The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag

The Sierra Times ^ | 21 Jun 05 | Leon Puissegur

[Non-Sequitur]

It was never one of the reasons the North went to war. Lincoln wanted his union and was willing to do anything to preserve it including fighting a war against his countrymen and guaranteeing slavery permanently.

It was those Southern countrymen who chose war in the first place.

[groanup]

It was those Southern countrymen who chose war in the first place.

By firing the first shot at an armed Federal postition which was guarding a strategic seaport. Arguable.

[Non-Sequitur]

By firing the first shot at an armed Federal postition which was guarding a strategic seaport. Arguable.

Then I guess you wouldn't have a problem with Cuba bombarding Gitmo into surrender. That wouldn't be cause for war at all.

[stand watie]

i see you have found a picture of "the boss".

i'm just his MULE-holder. The GENERAL was too poor to buy a horse, so he rode a borrowed mule through most of the war.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

you had a point??

i don't think you have ANYTHING more than UNinformed,ILL-educated, bigoted, OPINIONS.

opinions are like bellybuttons. everyone has one & they mostly stink.

may i gently suggest that you preface all of your future posts with, "In my mis-educated, unknowing & bigoted opinion,------".

free dixie,sw

[Bombardier]

Done and done. My point was that too many imbeciles on the left are making the Southern Cross the scapegoat for the troglodytic attitudes of Nazis, Klansmen and skinheads. These dim bulbs forget that the average Reb soldier didn't fight to preserve slavery, nor did the average Blue belly fight to end it. My great-great grandfather thought the Union states were doing to the South what Britain was doing to Ireland....trying to subjugate it. The typical Union soldier was of the opinion that Southern plantation society was akin to the aristocracy of Europe.

Granted, those are pretty broad strokes, as some Rebs were fighting to maintain the "peculiar institution," and some Federals were abolitionists, but those were the minority. Basically, slavery was A cause of the War, not THE cause, as the dimwit revisionists would have us believe. The fight for national level political supremacy between sections, hypocrisy on both sides, changing economic conditions, and societal shifts brought on by increased immigration were the main causes of the shooting....slavery was just caught up in all of that. I could make the argument that the southern states were entirely justified in wanting to see slavery expanded into the western territories, and equally that they were being hypocritical in claiming "States's rights" and then wanting to deny those rights to people in states who didn't want slavery by saying that if it's legal one place, it must be legal everywhere. As well, the north was just as hypocritical in calling secession wrong, and calling secession "treason", when Massachusetts was prepared to leave the Union over the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and none in the north considered that treasonous.

My heartfelt belief is that the men who fought that war were ALL the best Americans, as they did what Americans have always done: Fought for freedom. In one case, it was the freedom to be left alone to live your life as you'd always lived it, in the other it was a fight to determine if freedom applied to all of us or just to some of us. You can take your pick as to which side is which....because some Rebs fought for one and not the other, and some Federals fought for the other and not for one.

I may have reenacted the War in a blue uniform, but I revere the Southern Cross as a symbol of bravery and honor, just the same as I do the Stars and Stripes. Banning the Southern Cross is just shy of banning the Stars and Stripes, and I won't stand for either to happen.

[stand watie]

actually, it was lincoln, the TYRANT & cheap scheming POLITICIAN, who was NOT intelligent enough to let the southland go her own way.

sadly, lincoln wasn't smart enough to do that & a MILLION people NEEDLESSLY died, because of his arrogant stupidity.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

THANK YOU!

fwiw, MOST reenactments NEED "bluebellies".

being "a yank" is so UNPOPULAR (even in the north) that MOST re-enactors have to "galvanize" from time to time, so that the reenactment doesn't look ridiculous.

free dixie,sw

[SONbrad]

Once again you prove that you are unable to have any sort of conversation about the topic. I've noticed that in all the other threads you post on you IMMEDIATELY begin calling people names and tossing insults. That is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.

You like to present yourself as somewhat of an intelligent person who researches topics but I have noticed that you never present any arguments other than personal attacks.

There are certainly enough questionable deeds on both sides of the fence during this conflict. To suggest that there is NOTHING in the history of confederate warfare that can be construed as savage, unnecessary, illegal, or immoral is to turn a blind eye towards history. A researcher with ANY crediblity would certainly acknowledge that there is guilt on both sides of the fence. If you want to call be a bigot because I suggested that, it only shows yourself to be a an extremist with no credibility whatsoever on the subject and demonstrates your intelectual bankruptcy.

Good day sir.

[stand watie]

in other words, you have NO POINT & know zilch OR you are a COWARD, who can't take being questioned on his lack of knowledge of DOCUMENTED FACTS.

fwiw, i've been on these threads a LONG TIME & "we of the WBTS threads" have fought these SAME BATTLES, endlessly.

i USED to post "footnoted" research, but found that DAMNYANKEE IDIOTS would not/could not understand what the ORIGIONAL RECORDS mean.

also, fwiw, identifying someone, who shows up with LITLLE/NO KNOWLEDGE as a moron/fool/incompetent/DAMNyankee radical is NOT calling anyone "names". it is SIMPLY identifying them.

IF you're "insulted" by my comments, go LEARN SOMETHING & come back here & we'll talk about it.

so far, you've posted NOTHING that required research/knowledge/skills/education or anything else of MERIT.

free dixie,sw

[Bombardier]

MURDERING POWs in your care & slaughtering/raping/looting the property of civilians are WAR CRIMES, punishable under the Law of War by DEATH.

Quantrill and "Bloody Bill" Anderson on the Reb side, the "Red Legs" and "Jayhawkers" on the Federal side. Uniformed troops of BOTH sides had no use for the "guerillas," and orders exist from both Confederate and Federal commanders to shoot guerillas (even those supposedly allied with the side issuing the orders) on sight.

Historically, though, plunder was common in warfare prior to the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and there was no real law of war prior to the latter (1890s) Nineteenth Century. Diaries of civilians are replete with accounts of soldiers in both blue and gray robbing farms, raping women, stealing horses, and this was done all under the heading of "foraging for supplies." When the US Army was operating in Virginia, troops plundered. When the Army of Northern Virginia went into Maryland and Pennsylvania, troops plundered. Confederate soldiers from Arkansas looted houses in Mississippi, and Union troops from Ohio "confiscated" goods from houses in Pennsylvania. All documented.

Sherman gets condemnation for one reason only: He was successful in waging a modern, total war. He had said when he started his March to the Sea that "I intend to make the South howl." He did do that. However, the extent of official foraging was fairly limited....only to those farms, plantations and houses of KNOWN secessionists. Those were his written orders. The "bummers," however, were an entirely different story. Many were cavalry vedettes who would leave their posts to do some private plunder....others were infantry "coffee boilers" who would hang back from the main line of advance and commit their crimes. Quite a few of the "bummers" were shot after summary courts-martial.

Sherman's order to only forage from known secessionists was a valid order, unfortunately, its execution was carried out in a flawed manner by brigade and regimental commanders, as well as followed only in the breach by company commanders. Still, it must have been followed to some degree, as Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Virginia and Florida contributed 116 non-black regiments to the Union side. If the Union was as brutal as claimed by so many revisionists, it's doubtful that southerners would have fought to save it. And that count is exclusive of the 400+ Missouri Federal organizations....and Missouri had more fighting in it than did Virginia during the Civil War.

Let's just remember: Both sides committed acts of atrocity, but for every Andersonville, GA, there was an Elmyra, NY. And for every "Jayhawker," there was a "Bushwhacker." Let's just be glad it ended and we're one country again.

[stand watie]

Point Lookout, Elmira, Camp Douglas & other damnyankee hellholes were DEATH CAMPS, which were INTENTIONALLY designed to torture/abuse/MURDER helpless POWs.

NO southern POW camp came close to ANY of the damnyankees CONCENTRATION CAMPS. NONE!

at Point Lookout alone over 15,000 helpless CSA POWs & civilians were MURDERED, in COLD-BLOOD, by the guard force.

by way of contrast, there were TWO murders of US POWs,by guards at Camp Sumter (BOTH were court-martialed & hanged.). TWO.

so spare me the excuses for lincoln,stanton,sherman, butler & other WAR CRIMINALS. all of them should have been hanged for their crimes

free dixie,sw

[archy]

I could make the argument that the southern states were entirely justified in wanting to see slavery expanded into the western territories, and equally that they were being hypocritical in claiming "States's rights" and then wanting to deny those rights to people in states who didn't want slavery by saying that if it's legal one place, it must be legal everywhere. As well, the north was just as hypocritical in calling secession wrong, and calling secession "treason", when Massachusetts was prepared to leave the Union over the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and none in the north considered that treasonous.

Concur. And the irony of both sides employing conscription in a war supposedly *against slavery* leaves a particularly bitter taste as well.

I may have reenacted the War in a blue uniform, but I revere the Southern Cross as a symbol of bravery and honor, just the same as I do the Stars and Stripes. Banning the Southern Cross is just shy of banning the Stars and Stripes, and I won't stand for either to happen.

I would be proud to meet you on the field of battle most any time in the future, should that geographicly unlikely possibility come to pass, and will do my level-best to shoot or skewer you to a fare-thee-well. But those who would defame, denigrate or deface either the Union's Stars and Stripes or the South's Southern Cross can expect to find us both on the same side, with more than a few others like us- and that might be a combination they will not enjoy one bit.

[SONbrad]

Once again you prove your lack of knowledge and upbringing.

I said good day.

[stand watie]

are you heading over to DU to be a south-HATING DU-dummy, with Whisky Papa, cvn76, #3fan & a host of other former FReepers, who HATE dixie & her people????

fwiw,you will NOT be missed.

[SONbrad]

Thank you for making me laugh. You really need to increase your meds. LOL

[stand watie]

enjoy DU. they LIKE DIMwits & weak attempts at humor over there.

free dixie,sw

[SONbrad]

By the way, please demonstrate for me, and everyone else reading this, where I said that I hated the south.

I actually love the south and I spend a lot of time in Virginia (I own a vacation home there), South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. I also love Texas and have visited there often.

It seems to me that you are WAY (I can use the caps key too, lol) too defensive and very quick to react with name-calling and insults. That really does show a lack of decorum and intellect.

[archy]

Show case law of a Confederate charged with treason.

That's easy... Jefferson Davis.

The problem there is that had Jeff Davis been tried and found guilty of treason, the same charge could have been brought against Lincoln. Since Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides that New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State.... the creation of the state of West Virginia following the secession [peacefully, BTW] of 55 counties of the Confederate State of Virginia as the State of Kanawha, thence to be admitted into the Union as *West Virginia.*

Since Lincoln's action in admitting West Virginia as a state constituted a de facto recognition of the lawful secession of the Confederate state of Virginia, his actions constituted an act that gave comfort and a certain legitimacy to the Confederate cause, and was certainly grounds for his impeachment; John Wilkes Booth and his friends saved him from that possibility.

[stand watie]

since you do NOT know me (or for that matter, ANYTHING about anyone else here), you are ONCE more proving your PREJUDICE,clueLESSness & IGNORANT arrogance.

fwiw, NO dixie state needs/wants HATERS. we have enough "home-grown" morons.

PLEASE stay in DAMNyankeeland, where you so obviously belong.

and be gone to DU. they will like you, over there.

free dixie,sw