were by definition - due to Congress' nonacceptance of the secession - still United States citizens occupying United States territory.

However, I agree with the decision not to execute their leaders. It was also made for the right reason, politically it enabled a return to one nation.

And, yes, the American Revolutionaries were treasonous. Revolutions necessarily require it. The argument regarding whether the South was as justified as the Colonies to commit their acts is a separate debate. It does not change the fact that both were acts of treason.

[Telle]

Ok, they are whipping their dicks out. Everybody clear out.

You don't really think they're going to need all that much room, do you?

[Klinglerware]

Ok, they are whipping their dicks out. Everybody clear out.

But what about the people who want to watch?

[rkmsuf]

But what about the people who want to watch?

I mean seriously, when does this ever happen.

Nobody settles things like this. Let's whip out our dicks to see who is bigger? Who does that?

[Klinglerware]

I mean seriously, when does this ever happen.

Nobody settles things like this. Let's whip out our dicks to see who is bigger? Who does that?

Perhaps watching more gay porn is in order? :D

[Aylmar]

Given that they were citizens of States that willfully joined the USA and that the Constitution gives Congress authority regarding the territory of the United States (Article IV), they were by definition - due to Congress' nonacceptance of the secession - still United States citizens occupying United States territory.

But it does not specifically mention the legality of secession. And therefore, in the mind of some, is subject to:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Jefferson described the tenth amendment as the "foundation of the Constitution". He argued that the states were not "united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government" and "whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force". In fact, in his railings against the Sedition Act, Jefferson expected the states themselves to "take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories".

Now, this doesn't sound like an unbreakable Union of states to me. It sounds like a set of independent entities working together to accomplish a goal that they could not accomplish on their own. You are implying that the states happily gave up their rights in order to form this union. To people like Jefferson and Madison, that was far from true. The states were the last line of defense against a central government that could easily transform itself into a monarchy.

Now, how much of this do I buy? I don't know. It's an interesting debate, though, that's for sure.

[Huckleberry]

I don't believe I implied any such thing. I am a very strong believer in States' rights and in the Tenth Amendment (but believe also very strongly in the Ninth Amendment and the rights I believe it affords the people against not only an overbearing federal government but also an overbearing State government).

The way I see it is that the Constitution places the People first, then the States, then the Nation.

But that doesn't change my opinion that the 10th doesn't apply here because Article IV gives Congress authority regarding the Nation's territory. Secession clearly involves the taking of the Nation's territory.

[Aylmar]

But that doesn't change my opinion that the 10th doesn't apply here because Article IV gives Congress authority regarding the Nation's territory. Secession clearly involves the taking of the Nation's territory.

But the territory in the US doesn't belong to the federal government. It belongs to the people. The people of those states chose to take their ball and go home. They withdrew from the contract forming the United States. Therefore, there is no basis for enforcement of Article IV. That territory, once the letter of secession is signed, no longer belongs to the United States of America, assuming that it ever did.

Edit: Clarification - I believe Article IV is meant to be applied to property and/or territory purchased by the United States government, not the actual territory contained within the states themselves. That, by all indications, is a matter of the state's individual sovereignty and not governed by Article IV.

[JW]

What a fascinating argument. Many of you are making the mistake of layering today's understandings on people who lived and died a century and a half ago. Many of our understandings of what our country is about are a result of the Civil War, which was in part a culmination of the argument between two very different ideas of what the United States was. In addition to slavery, which was the catalyst that sparked the war, these two competing visions of America were in direct conflict and had been from the very beginning of the nation. The war decided the issue of slavery and the very idea of secession as a legitimate mechanism. But by the reasoning of some of you, the American flag itself is the flag of traitors. Did we not rebel against Britain?

As for the Confederate flag itself, it is quite unfortunate that the Confederate battle flag was usurped by racists and bigots as a symbol of their racism. That flag is forever tainted by that association.

[Huckleberry]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation of, basically, contract law.

The idea that one can just decide they don't want to abide by a contract anymore and are therefore no longer subject to its requirements is ridiculous and would cause chaos. The Constitution, at its core a contract between the States, is no different.

Your clarification is a more cogent argument against my position. However, Article IV Section 3 makes no mention of any "purchase" requirement in its scope. Furthermore, the entire Section clearly shows to me that Congress was to be consulted regarding all changes in statehood.

[Huckleberry]

But by the reasoning of some of you, the American flag itself is the flag of traitors. Did we not rebel against Britain?I preemptively addressed that question in post #88 of this thread. Also, I do not hold the Stars and Bars - the presumptive National Flag of the Confederacy - to be a symbol of treason against the United States. I hold the battle flags of the Confederacy to be such.

[Easy Mac]

Come to the South some time and I think you'll get a completely different vibe for whether the North or the South was acting in a treasonous manner.

And why was South Carolina given so much shit for having the flag on their state house capitol? Georgia had it in their fucking flag, I think Mississippi does/has had it in their flag or at least displayed it prominently. Same with LA and AL, but you don't hear a peep from the NAACP. Hell they're still having a boycott because there is a monument with the flag on state house property. The NCAA said they wouldn't hold anymore tourneys in SC until they get rid of it. Perhaps it all comes down to revenue (since they'd never dare strip Atlanta of anything), but its seems a little contradictive, the NCAA's statements and the general politics of it all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And why was South Carolina given so much shit for having the flag on their state house capitol?

That's because they believe you'll cave in. Georgia isn't getting any serious crap anymore because they already know we've got enough politicians who'll sell their souls for a few pieces of silver.

What SC, and all the rest, should do is tell the NCAA to shove their tournaments squarely up their misguided asses ... but there's a lack of honor & character in a lot of places, which is what these organizations are banking on.

[Easy Mac]

well, thats what they're saying now... but i think they've cave pretty soon.

[Aylmar]

Your clarification is a more cogent argument against my position. However, Article IV Section 3 makes no mention of any "purchase" requirement in its scope. Furthermore, the entire Section clearly shows to me that Congress was to be consulted regarding all changes in statehood.

I would agree when it comes to the establishment of states within the Union. There is, however, no mention of the withdrawal of states. I guess what it comes down to, for me, is that when I read the word "territory" in the Constitution, I think of an entity which is not yet a state and not the lands of the United States as a whole. It is not specifically mentioned that the land making up the states themselves is under the control of the federal government, and I tend towards a narrow interpretation of federal powers.

Jefferson:

"The true theory of our constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very unexpensive one - a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants ..."

"It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our State governments are superior to the Federal or the Federal to the States. The people, to whom all authority belongs, have divided the powers of government into two distinct departments, the leading characters of which are foreign and domestic; and they have appointed for each a distinct set of functionaries. These they have made coordinate, checking and balancing each other like the three cardinal departments in the individual States; each equally supreme as to the powers delegated to itself, and neither authorized ultimately to decide what belongs to itself or to its coparcener in government. As independent, in fact, as different nations."

As for your point about contract law, it does have merit. I would suggest, however, that the idea that a state or colony has the right to withdraw from a government they feel is treating them unfairly is a bedrock principle of early American politics.

[Crapshoot]

That's because they believe you'll cave in. Georgia isn't getting any serious crap anymore because they already know we've got enough politicians who'll sell their souls for a few pieces of silver.

What SC, and all the rest, should do is tell the NCAA to shove their tournaments squarely up their misguided asses ... but there's a lack of honor & character in a lot of places, which is what these organizations are banking on.

Again, how is this different from the swastika Jon ? Fuck, the swastika is an ancient Indian religious symbol, from about a thousand years before Hitler and his ilk adopted it as aryan symbol. At least there is some historical grounding. Are you of the belief that the confederate flag is not a symbol of slavery and outright racism, or are you arguing from a free choice perspective (which I agree with, but you're no "freedom" for the sake of freedom advocate by your own accord) ?

[Honolulu_Blue]

And why was South Carolina given so much shit for having the flag on their state house capitol?
The South Carolina flag thing always reminds me of that hilarious skit from the Chris Rock Show years back when he was proposing new state flags. The options I recall were:

1. A flag that read "South Carolina is OKKK"

2. A flag that was just a picture of a Saltine cracker.

3. The same flag, but with the Stars of the Confederacy replaced with the "Stars of The WB".

I think Option 3 ended up winning the pole.

[ISiddiqui]

Jefferson:
Here's a problem. Jefferson was NOT at the Constitutional Convention and wasn't involved in the debates. He, also, was initially opposed to the Constitution. He's not a good source to go to for what the Constitution means.

Anyway, on the topic, when I see a Confederate flag, I see it as no different than burning an American flag. Furthermore, for all the bluster, I'm sure that no thinking Southerner would want to split off from the US. They'd realize that they are the prime beneficiaries of the union as it is (they get the most back for every $1 they pay - and most of that money comes from the NorthEast).

[Honolulu_Blue]

Come to the South some time and I think you'll get a completely different vibe for whether the North or the South was acting in a treasonous manner.
Agreed. My wife's 87 year old grandma is from the South. She lives in Jacksonville now, but her family is in South Carolina and has been in the region since the 1700's. She's a Daughter of the American Revolution and a Daughter of the Confederacy. I was talking with her about that Civil War documentary (you know the one) and she said "Everytime I watch that I just kept help but think, 'Maybe we'll win this time!'."

[Aylmar]

Here's a problem. Jefferson was NOT at the Constitutional Convention and wasn't involved in the debates. He, also, was initially opposed to the Constitution. He's not a good source to go to for what the Constitution means.

I realize that he wasn't at the convention, but I don't believe that fact totally invalidates everything he has to say on the matter. Adams wasn't there either, but that doesn't stop the Federalists from rolling him out every time there is a serious debate on state's rights.

[Raiders Army]

This thread started as a pebble down the mountain...it has turned into something a little more than that. Interesting.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Again, how is this different from the swastika Jon ? Fuck, the swastika is an ancient Indian religious symbol, from about a thousand years before Hitler and his ilk adopted it as aryan symbol. At least there is some historical grounding. Are you of the belief that the confederate flag is not a symbol of slavery and outright racism, or are you arguing from a free choice perspective (which I agree with, but you're no "freedom" for the sake of freedom advocate by your own accord) ?

Heck, I'm not even arguing ... I'm just stating fact ;)

I'm an ardent supporter of the display of the flag(s) in question than because there's far more represented by them than "slavery" or "outright racism" -- enough that those negatives don't amount to 0.0000001% of what I see in them, outweighing them by infinity + 1. Point blank, I'd defend any of the flags of the Confederacy by any means necessary and/or available if they were disrespected in my presence, up to & including death. That's not intended as any sort of dramatic statement or anything, it's just the best phrasing I can find to explain how dearly I value them (if you've got better phrasing, feel free to sub it in there). Maybe that makes me a hyphenated-American, because I hold them in equal regard at minimum.

If someone else holds the same feeling about a swastika, they're welcome to it & is free to behave accordingly AFAIC, but that ain't my fight.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Furthermore, for all the bluster, I'm sure that no thinking Southerner would want to split off from the US.

You'd be dead wrong on that point, trust me.

[dawgfan]

If we grant Jefferson some authority on the matter of consitutional interpretation, then this quote seems to me to indicate an argument against the legality of secession:

The true theory of our constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations.

Seems to me that Jefferson's arguments of the states acting as one with respect to foreign affairs negates the idea of the states seceding being legal, as that would make them a foreign nation themselves.

[Aylmar]

Seems to me that Jefferson's arguments of the states acting as one with respect to foreign affairs negates the idea of the states seceding being legal, as that would make them a foreign nation themselves.

Interesting point. There is another passage from him, which I don't have handy at the moment, where he speaks of the federal government as "our foreign government". I'm not sure which side that supports, but your statement made me think of it. :)

Edited because I can't spell.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I'm an ardent supporter of the display of the flag(s) in question than because there's far more represented by them than "slavery" or "outright racism" -- enough that those negatives don't amount to 0.0000001% of what I see in them, outweighing them by infinity + 1.
Just infinty + 1? And you would fight to the death for that? I would at the very least expect it to outweigh all that stuff by infinity X infinity to the infinite power + 1.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't believe that fact totally invalidates everything he has to say on the matter.
In terms of interpreting the Constitution it does. Jefferson wanted to weaken the Constitution as much as possible, even when he spoke of what it 'meant'.

Now if you quoted Madison, that would work.

You'd be dead wrong on that point, trust me.
I DID say "thinking" didn't I?

[Huckleberry]

Come to the South some time and I think you'll get a completely different vibe for whether the North or the South was acting in a treasonous manner.
I've spent plenty of time in "the South" and I live in Texas.

[JW]

I preemptively addressed that question in post #88 of this thread. Also, I do not hold the Stars and Bars - the presumptive National Flag of the Confederacy - to be a symbol of treason against the United States. I hold the battle flags of the Confederacy to be such.

Thanks. I missed that, obviously.

I fail to see the significance of the difference between the national flag and battle flag, actually one of several battle flag designs that existed. The battle flag was really just a military convenience for the sake of visibility.

And, bottom line, I fail to see what the big uproar is about. My opinion on the Confederate flag today is that it should come down from statehouses and the such, but that it is a legitimate historical artifact for display in the context of historical displays and museums. I think those who make an issue of the Confederate flag, otoh, could better spend their time on more constructive issues. At this point it seems to do little good for anyone except as a way for civil rights hucksters to raise money and get publicity. But then everything offends somebody these days.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just infinty + 1? And you would fight to the death for that? I would at the very least expect it to outweigh all that stuff by infinity X infinity to the infinite power + 1.

I've had a very long couple of weeks with work, I'm tired, I'm not above going an easy route to make a point or two. ;)

[Buccaneer]

On a separate but related issue, whenever I see any kind of bumper sticker on a car, I can't help but think I'd never want to loan the owner of that car any of my property. I've never quite understood the willingness of people to ruin their cars. I refuse to even allow the dealership to put its stupid insignia on my trunk.
I'm exactly with you. Bumber sticker mentality reeks of something that says "my intelligence can be summed up in a few words".

[Buccaneer]

What a fascinating argument. Many of you are making the mistake of layering today's understandings on people who lived and died a century and a half ago. Many of our understandings of what our country is about are a result of the Civil War, which was in part a culmination of the argument between two very different ideas of what the United States was. In addition to slavery, which was the catalyst that sparked the war, these two competing visions of America were in direct conflict and had been from the very beginning of the nation. The war decided the issue of slavery and the very idea of secession as a legitimate mechanism. But by the reasoning of some of you, the American flag itself is the flag of traitors. Did we not rebel against Britain?

As for the Confederate flag itself, it is quite unfortunate that the Confederate battle flag was usurped by racists and bigots as a symbol of their racism. That flag is forever tainted by that association.
We had sorely missed your wisdom and reasoned historical perspective around here, JW. Welcome back.

JW's comments are also related to why I react the way do in political threads in thinking that all of this current shit is only a recent phenomenon. One only has to read about pre-Civil War politics and attitudes (or immediately after the Civil War) to gain a little perspective. The biggest fallacy many, many makes is, as JW said, arrogantly putting our current values and limited understandings to the past.

[WSUCougar]

JW, in my opinion you get the "Most Reasonable Posts in a Tinderbox Thread" Award. Nicely done.

[Klinglerware]

The biggest fallacy many, many makes is, as JW said, arrogantly putting our current values and limited understandings to the past.

But to go too far in the other direction is just as fallacious. It is just as arrogant to ignore the fact that culture is not static. For example, our language changes over time: Chaucer is less intelligible to us with each passing year. Words like "sexy" or "uptight" don't mean what they did 50 years ago.

Our symbols develop different connotations too. As has been mentioned previously, the swastika has a vastly different meaning now than it did 100 years ago. The Confederate Flag has developed multiple connotations over time aside from it's original purpose of symbolizing the CSA: some positive (a symbol of historical rememberence honoring one's ancestors), some negative (a symbol of racism), and some that could be considered either, depending on your point of view (the flag as a symbol of protest against the federal government). To hearken to the past meanings while ignoring the present seems rather dismissive. One cannot get a full understanding of the symbolism of the Confederate flag in this manner--whatever the flag's meaning was in the past, the flag means different things to different people today, and there is no getting around that.

As for JW's counter about the American flag being just as treasonous (if the "Confederate flag symbolizes treason" people extend their argument to this context): I would have no problems taking the argument to the logical conclusion and saying that the American flag can be considered a symbol of treason since, as another poster mentioned, most revolutions imply treason. The key difference was that the American revolution was successful, the Confederate war for indendence was not...

[Easy Mac]

I've spent plenty of time in "the South" and I live in Texas.
I said "South", not Texas. I'm pretty sure you can be killed in Texas for calling it the south.

[Dutch]

I'm exactly with you. Bumber sticker mentality reeks of something that says "my intelligence can be summed up in a few words".


Unless it's a 3 or an 8. Then the bar is generally much lower than that.

[Buccaneer]

Klingleware, I understand your point. However, I counter with that too many actions (as well as things that are praised or criticized) are done in the name of progress - whether socially, culturally or technologically - whereas they would actually not be the case, historically-speaking. A short-sighted or short-term view of things, if you will. A good example would be all of the politically-motivated "chicken little" cries we've been hearing in the past 40 years. We like to think of ourselves (and the laws and rules we make) as making things better but much of the motivation is for the short-term and for self-gratification that they would end up being detrimental in the end...all because we chose not learn the lessons and perspectives of history.

So your point about values (and symbologies) changing is apt but one should be wary to think that somehow we have improved upon them.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The biggest fallacy many, many makes is, as JW said, arrogantly putting our current values and limited understandings to the past.

I think I am missing your point here, Bucc. What values are you talking about? I think it's perfectly acceptable, for example, to look back at slavery and say that was not a good thing. Our current values (slavery is bad) are superior to certain folks' former values (slavery is fine). I don't think that is arrogant at all. It's just plain right. I can't see how our values on slavery and race have been anything but an improvement over where they were 150 years ago.

I don't think you're arguing the contrary, but I am just not sure what this "fallacy" has to do with the Confederate flag. Or are you talking about the whole treason aspect of the debate which I really don't care about. I never really considered the Civil War to be a treasonous act on the South. They thought the country should be run one way, the North thought it should be run another, they had it out, the North won.

[Adamski47]

Ok so I lied, I had to check one last time!

Who said I was a student? Not sure where that came from...maybe an outdated profile. That typo did rule, sorry I was on my way to work.

I am not afraid to discuss income. I don't see the point but ok: Right now I am making about $41,000 annually and after finishing my masters degree in administration (part-time work in progress) will be making (If I had it today) $105,000 based on 4 years of work experience. I work 160 days a year about 6-7 hours a day M-F. I'm 25 years old. I live in Chicago, IL. But basically, yes I make around $40k a year when it's all said and done. I am not ashamed of that at all. I live my days to the fullest and have achieved so much in my life that I am thankful for which goes far and beyond and numerical figure anyone can throw in my face.

None of this changes the fact that I think that ridiculous sticker/flag stands for nothing but uneducated shoeless mutants.

[Adamski47]

Uh oh, looks like Roscoe is about to write his rebutle (been in this thread for a while now...)

We agree to disagree.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't see the point but ...

I'll go slow for you.

You are a #### fool if you think that piece of #### flag stands for anything. Get a job and move out of your mom's basement please.

That's the point, that's why it became relevant to your comment ... because you foolishly injected something that has nothing to do with the topic itself & you went down a dead-end in the process.

Here's a newsflash for you Sparky: some of those "uneducated shoeless mutants" make more money in a year than you're going to make in a decade, rendering you far closer to "mom's basement" than they are. You threw a stone at your own glass house, and that's just stupid.

Look, here's the thing -- There's nothing wrong with your income, your profession, whatever. I've got no intrinsic gripe about them, have no particular interest in them, and minus your comment, the subject wouldn't have crossed my mind. But you let your biases & prejudices lead you down a path you shouldn't have gone down, because reality doesn't back it up. If you want to wander around in ignorance, have at it, I sure can't stop you but I'll offer some free advice anyway: If this bothers you enough to post about it, then I think "enemy" would be a fair description of those on the opposite side of it from you. So "Know Thy Enemy", don't settle for making assumptions that miss the mark so widely.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Uh oh, looks like Roscoe is about to write his rebutle (been in this thread for a while now...)

The phone rang & it slowed the process considerably.

[Buccaneer]

Honolulu Blue, I've got to go but I'll make a quick reply and then I'll elaborate tomorrow. Think about how we had to end slavery in this country - does the end justify the means? Are we then willing to do the same for the millions of slaves that are held in bondage in the world right now? Where are the abolitionists of the 1850s and 1860s? Or how about the thought that all we have done is traded one form of slavery for another? One can always look at a specific example (like a group of people) but history teaches us to look at everything, esp. in its context.

[Adamski47]

I'll go slow for you.



That's the point, that's why it became relevant to your comment ... because you foolishly injected something that has nothing to do with the topic itself & you went down a dead-end in the process.

Here's a newsflash for you Sparky: some of those "uneducated shoeless mutants" make more money in a year than you're going to make in a decade, rendering you far closer to "mom's basement" than they are. You threw a stone at your own glass house, and that's just stupid.

Look, here's the thing -- There's nothing wrong with your income, your profession, whatever. I've got no intrinsic gripe about them, have no particular interest in them, and minus your comment, the subject wouldn't have crossed my mind. But you let your biases & prejudices lead you down a path you shouldn't have gone down, because reality doesn't back it up. If you want to wander around in ignorance, have at it, I sure can't stop you but I'll offer some free advice anyway: If this bothers you enough to post about it, then I think "enemy" would be a fair description of those on the opposite side of it from you. So "Know Thy Enemy", don't settle for making assumptions that miss the mark so widely.

No, this guy lived in his parents basement trust me. This is why it has everything to do with the topic. I've never looked at someone I've held any respect for and noticed them having a confederate flag on their car, forearm or front lawn whatever. I simply find it sick and anyone who supports it likewise. Period. Who the hell supports what that flag stands for? There is a realistic quantity of these people? I've only scanned most of these posts.

Look, someone your age should be in bed with their wife this time of night. She misses you. Or am I totally off on that too?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Honolulu Blue, I've got to go but I'll make a quick reply and then I'll elaborate tomorrow. Think about how we had to end slavery in this country - does the end justify the means? Are we then willing to do the same for the millions of slaves that are held in bondage in the world right now? Where are the abolitionists of the 1850s and 1860s? Or how about the thought that all we have done is traded one form of slavery for another? One can always look at a specific example (like a group of people) but history teaches us to look at everything, esp. in its context.

Yes. I do believe the ends justified the means. Completely.

There are abolitionists out there. There are some in our country right niw fighting to end the slavery the exists around the world. They are doing all they can. Do I think we should go to war to stop slavery in other countries? No. I don't. But we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of morality and values. And I think, for the most part, we do.

How have "we" (we being Americans?) traded one form of slavery for another? Do you really think there is any correlation between how pre-Civil War slaves (no right to vote, no right to own property, no right to families, etc., etc.) and how "we" as Americans live now?

I do look forward to your elaborations tomorrow, Bucc. I usually can follow you pretty clearly but I think there is just a disconnect between us right now. Could be do to the half bottle of wine I had with a nice, hearty dinner.

[Honolulu_Blue]

No, this guy lived in his parents basement trust me.

I always thought "living in parents' basement" cracks were reserved for folks with "Starfleet Academy" bumper stickers.

[Adamski47]

I always thought "living in parents' basement" cracks were reserved for folks with "Starfleet Academy" bumper stickers.

haha

[thesloppy]

This thread is totally <s>gay</s> awesome!

Adamski: Everybody I see driving around with a confederate flag is retarded and poor.
JIMGA: The flag ROOLZ, the south roolz, everybody where you come from is retarded. Also, you are poor. Especially when compared to me.

Apparently it's lost on both of you that you've just had a very heated agreement, since anybody that Adamski sees driving around with a confederate flag is likely in the same half of the country, and therefore a poor retard by both parties standards. Let's all come together with love and respect, and realize that even if we may have differing reasons, we all agree that anybody driving around Chicago with a confederate flag on their car is a poverty stricken, developmentally disabled douchebag.

[Raiders Army]

I make seven figures per year...counting the numbers after the decimal.

[Subby]

In most cases, I would say that reasonable people don't judge others by appearance. It is both shallow and shortsighted to make value judgements about others based on such limited information.

With very few exceptions, we are all worthy of respect on some level - and I think that you need a lot more information about someone - beyond a bumper sticker or tattoo or flag - before you can deem them ripe for scorn and derision.

[Huckleberry]

I said "South", not Texas. I'm pretty sure you can be killed in Texas for calling it the south.
Which is exactly why I differentiated the two. However, in case you're not aware, Texas has a healthy population of those that consider themselves Southerners. Even Austin, the liberal outpost in the State, has a high school nicknamed the Rebels that uses the generic Confederate battle flag as its symbol at games.

As to your question JW, I have already explained why I have the difference of opinion between the Stars and Bars and the battle flags. One was flown as a symbol of wishing to be a new nation. One was flown as a symbol of actively engaging in warfare against the United States.

[Klinglerware]

Klingleware, I understand your point. However, I counter with that too many actions (as well as things that are praised or criticized) are done in the name of progress - whether socially, culturally or technologically - whereas they would actually not be the case, historically-speaking. A short-sighted or short-term view of things, if you will. A good example would be all of the politically-motivated "chicken little" cries we've been hearing in the past 40 years. We like to think of ourselves (and the laws and rules we make) as making things better but much of the motivation is for the short-term and for self-gratification that they would end up being detrimental in the end...all because we chose not learn the lessons and perspectives of history.

So your point about values (and symbologies) changing is apt but one should be wary to think that somehow we have improved upon them.

Bucc, I think that you and JW are making an excellent point about looking at history in context. My point here is that contemporary views of the flag (or anything else) should be treated the same way: There is a context to questions like "why does the flag inspire fear, hatred, and anger in many black americans", "why do many white southerners feel so strongly about the flag as representative of their heritage". These answers to these questions seem simple, but people on opposite sides of the debate don't want to hear them...

As far as your point about decisions in the name of progress often being short-sided goes: I won't disagree with you, it happens. Again, my point was that looking at these issues in its contemporary context is just as important looking at them from a historical standpoint. The confederate flag issue is a case in point--the flag and it's origins are almost not the point in these debates: what that flag represents to people is what is more important. Anti-flag people are seen as race-sensitive whiners, pro-flag people are seen as racists... the truth is not that cut and dry and you need to understand the motivations of the people on both sides to get at that truth.

[Adamski47]

This thread is totally <s>gay</s> awesome!

Adamski: Everybody I see driving around with a confederate flag is retarded and poor.
JIMGA: The flag ROOLZ, the south roolz, everybody where you come from is retarded. Also, you are poor. Especially when compared to me.

Apparently it's lost on both of you that you've just had a very heated agreement, since anybody that Adamski sees driving around with a confederate flag is likely in the same half of the country, and therefore a poor retard by both parties standards. Let's all come together with love and respect, and realize that even if we may have differing reasons, we all agree that anybody driving around Chicago with a confederate flag on their car is a poverty stricken, developmentally disabled douchebag.

Exactly! I'm surprised it took this long for someone to ask about this!

I agree about trying not to judge a book by it's cover, but in this instance (at least for me) it's hard for me not to. Sorry, just being honest. So dirtass.

[rkmsuf]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

[HomerJSimpson]

They're just some good ol' boys.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Bucc, I think that you and JW are making an excellent point about looking at history in context. My point here is that contemporary views of the flag (or anything else) should be treated the same way: There is a context to questions like "why does the flag inspire fear, hatred, and anger in many black americans", "why do many white southerners feel so strongly about the flag as representative of their heritage". These answers to these questions seem simple, but people on opposite sides of the debate don't want to hear them...

As far as your point about decisions in the name of progress often being short-sided goes: I won't disagree with you, it happens. Again, my point was that looking at these issues in its contemporary context is just as important looking at them from a historical standpoint. The confederate flag issue is a case in point--the flag and it's origins are almost not the point in these debates: what that flag represents to people is what is more important. Anti-flag people are seen as race-sensitive whiners, pro-flag people are seen as racists... the truth is not that cut and dry and you need to understand the motivations of the people on both sides to get at that truth.
I also agree that certain decisions in the name of progress can often be short-sited. History is chalk full of examples. But I can't see any reasonable person thinking freeing slaves in the U.S. as being an example of such an instance.

I agree that we can't always look back at that past and project our moral norms and values on what was going on. It's possible that 150 years in the future people could look on our societ today and say "Wow. They worked at offices in little cubicles for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week? That's horrible! The savages!" Or something like that. But there are certain basic values that I feel completely comfortable saying "We got it right. What they did in the past, regardless of their understanding or context, was wrong." Whatever understandings they based those values on were misguided and undeniably false. Slavery is certainly one of those. The right for women to vote/own land, etc. is another.

Today's values are based on a number of different things, chief among them a better scientific understanding of the world and people that flat out refute condoning slavery or denying women rights. Certain cultures today still have slavery and still deny women rights, but I think all reasonable and intelligent people believe those practices are wrong.

[GoldenEagle]

When I see a confederate flag sticker on a car/truck I do not think "the south" or "racism" all I think of EVERYTIME is how the symbol to me is synonymous with "uneducated." Plain and simple.

You are a #### fool if you think that piece of #### flag stands for anything. Get a job and move out of your mom's basement please.

####ing pathetic.

Edit: Bleeped out my (equally ignorant but necessary) swear words.
Are people who fly the confederate flag worse than thieves?

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=24214

[Telle]

How have "we" (we being Americans?) traded one form of slavery for another? Do you really think there is any correlation between how pre-Civil War slaves (no right to vote, no right to own property, no right to families, etc., etc.) and how "we" as Americans live now?


The conditions for some migrant farm workers are equivolant to slavery. The September 2003 National Geographic had a big article on modern day slavery, including slavery existing within the United States.

[JW]

Bucc, I think that you and JW are making an excellent point about looking at history in context. My point here is that contemporary views of the flag (or anything else) should be treated the same way: There is a context to questions like "why does the flag inspire fear, hatred, and anger in many black americans", "why do many white southerners feel so strongly about the flag as representative of their heritage". These answers to these questions seem simple, but people on opposite sides of the debate don't want to hear them...

As far as your point about decisions in the name of progress often being short-sided goes: I won't disagree with you, it happens. Again, my point was that looking at these issues in its contemporary context is just as important looking at them from a historical standpoint. The confederate flag issue is a case in point--the flag and it's origins are almost not the point in these debates: what that flag represents to people is what is more important. Anti-flag people are seen as race-sensitive whiners, pro-flag people are seen as racists... the truth is not that cut and dry and you need to understand the motivations of the people on both sides to get at that truth.

good points.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The conditions for some migrant farm workers are equivolant to slavery. The September 2003 National Geographic had a big article on modern day slavery, including slavery existing within the United States.
I think I read that article. It was great (as most National Geographic artciles are) and quite sad.

[Marmel]

How can you not love two guys arguing income on a text sim message board in a thread about the confederate flag? And then you have Jon saying, "I didn't start it, he did!" This thread is about as pathetic as the confederate flag.

[Bo Jackson's Hip]

The main thing that I'd like to broach here is that all of us that support what the flag means to us (meaning JoninMiddleGA and some others) are not a bunch of knuckledragging, jean short wearing, Red Man chewing necks. I just refuse to not honor my ancestors because they supposedly were treasonous as some here have said. Blood is thicker than water. I wish I lived in a world that people were taken at face value, instead of stereotypes that try to impose their will upon me and make me ashamed of things that I'm clearly not of.

Someone asked me a few threads back if I flew the flag. I don't, but I'd like to if the "world" were different. If I flew the flag, I'd be stereotyped as a racist dirtbag, even though nothing could be further from the truth.

[Huckleberry]

If you were truly proud of them, you could accept the fact that they committed treason and then go about debating whether or not it was right and just for them to do so.

[rkmsuf]

what is there to be proud about...they lost.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The main thing that I'd like to broach here is that all of us that support what the flag means to us (meaning JoninMiddleGA and some others) are not a bunch of knuckledragging, jean short wearing, Red Man chewing necks. I just refuse to not honor my ancestors because they supposedly were treasonous as some here have said. Blood is thicker than water. I wish I lived in a world that people were taken at face value, instead of stereotypes that try to impose their will upon me and make me ashamed of things that I'm clearly not of.

Someone asked me a few threads back if I flew the flag. I don't, but I'd like to if the "world" were different. If I flew the flag, I'd be stereotyped as a racist dirtbag, even though nothing could be further from the truth.
It is certainly a shame that by flying a flag you're obviously fond of and proud of some people could infer that you are a "racist dirtbag," but I don't think that people drawing inferences from symbols is part of the "world" being messed up or anything. It has nothing to do with being "PC" or overly sensitive in the "modern world." People have inferred things from symbols for ages across all cultures. It's just human nature. Even animals can see certain things (colors, shapes, objects) and infer something from them. The problem with the "world" is that some ignorant, racist dirtbags stole your symbol and adopted it to stand for their hate-filled ideas. That such people should not exist is what we should be hoping was different about the "world".

[KWhit]

The problem with the "world" is that some ignorant, racist dirtbags stole your symbol and adopted it to stand for their hate-filled ideas. That such people should not exist is what we should be hoping was different about the "world".
Outstanding point. You're right on.

[Honolulu_Blue]

what is there to be proud about...they lost.
I dunno. The people of Philadelphia seemed awfully proud of Rocky after he lost his first title match against Apollo Creed.

[WSUCougar]

A few comments:

1. The flag in question was a battle flag in a failed rebellion. You can call the Confederacy whatever you want, and this has been argued since the first day of its existence, but no matter how distasteful it may be, that's the reality. As such, the flag historically represents (on one level) rebellion in general and against the federal government in particular. Nothing changes that fact.

2. The entity that the flag represents was based upon the institution of slavery. Slavery was the root cause of its existence. Again, as distasteful as this may be, it is a historical fact.

3. The vast majority of 19th century white Americans were racist. The issue of slavery was largely an economic, societal, and political wedge driven between northern and southern societies - and not so much a moral one.

4. Southern "Lost Cause" historians had a huge impact in terms of how Americans viewed the Civil War and the Confederacy. This, American racism, and the overall backlash of failed Reconstruction policies led to a glorification of Confederate icons, including the flag.

5. Does pride in something (anything) trump any adverse effects that thing might cause?

[wade moore]

A few comments:


2. The entity that the flag represents was based upon the institution of slavery. Slavery was the root cause of its existence. Again, as distasteful as this may be, it is a historical fact.


I've been trying to stay out of this discussion, but i wanted to call-out this point that several others have echoed....

I think that Bucc (as far as I know, he most knowledgeable on the board in Civil War history) would agree with me here..

This is a MAJOR oversimplification... in fact, many historians of late have made the argument that slavory was a relatively minor part in why the South seceded and why the Civil War happened...

[WSUCougar]

I've been trying to stay out of this discussion, but i wanted to call-out this point that several others have echoed....

I think that Bucc (as far as I know, he most knowledgeable on the board in Civil War history) would agree with me here..

This is a MAJOR oversimplification... in fact, many historians of late have made the argument that slavory was a relatively minor part in why the South seceded and why the Civil War happened...
I would offer up myself as something of a Civil War historian, and I would strongly disagree with your assessment.

[rkmsuf]

I would offer up myself as something of a Civil War historian, and I would strongly disagree with your assessment.

do you consider yourself a "buff"?

[Klinglerware]

do you consider yourself a "buff"?

WSUCougar's grad school work in American Military History is certainly nothing to sneeze at...

[rkmsuf]

I've never understood that phrase. What exactly DO you sneeze at? Who sneezes at anything?

[WSUCougar]

do you consider yourself a "buff"?
No, I'm fully clothed.

[Subby]

Ah-choo.

[Raiders Army]

I thought the war was about taxation without representation? Didn't the North try to tax the slaves the South had and then they dumped a bunch of slaves off Myrtle Beach saying they wouldn't take President Lincoln's taxes? Therefore, the war was essentially about slavery, but more concerned with taxes.

The reason why the North won was because Lincoln was honest about the reason to tax slavery...much like certain luxury items today are taxed (alcohol, cigarettes, prostitution). Lincoln was so honest that when he was a little boy he cut down a cherry tree and was asked if he cut it down. He replied, "I cannot tell a lie. I cut down the cherry tree." Thus, he was forevermore known as "Honest Abe".

And yes, I consider myself a "buff".

[Buccaneer]

WSUCougar's grad school work in American Military History is certainly nothing to sneeze at...
I agree.

So much to respond to, but not right now.

[JW]

We had sorely missed your wisdom and reasoned historical perspective around here, JW. Welcome back.

Well, I'm not sure how reasonable I am, but thanks. The problem was that the forum for a while just got very juvenile in my opinion. I don't mean that in a bad way at all. It just seemed like it was mostly high school kids posting, and I just found little to interest me. Now I've come back and taken a look at some of the threads (instead of just looking for FOF and other game info) and found some mature and interesting (to me) discussions again.

[AZSpeechCoach]

Lincoln was so honest that when he was a little boy he cut down a cherry tree and was asked if he cut it down. He replied, "I cannot tell a lie. I cut down the cherry tree." Thus, he was forevermore known as "Honest Abe".


Wow...my head just exploded. :confused:

I think you have your Rushmore Presidents confused.


edit: I hope I just missed the sarcasm...it's been a long day.

[Adamski47]

Are people who fly the confederate flag worse than thieves?

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=24214

I've never tried to edit that message or delete it. I do not understand why you would think I am embarrassed of that thread. I've never stolen anything so before you start slandering my name check your facts. You don't know every story to be told. Go call your long distance relationship gf...that's what you should be worrying about in respect to thievery.

[WSUCougar]

This is a MAJOR oversimplification... in fact, many historians of late have made the argument that slavory was a relatively minor part in why the South seceded and why the Civil War happened...
Okay, let's discuss this further.

Would you agree that slavery was the economic foundation of the regions that became the Confederacy?

Would you agree that the institution of slavery had been a divisive (actually, perhaps the most divisive) issue in American politics since it had been danced around and finally shoved under the carpet at the Constitutional Convention?

Do you consider it merely coincidental that the two sides were divided between slave states and free states, with three very crucial border slave states in the mix?

What do you make of the multitude of statements by secessionists, Confederate leaders, including Southern ministers, who not only admitted that slavery was the foundation of the Confederacy but TRUMPETED the fact and regularly reinforced it to the Confederate populace?

As but one of many available examples, here's the Mississippi "Causes of Secession"
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

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. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

[GoldenEagle]

I've never tried to edit that message or delete it. I do not understand why you would think I am embarrassed of that thread. I've never stolen anything so before you start slandering my name check your facts. You don't know every story to be told. Go call your long distance relationship gf...that's what you should be worrying about in respect to thievery. As I type this, my girlfriend is over my shoulder reading it. Go figure. We lived together for the past year or so and have been going to the same school (actually her school is 30 minutes away now) for the past three years.

You can not edit or delete the thread because it is locked.

You are the self-admitted scrub. There is also several other threads you have started that are related to getting free e-licences and cheating the system.

Personally, I think you are grasping for straws.

[WSUCougar]

GE, are you shop-lifting the pooty?

[ISiddiqui]

I just refuse to not honor my ancestors because they supposedly were treasonous as some here have said. Blood is thicker than water.
The problem with this argument is what about former Iranians who want to display the Ayatollah Khomenai, saying 'blood is thicker than water' and not because of the whole Death to America thing.

I wouldn't honor my ancestors that supported causes I consider repugnant.

[Adamski47]

As I type this, my girlfriend is over my shoulder reading it. Go figure. We lived together for the past year or so and have been going to the same school (actually her school is 30 minutes away now) for the past three years.

You can not edit or delete the thread because it is locked.

You are the self-admitted scrub. There is also several other threads you have started that are related to getting free e-licences and cheating the system.

Personally, I think you are grasping for straws.

I think you are missing the point because I probably haven't explained myself enough. I'm not saying this to be macho or manly or anything but I do not care what people on a video game football site think of me. I am a name. I really really don't. I know that sounds harsh but it's the truth. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone not even you, but I just don't care. Why would I? None of my friends or family are part of this forum etc and I use it basically as my source for news (how sad is that?). I like to comment and answer a few questions here and there and for the most part enjoy the banter and wit I see everyday. I never look at names to see who posts what.

I know there is a huge community here that is very tight on this board and that is cool and for all I know you are the president. I do not need this forum to feel loved and to be quite honest, no one should.

That is my gripe. Just quit throwing things into a discussion that do not matter-that's all. I will just leave it at that as I've said my piece. This thread was simply about a dude I saw on the freeway who had a flag sticker on his car that made me sick. I wrote the message the way I did because that was how I felt. Plain and simple. I wasn't literally yelling at my cpu or anything, I wrote it hours later. Anyway, no one really cares so I'll just stop.

Now I am done with this thread because I'm sick of writing replies! See everyone around. Enjoy.

[Raiders Army]

Wow...my head just exploded. :confused:

I think you have your Rushmore Presidents confused.


edit: I hope I just missed the sarcasm...it's been a long day.
I was trying for humor, not sarcasm. Obviously I failed.

[Bo Jackson's Hip]

I wouldn't honor my ancestors that supported causes I consider repugnant.

Then in my best southern colloquialism (sp) "You just ain't like me, then."

[ISiddiqui]

Well what about my hypo. Say I had ancestors that were terrorists. If I honored them would you be saying the same things about blood being thicker than water?

[Buccaneer]

Going back 7 generations (which for most of us, would take you to the late 1700s), you would have about 250 direct ancestors. Counting spouses and siblings, that number goes up to well over 1000. With that much blood, one should always expect good and bad.

[AZSpeechCoach]

I was trying for humor, not sarcasm. Obviously I failed.


I guess the rest of the thread made me unlikely to pick up on humor. Looking back on it, it is pretty funny. :p

[wade moore]

Okay, let's discuss this further.

Would you agree that slavery was the economic foundation of the regions that became the Confederacy?

Would you agree that the institution of slavery had been a divisive (actually, perhaps the most divisive) issue in American politics since it had been danced around and finally shoved under the carpet at the Constitutional Convention?

Do you consider it merely coincidental that the two sides were divided between slave states and free states, with three very crucial border slave states in the mix?

What do you make of the multitude of statements by secessionists, Confederate leaders, including Southern ministers, who not only admitted that slavery was the foundation of the Confederacy but TRUMPETED the fact and regularly reinforced it to the Confederate populace?

As but one of many available examples, here's the Mississippi "Causes of Secession"
Alright.. I went back looking for this because I realized I hadn't read any replies to my statements...

So... Let me start by saying I think I'm pretty clearly out-classed in Civil War History knowledge by you, so keep that in mind with my feeble attempts to remember what was discussed in my Civil War class in college...

I do not disagree with this statement:

Would you agree that slavery was the economic foundation of the regions that became the Confederacy?

And in the end, this may be a matter of semantics.. but... This is actually the beginning to my argument that in reality the disagreement was around the North's efforts to tell the South how they could and could not make a living. This was not just shown by the disagreement on slavery, but also by some inordinate taxes (unfortunately I'm at work so I do not have my Civil War books with me, but I believe the South Carolina Succession that triggered it all was a relatively immediate reaction to one of these new tax laws?), interstate commerce laws that benefited the North, and a perception that they had no control in the federal government (and by that same note were being controlled by Northerners who ran the federal government).

As to this statement:

What do you make of the multitude of statements by secessionists, Confederate leaders, including Southern ministers, who not only admitted that slavery was the foundation of the Confederacy but TRUMPETED the fact and regularly reinforced it to the Confederate populace?

I don't make much of this. Why did we go to war with Iraq? Not to get into a political discussion about that, but you could edit this statement for the War in Iraq and say:

What do you make of the multitude of statements by conservatives, Republican leaders, including the White House, who not only admitted that WMD was the foundation of the War but TRUMPETED the fact and regularly reinforced it to the American populace?

I think there are enough intellectuals that would agree that this it is at least questionable whether this was the true motivation. The fact that leaders who were trying to get the populace to support the war say that this is the reason, means little to what the real reason was. I do not disagree that the average farmer felt that Slavery was the reason for the seccession, but I do disagree that the leaders that actually made the seccession happen did it merely to keep slavery. If I had more time/resources I could find many leaders in private letters, journals, etc. that did not support slavery but supported the war (Robert E Lee for instance), what would you say to that?


It's possible this should be moved to another thread if you want to really get in-depth about this.. it is a topic I find interesting and has me sparked to pick up some more Civil War literature as it is by far my favorite piece of history to study, but I have done little with it since my last course on it 4 or 5 years ago...

[JW]

I thought this story about divisions in the Sons of Confederate Veterans would be interesting to those interested in this thread.

As for my own views, I think people today get too easily offended about too many things in America. We are becoming the nation of the perpetually offended. The best way for people who don't like public displays of the Confederate flag to combat it would be to ignore it. By focusing attention on it, you aren't going to make people stop doing it. You will just make them more determined. However, I do think the Confederate flag should come down from state flags and statehouses, etc.

I think there is nothing at all wrong with being proud of a Confederate ancestor. I have several, one who died at Antietam, one wounded and captured on the 2nd day at Gettysburg (cousins, if you will), and my great-great-grandfather who fought as a cavalry captain in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama. I have a couple of Civil War prints featuring Confederate soldiers and the Confederate battle flag in my family room. I would never personally publicly display a Confederate flag, though. I think at this point in history it sends the wrong signal to too many people. But that is strictly a personal decision.

The causes of the Civil War are so complex, and the reasons people fought are so complex, that it is not possible to say Confederate soldiers fought for slavery, though some did. Lee, for example, thought slavery was morally wrong and that secession was a stupid idea, but he ended up fighting for Virginia and the Confederacy. And some slaveowners fought for the North.

BTW, I disagree with those who say slavery was only a minor part of the causes of the war. It was THE catalyst. It was the one question that everyone dwelled on in the years leading up to the war. But it was not the only cause.

Finally, I think when civil rights activists (or hucksters) focus their efforts on the removal of this or that flag here or there, they are doing absolutely nothing to improve the lot of minorities. If all the Confederate flags came down everywhere, it doesn't do a damned thing for poor minority communities. But these issues do draw media attention and funding to the hucksters.

Now to that article, which says a lot about the symbols of this particular organization.

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/national/index.ssf?/base/national-48/1122060579201770.xml&storylist=national

Southern heritage group faces division
7/22/2005, 3:29 p.m. CT
By ROSE FRENCH
The Associated Press

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Even as it comes together for its annual convention, the most prominent Southern heritage group finds itself a house divided between old-style preservationists and new leaders who see Confederate symbols as a political cause.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans has been taken over in recent years by a more confrontational wing — including some with alleged ties to hate and white-separatist groups — that wants to be more aggressive about responding to perceived assaults on Southern symbols such as the Confederate flag.

"It is becoming more activist, but it's in tatters," said Heidi Beirich, spokeswoman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based nonprofit that monitors hate groups.

Traditionalists have accused the new leadership of racism and political extremism, saying a number of members have ties to the League of the South, which calls for another secession of Southern states, and the white-supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens....

[Easy Mac]

One of the guys from the group trying to make it into a separatist group is now the head of like the Charleston County school district and is on the Southern Poverty laws top 50 list or something like that.... got to love the South!

[wade moore]

Bumping for WSU to see since he appears to not check on the weekends...

[WSUCougar]

Bumping for WSU to see since he appears to not check on the weekends...
I did see your response, Wade, thanks. I'll try to respond a bit later when I have more time.

[wade moore]

I did see your response, Wade, thanks. I'll try to respond a bit later when I have more time.
NP.. I know I'm going to lose out in the end, but my knowledge will be better for it.

[WSUCougar]

Not sure this makes any headway or not, but here's a few more comments for discussion:
I do not disagree with this statement:

Would you agree that slavery was the economic foundation of the regions that became the Confederacy?

And in the end, this may be a matter of semantics.. but... This is actually the beginning to my argument that in reality the disagreement was around the North's efforts to tell the South how they could and could not make a living. This was not just shown by the disagreement on slavery, but also by some inordinate taxes (unfortunately I'm at work so I do not have my Civil War books with me, but I believe the South Carolina Succession that triggered it all was a relatively immediate reaction to one of these new tax laws?), interstate commerce laws that benefited the North, and a perception that they had no control in the federal government (and by that same note were being controlled by Northerners who ran the federal government).

Okay, I understand that you are in part agreeing with this point, but also (and please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you) your response regarding over-simplification of the issue was to my statement:
The entity that the flag represents was based upon the institution of slavery. Slavery was the root cause of its existence.
I am saying (above) that the Confederate States of America were founded with slavery as the defining component, and with slavery as the impetus for their creation. The issue of no control in the Federal government is indeed a crucial one, but that stems from the whole “economic differences” issue that divided North and South from the beginning. And those economic differences split out in large part based upon the institution of slavery. I think most of the other laws and issues are corollaries of this. You can’t ignore the fact that slavery dominated the southern economy and society. The line separating free states and slave states defined our nation’s political spectrum for a century (and some would say even longer than that).

As to this statement:

What do you make of the multitude of statements by secessionists, Confederate leaders, including Southern ministers, who not only admitted that slavery was the foundation of the Confederacy but TRUMPETED the fact and regularly reinforced it to the Confederate populace?

I don't make much of this. Why did we go to war with Iraq? Not to get into a political discussion about that, but you could edit this statement for the War in Iraq and say:

What do you make of the multitude of statements by conservatives, Republican leaders, including the White House, who not only admitted that WMD was the foundation of the War but TRUMPETED the fact and regularly reinforced it to the American populace?

I think there are enough intellectuals that would agree that this it is at least questionable whether this was the true motivation. The fact that leaders who were trying to get the populace to support the war say that this is the reason, means little to what the real reason was.

I’d have to say that you are comparing apples to oranges with the war in Iraq situation. Our current government made the decision for war in Iraq (and I don’t want to get into that, either) and explained it to the American public accordingly. In the 1860-61 southern states, delegates were elected to conventions to vote on secession. In some states – North Carolina, for example – there was significant sentiment among the citizenry not to secede. And some states – Virginia, for example – were less inclined to secede until Lincoln made it clear he did not recognize secession as anything but rebellion and intended to put it down. But if you’re suggesting that the powers-that-be put one over on the masses to sell them on war, I think that’s incorrect.

Certainly there was an elite class in the south who dictated much of the policy at the state level, and many of them were powerful advocates of both slavery and secession. They were the ones who stood to lose the most if slavery were to be abolished.

I do not disagree that the average farmer felt that Slavery was the reason for the seccession, but I do disagree that the leaders that actually made the seccession happen did it merely to keep slavery.

So you feel that Lincoln’s election – which was the final straw to most secessionists – in 1860 did not threaten them mostly in that manner? I’m not saying the causes and issues you’ve raised as alternates to slavery are not pertinent, but I am saying that they derive from slavery and its role as the economic foundation of the south.

Events throughout the first half of the 19th century merely put off the climactic battle over slavery that must eventually occur, one way or another. The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which establishes Missouri as a slave state but prohibits slavery in new territories north of Missouri’s southern borderline. The Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which among other things allowed voters in new territories to decide by “popular sovereignty” on slavery. But the two political positions – pro-slavery and anti-slavery – can never be compatible, because support of one by nature threatens the other. By 1860 the writing is on the wall.

If I had more time/resources I could find many leaders in private letters, journals, etc. that did not support slavery but supported the war (Robert E Lee for instance), what would you say to that?

I think that’s irrelevant to the argument. I can also find many proponents of slavery that fought for the Union. None of which changes the fact that the CSA was founded upon the institution of slavery and that slavery was the root cause of its existence.

I think the inherent stigma attached to slavery compels people to look for other, more noble foundations for the Confederacy. Yet slavery was what divided the south from the rest of the Union. It is what was confronted our nation’s leaders from the very beginning.

[Fritz]

do you consider yourself a "buff"?


i would

[rkmsuf]

i would

no that was "a buff"


not buff

[JPhillips]

Let me add to WSU. These are just a few quotes fro secession commisioners. They all come from the fabulous little book Apostles of Disunion. If I had time I could pull dozens of these type of quotes.

Mississippi's commissioner to Georgia closed his statement with,
"Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, the part of Mississippi is chosen, she will never submit to this Black Republican Administration.
She had rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race."

Alabama's commissioner to Delaware said that Lincoln sought,
"the establishment of an equality of races in our midst."

Georgia's commissioner to Virginia stated the reason for Georgia's secession,
"This reason may be summed up in a single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a seperation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of slavery."

Prominent Southern orator John Preston Smith said in 1861,
"the conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death."

[JW]

Maury Klein's Days of Defiance: Sumter, Secession, and the Coming of the Civil War is an excellent book about the events leading up to the war.

One quote from that book regarding a speech by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens in March 1861:

The old Constitution, he asserted, "rested upon the assumption of the equality of the races....It was a sandy foundation." The cornerstone of the new government "rests up on the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that Slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new Government, is the first in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral taruth."

Lincoln himself is quoted in his first inaugural address:

"One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not be be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."


I believe that the people who actually took part in the events knew better than we did what the conflict was about. It was clearly about slavery. It is too simple to say it was only about slavery, but slavery was the issue that could not be solved short of war and that split the country.

But I also believe most Confederate soldiers did not fight to preserve slavery. The fought in defense of their states and homes, however misguided they might be. And I see no paradox in condemning those who advocated slavery while honoring the courage of my Confederate ancestors. After all, slavery was the law of the land in the United States of America until the Civil War changed that.

[kcchief19]

Related back to the very first post in this thread, I was behind a Silverado extended supercab with a confederate flag decal filling the entire rear window.

That wasn't what caught my attention. The attention grabber was the bumper sticker with a confederate flag on it with these words next to it:

Fighting Terrorism Since 1861

The only thing going through my mind was, "I don't think that flag means what you think it does. Or you really, really hate America."

[Toddzilla]

what better racism or treason?

[OldGiants]

what is there to be proud about...they lost.

Spoken like a true Patriot('s fan).


Me? I'm like Lincoln. Now that it's back in the Union I'm going to whistle 'Dixie' and take a drive down Monument Avenue (in Richmond) and look at the world's largest collection of second place trophies.

[miked]

The other day I was in Decatur and saw a truck with a big sticker that had the US Flag and the Confederate flag next to each other. It said, American by birth, Southern by the grace of God.

[ISiddiqui]

what better racism or treason?

:D

[duckman]

http://www.stickergiant.com/imgs/125/j18_125.gif

[Crapshoot]

Nice, Duckman.

Me, my views haven't changed - its a symbol of a racist, repulsive government set up to defend one of the most vile institutions in our history. We don't tell German soldiers who fought in WW II that flying the Nazi flag is A-okay; treating the Confederacy as a bunch of honorable "good ol boys" doesn't fly either. Treat them as the adults they were.

[Dutch]

Nice, Duckman.

Me, my views haven't changed - its a symbol of a racist, repulsive government set up to defend one of the most vile institutions in our history. We don't tell German soldiers who fought in WW II that flying the Nazi flag is A-okay; treating the Confederacy as a bunch of honorable "good ol boys" doesn't fly either. Treat them as the adults they were.

You better ban the American Flag while your at it. Unlike the Germans and their crimes of the Nazi Era, we endorsed slavery long before the Confederates ever did and endorsed criminal action long after the Confederates were gone.

[Honolulu_Blue]

You better ban the American Flag while your at it. Unlike the Germans and their crimes of the Nazi Era, we endorsed slavery long before the Confederates ever did and endorsed criminal action long after the Confederates were gone.

I agreed. And this should be our new flag:

http://www.coalitionforworldpeace.org/images/peaceFlag.jpg

[Dutch]

Makes the Confederate Flag seem more appealing, suddenly.

[molson]

You better ban the American Flag while your at it. Unlike the Germans and their crimes of the Nazi Era, we endorsed slavery long before the Confederates ever did and endorsed criminal action long after the Confederates were gone.

We also slaughtered Indians, withheld syphilis treatment for blacks in the name of medical experimentation, tortured prisoners, sponsored killings of civilians throughout the world, and so forth.

I still love America and am thankful I live here, but let's not go overboard on the morality trip.

[Crapshoot]

You better ban the American Flag while your at it. Unlike the Germans and their crimes of the Nazi Era, we endorsed slavery long before the Confederates ever did and endorsed criminal action long after the Confederates were gone.

Who the fuck said anything about banning it? Its a disgusting symbol that the state shouldn't endorse, but people are free to do what they want. I'm sure you can continue to fly yours Dutch - wouldn't want to change that for the world. :D

[Dutch]

Who the fuck said anything about banning it? Its a disgusting symbol that the state shouldn't endorse, but people are free to do what they want. I'm sure you can continue to fly yours Dutch - wouldn't want to change that for the world. :D

I don't have a Confederate Flag nor have I ever owned one. I was just pointing out the flaws in your logic.

[Toddzilla]

Don't be so fast to confuse your government with your country.

[Karlifornia]

I've got the "You lost, get over it" sticker on my one of my guitars.

While I don't get upset when I see someone with rebel flags, it just tells me that we would never, ever get along, and to stay the fuck away from them. It's just better for mental health, both mine and theirs.

[Greyroofoo]

I think I'm going to buy a Lincoln car and place a confederate flag on it. All for irony's sake.

[molson]

I think I'm going to buy a Lincoln car and place a confederate flag on it. All for irony's sake.

Just put a sticker underneath the flag that says, "It's irony, jackass".

[CamEdwards]

I agreed. And this should be our new flag:

http://www.coalitionforworldpeace.org/images/peaceFlag.jpg

you made me throw up in my mouth. :P

[Crapshoot]

I don't have a Confederate Flag nor have I ever owned one. I was just pointing out the flaws in your logic.

Not much of a flaw. The US has stood for many disgusting things over time, like other countries, and I'll be the first to say that (Molson pointed a few) - but it was not formed with the goal of upholding one of the vilest institutions of our time. To suggest the US flag stands primarily for anywhere near the kind of evil that the Confederacy does is absurd.

[Dutch]

Not much of a flaw. The US has stood for many disgusting things over time, like other countries, and I'll be the first to say that (Molson pointed a few) - but it was not formed with the goal of upholding one of the vilest institutions of our time. To suggest the US flag stands primarily for anywhere near the kind of evil that the Confederacy does is absurd.

It doesn't really matter why anything was formed. If the day before the confederacy ceded from the union, it was the union that was upholding the institution of slavery, then the US Flag stood for it. Both flags have a stigma for it. And the reality is that for me, I can still take pride in the American flag because of what it means to me. Some southerners still take pride in that flag but I'm not convinced it's for racist reasons. (Although I am fully aware that racists and idiots abuse the flag for their own vile reasons.)

[DanGarion]

I love this google image search.

hxxp://images.google.com/images?q=confederate%20flag%20truck%20covered%20stickers&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-45,GGGL:en&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi