This topic I'm about to discuss is as old as the Second American Revolution itself.

Children in schools are constantly being expelled or suspended, physical fights between normal adults are fought, and African Americans get a boner for an argument for displaying this flag, or when they see this flag somewhere:

But this is the real flag used by the Confederacy before they were defeated:

Commonly called "the Confederate flag" many don't know that the first flag is really the battle flag used by General Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, and Nathan Forrest's Army of Tennessee.

This flag receives so much hate for what it really isn't, and misinterpreted yet again for something it isn't. It's viewed as the flag of the Confederacy (which it's not) and viewed as a flag that stands for racism and hate (which it doesn't).

If you would, I'd like you to read this whole argument I post here. But if it's too long for you to read for some reason, then just don't hate the flag in the comments, please. That being said, I'll begin.

People say the flag stands for racism, but that's just not true. General Lee, General Jackson, and President Davis, probably the 3 most influential southerners at the time, all disliked slavery. At the beginning of the war, both of the generals even supported instituting black soldiers in the army officially.

Jackson had a black cook who cooked his meals, washed his clothes, and delivered his mail to him. His name was Jim Lewis, and Jackson asked him if he would like to fight for the Confederacy some day.

Jim's reply was "I would love to take up arms to protect my home against the Yankee invader."

A black man said this. An African American wanted to fight against the north. Sounds crazy doesn't it? No, it actually shouldn't once you look at the facts.

More African Americans served in the Confederate army unofficially, than the north. By unofficially, I mean these soldiers were a mix of volunteer and conscripted soldiers that fought without pension, and knowing they were getting nothing from fighting. Volunteer blacks fought for the south because it was their home, and they wanted to protect it, like Jim Lewis wanted to.

They fought underneath the flags in the Army of Northern Virginia, and the Army of Tennessee; both of whom sported the flag called "the Confederate flag" and despised for being racist.

By the end of the war, many black solders trudged home; fearful of the north's victory, and what they might do to them for being "traitors". They weren't concerned about being free. They knew how bad life was in the north for blacks, and they weren't too keen on getting in on that life.

If I still haven't convinced you of the non-racism behind "the Confederate flag", then look at these points about African Americans and the Confederate battle flags.

*The Northern state of Illinois banned (yes, banned) blacks from entering it.

*Abraham Lincoln despised blacks and stated that he had not intention of ever making them equal to whites or even allowing them to serve on a jury or hold public office. He also said if he could win back the South without ever freeing a slave, he would do so.

*Slavery flourished in many Northern states and even in Washington, D.C. until and even after the War. Only a constitutional ammendment ended slavery in the North.

*Northern states that ended slavery did so because they did not want the competition for workers. Some did it under fear of a workers revolt. The slaves were not freed; rather, many were sold down South. Laws provided that no current slave would be freed; instead, a prolonged end to slavery was held so Northern slaveowners would not lose their investment and so free blacks would not populate the Northern states.

*The South banned the slave trade long before the war. Slaves were procured and purchased from Northern slave traders.

*Northerners who professed to wanting to end slavery for humanitarian reasons hated blacks, and didn’t want them to live in their states, but had no problem selling slaves and purchasing products harvested by slave labor.

*George Washington Carver stayed in the South for the rest of his life after one foray into the North as a teenager. The harsh racism in the North sent him back to the South because he feared for his life.

*The Southern states that left the Union all realized and discussed the steps toward slowly abolishing the practice. But like the North, they realized that for economic reasons, it could not be easily done quickly. Why was the North allowed to get rid of their slaves slowly (freeing none) and the South forced to free theirs almost immediately?

*Ulysses S. Grant’s wife did not free her slaves until she was forced to do so by the 14th Amendment.

*There were black slave owners in the North and in the South at the time of the War. In the earliest days, there were white slaves, some of whom were owned by free blacks.

The very thing that flag is supposed to stand for, doesn't stand for it at all. In fact, the flag of the United States of America has stood for slavery. They had slaves for a lot longer than the south did, and the first slave state was a northern state - Massachusetts.

If that's not enough to convince many of the people out there that think what they do about the Confederate battle flags, then I don't know what will.

Please comment your opinion. This is a group about discussing political issues, so I think this is a good topic for this group.

Well considering I am not American I guess this does not directly concern me, however, neither side can be declared to be free from the inherent racism of the times, neither should either side be declared good over the other, but as is the want of history, victors decided what is written, and in this case, it wasn't the Confederacy which abolished slavery or even won.

As for the blacks working in the armed forces of the Confederacy, one must remember the psychological development of the concept of "House Slaves" over that of the "Field Slaves". Due to their better conditions, as they dwelt within the houses of their masters, had better food, better clothes and better living conditions than their field brethren, the House Slaves were more likely to support the establishment and willing to beat down their fellows to maintain their privileged positions, thus you see these such black people working for the confederacy and their "masters". There were certainly many in the years after slavery who pined for the days of old when they were in chains, "foolish old men" I have heard them called in some of the historical documents. The field slaves on the other hand had to put up with the oppressive regime which worked them to death, and it can be honestly said that those slaves would have been as pleased as punch that the Confederacy fell and they gained their immediate freedom.

As for the flag, well it has inherited its position not without its own history in racism and slavery, and given that the Confederacy never decided on an official flag, and that is the Confed navies flag, but of which is raised as the standard of the old order, I can see it still being a contentious. Afterall, I wouldn't get into Germany wearing a Nazi flag around me, or a SS armband, this might be the same for this flag, especially given its more modern associations with the KKK and other racist factions.

As an example of that not everything was hunky dory with the slaves of the south, and that many benefited, a good example is "A Note to my former master" which outlines the unpleasant nature of being enslaved in the south and the betterment gained by some Southern born freed slaves. http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/to-my-old-master.html

2668668

I'm from Texas, myself. We didn't do much in the war

I can agree with you: The Top flag has just become so synonymous with the Confederacy that most just believe that it was the flag of Dixie.

And the inner redneck in me has always been partial to Dixie

Someone is actually posting in this group?

2669027
What madness!

2669101

Oldjokeisold

2669160
Dat timing, tho.
9/10.

Second American Revolution

You mean the rebellion that was crushed by the North?

I kid. But I sincerily hope that you look at all sources about the war, both Northern, Southern, and Foreign. The South was wrong for seceding, the North was wrong for engaging them in a hideous, protracted war that was only lengthened by the incompetence of 98% of the North's Generals (Grant, of course, included, and Sherman excluded,) when they could've waited out the South economically, as it was unsustainable on its own due to the lack of industrialization in a post-industrial world economy.

2669252 A flag is a symbol. Both Confederate flags are symbols of the CSA. And over time, the Confederate flag became a symbol for the Old South as well.

So the flag became shorthand for not only the CSA and what it did, what it stood for, and the things that happened when it was around, but also for the South and what it did, what it stood for, and the things that happened when it was around. Neither of which were particularly good in the eyes of modern African Americans, primarily because they were seen as less-than-equal to whites (no matter how well they were being treated or saw themselves as being treated).

People can choose to emphasize other things about the CSA and the Old South, such as its spirit, its culture, and its people. And that's why some people love the CSA flag and some hate it - in the end, it's a mere difference in opinion for most modern-day Americans now.

It's nicer looking than the regular US one. Why they were satisfied such a goofily asymmetrical design for it, I'll never know. I mean, a blue box just sitting there in the upper left corner? What the hell? At least have it take up the whole left side.

2668817 I'm from North Carolina, so we're the polar opposite of Texas in terms of getting involved in the war.

But even so. I find that all southerners can take pride in the flag that represented our country, and our bid for freedom for 4 short years.

P.S. I have that song on my MP3 player; in 4 different version. Hehehehe.....

2669027 Yeah, I thought it would be nice to post something; seeing as how not many people post here.

2669252 The south was not wrong for seceding! It's in the constitution that every state has the right to leave the union at anytime! How is it wrong for using the right you have been granted for something you feel you need to do?

No, I mean the Second American Revolution. Because a revolution was needed to decide the issues of northern oppression, slavery in the territories (not the south) and bring the country together in the process, or tear it apart for the good of the people as a whole.

You think that the presidents from both sides wanted to fight a war? No! In fact, neither wanted a war. They met to reach a compromise, but it just didn't work out; because the north offered non-negotiable terms that were just too harsh for the south to bear.

War was brought on by the north who just didn't want to let go of the south - the biggest cash cow in terms of farming in the entire world at that time.

Also, I must ask why you posted a picture of the barbarian in your comment? You know that man shot a child in cold blood when he ravaged the south, right? That man stood not for peace and union; he stood for violence, and hatred for the south just because his country was at war with us. But if you feel the need to parade his horrid image around, feel free to. It's your right, and I'm not going to trample on it - just like our right to leave the union.

2669777 I agree, it's a difference of opinion. But I believe the biggest reason why that flag was associated with hatred for African Americans was when the Ku Klux Klan adopted it and waved it around during my grandparent's and parent's generations. As such, many older adults today will hate that flag for what they saw it stood for at the time, and they'll pass those beliefs onto their children. It'll be a never ending cycle until someone decides to stop the cycle.

Someone like this guy:

http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/black-student-defends-his-confederate-flag/

2668790 I read that letter when I was in 6th grade. I know that some masters treated their slaves pretty badly, but that wasn't all of them, in fact, it wasn't many of them, at all.

Many masters treated their slaves well for good reason - they didn't want to hurt their property. I know it sounds...strange...to say it that way, but it's true. They wanted their slaves to work for as long as possible. So they treated them well, fed them enough, and even paid for doctor's visits when they were sick, but not deathly ill, of course.

Do you know why there's only a few pieces of literature/text like this? "Uncle Tom's Cabin", "Letter to My Former Master"...There are only a few, because only a few slaves were treated so harshly. If you could go back in time and ask 10 slave owners if they would shoot at a slave that wasn't running away, 9/10 would say no. Slaves were very expensive, so many owners wouldn't shoot their expensive purchases without a very good reason.

2668668
First of all, it would be nice if you could provide sources to back up your claims. Secondly, slavery in DC was abolished in 1862.
2671868
Where does it say in the constitution that states can secede? The Supreme Court rulled in 1869 that secession is unconstitutional.

2672010 You need sources? Here you go:

http://thesouthernstandard.com/is-the-confederate-flag-offensive/

Sadly, I only needed one source for the information I didn't already know.

Slavery was abolished in D.C. in 1862; I'm not going to argue with you there, you're right. But the war started in 1861, so slaves were still held in the north while the war was active. After the war, other states still held slaves, but not Washington D.C.

The court ruled in 1869 that secession was unconstitutional because they didn't want another Civil War. Secession was constitutional at one point, and it still is, because it was removed from the constitution by that Supreme Court Trial.

So why would I then say it is constitutional? Because no amendment was ever officialy made outlawing secession, therefore, it is still legal and constitutional.

For proof, here's a quote from the constitution, section 8:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

The part about suppressing insurections was NEVER in the constitution until AFTER the Civil War; meaning the constitution was changed WITHOUT an amendment! That is against the law of the government, but no one cared enough to change it to this day. Why? Because so many Yankees consider secession illegal and unconstitutional already, that changing it LEGALLY wouldn't change anyone's opinions; seeing as how stalwart the north is against secession ever since the Civil War.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the quote is from Article 1 of the constitution.

2671868

Also, I must ask why you posted a picture of the barbarian in your comment? You know that man shot a child in cold blood when he ravaged the south, right? That man stood not for peace and union; he stood for violence, and hatred for the south just because his country was at war with us.

And that's how I know you've been spoonfed Confederate propaganda.

Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.

Sherman was a hero, who helped end the war despite Grant's incompetence by making war the way the Europeans did-completely and totally. Go read on what he actually did, not what the South says he did.

2672219
Do you have any evidence to show that Section 8 was different before? Just because you "know" something does not mean you don't need to cite it. We have no way of verifying your knowledge and need outside confirmation.

As to the legality, the president has been empowered to put down insurrection since 1807. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

2672593 I don't think you understand. That's not propaganda; it's a fact. Sherman shot a child in cold blood in front of some of his men. Why? Because the child picked up a STICK and rushed at Sherman, because his men had just killed his older brother a few seconds ago!

He shot him because he claimed it was "self defense". Self defense? The child had a STICK!

Sherman was no war hero. He killed everyone he saw that supported the Confederacy. People died, just because he wanted to wage total war with a scorched earth policy against an enemy that was already beginning to crumble and wouldn't have lasted much longer, anyway.

Men and woman both are part of the war effort, whether or not they're fighting or producing weapons of war - they can be killed, and I understand that.

But a child is NEVER part of the war effort, and if you should EVER kill one (unless your life is in danger from that child) then you are guilty of murder.

Sherman was a barbarian, a brute, a killer; a soulless machine who's only passion in life was war. You can speak good words about Grant, Ambrose, de Palma, or anyone other Union general you want. But Sherman deserves nothing but what he got - death by a painful heart attack.

The man was cruel, and yet, Joseph Johnston, one of the Confederate generals who Sherman fought often, held his casket at his funeral. He even took off his hat for Sherman! He stood in the cold rain, caught pneumonia, and died a month later; holding the casket of a man who destroyed his home.

That just goes to show you - men of the Confederacy, even in defeat, can be the bigger man, and respect his enemy; despite what they did to them.

2672964 Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Before the Civil War, the Insurrection Act was created; giving the president, not the government, the right to put down insurrections. The government as a whole decided to put down the insurrection; which wasn't their right, responsibility, or their place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

This right only grants him the ability to raise troops to put down the insurrection. It is said NOWHERE that he has the right to use federal troops to put down an insurrection.

Section 8 was different before the Civil War because NOW the government can override the President's decision involving insurrections, and are now allowed to raise an army OR use federal troops in putting down a rebellion.

2673006

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy

Militia or the armed forces. I think that very clearly is referring to the armed forces of the United States. What do you see as the difference between the president being given the right to put down rebellion and the government? The President is head of the executive branch, charged with carrying out the duties and laws of the government. When the President is given the power to do something, that means the government is given that power.

Prove that Section 8 was changed.

2673027 I just did. Did you not read that BEFORE the president was the ONLY power that had the right to put down insurrections?

I just proved that.

2673035
That's not proof! You have no evidence that such a thing occurred! You just have claims!

2673039 If you took the time to read the article, you would see that ONLY the president had the right to raise an army, NOT the federal government. Those are two very different powers, because Congress operates SEPARATELY from the president in MANY matters.

In this case, raising an army, is one of them.

2673047
Where does it say that? I have read over the Wikipedia article, skipping the sections on recent amendments, and have found nothing which limits Congressional authority in it.

2672966

I don't think you understand. That's not propaganda; it's a fact. Sherman shot a child in cold blood in front of some of his men. Why? Because the child picked up a STICK and rushed at Sherman, because his men had just killed his older brother a few seconds ago!

I want a citation of this from a reputable historian, as in all my years of studying history, and more specifically military history, I have never, ever heard of such an incident. The stories of starvation are utter falsehoods. His men weren’t murdering civilians. There is a record of one rape. The unique “savagery” we read about concerning Sherman’s March is almost entirely the creation of libelous stories published without basis in fact, but instead at best repeating inflated second hand accounts, and in many cases making them up out of thin air.

What did Sherman actually do? He marched his army into enemy territory and destroyed infrastructure and supplies that were supporting the enemy army. Nothing especially unique in military history (What is unique is how he did it, through brilliant maneuvers thrusting into the heart of the Confederacy).

Sherman was a barbarian, a brute, a killer; a soulless machine who's only passion in life was war.

He was a man who innovated an actually American style of war that persists to this day, founded on maneuver, denial of resources and maneuver, and the perpetual assault.

You can speak good words about Grant, Ambrose, de Palma, or anyone other Union general you want.

Speak well about incompetent, self-important idiots who deserve no praise but to be labelled as butchers for practicing the plans of Foch and von Schlieffen a half-century early? These men deserve to be spat upon for continuing a long and bloody war which by all rights should have ended in two years.

The man was cruel, and yet, Joseph Johnston, one of the Confederate generals who Sherman fought often, held his casket at his funeral. He even took off his hat for Sherman! He stood in the cold rain, caught pneumonia, and died a month later; holding the casket of a man who destroyed his home.
That just goes to show you - men of the Confederacy, even in defeat, can be the bigger man, and respect his enemy; despite what they did to them.

The moral imperative of the men he fought against neither proves nor denies a single accusation of war crimes, every single one of which I have encountered in academic study has been unfounded and unreasonable. To quot friend of mine:

I do like Sherman, he hit the Confederacy where it hurt and did more damage than what three years fighting previous had done. He accomplished his objectives with a minimal of fighting, he used deception to cause Confederate generals to waste resources chasing him all over Georgia. Even the great Nathan Bedford Forest spent weeks on a fruitless goose chase. He destroyed the enemy’s ability to communicate, destroyed their industry and agriculture, disrupted their supply infrastructure, disrupted their ability to fight, and did so while using as few resources as possible himself. It may not be the clean type of warfare practiced in the past, in fact it was pretty brutal. But compared to the blood shed in Northern Virginia where hundreds of thousands of men on both sides were slaughtered to achieve vague and often inconsequential tactical goals, it was a much better way of waging war.

Furthermore, I will go farther in saying that Robert E Lee was a greatly overrated commander. In fact I think most Civil War commanders were overrated. But anyway he was a brilliant battlefield tactician who could win battles, but he never had a strategy to effectively defeat the enemy and end the war. Instead he would just defeat the Union again and again, and the Union would come back again and again. Given that the Confederacy had severely limited resources and manpower while the Union had a great abundance of the same, such a strategy was pretty much doomed to failure. He did attempt to invade the North twice, but each time he would become distracted by inconsequential developments. Imagine if at Gettysburg he had ignored the Union Army at Little Round Top, drawn the Union Army away from their position, then engaged on his chosen ground on his own terms. Imagine if he defeated the Union Army, captured federal arsenals at Harrisburg, or occupied Philadelphia?

Worse of all Lee spent all of 1862 defeating boneheaded commanders like McClellan, Hooker, and Burnsides. They made terrible mistakes at places like Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Despite this Lee made the exact same mistakes a Gettysburg. He should have known better.

Lee was good at defeating an army, Sherman was good at defeating a nation. Lee was good at winning battles, Sherman was good at winning wars.

2676996 There are no citations of this!

What makes you think there would be? There are no citations of Columbus raping the Native American women he encountered, but we still know he did it.

No one was left alive in Sherman's wake so as to record what he did. Besides, the only witnesses were his own officers, and a dying Confederate soldier. The only one who would be willing to report such a crime, like I said, was dying.

It's a fact that it happened, but there will never be any textual or image-based proof. If you can't accept it, fine, It doesn't affect me. But that man is still a monster, proof of what he did or not.

Besides, it's a southern thang, ya'll wouldn't understand, anyway.

2679790
Yes, we do have records of Columbus's rape and slaughter- geographical evidence, sociological evidence, archaeological evidence, and he records of his own men. Never once in my studies have I ever, ever encountered a story about Sherman shooting a child that didn't come from people who weren't there or a propaganda office. Nor him starving people. Nor his supposed wanton slaughter. Give me the soldier's account of the matter and I may believe you if the person who is supposedly Sherman sounds a thing like he did in his memoirs.

Oh, and I was born and raised in Austin, Texas. You're using a plural word incorrectly.

2680962 The records you speak of don't exist. My teacher in college told me once that there were records once (supposedly) but we don't know, since they were destroyed on Colombus' return voyage.

Whatever you're talking about, is crap.

But it's just like Sherman - we know he did it, but there's just no evidence.

If you were really raised in Austin, Texas, then why would you be supporting the Yankee, Sherman? Have you no honor, or pride in your history?

2680972

The records you speak of don't exist. My teacher in college told me once that there were records once (supposedly) but we don't know, since they were destroyed on Colombus' return voyage.

geographical evidence, sociological evidence, archaeological evidence

These require records from the time, now. Huh.

But it's just like Sherman - we know he did it, but there's just no evidence.

There's no evidence period. If his supposed war crimes existed, we'd see reports of decreased crops yields, we'd see reports of increases in crime, we'd see a whole myriad of things which just plain old don't appear.

If you were really raised in Austin, Texas, then why would you be supporting the Yankee, Sherman? Have you no honor, or pride in your history?

My history is not that of one geographical subset of the nation. Sherman is as much a part of the history of the United States as are the generals and leaders of a failed rebellion that ended up being completely pointless.

2668668

An African American wanted to fight against the north. Sounds crazy doesn't it?

Not in the slightest. People act contrary to their own interests all the time. And I'm sure there were plenty of slaves (especially those who were house servants and therefore had light duties) were perfectly content with their lives.

It does not make it right and it doesn't make slavery any less racist.

2681404 I never said slavery was right, but I did say the Southern cause was.

Slavery was going to die out; everyone knew it - especially the few slave owners that existed in the first place, along with President Davis.

That's why there was a 10 year plan in place to remove slavery. They knew it was going to die out, so they planned for it.

Look at us now - slavery is gone, but the north still oppresses us every day.

2689757

I never said slavery was right

Nah, you just implied it

That's why there was a 10 year plan in place to remove slavery.

Source?

I didn't mean to imply it, I'm sorry if I did.

As for your source? Here you go:

http://www.amazon.com/Confederate-Emancipation-Southern-Slaves-during/dp/0195315863

Read the description underneath the book. It doesn't mention it there, but the plan was intended to take 10 years. If you want to know about the 10 year plan, read that book; it's in there.

2691232
I don't have the interest to read an entire book, however, reading through the summery, plus a little google search, I see no reason to doubt this review that very much states that the book is saying more or less the opposite of what you claim it says.

I didn't mean to imply it, I'm sorry if I did.

Then in the future you might want to refrain from saying the Confaderates were great folk by using the example of a slave that thought his life was super

Well, the Confederates certainly were great folks. But some slaves (actually, more than half of them) thought their life WAS great.

Slavery doesn't seem right with me, but back then, those AA loved their lives, so I can't exactly too much against them as people, just their bondage.

Actually, the book does say that the slaves were intended to be freed in 10 years. So no, the book says EXACTLY what I said; not more or less the opposite.