Considering the fact that we have a flag now that represents all 50 states, should the confederate flag, which only represents part of the US, be considered unAmerican? If they make the claim that we are unAmerican because we don't agree with Bush, then couldn't we make the same argument about the confederate flag being displayed in places other than text books and history museums?

Just wondering.

But hey, it's been days since we had an ugly, divisive, pointless North/South flamewar, so let's go!

I grew up in the south. The flag is representative of the traitors that tried to break up the country.

Just because that's an uncomfortable truth does not mean this thread is intended as flamebait.

and brings out all kinds of ugliness and division every time it comes up. That's why.

If the people who protested our involvement in an illegal and immoral war were "unAmerican", then of course those who rose up in armed rebellion in part to defend the institution of slavery were unAmerican traitors, too, right?

My dad tells the story of the Navy ship that came into sight proudly waving a Confederate flag. Dad's captain ordered the other ship to remove the enemy flag immediately or be fired on. The flag came down.

...I'd sure like to read more about it. I'll be delighted to research it myself if you'd be so kind as to provide me with this minor detail:

What were the names of the Naval vessels involved in this encounter?

Thanks in advance...

his locker. he said you fly the American flag, or no flag.

or no, it's not american?

for UnAmerican

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/default_graphics.asp

Although the flag is seen by some Southerners simply as a symbol of Southern pride, it is often used by racists to represent white domination of African-Americans. The flag remains a subject of controversy because some Southern states still fly the flag from public buildings or incorporate it into their state flag’s design. The flag is also used by racists as an alternative to the American flag, which they consider to be an emblem of what they describe as the Jewish-controlled government.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

one of the biggest issues of the civil war was slavery

true it is historical, but anyone who defends its display in front of court houses, and public buildings, is endorsing its sybolism

How would you like the Nazi flag displayed?

You need to re-read history.

Slavery was what was PUBLICIZED as a major part of the Civil War, when in reality, it was an aside.

Federal control over the states was the true reason for the Civil War.

If people find the Confederate Flag to be offensive, then I say respect their wishes and don't fly it. But to call it unAmerican is wrong. It is an integral part of our history and we should not shrink from it.

Face it, our history is NOT what you were taught in school.

I cringe everytime I see a cowboy and Indian movie on TV.

We are and always have been a brutal society.

The question is: Will we learn from our history?
From the look of things today, I'd say we have not.

I mean, all feelings about it aside (and I have many), isn't it legally unAmerican? The reason I ask is because my GGG-grandfather fought for the Confederacy out of Mississippi and was captured by the Union. Upon his release, he had to sign a statement (I have a copy of it) declaring that he would "never again take up arms against the United States of America." A flag that represents the taking up of arms against the USA would surely by legal definition be considered unAmerican, no?
:shrug:

P.S. My GGG-grandfather violated the oath and re-entered the Miss. militia. He didn't have slaves, didn't know anyone who did. He was just a poor white. I don't even think many of those folks understood policy or politics. In many cases, it was just "honor" and defending your land and state ... so laughably sad and STUPID.

that still doesn't detract from what it represents, and that is slavery, which is racist, immoral, and unAmerican

The Confederate flag never actually flew over/represented the USA. I think it might be apples and oranges, because I'm trying to look at it from a purely legal viewpoint, not a symbolic one. Both the Nazi flag and the Confederate flag represent ideas that are reprehensible to me, but they served different purposes legally.

what part of "American" is that?

.. and in any event the firing on Fort Sumter was in retaliation for federal refusal to obey a lawfully legislated order confiscating the fort for the defense of the Republic of South Carolina. In other words, Lincoln started it.

You southern apologists crack me up. It reminds me of Bush logic. How could any law the Confederacy make be legit? They were never a legit institution. In the end they lost the fight for legitimacy on the battlefield.

Confederates suck ass.

MIGHT have passed an unenforceable bill, but it was certainly legitimate enough for the federal government to be dealing with right up until the bombardment.

History is more complex that the shorthand version you learned at community college.

I taught history at a community college for about five years.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This is the most twisted piece of logic I've seen in awhile.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the south fought for states rights and less federal intevention....the north had slaves as well....the kkk corupted the confederat flag to be a racist symbol...true southerners see the flag as a symbol of federal government opression

"the kkk corupted the confederat flag to be a racist symbol" - TRUE! Very good (though, you just contradicted yourself). We both agree that it is NOW a symbol of HATE. Will you continue to defend it now?

"true southerners see the flag as a symbol of federal government opression" - Uh oh! You've now left the realm of reality again. :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"So what,The US flag could be considered the same.Ask any American Indian living on a reservation fighting to hang on to what little they have." - Red herring.

Definition:
red herring
n.

1. A smoked herring having a reddish color.

2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue.

The issue we are discussing here is the "confederate" flag, not the current U.S. flag.

Back to your statement : "true southerners see the flag as a symbol of federal government oppression." - What, are they going to start another Civil War II? Maybe some see it that way...certainly not me, and I'm a TRUE "Southerner" from the DEEP South. Coming from the bottom tip of Louisiana makes more MORE "Southern" than most (in the USA). Folks from way up North in Virginia, like you, need to stop telling us "Southerners" what to do and how to feel. We have the right as "Southerners" to hate and disdain the "confederate" flag. :D

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is that code word for "How much African blood do you have, because therefore you're not a true Southerner?" Sure sounds like it...

The view that the Civil War was just about slavery is over simplified. That in no way means that slavery was right or should have been allowed to continue. There were a lot of factors in play, vestiges of some remain today.

A friend of mine recently compared the Red/Blue divide to the Blue/Grey divide. The argument is not without some merit.

I agree that there were many factors at play, but slavery was inarguably among the most important and was pretty much the lynchpin in the debate.

Only a douche bag confederate historical revisionist would say different.

Everything the south was based on was a horrible lie and pathetically weak. The cuture was sick and needed new teritory to host it's parisitic economy. That is why the south tried to turn it into a states rights issue. It was always about a states right to have a slave economy, nothing else.

the association of states rights with secession came much later, as "states rights" was a common part of the dialogue long before the civil war. All the factors of conflict b/w north and south have slavery as the common thread. The economic differences clearly can't be considered independent of slavery, nor the cultural differences--southerners even in the 1820s talked about preserving their "way of life," and just as that was code word for Jim Crow in the 50s, it was code for slavery in the 19th century.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

he's trying to distract from the main argument.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

where did anyone say VA flew the Stars and Bars? :shrug:

The Battle Flag of '76 does not have the same power as the Stars and Bars, and does not represent an ugly chapter in American history.

Enjoy your stay! :hi:

The Republican platform in the 1860 election had a plank that forbade slavery in the western territories. The Southern leaders were vowing violence and secession if the Republicans won, specifically over this very issue. In fact there was a Southern assassination attempt on Lincoln as he made his way from Illinois to DC to take up the Presidency. Every single statement of secession included prominent mentions of slavery as being the prominent factor to the state's secession. The Confederate Constitution also makes prominent mention of slavery as reason for secession, starting in the first paragraph of the preamble, and continuing throughout the rest of that document. Throughout the South, political leaders made speeches listing slavery as a major reason to secede, both before, during and after secession.

It is simply revisionist Southern apologists who have repeated the falsehood that slavery wasn't the driving force behind secession, and thus the Civil War. It is a preposterous, and rather pathetic attempt by these people to continue to romanticize the South, and to ease some of the blame of secession from the South to the North. I'm sorry, but slavery was the predominant reason for the South's secession, no matter what revisionist histories say differently. If you don't believe me, go read the source documents, the Confederate Constitution, the various states' declarations of secessions, and the writings and speeches of Southern politicians. A very clear picture is formed there of why the Southern states seceded, and it wasn't over matters of tariffs and Federal control, those issues were simply window dressing for the real reason, which was slavery.

The South seceded in order to keep their fellow humans in the abominable condition called slavery, and they traitorously attacked Fort Sumter. Whenever I see a Confederate flag, for me it stands as a symbol of racism and treason, plain and simple. For that is the context of that flag in United States history.

they were talking about the state's "right" to keep blacks in slavery. So saying that "it wasn't slavery, it was state's rights" (as I was taught in school) is contradictory.

Southern leaders often spoke of protecting the "Southern Way of Life," a defense which was invoked against northern abolitionists and quite clearly referred to slavery.

The Civil War was a war based on economics. Unfortunately, Southern economics depended on slave labor. At that point, agrarian society would not have been sustainable w/o some peculiar situations of that era.

For one thing, slavery was accepted...it had been passed down, and was an acceptable part of the culture for the most part. Exceptions can be made for how slaves felt about this of course, but the rulers that had the capital prevailed. Those that controlled the finances were appalled at the notion of paying for labor when the could get it for a lump sum price, and then sell the individual if the need arose. This is truly despicable, and slavery has no grounds to exist at all as far as I am concerned. However, being a product of my society in the present, I have seen first hand how educational and moral questions are dealt with. rather than people asking the hard questions and looking at 'morality' with a discerning eye, I see it is easier for many to just accept what they are told. If it happens in the 21st Century, it was more prevalent in the 19th.

Secession, if it had been successful, would have created a precedent that would have set up the nation as a European form of Nation-States, each bent on it's own prosperity and power. As the expansion to the West occured, these divisions would have become even more onerous, and this nation would be at almost constant war. The Confederacy would have melted away, and I shudder to think of what the nation would look like if the Federals had not won.

As for the Republicans of the time, (far more like the Progressives of today), one plank was to exclude the further expansion of slavery, noble, but not as noble as the complete dissolution of slavery would have been. When the Immancipation Proclamation took effect, it onlt pertained to the states in Rebellion. Border states were exempt, a ploy to ensure they wouold remain more loyal to the Federals than turn to the Confederacy. Lincoln was not subtle in this, it was cold and calculating; the times necessitated that calculation.

The Southern Democrats were the party of preserving slavery, not shoving it off into oblivion. For many years after the CW this remained a major part of their party. In the early 20th Century, things toppled over, and the Dem's became the party of the people, the R's were in transition to a conservative base, and the D's countered this by becoming more liberal. Teddy Roosevelt was the alst Progressive Republican, and even stating that is a bit of a stretch, as much of his ideology was based on conservative policies.

Eisenhower was the last R president that even could be considered somewhat neutral. After that, it is Conservatism to the extreme...and getting worse with each successive R elected. I find it astounding, that with Reagan and his thinking problems, R's have actually searched for people a little 'dumber' to put out there for the presidency. It is sort of like going to the local market and looking over the vegetable bin for a candidate.

But I digress. Slavery was an issue, but States Rights, (mostly economic), was the catalyst for the CW. In any case, the severity of the damage down to the soil by the cotton crops would have ensured the economic collapse of the South in any event. Slavery wouold have been abolished w/o the CW, but it would have taken years, and I would have fought to abolish it, butmy primary reason, if I had the opportunity to serve in that war, would have been to preserve the Union, and I feel almost all who fought for the Federals had that notion as well, foremost in thier minds.

What I find most disturbing now, is that the "South Bashers" are not letting up on their 'bashing'. There are millions of fine Americans in the South, why are some people so beset with alienating them?

We need to come together, judging individuals by their character, (or lack therof), and not their regionality. The Confederate flag is more of identity than ideology. The vast majority of those that use that emblem would bever endorse slavery, nor would they wish to return to the 19th Century. We do not 'bash' Native American for their symbols, why should we bash the Southerners for theirs?

I lived in the South in the Army...the massive majority were excellent people of all colors and backgrounds, I was proud to be a NY'er accepted by them. They are good people, and to think that racism exists soley in the South is something we have to get away from.

:D

The South's economic properity at the time of the Civil War was dependent upon slavery, and hence, if slavery was abolished, the South would have trouble transitioning to an economy based on payment for work, rather than maintenence of slavery. The more pragmatic leaders of the South recognized this fact, and the leaders who were even more farsighted were calling for an abolition of slavery. And this economic/slavery issue was the core of why the South seceded.

Yes, States Rights were also ennumerated as the Raison D'Etre for why the South was leaving the Union, but in all reality, this was more of a propaganda technique used with the rank and file Southerner, the soldiers and the lower class supporters, for this vast group of people had no slaves, and would have resisted fighting for the preservation of an institution that was actually harming them. Thus, Southern Leaders made States' Rights the battle cry of the Civil War. But every single political and military leader knew and understood that this was simply a smokescreen for the masses, and the real reasons for secesstion were economic/slavery ones. This is why you find so many references to slavery in both the source documents of the era, and in so many speeches of the time.

I agree with you about judging people by their character, not by their region. I practice that in dealing with everyone I meet. But I must disagree with your assesment that the Confederate flag is merely a cultural marker. It isn't, and quite frankly never has been. The Confederate flag went out of style for many years after the Civil War and Reconstruction, and, other than spotty use amongst the KKK and other white supremesist organizations, it was relegated to Confederate cemetaries and war memorials. However, starting in the fifties, when the vast Civil Rights movement came alive across the South, the Confederate flag make a dramatic comeback as a symbol of hate and racism, and remains so even now. Excepting for very limited circumstances, Civil War re-enactors, Confederate war memorials etc., the Confederate flag is used as a distinct symbol of white hate and racism, both in the South and North. I can guarantee you that outside the circumstances I listed above, any person that you see flying the Confederate flag is indeed a racist. As a young man's shirt that I saw in TN proclaimed proudly under a picture of the Stars and Bars, "It's a white thing, you wouldn't understand" Sad to say, as a white male, I understand all to well what that symbology stands for, hate and treason.

Slavery may not have been the single issue in the Civil War, but it was one of the chief issues.

states to succeed?

It was because WE wouldn't let THEM permit the extension of SLAVERY into the new territories and new states.

That's what the whole "states rights" argument was all about.

Anybody who doesn't know that is an idiot or a closet racist apologist.

"Southern Heritage" my ass.

It was all about the south's right to maintain and EXPAND their right to own only black persons as property.

I don't know what is more offensive. The whole intellectually lazy states rights argument or the racism that is behind it.

They whole argument centered on two incompatible economic systems. Slave labor and free industrial labor. It was even the ultimate reason for the souths defeat. A slave economy is no match for a skilled industrial workforce.

People who deny that slavery was the route cause of the war live in a fantasy land.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Its time we limit this government gone wild and restore our rights that this constitution grants us get rid of all these stupid amendments that were put into place unconstitutionally in the first place" - Before you throw out all the amendments to the U.S. Constitution, maybe you should read through them first. By the way, they were all enacted "constitutionally." Feel free to change your mind after reading. :)

Again, welcome to DU. :hi:

*****

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights.html

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

AMENDMENT XI

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

AMENDMENT XII

Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. * The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

AMENDMENT XV

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.


Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

AMENDMENT XVII

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

AMENDMENT XVIII

Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.

Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XIX

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XX

Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4.
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5.
Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

AMENDMENT XXI

Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.

Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXII

Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXIII

Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.

Section 1.
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXIV

Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXV

Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.

Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

AMENDMENT XXVI

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXVII

Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

inequality would be condoning racism. It would be comparable to how French people today would feel if someone displayed the flag of Vichy French Republic in a non-educational contest, they wouldn't be best pleased.

only white male landowners could vote. Should we stop displaying the American flag as well?

"Displaying the flag of a country founded on ideals of inequality."

The key phrase is bolded.

I was referring indirectly to the practice of slavery. The U.S. was founded on a principle of (male) equality, but it did not live up to this practice, at least not for a long time. I choose to not display the U.S. flag, but that is my preference. The U.S. flag has been a symbol of both oppression and freedom, depending on the historical event. People who choose to display the U.S. flag probably reflect on the good parts of history. If someone displays the U.S. flag, I don't take it as a directly racist act.

The Confederate flag, what do you see it as representing? What does it tell you about someone who displays it proudly? To me it represents the slavery of African men and women. Are there any good things in history the C.S.A did?

"Only if you think the US flag stands for racism and extreme inequality"

What do you think they would say?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

support America.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Plain, unvarnished Treason to the Federal Union.

"I will fight the secesh till Hell feezes over, then fight on the ice."

Cmon Judge, you can do better than that.

Point out for me exactly what was treasonous about fighting oppression.

There was another poster who said his GGG-Grandfather had to sign an oath to never take up arms against the "United States of America"

Didn't the rebels call it the "Confederated States of America"

Look, I don't advocate slavery. It was a mistake from the very begionning, and if it were the main reason behind the Civil War, I would be agreeing with you. However, there were many valid reasons for the southern states to want to secede or at the very least, force a change in policy.

If you look at today's government, maybe a little civil unrest is called for now.

Would you call it treasonous to fight against the patriot act?
Would you call it treasonous to fight against "First Amendment Zones" for protesters?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

And I am far far from being a fundie.

those of us who would fight against Bush's oppression are prepared to separate from the US and form our own country. I think most of us want our country back, we don't want to separate and form a new country.

I'm also having trouble with your equating fighting Bush's policies (which harm the oppressed) with fighting Lincoln's policies (which helped the oppressed).

becuase it is now settled law, correct or not.

Secession is illegal.

It was not settled law back then.

it was perfectly OK?

West Virginia's status is pretty shaky legally.

The Constitution says you can't divide off land from an existing state without the permission of the state legislature. The thinking was that the pro-union legislature that was set up in West Virginia could be recognized as the legitimate state government of the whole state of Virginia, and therefore its nod was all that was needed for West Virginia to be carved out.

It's an odd situation, where in some cases the Confederate states were still considered states, and in other cases they weren't.

was tantamount to recognition of the basic principle that States could be "out" of the Union. Lincoln refused to let anyone make that statement; his contention was that states could not leave. Yet he was willing to contradict himself for the electoral votes he needed to win in 1864. That being so, not only was the Southern confederacy legimate but the entire Civil War constitutes war crimes for which every Southerner should receive restitution.

I guess it matters which side of the divide you were on.

First of all, the reason the Civil War started was that South Carolinians fired upon a Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Lincoln had assured the secessionists that he would not fire unless fired upon, and that the ships coming to the fort were merely coming to bring provisions.

Second of all, US armories in the South were looted of their stocks, in violation of the law.

Thirdly, the concept of state's rights being sovereign had already been tested, during the 1830s, with the Nullification Act. Andrew Jackson, no Yankee himself, fought the Nullification Act, and South Carolina backed down. So there was legal precident for claiming national sovereignty when it came to tariff laws.

When one realizes that Southern states were leaving the Union before Lincoln even came to office, one wonders if the 'fireeaters' were really interested in any sort of peaceful compromise. And the Southern States were appeased again and again in the years leading up to the Civil War, from the Fugitive Slave Act to tariffs that favored the Southern planter rather than the Northern industrialist.

The downfall of the South was their unbridled arrogance, which can be seen in the fact that they held onto their cotton crop before the Union blockade was in place in order to drive up prices and force European nations to come to their aid. Of course, this didn't happen; cotton markets were developed in Egypt and the blockade meant cotton wasn't going to be shipped out. The same elites who ran the government were the ones who encouraged racisim and discouraged public education, both designed to keep poor whites in their places.

Sadly, you see this same attitude alive and well in the Bush Administration today.

BTW, ALL my ancestors fought for and supported the Union, although it cost them their health and wealth. Southerners weren't the only ones who suffered because of this terrible conflict.

(which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution) is indeed treasonous.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

By entering into a treaty amongst each other, forming a confederacy, coining their own currency, etc., the Confederacy did, in fact, commit treasonous acts.

You can't get a former state for violating a Constitution that is no longer its own.

of their ratification of the Constitution to remain in the Union. The secession in and of itself was invalid and illegal. Thus, they were still bound by Constitutional law.

The way they saw it, they joined the union by a vote of their state legislatures and left it the same way. Some states even went a step further and left by popular vote of their voters.

It had to do with the whole idea of a government getting its power from the consent of the governed, and when the state voted to leave, they withdrew their consent.

That argument was settled on the battlefield when Lee suerrendered at Appomattox, but it was in no way settled in 1860.

I'm sure that the way Fred Phelps sees it, he's doing the right thing too. That doesn't excuse him. Hitler didn't see what hew as doing as wrong either, that doesn't make it right.

Their perception has nothing to do with it.

When they ratified the Constitution, that was giving their consent to be governed by the United States of America.

Why would they think that? What kind of an organization do you join with the understanding that you can never change your mind? The mafia?

If that was stated when the Constitution was passed, there's no way in the world it would have ever been ratified. It almost wasn't anyway.

View the Constitution as a contract, which is exactly what it is in the strictest sense of the word. Your beloved Confederacy was in breach of contract from the moment they "seceded."

You can't just walk away from a contract because YOU think it's the right thing to do, ALL parties must agree to dissolve the contract.

The Confederate States chose to unilaterally break said contract.

Regardless of what Confederates thought of their legal position at the time the lost the battle to enforce those positions.

They lost because a slave economy could not compete with a skilled industrialized workforce. So there system was not viable even in a social Darwinian sense much less on moral grounds.

The issue was settled on the battlefield.

There's no doubt anymore. Secession is illegal.

People throw the word "treason" around an awful lot.

After the war, the government indicted Davis, Lee and others on treason. If they thought they had a good case, they would have tried Davis at least.

You'd think people at least at DU wouldn't declare people guilty without trials.

Now the law is settled. Secession is illegal. It was proven on the battlefields, but in 1860 when South Carolina seceeded, it was by no means setled law.

The southern states thought they had every right to secede, and thought they did it legally. Hardly treason in my book.

...seems to be anything BUT treasonous."

Um, the Federalies were doing that, not the rebels. I understand that the average Johnnie in grey or butternut was fighting for his home and not for slavery, no disrespect to those fighting men, but the leaders should have been hanged as traitors starting with R.E. Lee.

or just hang them?

Lee of course was indicted for treason. He didn't want a trial. He just wanted to be a good citizen.

But Davis was indicted for treason too and he was begging for his trial. He demanded his day in court and had a high powered defense team of northern abolitionist lawyers funded by Cornelius Vanderbilt and Horace Greeley. His defense was that secession was legal and therefore the conquest of the south was illegal. The federal government refused him his day in court, and just left him indicted without ever giving him his trial.

Why should they? They just had to wait 150 years and the guys who you'd think would be decrying the way he was indicted and never tried would be instead calling for him to be hanged without trial.

And this is on DU where you'd think trial before punishment would be held in some modicum of respect.

...but that is for ascertaining the facts, which I do not believe is in doubt.

otherwise Ol' Jeff Davis would have been hanged from an old apple tree just like the song said.

President Johnson would have loved to put him on trial. They had been enemies for 20 years. The northern people demanded someone to hang for the war. If he thought he had as clear a case as you seem to think he had, Davis would have hanged.

Instead, he never even got his day in court. Yet he's declared guilty on DU which is something I find remarkable.

The only people being oppressed had black skin.

You've got to be kidding. Telling people they can't own slaves is oppressive in your worldview?

as Texans glorifying the Alamo and the Republic of Texas...the Mexican government's restriction of slavery was at least part of the reason for the rebellion (1835-1836, this is).

It is unAmerican plan and simple, and excuses don't cut it, or changing the issue to justify it doesn't cut it either

Slavery was a very bad and very wrong thing. But it is ALSO part of this country's history, like it or not. Which makes slavery at least as American as slaughtering natives or oppressing minorities.

I thought you were equating it to the texans glorifying the alamo?

I think those are two different issues.

Yes, slavery is part of American history, but it is NOT American, it is anti-American.

Another example:

The patriot act is unAmerican, because it potentially deprives people of constitutional rights, i.e. due process, to know what you are being charged with, etc.

The constitution is what defines American. "Slaughtering natives or oppressing minorites" is not part of the constitution, and in fact violates it, along with other laws

Slavery WAS part of the constitution. Yes, the amendments after the Civil War changed that, but you can't deny history (or ignore the bits of it you don't like, either).

that is why the Contitution is a living document, and why the founders allowed ammendments to it. In fact they had to ammend it because slavery counterdicted equal rights for everyone under the law

Woman sufferage was another ammendment for the same reason

Slavery is NOT American. Yes, it was in the constitution, but ammended because it was NOT American.

Never has there been an ammendment that has taken rights away, but that may soon change if they ammend the constitution to indicate who can have a civil union or marriage

Prohibition?

Which is why also the effort to establish a constitutional amendment to "prohibit" Gays from marriage should not be implemented either...

The Twenty Second giveth back.

Hope I have those numbers right.

wasn't asking about slavery. It was asking about flying a flag other than the American flag and whether or not that is American or UnAmerican. We are living in the present. Of course, slavery is part of our history, but at one point didn't the American flag have way less stars on it? Doesn't that version of the American flag belong in text books and museums instead of on vehicles and houses and statehouse grounds as well? Or does it?

We need to discuss this subject, among others, lest we die as a nation from the malignant cancer that is racism and the vestiges of slavery.

:toast:

It needs to be discussed and people need to think about the subject of racism a lot more. It still exists and it's irks me when I hear a sentence start out "I'm not racist but..." and usually the sentence ends with some racist comment. People do need to find a civilized way to talk to each other regarding that topic, before this country ends up in another civil war.

It was very American for 89 years.

Lincoln was not an Abolitionist.

Flying the Confederate flag does insense a lot of people. Maybe the Fundies tink it is just fine.

Old Testament


Slave Quotes

Psalm 123:2
As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

There is NO justification for slavery or racisim. quotig the bible is a joke, this country has a seperation of church and state. You can justify any immorality with the bible. We are governed by the constitution NOT the "bible"

Exactly which "States Rights" had so agregiously been violated that Secession and evently Civil War was the only answer.

Here's a snippet from Georgia:

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization


And Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist? Really? Maybe that's not what he started as, but it's what he ended up as. And he ALWAYS hated slavery.

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.

...

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.

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

...
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States

Unsuccessful rebellion is treason.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

there is no correlation, no matter how many bullshit parallels Confederate apologists try to draw.

YOU LOST

GET OVER IT

never have.

the secessionist movement{technically} might have been about states rights -- but it was about those states rights to continue the institution of slavery.

I agree with that.

If there's a 22 year old still living at home and her parents insist she get home by midnight every night, but she wants to sleep over her boyfriend's house, and the parents won't permit so she finally leaves home.

Why did she leave?

The parents would say because she wanted to sleep with her boyfriend.
She would say because she wanted to set her own rules.

They're both right, but the girl's more right in my opinion.

Same idea with the south.

The north would say because they wanted to keep slaves.
The south would say because they wanted to write their own laws.

Both are right, but I'd say the girl was more right.

They wanted to write their own laws keeping it legal to own their slaves...Don't beat me for stating a fact, Massah!!

You lost me!?

I Guess It Is Back!

The "War of Northern Aggression" (what-EV-ah) has been over for what, 140 years now?

I see the Stars and Bars, and my first thought is "Well, I bet HE'S not on his way to a Mensa meeting..."

"It's about being a Rebel, and all that!"

Yeah, rebellion against common decency. maybe.

But you know what? I'm GLAD people feel comfy displaying it. Lets me know up front who and what I'm being confronted with.

I qualify for Mensa. I don't put any stickers on my car, but if I did I wouldn't have a problem with the rebel flag. It is a symbol of southern heritage to me, and nothing more.

Then why can't I display THIS???



Hey, it was the legitimate naval flag of Germany until 1945, and if I want to celebrate my German "Heritage"....

Your argument is FOS. what's a sign of your "southern Heritage and nothing more" to you is a sign of hate, ignorance and stupidity to others.

two flags that are symbols of hate and murder.

I never said otherwise. Because others have different opinions does not mean I'm not entitled to celebrate my heriate. If people can make up a new holiday for Christmas, then I can keep an old symbol of my section of the country.

But you don't get it. And you a Mensa member and all.

Hell, why not "Celebrate" some more by making a black-face effigy and lynching it in your back yard? Be proud of it ALL.

Why do I bother? you're probably laughing your ass off at me right now because you think you "got" me....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

which is responsible for the inability of the Democratic party to make progress there. The sense of self superiority turns people off and they will never listen to what you have to say.

Why don't you define yourself with the Texas state flag?

I am from Arkansas, with family throughout the South. It is the flag of unity. Wherever the flag may have originated, it flew over the entire South.

Most black Americans, including southern blacks, regard the flag as THE symbol of racism and slavery. There is no stronger visual symbol of slavery.

So how can it be a symbol of Southern unity?

that thought so little of the Union the attempt to form their own nation - or own confederacy of states, if you insist. Either way, the attempt to break away is as unAmerican as you can get.

Assuming youre kidding here.

How more American can you get than forming your country by breaking away from another?

is, itself, America

is to remind the government that South might revolt again? Well it is Anti-Federalist at the least.

The South controls everything in the elections now. Can't get anybody with a "Yankee" accent elected at a national level these days... gotta appeal to the South or you can't win. Or so they say.

With Bush in the White House, something definitely won... am not sure if it should be labelled "the South" or not.:(

Poppy and Dubya pretend to be from TX to get elected and Clinton was from Arkansas. I believe the Senate majority leader is from the South as was the previous one. Except for two California nut-cases, every president since 1963 has at least pretended to be from the former Confederacy.

*It honors the people who rebelled against us. How can you be a patriotic American and yet honor the rebels?

*The confederacy was fighting mainly to keep its slaves. So it's a racist symbol.

*The flag gained prominence in the 50s and 60s as a symbol for the fight to keep society segregated. Again, a racist symbol.

... that does not change the fact that it is a symbol for slavery. Anything pertaining to the history of this country is American, but that does not make it right. The Confederacy rebelled against the United States in order to preserve slavery. They wanted to keep slavery because it was very profitable. While the average Southern soldier had little to do with slavery, the fact remains that the objective of the war was to preserve slavery in the South and the West. The Southern Cross (battle flag) was a symbol of that rebellion. (N.B.: The actual Confederate battle flag was square and formed the jack area of the second and third official Confederate flags. Some erroneously call the battle flag the "stars-and-bars" which in fact is the name of the first official Confederate flag.)

As the centenial of the war approached, segregationists in the South (mostly) adopted the battle flag as a symbol of protest over the growing civil rights movement. Unfortunately for Civil War history enthusiasts, this reinforced the rascist nature of the Confederate flag in the minds of people everywhere.

The Confederacy was defeated by the Federal army and navy. No American state has any business flying a flag of rebellion over its official property.

http://www.ashevilletribune.com/blackrebel.htm

is he a racist?

imo i believe it is poor taste to display the flag because of the baggage that it carries for some people. however, i do not feel that one is definitively a "racist" for displaying the flag. symobls mean different things to different people. people obviously disagree on what this particluar symbol means.

Theres a black family lives down the road from me, and like me they fly the Confederate flag in their yard too. It has nothing to do with racism for either one of us, we both are just proud Southerners.

Some yes use it as a hate symbol true enough, some of us fly it for the heritage it represents. I am more ashamed of the American flag than the Confederate flag. Why you may ask? Simple really, it was not the Confederates who abused and removed my people, we in fact fought along side them.

What does the American flag represent? Oppression, genocide, repression. One is no worse than the other, it is all about what you perceive it to be.

It's fairly ignorant to make assumptions of a persons character based on a flag they fly, it means nothing. If you are going to hate someone please take the time to get to know them first. I find it pathetic some folks would make a decision to like or dislike someone solely based on a flag.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do you mean a blue flag with a white diagonal cross? Maybe he has Scottish ancestors as few Americans are entirely Black or white.

St.Patrick's cross is a red diagonal cross on a white background. Did you mean that one.

I don't know the name of a blue diagonal cross on a white background which is similar to the rebel battle flag (except for the stars and red parts.) I have heard the battle flag called the "Southern Cross."

from it.

"southern cross" is what people call it today.

thanks for the correction.

gonna change subject line of orignal post

edit: drat, editing period has expired on orignal post.

Quote: "We made all of the implements of war, we fought, we participated -- not one slave insurrection happened during that period of time. They did not have whips and guns forcing them to be there. God and his infinite wisdom brought these people here. He brought about a love between master and slave that has never happened before. If you search this empirically then you will know the only one who cared about the African was the man in the south. But we don't want to face that."

It IS a RACIST SYMBOL!

in either case, it has no place flying from a flagpole on american soil.

there are neighborhoods where every other house sports a Mexican flag. Never bothered me a bit. Sorry to hear it bothers others.

until you figure how to word one correctly. Yes or No what?? Yes it's unamerican or yes it's American? What day is it?

I've never understood that.

It has nothing to do with whether a war was won or lost, or anything about the war at all. Heritage pure and simple.

It once symbolized life and health. Today it's a universal symbol of hate and intolerance.

When the KKK started using the Battle Flag, it too became a symbol of hate and intolerance.

If people had protected the symbol of their heritage from being used to terrorize people, perhaps it would still be a symbol of heritage. But the people were too busy donning their white robes to notice.

and according to military history, the flags of defeated armies are not flown. It has everything to do with whether the war was won or lost. And now the Confederate flag is a sign of white supremacy. And "southern heritage" is codespeak for racism.

who display a Confederate flag? Do they not have southern ancestry? Face it. When people talk about "southern heritage", they're talking about white southern heritage and that mystical time of antebellum plantations and magnolias. A time that never existed except for a very few. Most people had small farms and no slaves. This desperate need to cling to a symbol (appropriated by segregationists here in Georgia as a "in your face federal government")is ugly. Our state flag was changed in the '50's as a reminder to black people of the days of slavery...a pathetic attempt to stave off civil rights for all people. The Confederate flag has been forever sullied by racism. Look at its history since the Civil War. Look who uses it as a symbol. Do you really want to be associated with that kind of hatred?

They are my friends, not my black friends. The same symbol can mean different things to different people. Here in Austin, I see the UT hook 'em horns sign all the time. To me, it is a sign of satanism. I would never make the sign due to my own beliefs. But to UT fans and alumni, it means an entirely different thing.

I view it as a symbol of the South. Others might not. Is my opinion any less valid than their opinion? No. We each have a right to our own beliefs. My family is proud of its Southern heritage. When we refer to it, it is not a time to remember beating slaves on a plantation eons ago. It is a time to remember family history, religion, manners, food, and culture. Don't define my beliefs for me. I know what they are.

Why does the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia symbolize anything in Austin, Texas?

in other posts on this thread

I'm sick of the Southern bashing or Mormon bashing or the bashing of anything else other than atheism or worship of the northeast. The "big tent" party, the party of tolerance, has no place here.

Your posts answer nothing about "Southern heritage".

I'm not bashing the South, I am bashing the Confederate flag.

Here is what I think the flag represents:

"I'm sick of the Southern bashing or Mormon bashing or the bashing of anything else other than atheism or worship of the northeast. The "big tent" party, the party of tolerance, has no place here." - That's quite an indictment!

And please be clear about what you meant in the subject line. Are you talking about "uppity black people?" - maybe you didn't mean that at all, but that was my first impression when I saw the subject line.

the people who bash everything Southern, or everything Christian. That is what I typed and what I meant.

You are either in denial or ill informed if you believe otherwise.

Here's one source to verify that, you will see the Confederate flag, one row up from the Nazi flag:

A Visual Database of Extremist Symbols, Logos and Tattoos

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/default_graphics.asp

I cannot regard them as "widely" anything, except perhaps widely reactionary thought police.

For gawdsakes, they tried to get Frank Zappa to apologize for his satirical piece "Jewish Princess". This kind of PC hypersensitivity is what makes the ADL a joke. I take any of their propaganda with a molecule of sodium chloride.

general nor is it about "everything Christian." That's a strawman argument.

This thread is about the "confederate" flag and what it represents.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

hmmmmm

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but after the war, I can try to explain.

There are two points to understand.

1. Many, many southerners were against the secession, but even most of them thought they had every legal right to secede. Therefore, there were people like Alexander Stevens and Jubal Early. Stevens spoke out against secession at the Georgia secession convention, but then was elected Vice-president of the CSA. Jubal Early voted no at the Virginia secession convention, but then fought as a division commander in Lee's army thoughout the war.

When the war ended, the view hadn't changed. The southern states had every right to secede. They were right, and they flew the flag to show their opinion hadn't changed. Regardless of what document they were forced to sign, they were showing that they hadn't changed their belief. They still believed they were right.

If you ever want to meet an angry man, talk to someone who has just had to surrender even though he was right. I just finished reading Bill Clinton's memoirs. He absolutely hated paying off Paula Jones', and especially having to pay her legal expenses because he was right.

2. You have to understand how hard the Confederates fought.

At the beginning of the Civil War there were about 1 million adult white men capable of bearing arms in the eleven states of the CSA. The Confederate Army mobilized about 750,000 of them into uniform, an amazing 75 %. No group of Americans (Indian tribes?) has ever come close to such a universal mobilization for the cause.

By the end of the war, 250,000 of them were killed and another 250,000 were wounded. Again, losses like that are unheard of in American history. Half of all the adult white men in the south capable of bearing arms were killed or wounded in the war.

They fought until there was nothing left to fight with.

Their livestock was killed, railroads torn to shreds, factories burned, some cities and homes destroyed. Everyone was made destitute since their wealth was in Confederate money or bonds which became worthless.

So you have a group of people who are sure they are right. Though they are willing to fight under horrible conditions,with horrible losses to stand up for their rights, they are still ground to dust and have to surrender to the invading army that they think is in the wrong.

And you wonder why they'd want to show they were unbowed and unbroken by flying their old flag?

I don't see it as weird at all.

Now over time the reasons have changed and today it means an entirely different thing to most people.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Neither side can claim the moral high ground when it comes to their behavior during the war. That was my point.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... to remember the effort and to protest the result.

wherever they are but they aren't as terrible as the swastika in my symbology values-many neo-nazis combine both.

That's why the ones who want to fly the Starry Cross (Southern Cross, ANV Battle Flag) instead.

Enemies of our US Constitution.

I just thought you might not have known the difference.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

showing your prejudice against Northerners. How fitting. :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

side in the Civil War. BTW you're a citizen in the United States, not the Confederacy. It's pretty sad that you express such prejudice toward an entire region. But then again, it's OK to bash 'Northeastern elitists' but you say one thing about the Stars and Bars and all hell breaks loose. :boring:

with all my fellow liberals unwilling to help me build a resistance movement because they are preoccupied with how I should relate to my ancestry, history and culture.

right now.

:eyes:

debating in our legislature whether to change our flags is becomes a pertinent issue. Flags that have been the same for 50 years must suddenly be changed NOW. Now, by the way, when we have real issues to deal with in our states caused by Conservative-mandated cuts in federal spending. Northern liberals who can't leave the issue alone continually come down here and demand that we divert time and attention to demonstrate, once again, that we are sorry for the Civil War through some such nonsense. It only serves the interest of conservatives to divide the South in this way. Stop demanding that I feel sorry about the Civil War and I will stop telling you I don't want to.

You're so busy demonizing the north, that you have no clue that a lot of the people who have a problem with the confederate flag live RIGHT HERE IN THE SOUTH.

Open your eyes, have a look around. Stop jumping at "Northern evil liberal" shadows and you might see that there are plenty of southerners who don't like it, either.

offends me. The prostitution of the Confederate flag by hate groups offends me - offends me the more so because some Southerners wave the flag in the name of hate. I separate heritage from the misuse of the flag, something you apparently don't know because - surprise - you never asked.

because you see no difference between the Confederate battle flag and a symbol of hate. You do not consider that before it was misused as a symbol it was simply a battlefield guidon, designed to maintain regimental integrity in the confusion of war. To you, the flag means only what it is now, not what it was then and should have remained.

How do you defend the US flag, which has flown over this nation 230 years; years in which slavery was legal, Indians were massacred, women denied the vote and children forced into factories? You can't. You can only say that those events are part of the historical record.

I don't give a damn what it means to other people, including you. To me the Confederate flag represents only the Civil War, an episode in the history of the South, from which every Southerner should learn something - even something shameful - but on their own terms, without someone unconcerned with objectivity, telling him what lesson he should draw.

I, Swamp Rat, see the "confederate" flag as a symbol of hate because it IS a symbol of hate. I didn't invent it. I didn't revive it from it's military use over a hundred years ago to be used again during the civil rights movement to scare the fuck out of African Americans. I didn't and don't CONTINUE to use it to this day, even though it became synonymous with other symbols like the Nazi Swastika, in order to maintain the continued oppression and threat to a group of people. You are certainly correct about that. Congratulations!

"How do you defend the US flag, which has flown over this nation 230 years; years in which slavery was legal, Indians were massacred, women denied the vote and children forced into factories? You can't..." - Because it is a Strawman argument. I cannot debate illogic.

"I don't give a damn what it means to other people, including you." - Yes, we already know you don't give a damn about any of us "liberals." What are you still here?

"To me the Confederate flag represents only the Civil War, an episode in the history of the South, from which every Southerner should learn something - even something shameful - but on their own terms, without someone unconcerned with objectivity, telling him what lesson he should draw" - Very good. I won't debate that because I agree with you. Neither of us can be objective, but we can learn from this. The next time you see the "confederate" flag, you will remember this conversation. Every time you see that flag or symbol, you will remember the horror it represents to millions of your fellow Americans.

You will never forget this. Ever.

Good luck.

I intend to learn and know the true history of my region and try to uphold myself as one who has learned; who does not discriminate or suffer bigots - even in DU boards.

Where did you ever get the idea that I support or endorse any contrary belief? My sole point has been that Southern heritage, with or without flaws, is the heritage of Southerners. Southerners alone.

To be a liberal means being capable of holding sometimes paradoxical beliefs. To believe that there are two sides to every issue, that there are shades of gray, that there are many dimensions to an argument. Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer things to be black and white, cut and dried. The opinion that the Confederate battle flag is simply and purely, only and completely, a symbol of racial hatred is just such a belief. It is a piece of cloth, a relic of history and it can thought of as such by anyone who wants to. It can also be thought of as a symbol of hatred by anyone who wants to. As an inanimate object its meaning derives from the non-objective viewpoint of the beholder.

It could be both a symbol of heritage AND a symbol of hatred ("That's right, it's floor cleaner AND a dessert topping" - Old SNL skit.) The flag is a paradox, and the ability to accept something as a paradox - as liberals do - is the sign of a mature and adult mind, as contrasted with the mind of a Conservatives, who cannot see anything but what he wants to see.

One thing I disagree with is the notion of "Southern heritage" and that it is the heritage of Southerners alone. But let's save it for another day.

peace

Surprise, it's always unwise to make assumptions about people on the internet.

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I am a lover of American History, with all the good and bad that comes with it.

Someday I want to teach American History in school and if where I teach allows it, I will have all our nations flags adored in the classroom and the Confederate flag will be a part of menagerie.

It is a part of our history. It is a part of a sad history. A time were our nation fought between itself. It sapped the soul of our country, and shaped what it is today at the same time.

Now I personally have no problem with people displaying their Stars and Bars. People have the right to be as stupid as they wanna be in America. It is your right as an American to be an ignoramous as long as you realize that your right to dissent ends where my nose begins.

Now I feel the way I do, because I understand why a good number of white folks in the south AND THE NORTH are flying it. And don't kid yourself Yankees. I live in Connecticut and I've seen as many Rebel flags up here and in New Hampshire, in rural Massachusetts and Maine as I have when I visit my daddy's peoples in Arkansas. When I visit my family where I grew up in Nebraska, I see quite a few Confederate stars and bars out there, just like I see in Missouri, Iowa and Kansas. And Kansas is especially shocking given that 150 years ago the Jayhawkers where the most anti-Confederate Americans you could find.

The reason I see has nothing to do with 1864. It has to do with 1964.

You seen this isn't about Robert E. Lee. Most people who fly that flag think General Lee is a Dodge Charger. Flying the Confederate flag now is more about "My kids have to sit next to them nigra kids in school! Goldarn that darn Martin Lucifer Coon!"

The "states rights" argument sounds good in some academic settings (as false as its use is in this particular case). But in reality, the average folks that southern revisionists and double-breasted prejudice pimps have to whip up don't give a rip about the economic and social implication of slavery, states rights or the civil war and really don't have the attention span to the get the breakdown. This is all about our nation's Second Civil War (1955-present).

To me, that's the REAL deal with the Confederate flag.

Why are you always referring to liberals as a group separate from yourself?

unless I pass tests or manifest signs and wonders in the sky that you will accept as proof. Although you say you are a "southern liberal" you align yourself with the northern liberals who find deviations from the doxology so intolerable that they cast out anyone whose ideology isn't zealous enough.

the GALL to criticize anyone for not accepting you? All you've given us is RW trash talk and revisionist history... and that's an understatement.

:wtf:

I know you won't get this, but you've proved my point.

:spank: You just had your rear handed to you and you know it! :D

BWA!! Ok seriously, I don't know if you noticed, but your grip on reality is getting sloppy.

All I can do at that post and all the paranoia in it is laugh.

... and not understand humor? JFK was a liberal and he told jokes. RFK was wickedly funny. The generation born after Watergate is just as humorless as an old sock.

paranoia and lack of logic, to put it nicely, in your posts, you just claim they have no sense of humor and you were just being funny.

Wow, I've never seen THAT trick before. :eyes:

the irony is that you gave as examples of politicians with senses of humor two 'damn Yankees'. :crazy:

Why would you have a Confederate flag? That country does not exist. It was a regime that enslaved millions of people.

are they unpatriotic as well?

... in the case of the Mississippi and former Georgia flags.


Where did you get that kitten graphic? Is it available as a bumper sticker? That is great!

with the help of this site

http://www.makestickers.com/

I haven't done it yet, but thought about it. It is just too perfect for one. :P

What do you want to do? Rename their car the General Grant and put the Stars and Stripes on top?

Nobody considers the poor Duke boys. Won't someone think of the Duke boys?