THE_LEGENDARY_HQB

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick!

138 years after Appomatox, and some people still haven't caught on to this tiny little fact:

THE CONFEDERACY IS DEAD

Mind boggling.

A lot of people outside of Georgia get a chuckle when they see the way so many Southerners hold on to their "heritgage".

But really, it's not funny.

As I understand it, there are two historical views of the Confederacy. Both of them show that the symbols of the old Confederacy have absolutely no place in 2003 America.

If you believe that the Confederacy was in fact, a sovereign state, then the Confederate flag is a foreign flag, of a hostile power no less, and as such, has no place whatsoever being promoted by the State governments of the South. That also means, b.t.w, that there should be no place for monuments to Lee, Davis, Stonewall Jackson, etc., because they were working for a foreign power, hostile to the interests of the United States.


Now, if you believe that the Southern States were never legally a country, then you have to conclude that they were
B]traitors[/B], engaged in treasonous and seditious actions against the United States.. Therefore, anyone who holds that view, and still insists on clinging to their "heritage", is doing nothing less than glamourizing traitors and rebels.


I hope that someday, before I become worm food, I'll have a chance to confront some flag waving, God fearing, Bush supporting Georgian on this issue. I'd pay money to see their reaction when I remind them that there is absolutely no way that anyone who calls themselves a patriot can fly both flags.

Now, for those of you who haven't yet realized it {138 years is not enough for some folks}.

The South rebelled.

The South lost thousands of young men, who believed with all their heart that they were fighting for a noble cause.

Similarly, thousands of young Germans layed down their lives for the Fatherland in WW1 and 2, also believing, with all their hearts, that they were fighting for a righteous cause.

They were both wrong.

Deal with it.

HQB

RufusAtticus

The thing you miss in that rant, HQB, is that 140 years ago, the nation was different than it is today. The US was considered a political federation of independent states, similar to how the EU is today. People didn't identify themselves as Americans but rather as Georgians, New Yorkers, etc. It wasn't until after the civil war that the federal government emerged as being more important than the state governments. To claim that the Southerners were traitorious and treasonous is pure hogwash. What's next, you'll be telling Native Americans that they can't fly or appreciate their symbols because at one point their nations fought the US? What about Japanese Americans? Mexican Americans?

Heck I don't see you complaining about the flags of Hawaii, California, Maryland, and Texas which are all foreign in origin. If nothing more that shows how silly your argument is.

Secular Pinoy

According to this thread, Rufus just posted the 1,000,000th post in IIDB. Congrats for the distinction! Yay! :notworthy

THE_LEGENDARY_HQB

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings Rufus,

Sorry for the lateness of my reply. I'm quite busy.

Now, to adress your points.

1. While people in the 1860's certainly did have a stronger sense of identity with the state they lived in than folks do today, such provincialism was already fading. Read the commentaries of the day, Rufus. I'm being quite charitable in calling the Confederates simply tratorous and seditious. They were engaged in nothing less than an attempt to destroy the Union.
Besides, as I pointed out earlier, most wars have been fought by soldiers who truly believed that they were defending their country, that they were fighting for "The Cause".
But their "Cause"was wrong, and I see no problem with saying so.

Now, on to your next point.

As for foreign symbols in state flags, sure, I know that many of them have symbolism lifted directly from European countries. However, these flags were not developed when those states were actively engaged in rebellion against the United Sates.

Hawai'i? What does a flag developed by an internationally recognized country nearly 60 years before the Civil War have to do with a flag created by the Southern Plantocracy in their attempts to get those "damn Yankees" off of their backs?

American Indians? They were recognized by the U.S Government as sovereign nations from the moment we gained our independence {A lot of good it did them!}.
Even if they used those flags to rally their people to fight the Americans, I have no problem with that, because they were here first. They never asked to be in the United States.

So, to recap.

The Confederate flags, both the Battle flag and official flag, were the flags of a group of people who started the war. .
A war which was fought mainly to preserve slavery, one of the most obscene and disgusting institutions this country has ever had.

It is, imho, an affront to the memory of the thousands of men who died to protect and preserve this country, to wave this putrid rag with pride, to give the generals who fought to preserve the "peculiar institution" of Slavery honour and respect. They deserve none.

I mean you absolutely no disrespect, Rufus, but I'm just sick and tired of this issue constantly coming up.

Again, the South rebelled.

The South lost.

It's been 148 years!

If you care to continue this discussion, we should probably move it to P.D, since this doesn't really have anything to do with CS&SA.

Respect,

HQB

Gurdur

As far as I can work out, this was the millionth post on this board.

_________

Whooops, Secular Pinoy beat me to it.

RufusAtticus

Yes I've read many of the writings and commentaries on southern leaders. Many of them actively opposed secession, but the loyality to their state caused them to return home when the decision was made. Back then, to side against your state would have been traitorous. The problem with your argument is that you're evaluating the actions of past individuals based on the concepts of today. If the actions of South were so traitorous why did its leaders only get a slap on the wrist after the war was over? (Remember, the US Constitution calls for traitors to be executed.) Why did many of them return to politics and again represent their states in Washington?

Except many of the foreign symbols on state flags come from countries that at one point or another were opposed to our nation.

Because if you look closely you will see the Union Jack on the flag of Hawaii. I remember a war that was fought to get that flag of our land.

And this is different from southern states how?

Wow, talk about a straw-man. History is more complex than this black & white picture you've developed for yourself. Of course it doesn't surprise me that a Yankee has such a picture.

Gurdur

Minor quibbles of mine:

There was a great deal of Unionist sentiment in certain border Confederate states, often ruthlessly suppressed. uh uh. I seriously doubt you will find one significant moral concept present today that wasn't present back then.
Reconciliation.
If the actions of the South weren't so traitorous, why was a war fought agaist the South ?
Care to name the casualty numbers ?
Reconciliation, plus Democrat politics.
Mind you, Hawaii wasn't part of that land then.
Plus slavery and protection of Indian territories played a part in the impetus to the American Revolution.

To me, you're both Yankees.

Gurdur

Another minor quibble of mine:

As a blanket statement, that is simply wrong.
President Jackson, wasn't it ?, in 1830 threatened South Carolina with armed Federal intervention over a tariff dispute ?

Many, many Americans at the time (i.e. 1859-1861 and afterwards) saw the Southern actions as being traitorous to the Union; in fact, for many, that was the reason to fight against the South, not slavery (slavery did not become openly recognised overall as the major impetus till 1863, despite it being very much the practical casus belli).

If you like, I'll go away and dig up quotes from that period to show all this.

RufusAtticus

But the accusation was that they were traitors, not immoral.

Because the North wanted to preserve the Union. It wasn't until after the civil war was the issue settled on whether states could leave the union. Before the south did it, New England politicians toyed with the idea.

If they were so traitorous, why was there reconciliation? The US constitution makes it clear what the punishment for treason is.

What does that have to do with anything? Do they or do they not have a symbol on their flag that opposed the united states?

I agree, but it took the civil war to determine that the federal government was really more important and powerful than the states.

Gurdur

Same difference. "Traitorism" is merely a legalised moral concept.
If necessary, I'll dig up the names of many, many Southerners who fought on the Union side --- including the commander of Fort Sumnter
Actually, I'm none too sure the issue has ever been really settled --- but on the whole, at the moment it's not a pressing issue.
Southern discontent with the Union --- notably over the Federal Fugitive Slave Law --- dates back to 1830; quite true that many states (N or S) toyed with the idea of secession, and dithered whether to join anyway (Texas, California, Utah)
It seemed like good sense at the time.
A bloodbath of post-war exectutions would have been rather counter-productive -- or so it was thought at the time.
Only one person was executed --- the commander of the Confederate prison camp.
You've already pointed that out -- and I've already pointed out reconciliation and politics.

Guess why I prefaced my remarks with the words "Minor quibbles" ?

What has that to do with me ?
To me, you're all Yanquis.

Ah, agreement.

However, it wasn't the Civil War as such that changed Federal structure --- it was the huge effort and changes necessary to win the Civil War that forced Federal change.

Interestingly, the Confederacy also went through very similar changes (before its demise) --- and for the same reason.