Teen Sues Over Confederate Flag Prom Dress

[Bob Hubbard]

Why should one be compelled to answer questions when one's own questions--for example, what exactly are the reasons for rummaging around in the Confederacy for justifications and support for one's own identity and though in the present--always go completely unanswered?

My reasons, are just that, mine.
- I researched the battles because I fancy myself a tactican.
- I research the history because it interests me.
- I research the past because I believe it points the way for the future. Failure to remember leads to repeats of mistakes.
- I don't need to use them for justifications.

Skip the diatribes on Lincoln, is the best advice.

Why? Are you the only one allowed to tangent the esoteric?

Just read the Catton books; you'll find the same info, with very little attempt to excuse the South (or the North, for that matter), let alone explain away patently racist thought and behavior over the last 150 years.

"Just stick to the sanatized versions. Anything else isn't politically correct."


Robert,
You claim that flag is racist, yet choose to excuse the misuse of the US flag, for the same purpose. You are unwilling, or unable to explain or dispute the facts of black Confederate soldiers, proud black decendants, the lack of proof of any of the Confederate leadership being tried and convicted of treason, etc.

Here is 1 site with links to several articles about proud black Confederate soldiers and their heirs. http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/theblackconfederatesoldier.htm Please, take it with a grain of salt, and check their references. Several of these articles are from main-stream news sources. These brave men deserve to be remembered and honored for the sacrifice they did in protection of their nation, the Confederate States of America. They fought not to defend slavery, but for the same reason their fathers and grandfathers fought in the War of 1812, and the Revolutionary War: To defend their homes, and to prove they were men.

"It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?” Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that “biracial units” were frequently organized “by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids…”. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.” From http://www.missouridivision-scv.org/blackconfed.htm

Sadly, this is what so many want. To Eliminate the History of the South.
For the last 100 years, a sanitation of history has been in progress.

The Battle Flag is as racist a symbol as the Cross, and Old Glory. It is only as racist a symbol as the heart of the one standing by it.

 

[rmcrobertson]

The words, "diatribes," and, "esoteric," are not synonyms.

There is nothing at all esoteric about this poor, picked-upon South claptrap--or if there is, it's something esoteric that people have been complaining and complaining and complaining about in the loudest and most-public terms since about five minutes after the Civil War ended. It was the justification for the Klan (you know--that esoteric, unknown group that the Southern war criminal NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST started?), for the Jim Crow laws, for a century of lynchings, for the bitter opposition to civil rights, etc.

One has been hearing this guff for what--fifty years? It's on website after website, in book after book. It's been the stock in trade of every racist Southern politician from Forrest, to Huey Long, to Lester Maddox and George Courtney Wallace and Strom Thurmond on into that much-vaunted future we keep hearing about. How obscure can it be?
Finding Catton's and Commager's books "sanitized," is absurd, considering that every single claim against Lincoln and the North and in favor of Lee and the South can be found in their writings. It's where most of us ran into them for the first time, as has been mentioned innumerable times on this thread. What'd they do wrong--note that the Klan has been a racist organization right from the start?

And precisely who is it who's been arguing for sanitizing anybody's history? Please provide documentation and exact quotes: otherwise, this looks like just another claim in the exceedingly long history of white guys complaining that nobody gives them a fair deal--a history, it seems, well into the process of being employed to justify this country's current loonbox colonialism abroad and current repressive religiosity at home.

One still wants to know why one's heroes have to be white Southern generals all the time. Reminiscent of those reincarnation folks who claim that ALL their past selves were kings and queens and Shakespeare...with the added nasty twist that somehow, NONE of these guys ever seem to take any pride in girls, or in them darkies...NONE of these sites are militating for a monument to, say, the black Confederate troops, right next to the "Stainless Banner." NONE of them are praising, say, Nat Turner and John Brown and Mark Twain. NONE of them are bragging about the Underground Railroad....

Nope. It's only the white politicans and generals who helped start the War and carried it on as bitterly as they could who seem to need apply to be heroes. It's all an endless litany of How Picked On We Are By Them.

Hm. Why is that?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The words, "diatribes," and, "esoteric," are not synonyms.

Thank you for the gramma lesson.

There is nothing at all esoteric about this poor, picked-upon South claptrap--or if there is, it's something esoteric that people have been complaining and complaining and complaining about in the loudest and most-public terms since about five minutes after the Civil War ended. It was the justification for the Klan (you know--that esoteric, unknown group that the Southern war criminal NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST started?), for the Jim Crow laws, for a century of lynchings, for the bitter opposition to civil rights, etc.

- Please indicate where Forrest (or any Confederate leader or general) was tried and convicted as a war criminal, or traitor. You can't because, they never were.
- Also, according to PBS, the Klan was started by 6 individuals, and Forrest was shortly thereafter recruited into it's leadership...They imply he was not the founder.
- Jim Crow laws were imposed by Federal govenours on the conquered South and were based on existing laws in the North.
- Civil Rights were a mess through out the country, not just the South.

One has been hearing this guff for what--fifty years? It's on website after website, in book after book. It's been the stock in trade of every racist Southern politician from Forrest, to Huey Long, to Lester Maddox and George Courtney Wallace and Strom Thurmond on into that much-vaunted future we keep hearing about. How obscure can it be?

You call it guff, but to thousands of others it's long buried truth. Why do some of the biggest 'white power' nuts in this country wave the US flag, and scream the 'america for white' crap? Racists come in all forms Robert, accept it, move on, and stop using the South as a scapegoat for everything evil and racist. Racism existed before the Colonies were even founded.

Finding Catton's and Commager's books "sanitized," is absurd, considering that every single claim against Lincoln and the North and in favor of Lee and the South can be found in their writings. It's where most of us ran into them for the first time, as has been mentioned innumerable times on this thread. What'd they do wrong--note that the Klan has been a racist organization right from the start?

I don't know. Despite my own recent research I am not as familiar with the Klan, it's history or it's purpose as you sir.

And precisely who is it who's been arguing for sanitizing anybody's history? Please provide documentation and exact quotes: otherwise, this looks like just another claim in the exceedingly long history of white guys complaining that nobody gives them a fair deal--a history, it seems, well into the process of being employed to justify this country's current loonbox colonialism abroad and current repressive religiosity at home.

Unlike you sir, I can provide answers to questions. One of these sources is of some importance, as it is from a site dedicated to black history.

=====
Sigh..."The Sanitation of History"

====
Black Confederates. Why haven’t we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, “I don’t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910” Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a “cover-up” which started back in 1865.

http://www.missouridivision-scv.org/blackconfed.htm

One of the more famous black Confederate veterans was John F. Harris, a Mississippian. John served in the Mississippi House of Representatives in 1890, and was present when a resolution was voted on to erect a Confederate Monument to the soldiers of Mississippi. Several blacks opposed the resolution, but John Harris rose and spoke in its defense: "When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed in, and they made no requests for monuments... But they died, and their virtues would be remembered. Sir, I went with them. I, too, wore the gray, the same color as my master wore. We stayed four long years, and if that war had gone on till now, I would have been there yet... I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions".6 After his speech, six other blacks joined John and voted for the funding of the monument.

THE TIMES - PICAYUNE, B-6, Feb. 21, 1996

Efforts by black Confederate soldiers' descendants to piggy-back the July 19 African American Civil War Monument dedication were squelched. According to a press release from the Sons of Confederate Veterans, an organization that honors the rebels' cause, one of their members, Dr. Emerson Emory, a black Dallas physician, was invited to participate in the ceremony in April and dropped from the program in May. Apparently, the African American Civil War Monument Committee saw any recognition of those who fought for the losing side as an embrace of the Confederacy's ideals.

http://www.abouttimemag.com/nov98story2.html
(Note - see also http://www.scv.org/press/scvpr05.htm)

On April 23, 1998, the Foundation’s Project Director, Lyndia Grant advised Dr. Emory that the Foundation would allow Dr. Emory to participate in the program. On May 20, 1998, the invitation was revoked when he was told he could not participate by the Foundation’s Chief Historian, Walter B. Hill, Jr., According to Hill, the Foundation, "does not share and believe in the traditions and symbolism of the Confederate States of America."

Regardless, Dr. Emory plans to attend the ceremonies, wreath in hand. Dr Emory said that he would place the wreath sometime during the three-day ceremonies. "I will put the wreath out, even if I have to do it in the middle of the night," Dr. Emory said. He explained that he feels that the wreath should be placed, "as a fitting tribute by one group of military troops honoring the other." "I don’t feel that it is derogatory for Southern troops to honor the African American troops," Dr. Emory said.

http://www.scv.org/press/scvpr05.htm
====

Is that enough sir, or shall I provide more?

One still wants to know why one's heroes have to be white Southern generals all the time.

No, my heros aren't all white. I grew up on jwish and black comedians, and have great admiration for a Dr. Bill Cosby. You may have heard of him, as he has recently been taken to task for saying some of the same things I've said in the past. Militarilly, my heros were Longstreet and Patton, though Custer was on that list until I did some research into him and his life and found him to be little more than a JEB Stuart wannabe.

Reminiscent of those reincarnation folks who claim that ALL their past selves were kings and queens and Shakespeare...with the added nasty twist that somehow, NONE of these guys ever seem to take any pride in girls, or in them darkies...NONE of these sites are militating for a monument to, say, the black Confederate troops, right next to the "Stainless Banner." NONE of them are praising, say, Nat Turner and John Brown and Mark Twain. NONE of them are bragging about the Underground Railroad....

The Underground Railroad....in 40 years Northern abolitionists helped about 75,000 slaves reach freedom. Of course, that must be discounted by the 74,000 new slaves imported annually by New England shippers, as well as the number of free--blacks in the North who were kidnapped and sold into slavery as well....

Nope. It's only the white politicans and generals who helped start the War and carried it on as bitterly as they could who seem to need apply to be heroes. It's all an endless litany of How Picked On We Are By Them.

Hm. Why is that?

Because, some individuals have been hoodwinked into believing that the issues are simple black/white, when they are in fact not. If there be black heros (and there are, hundreds of them, waiting to be discovered) then let us build them monuments under both flags. This sanitation, this simplification if you will, does neither them nor us any good, but it is imposed by closed minded individuals of all colors. In my research, the worst, most racist insistance that my data is wrong comes from racist sites...the same sources you sir condemn.


"The first military monument in the US Capitol that honors an African-American soldier is the Confederate monument at Arlington National cemetery. The monument was designed 1914 by Moses Ezekiel, a Jewish Confederate. Who wanted to correctly portray the “racial makeup” in the Confederate Army. A black Confederate soldier is depicted marching in step with white Confederate soldiers. Also shown is one “white soldier giving his child to a black woman for protection”.- source: Edward Smith, African American professor at the American University, Washington DC."

 

[rmcrobertson]

Please provide clear, convincing, direct evidence--not a claim, evidence--for the thesis that the history of the South has been systematically suppressed in some fashion.

This claim--not evidence, but claim--has been a prominent part of every race-baiting politician in the South or in a border state for the last 140-odd years. The claims about the heroism of the South and the dedication of its soldiers have been reiterated over and over and over again, publicly, loudly, for the last 140-odd years. It's a bit hard to understand how there can be a conspiracy to suppress what's been repeatedly, loudly, publicly, claimed for the last 140 years or so.

The myth of the poor abused white man has played its ugly part across the same history. Currently, it manifests as legitimation for attacks of various kinds on liberals, minorities and immigrants.

As for the claim that us Nawthern lib'rals don't know nothin' 'bout the troubles the South done seen, and we don't admit that the Nawth has had its little racist moments, this writer can only suggest that you actually read the sixty-twelve times he has noted such embarassments as the fact that states like Connecticut have at one time enjoyed the largest Klan membership in the country. He might also note--as he has elsewhere on this thread--spent a lot of happy childhood time on Antietam Creek, big and little, the Shenandoah, the Potomac, in an area where, "Save your Dixie cups, the South shall rise again," was part of everyday conversation. Apparently such writing needs to be erased to perpetuate the mythology of simple-minded Northern oppression.

One realizes that Forrest was never tried. One simply jumps to the no-doubt liberal, unfair, biased conclusion that generals who have 180 or so POWs crucified because they are black can reasonably be classified as war criminals. Additionally, Wikipedia seems to think that Forrest founded the Klan (no doubt more of that bias); one cannot quite see how a claim that no, he wasn't the Klan's Adolph Hitler but only its Rudolph Hess lets anybody off the moral hook.

If we're going to get into the sanitization of history, try reading Werner Sollors' collection, "The Invention of Ethnicity," which discusses the modern development of the concepts of ethnicity and race which, despite the claims about their being somehow eternal, actually happen to be pretty much modern inventions, in their present forms anyway. You may find Judith Stein's, "Defining the Race, 1890-1930," particularly helpful, not merely for its analysis of the complexity of that invention, but for her remarks on the extent to which, "the North was complicitous," in the development of Jim Crow.

Also particularly instructive in that same volume are Ishmael Reed's comments upon the extraordinary complexity of apparently-simple terms we take for granted, such as, "black." He points out that, "Blacks have difficulty defining the multi-ethnicity of their heritage because such a claim renders millions of people less, 'white.'" (227)

However, this book--which was approximately two-and-a-half feet from my right hand--must represent another example of that sanitizing of history and repression of the South...uh, it'll take a while to figure out how.

The real offense of that stupid flag, of Forrest, of the "Friends of Forrest," etc. is that they represent a desperate attempt not at sanitizing history, but at white-washing it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Please provide clear, convincing, direct evidence--not a claim, evidence--for the thesis that the history of the South has been systematically suppressed in some fashion.

At least 1 of my sources is a leading magazine for the African-American community, which covered some of these issues in 1998. If you want first hand information, I don't have any. I do have references to historians, newspaper articles, and the writings of those who have however.

This claim--not evidence, but claim--has been a prominent part of every race-baiting politician in the South or in a border state for the last 140-odd years. The claims about the heroism of the South and the dedication of its soldiers have been reiterated over and over and over again, publicly, loudly, for the last 140-odd years. It's a bit hard to understand how there can be a conspiracy to suppress what's been repeatedly, loudly, publicly, claimed for the last 140 years or so.

There has been an ongoing attempt since the end of the war to hide the truth. Each attempt to ignore or bury the Black contribution to the Confederacy, given willingly, not coerced is an insult to their memory. Each attempt to remove statuary, flags, symbols, etc, is an attempt to bury a past in which many find all too embarasing truths.

The myth of the poor abused white man has played its ugly part across the same history. Currently, it manifests as legitimation for attacks of various kinds on liberals, minorities and immigrants.

Right. And quota systems don't exist. Government grants exist for "white males", just like they do for "black", "asian", "female" and "minority".

As for the claim that us Nawthern lib'rals don't know nothin' 'bout the troubles the South done seen, and we don't admit that the Nawth has had its little racist moments, this writer can only suggest that you actually read the sixty-twelve times he has noted such embarassments as the fact that states like Connecticut have at one time enjoyed the largest Klan membership in the country. He might also note--as he has elsewhere on this thread--spent a lot of happy childhood time on Antietam Creek, big and little, the Shenandoah, the Potomac, in an area where, "Save your Dixie cups, the South shall rise again," was part of everyday conversation. Apparently such writing needs to be erased to perpetuate the mythology of simple-minded Northern oppression.

I did read it. Much of it wasn't applicable to the discussion at hand.

One realizes that Forrest was never tried. One simply jumps to the no-doubt liberal, unfair, biased conclusion that generals who have 180 or so POWs crucified because they are black can reasonably be classified as war criminals.

So, since you believe that Forrest was a war criminal for his involvement at Ft. Pillow, what is your opinion of Sherman? Forrests men cruicified black and white POWs. Shermans men waged war on civilians, black and white, and raped, robbed and murdered thousands of women and children. Sherman himself admitted after the war that he was taught at West Point that he could be hanged for the things he did. But in war the victors always write the history and are never punished for war crimes, no matter how heinous. Only the defeated suffer that fate.

Additionally, Wikipedia seems to think that Forrest founded the Klan (no doubt more of that bias); one cannot quite see how a claim that no, he wasn't the Klan's Adolph Hitler but only its Rudolph Hess lets anybody off the moral hook.

You refer to Wikipedia often, yet it's own creators have been heard to lament it's lack of reliability.
"Robert McHenry, former Editor in Chief of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in an article titled "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia," recently took Wikipedia to task for its lack of reliability."
and
"Larry Sanger (cofounder) - First, Wikipedia is, at present, of uneven reliability."
Sources:
slashdot.org http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/03/144207&tid=95&tid=1 (contains comments of the problems with Wiki by its contributors)
http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/sanger3/wikipedia_statement.htm


Regarding this whole fixation of yours on Forrest and the Klan....
http://www.civilwarhome.com/natbio.htm
"When Forrest captured Fort Pillow a controversy developed over reports of a massacre of the largely black garrison. Apparently a massacre did occur there are numerous Confederate firsthand accounts of it......Joining the Ku Klux Klan shortly after the war, he was apparently one of its early leaders."

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
Klan - http://www.bartleby.com/65/ku/KuKluxKl.html
Forrest - http://www.bartleby.com/65/fo/ForrestN.html

Essay on the Fort Pillow Attack : http://allfreeessays.com/student/Fort_Pillow_Attack.html

I did try to check Encarta and Encyclopedia Brittanica, however both require paid membership I don't currently have. I did also find several sites that contradict much of the above, and a few references to some books which I will check out when I can. I do not seek to 'clear', 'white-wash', or otherwise 'worship' Forrest, or any other person. I do however seek to understand them, their time, and reasoning. I do not condone nor forgive the actions of the Klan, or their ilk...but I do understand it. And, I pity those whose hearts are that cold, and narrow.

The real offense of that stupid flag, of Forrest, of the "Friends of Forrest," etc. is that they represent a desperate attempt not at sanitizing history, but at white-washing it.

Sanitizing, and whitewashing is not seeking the truth, it is overly simplifying and dumbing things down. It is uneducated, generic statements like "that flags racist", "saintly Lee", "Civil war about Slavery", "Southern Pride is racist", etc. That sort of drivel is simply put, garbage.

To say the Civil War was only about Slavery, is to say WW2 was only about Pearl Harbor, or WWI was only about the assassination of the ArchDuke.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Since this discussion was in part about the status of the Confederate Battle flag as a hate symbol, I've done additional digging.

I was curious...since the flag is claimed to be a symbol of hatred against a particular ethnic group, what do members of that group think of it? I've found numerous individuals, doctors, lawyers, college professors, all proud of their herritage, and all black. While I've never heard or found any Jews who would wear an SS uniform, and wave a Nazi banner, there appear to be a number of African Americans who will proudly wear the grey, and wave that red banner. Obviously, they "Get It".

The following quotes may offend. My apologies in advance.

===========

"Whenever I hear a black person talk about this flag issue, I ask them the same questions. Do you know how long that flag has been flying over those state capitals? Haven’t you seen them there before? The answer from most blacks I talk to out west is, “who cares?” Not good enough for the National Association for the Advancement of Career Politicians (NAACP). Not good enough for these modern-day “Plantation Pimps” who can’t find any other juvenile criminals to fight for so now they retaliate by “dissing” a great hunk of American culture. This is ONLY being done to pander to black voters this political season. You see, back in 1992, folks just decided to burn down Los Angeles while liberal politicians mailed gasoline to the rioters. This time, let’s burn down a heritage instead.

I hope some black person is reading this right now and fuming. You should be. If you think the Confederate flag is insulting to you, you are being used, or as we say it in the hood, you bein’ played – for a fool. By who? Not by those evil conservatives, but by the liberal white man. The ones who’ll take your votes, then tell you you’re not good enough to make it on your own.But there is no sense giving you the same argument many of the Southern Ladies and Gentleman are trying to give now. You don’t want to hear them, anyway. "
- J.J.Johnson: Editor-n-Chief www.SierraTimes.com (1999)
http://www.dixiecom.com/blackneo.htm

====

"The flap over the Confederate flag is not quite as simple as the nation's race experts make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate flag, but racists have also used the Bible and the U.S. flag. Should we get rid of the Bible and lower the U.S. flag?

Black civil rights activists and their white liberal supporters who are attacking the Confederate flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic black ancestors who marched, fought and died to protect their homeland from what they saw as Northern aggression. They don't deserve the dishonour ."
By Walter Williams
http://www.dixiecom.com/blackneo.htm
http://www.lizmichael.com/blkconfd.htm


====

"Information can be a powerful tool, especially in the hands of a mean-spirited segment of our society.

These ill-tempered louts use information as an instrument of intolerance for their public campaign of loathing and detestation.

Most recently, these hate-mongers have become engaged in a concerted effort to remove the Confederate battle symbol from the canton corner of the Mississippi flag - while besmirching the image of Southerners who fought and died for the Confederate cause in the War Between the States.

Tear down the red rag and burn it, these anti-flag zealots have shouted across Mississippi and the nation.

In their fervor to repeal history, they would ignore the valiant efforts of the more than 80,000 blacks who donned the gray uniforms of the Confederacy."
- Donald V. Adderton - Donald V. Adderton is editor of the Delta Democrat Times.
http://www.dixiecom.com/blakneo2.htm

=====

Newspaper article: http://www.dixiecom.com/anthony1.gif

=====

"Black Confederate activist H.K. Edgerton will begin a 160 mile march, carrying a Confederate flag, from Littleton, North Carolina to Richmond, Virginia starting on Monday May 17. Edgerton the veteran of a 1600 mile March across Dixie and a recently completed 260 mile march to attend the Hunley funeral. Edgerton who is the immediate past President of the Asheville, NC NAACP feels driven to march.

"In Richmond, Virginia the DuPont Company has banned Confederate symbols from their plant and have ignored requests to honor Confederate soldiers buried on their property, and this in the former Capital City of the Confederate States of America," explained Edgerton. "DuPont employees have been staging a weekly vigil in front of the plant for the past 4 years that has been completely blacked out of the media - I intend to change that,"
Edgerton added."
- http://www.slrc-csa.org/pr/2004/pr05-16-2004.htm



======
"Black Confederate Protests DuPont Former NAACP branch President, H.K. Edgerton will travel on Thursday, October 30, to Richmond, Virginia to support a Confederate Southern American vigil in front of the DuPont Spruance plant due to the plant's banning of Confederate symbols.

The protest vigil has been ongoing for 3 years.

The SLRC's chief trial counsel, Kirk D. Lyons, recently filed a discrimination lawsuit against DuPont on behalf of seven (7) SCV member DuPont employees for the banning of Confederate symbols, alleging discrimination based on race, religion and national origin as Confederate Southern Americans.

"DuPont has claimed in a Motion filed with the court that it is a fact that the Confederate flag is disruptive in the workplace because it is offensive to African Americans, said Edgerton. "I will be carrying my Confederate flag in front of the DuPont plant to prove that their assertion is a bald faced lie," Edgton concluded."
- http://www.slrc-csa.org/pr/2003/pr10-29-2003.htm

 

[rmcrobertson]

Mr. Hubbard, the websites you're citing are at best dubious.

No, not because they disagree. They are dubious and untrustworthy because the "Sierra Times," which does not list its authors, explains that it is a Western organization dedicated to, "land-use," rights--translation being, it's a "wise use," website put up by ranchers and developers who oppose any and all environmental and zoning legislations, and who wish to tear up the countryside as they choose and damn the consequences.

The, "SLRC," or whatever, based in Black Mountain, Georgia, is a group entirely made up of middle-aged white guys, with the exception of their one-member Board of Advisors--the member being the same D.K. Edgerton who's been making these pilgrimages in Confederate uniform complete with large flag. Their website also contains running attacks on people who are worth a helluva lot more to this country, for example the Southern Poverty Law Center and Morris Dees, as well as repeated assertions that, "black and white liberals and the NAACP," cause all the racial unrest and problems in this country at present.

However, both sites beautifully illustrate this writer's original proposition: that the claim of persecution, the claim that it is time to resurrect the "Stainless Banner," the claim that why no, perish forbid, the South never fought for slavery, are intimately tied to a) white men upset about their changed places in the world, b) white men upset about historical developments, c) white men upset about their responsibilities to other human beings--for example, their responsibility not to strip-mine the world and put up shopping malls on the tailings.

Of your previous citations, the "freessays.com," or whatever, essay is a student essay posted on a website providing cheat sheets for college students in need of plagiarized essays. If you will quickly look at its bibliography, you will note that a) there is no up-to-date scholarship cited from authors of the last forty years other than, b) the only recent citation is from another of those Nathan Bedford Forrest (Klan founder...remember him?) Was A Great Guy hagiographies, c) none of the standard authorities are cited at all.

These are not reliable witnesses and authorities.

A reader of Sollors' anthology, already cited, will find far-better scholarship and documentation on every page.

Catton's books are generally-available, far more solid scholarly works that--not incidentally--provide far better support for your arguments. If you will simply look at, say, his "Terrible Swift Sword," (Doubleday & Co, Garden City, N.J., 1963), you will find that pages 1-2--that's the first two pages, for Pete's sake--discuss the way that the Congress explicitly limited the scope of the War to preserving the Union for the first year, and basically told the Abolitionists to get stuffed. This is a volume which closes, furthermore, by explicitly dicussing the opportunistic politics of the Emancipation Proclamation.
It remains unclear why anyone would avoid using such easily-available, reliable sources to make their case--unless, of course, the fact that Catton's books have been perhaps the best selling and most influential works on the Civil War of the last forty-odd years is utterly contradictory of the notion that the reality of the War has been suppressed altogether by Nawthern lib'rals.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ok, but what about all the others?
What about "About...Time Magazine" for example? Or Walter Williams? Many of those quotes are archived on many sites. I've tried to locate the writers 'home' site, but....thats often less intuitive than I'd personally prefer. Also, everyone of those quotes is atributed to an African American...are they wrong, lying, misquoted, or ficticious?

I will gladly discount a few sites...as a web designer I know how east it is for someone to build a site, and promote a concept. But it is very hard to discount them all.

I don't deny that those flags have been, and continue to be used in hateful and loathsome manners. But, so have so many other symbols.

I found this on another site...it sums up some of my thoughts. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but, it makes sense to me, you know?

""Isn't the Confederate flag a racist symbol?

No, it is not a racist symbol. It wasn't in the past nor is it now. As a matter of fact the United States flag is tainted more with racism than the Confederate ever could be. It is true that some racists use the flag, but does that make it a symbol of hate? Why is it that when the U.S. flag is used by hate groups no one says a word? But the moment they display a Confederate flag everyone screams "see, look I told you that flag is a flag of hate". I think it basically boils down to the fact that those who hate our Southern banners do so because they hate the South.

To illustrate a point let's look at the Cuban flag. Is it a flag of Communism or Freedom? Fidel Castro and his regime have been using it for over forty years, they wave and display it at all of their Communist rallies and parades, it flies over the prisons where freedom loving citizens are tortued and murdered, it's the national flag of a Communist country, but is it a flag of oppression and slavery?

You better not go to Miami and say that to the Cuban exiles. If you ask them what the Cuban flag stands for they'll tell you it stands for Freedom, Democracy and Pride. Do the Communist Cubans use it as a symbol of Pride? Absolutely. The Communists and the Freedom lovers both see the Cuban flag as a symbol of their Land, Culture, History and Heritage.

You can no longer ask the Cuban exile to abandon the use of their flag because the Communists use it any more than you can ask a decent Southerner to abandon the use of the Confederate flag because Racists use it.

I can't think of anything that would make the Ku Klux Klan and other Racists more angry than if Black Southerners started using and displaying the Confederate flag, the flag of the South." "

 

[PeachMonkey]

Why is it that when the U.S. flag is used by hate groups no one says a word? But the moment they display a Confederate flag everyone screams "see, look I told you that flag is a flag of hate". I think it basically boils down to the fact that those who hate our Southern banners do so because they hate the South.

Actually, it's because the Confederate flag was the flag of a nation that was founded by and large because of the institution of slavery; there are many other legacies involved with the American flag.

To illustrate a point let's look at the Cuban flag. Is it a flag of Communism or Freedom?

The Cuban flag predates the Castro movement, and thus has a great deal of meaning to anti-Castro activists. The Confederate flag was not merely attached to later in its life by racists, but it was the symbol of a nation that was founded on the practice of slavery and the extension of slavery, and as such, its symbol is abhorrent.

 

[loki09789]

Actually, it's because the Confederate flag was the flag of a nation that was founded by and large because of the institution of slavery; there are many other legacies involved with the American flag.

One thing to remember too about the issue of the NORTH/SOUTH debate over slavery wasn't as much a racial issue as it was economic.

The South had access to cheap labor and therefore felt no need to participate as actively in the industrialization/technologicalization of the United States.

The North, as well as being against slavery as a humanitarian issue (more about 'what we look like to the world' than 'how evil it is to keep slaves'), was trying to break the back of the "New Aristocracy" that the Southern Politiques/Plantation owners were promoting. It was, in the eyes of progressives, an economically based classism similiar to royalty that stung the National mentallity of equallity that was growing.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Actually, it's because the Confederate flag was the flag of a nation that was founded by and large because of the institution of slavery; there are many other legacies involved with the American flag.

So was the United States. At the time of the Revolutionary war, all 13 colonies, later States, were slave holders. This country, or at least the original 13 member nations forming the Union were all slave states. I believe the first to specifically outlaw slavery was Massachussetes, though it continued for several years as they sold off their slaves to other states.

The flag that flew over the slave traders was not any of the Confederate flags, but the US flag. The importation of slaves was illegal under the Confederate Constitution. The southern states had wanted this clause added to the US Constitution prior to 1800 but pressure from NE shippers pushed this back to I believe 1808.

===
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.


Full Text: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csa.htm
===

The Cuban flag predates the Castro movement, and thus has a great deal of meaning to anti-Castro activists. The Confederate flag was not merely attached to later in its life by racists, but it was the symbol of a nation that was founded on the practice of slavery and the extension of slavery, and as such, its symbol is abhorrent.

So, what about the flag of Saudi Arabia? Slavery did not end there until the 1960's? As to the later part of your statement, please see above.

If the Confederate flag is the flag of a nation founded upon slavery (which it is, in a manner), so was the United States flag.


One other side bar -
Robert E Lee freed his slaves prior to the start of the war.
Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson owned no slaves.
U.S. Grant freed his slaves -after- the war...because "Good help is so hard to find".

 

[Bob Hubbard]

One thing to remember too about the issue of the NORTH/SOUTH debate over slavery wasn't as much a racial issue as it was economic.

Thats what I've been saying.

The South had access to cheap labor and therefore felt no need to participate as actively in the industrialization/technologicalization of the United States.

Not completely accurate. The main points of industrialization were in the North, but were slowly expanding into the South. If hostilities had not broken out for another 20 years, the 'neutral' border states would probably been much closer to 'free' states, if not actually free, with the next 'belt' having migrated towards 'neutral'. With the technological advances that were made in the mid 1880's, the economics of slavery were rapidly expiring. This is seen in nations like Brazil, which had a much larger slave population, but achieved freedom without a costly civil war.

The North, as well as being against slavery as a humanitarian issue (more about 'what we look like to the world' than 'how evil it is to keep slaves'), was trying to break the back of the "New Aristocracy" that the Southern Politiques/Plantation owners were promoting. It was, in the eyes of progressives, an economically based classism similiar to royalty that stung the National mentallity of equallity that was growing.

It was less a 'humanitarian' or PR thing, than a overall 'white' thing. In the North, free blacks would work for less than free whites. This pissed off the free whites and caused tension. The common feeling was that blacks were inferior to whites, which is a key part of the race tensions. Whites resented Blacks working for less...a similar problem occured when the Irish migrated to the US. Few were as forward thinking as Joshua Chamberlin who seems to have truely believed "all men are equal". Many, such as Lincoln, wanted to ship the blacks out...back to africa, haiti, it didn't matter. Anywhere but here.

 

[loki09789]

Thats what I've been saying.


1. Not completely accurate. The main points of industrialization were in the North, but were slowly expanding into the South. If hostilities had not broken out for another 20 years, the 'neutral' border states would probably been much closer to 'free' states, if not actually free, with the next 'belt' having migrated towards 'neutral'. With the technological advances that were made in the mid 1880's, the economics of slavery were rapidly expiring. This is seen in nations like Brazil, which had a much larger slave population, but achieved freedom without a costly civil war.


2. It was less a 'humanitarian' or PR thing, than a overall 'white' thing. In the North, free blacks would work for less than free whites. This pissed off the free whites and caused tension. The common feeling was that blacks were inferior to whites, which is a key part of the race tensions. Whites resented Blacks working for less...a similar problem occured when the Irish migrated to the US. Few were as forward thinking as Joshua Chamberlin who seems to have truely believed "all men are equal". Many, such as Lincoln, wanted to ship the blacks out...back to africa, haiti, it didn't matter. Anywhere but here.

1. At the point when the war broke out, the southern political/business mentallity was based on the farming culture of the plantation. The truth may be that the trend, if allowed to go on without war, would have happend slower but as a 'natural evolution' in terms of commerce but that doesn't change the idea that the 'southern perspective' was very much in favor of the Plantation model (which looked a heck of a lot like a feudal/aristocratic model - what the Northerners were against for many reasons - some of which were political ideology). I do agree that given time, slavery would have become too expensive to maintain compared to the technology options that would have become available over time.

2. Agreed, that was along the lines of my point. THere were humanitarian minded people circulating pamphlets, speaking about the ethics of slavery but the majority of people - who did less talking because it was such a common idea - were 'racist' because blacks were generally viewed as less than whites...but not 'low' enough to be treated like property per se.

To judge people of a different time by our standards is basically unfair and creates a VERY subjective view of what they were and were not.

How will the standards/ethics of future generations 'judge' our obsession with diggin up every little piece of dirt on celebrities, historical figures, politicians...? Or our obvious obsession with female sexuallity/sex appeal?

A more 'zen' view may make it easier to make objective observations of people within their historical contexts. That was then, this is now.

THere were 'free' and free blacks that passionately supported the Southern side of the Civil War. I don't know much about the why's and wherefores' but they did. One theory was that the blacks of the time knew (and may have agreed) with the white superiority view relative to blacks and figured that staying under the protection of slave owners in the south was better than having no protection at all from the racist views that you mention in terms of education, wages and such.

 

[PeachMonkey]

It was, in the eyes of progressives, an economically based classism similiar to royalty that stung the National mentallity of equallity that was growing.

There were also far darker motives; to the capitalists of the North, what better why to cripple your competititors in the South with access to cheap labor than by eliminating their entire economic base.

 

[PeachMonkey]

So was the United States. At the time of the Revolutionary war, all 13 colonies, later States, were slave holders.

You're missing the point, however; the United States didn't go to war with England over the right to have slaves. The CSA seceded from the USA over the social, political, and economic ramifications of the abhorrent practice of slavery, including extending slavery to the new territories to the west.

So, what about the flag of Saudi Arabia? Slavery did not end there until the 1960's?

What about the flag of Saudi Arabia? We're talking about American states and the behavior of Americans here... throwing up the behavior of foreigners is simply a straw man argument. Again, the Saudi state was not founded on the principle of slavery -- in fact, the complexities involved in the founding of the various Arab states during the age of imperialism make them incomparable to the USA and CSA for your arguments.

 

[loki09789]

There were also far darker motives; to the capitalists of the North, what better why to cripple your competititors in the South with access to cheap labor than by eliminating their entire economic base.

You got it! As the Japanese are more recently credited for saying "Business is WAR."

It always has been, and war has always been a source/form of generating business as well - all the way down to the battlefield scavangers that pick over the dead for gold fillings, coins, clothing, equiptment...and then basically have a yard sale to earn a living.

 

[loki09789]

What about the flag of Saudi Arabia? We're talking about American states and the behavior of Americans here... throwing up the behavior of foreigners is simply a straw man argument. Again, the Saudi state was not founded on the principle of slavery -- in fact, the complexities involved in the founding of the various Arab states during the age of imperialism make them incomparable to the USA and CSA for your arguments.

I don't think it is such a far fetched comparison to make it a straw man.

THe point is that flags have meaning and connotations. The Johnny Reb, The Stars and Stripes, Saudi Flag, Israeli flag.....all are symbols to someone.

I would say that the Saudi Flag may not have been founded on slavery as we define it in the states, but there are historical nuances that could make it a negative symbol to someone.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

There were also far darker motives; to the capitalists of the North, what better why to cripple your competititors in the South with access to cheap labor than by eliminating their entire economic base.

This is part of what I've been saying.
When the South secceeded, they made their ports Free-Ports... as in Free-Trade.
The North had import tarriffs on goods, sometimes excessively high.
This was one of the reasons for the seccession, as goods shipped to Georgia from Maine were hit with the same tarriffs.
After the South went free-trade, shipping started to shift to the South, which is a major part of the reason for the illegal (by terms of international treatys signed by the US) blockade of the southern ports.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You're missing the point, however; the United States didn't go to war with England over the right to have slaves. The CSA seceded from the USA over the social, political, and economic ramifications of the abhorrent practice of slavery, including extending slavery to the new territories to the west.

Not quite right. One (of several) of the grievances of the colonies with England was the Kings refusal to order his appointed governors to halt the importation of slaves from Africa.

" Elected to the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, Jefferson was appointed on June 11, 1776, to head a committee of five in preparing the Declaration of Independence. He was its primary author, although his initial draft was amended after consultation with Benjamin Franklin and John Adams and altered both stylistically and substantively by Congress. Jefferson's reference to the voluntary allegiance of colonists to the crown was struck; also deleted was a clause that censured the monarchy for imposing slavery upon America." http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/tjefferson.html
(Note: I had a better reference but can't locate at the moment. More info on that is at http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jefferson.htm

What about the flag of Saudi Arabia? We're talking about American states and the behavior of Americans here... throwing up the behavior of foreigners is simply a straw man argument. Again, the Saudi state was not founded on the principle of slavery -- in fact, the complexities involved in the founding of the various Arab states during the age of imperialism make them incomparable to the USA and CSA for your arguments.

If the argument is that the Confederate flags = slavery (in a nation that only existed for 4-5 years) then the Saudi flag also = slavery for it existed in that nation until only 40-50 years ago.

If we are arguing a flag=offensive, then we must also accept that the Israeli flag is a symbol of oppression to Palestinians.

You argue that the Confederacy was founded on the principle of slavery.
I argue it was founded on the right for a state, not the 'federal' to determine what is/is not legal and right.
Robert argues that it was all about the slaves.
I argue it was about the federal government not obeying and enforcing it's own laws....laws which deemed slaves property, and that they should be returned to their owners.

Please note, I am not saying those laws were right/just/etc. Just that they were the law, and they weren't being enforced, nor had they been struck down through the proper methods.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I don't think it is such a far fetched comparison to make it a straw man.

THe point is that flags have meaning and connotations. The Johnny Reb, The Stars and Stripes, Saudi Flag, Israeli flag.....all are symbols to someone.

I would say that the Saudi Flag may not have been founded on slavery as we define it in the states, but there are historical nuances that could make it a negative symbol to someone.

Thank you, that was my point exactly.