Did someone say Copperheads? 
Posted on 06/13/2005 4:41:07 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
VERBENA (AP) — A huge Confederate battle flag flying over Interstate 65 north of Montgomery will become a permanent fixture, according to officials with the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
The organization bought land on the side of the interstate near Verbena and put up the flag, which has been flying for several months above the tree lines from the top of a large pole, easily visible from the heavily traveled interstate.
Leonard Wilson, commander of the Alabama division of Sons of Confederate Veterans, said the flag will be dedicated in a ceremony at 5 p.m. on June 26.
The flag is located on a little more than half an acre of land just north of where Autauga County 68 crosses over the interstate, about six miles south of the Verbena exit.
"We put the flag up so people could see it," Wilson said. "We are showing off our heritage. The flag is part of our heritage."
Critics of Confederate flag displays say they are reminders of the slavery era and Alabama's racist past, and can damage Alabama's image when flown beside a busy interstate route to Gulf beaches.
free dixie,sw
The South as a whole didn't even try to fight that war in the 1860s. A lot of Southerners had no use for the Confederacy and a lot of the best Confederates during the war were Copperheads in the North.
ariamne & KLT of this forum are TWO of them.
Time for another Prozac?
if so, you're getting close.
you WILL have to become an OPEN RACIST, though to really do the job.
be gone to DU & take him with you.
smart FReepers laugh out loud AT you, as you are a classic case of "he knows not & knows not, that he knows not".
free dixie,sw
Again you prove you're the hate-filled fool. Here's the story:
Hollis remembers the day the Confederate flag was hoisted over the State House to commemorate the war. The centennial kicked off on April 11, 1961, with a re-creation of the firing on Fort Sumter. The flag went up for the opening celebrations.
"The flag is being flown this week at the request of Aiken Rep. John A. May," reported The State on April 12. May didn't introduce his resolution until the next legislative session. By the time the resolution passed on March 16, 1962, the flag had been flying for nearly a year. (This explains why the flag is often erroneously reported to have gone up in 1962).
"May told us he was going to introduce a resolution to fly the flag for a year from the capitol. I was against the flag going up," Hollis said, "but I kept quiet and went along. I didn't want to get into it with the UDC girls." The resolution that passed didn't include a time for the flag to come down and, therefore, "it just stayed up," Hollis said. "Nobody raised a question."
Hollis said he doesn't recall any racist or political overtones within the commission regarding the hoisting of the flag.
The day the Confederate flag went up over the State House, the opening ceremonies of the centennial in Charleston were marred by controversy. Newspapers reported the open and ugly feuding between South Carolina and the national Centennial Commission, calling it "the second battle of Fort Sumter."
The centennial delegations from New Jersey and Missouri included blacks who were refused entrance to the segregated Francis Marion Hotel, where the events were to be held. The South Carolina hosts refused to allow the black delegates to participate. In response, the Charleston NAACP organized protests.
The situation was only partially resolved when President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order moving the centennial meetings to the Charleston Navy Base, one of the few integrated facilities in town. South Carolina led the South in leaving the national commission, and holding its own segregated events in the hotel.
The dais in the ballroom of the Francis Marion was festooned with Confederate flags when Sen. John D. Long, who had sponsored resolutions that placed the flag over the House and Senate rostrums, warmed up the crowd: "Out of the dust and ashes of War with its attendant destruction and woe, came Reconstruction more insidious than war and equally evil in consequences, until the prostrate South staggered to her knees assisted by the original Ku Klux Klan and the Red Shirts who redeemed the South and restored her to her own."
http://www.scpronet.com/point/9909/p04.html
You know, it's endlessly amusing when you demand documentation from others, while absolutely refusing to provide it yourself.
Galveston U-Boat?
The guy lives in a total fantasy land where no documentation is necessary.
The guy lives in a total fantasy land where no documentation is necessary.
Did someone say Copperheads?
Secondly, If any state could just succeed what would have stopped the South from fragmenting into 16 countries? There has to be a central authority that connects the states together, even the Founding Fathers realized this when they drafted the Constitution. That other Presidents have come to the conclusion that the Federal government should give cradle to grave care for the common man (and woman) is the abomination of the 20th Century.
Finally, I have no problems with the Confederate Flag, and think that if Gay and Lesbian groups fly their flag, then Southern Heritage groups should be able to do the same.
Remember, Lincoln forgave the South, maybe its high time the South should return the favor?
Cheers,
CSG
That is utter nonsense and the very depth of moral relativism.
Following your logic, we must respect the "moral values" of Soviet-era communists, slave-owners, lynch-mobs, segregationists, Nazis etc. etc.
But their beliefs are entitled to respect.
No, they are not.
Hmm..... And Stand Watie calls Northerners bigoted, hate-filled etc.....
By the way. We would have arrested your kin in Cincinnati, and put them on trial. In Cleveland, there were enough people who approved the lawless style you apparently celebrate, that they might have been more tolerated.
But again, you really, really have a lot of gall, criticizing the Southern ancestry, with the sort of family history, you describe! Perhaps you should read what Senator Daniel Webster, a lifelong foe of slavery, as well as any effort to dismantle the Federal Union, had to say about the sort of activity you celebrate: Webster.
William Flax
I somehow suspect that half of these Confederate threads are started by DUmmies trying to foster division in our midst. Hands up if you lived through the Civil War, and two if you fought in it. Anyone?
No?
It's an important part of Southern heritage, and it was an example of centrists trampling over state's rights, and there was slavery at stake as well, as well as a socio-economic struggle, different value systems etc. There are many reasons why it happened. It did happen. It's in the past. I hope most of you are proud Americans, stand against racism and slavery and we can work together. Because our allegiance to the American dream is what matters. History brought us to where we are today, but only we decide where to go in the future. And we're going nowhere if we fight and squabble over a flag of a country that lasted 5 years about 150 years ago. Don't insult your countrymen unnecessarily (DUmmies excepted, of course :D ) and don't go slinging out random accusations. I really don't see why Confederate threads become such a big deal. They are really divisive and hurt the FReep community.
/rant off
You answered:
That is utter nonsense and the very depth of moral relativism. Following your logic, we must respect the "moral values" of Soviet-era communists, slave-owners, lynch-mobs, segregationists, Nazis etc. etc.
What you appear to be advocating is the very depth of moral relativism. This is illustrated by two facets of your point. First, when you suggest that slave owners and segregationists had no moral values, you are setting up yourself and/or the present sentiments of the public--in a very amoral age--as the norm. But there are thousands of years of history, where they are not the norm--including Biblical history, on which most Western views of morality are to a large degree based. Unless you are a beliver in Moral Relativism, I do not understand your arrogance in passing judgment on the roots of Western Morality.
Secondly, when you equate traditionally accepted social institutions with radical revolutionary movements, which crushed traditional societies in Russia and Germany, you are again making reality subject to your subjective vision. One certainly can oppose a particular vision; certainly criticize its "intellectual" underpinnings. But do not pretend a moral superiority to people who were closer to the mainstream of Human history than are you. You do not have that moral superiority.
William Flax
I am not suggesting that there is a need to sugarcoat anything. My point goes only to the idea that the fact that someone in another State had a different point of view on an historic issue than you have, is not a "flaw or foible." A tactical mistake in a battle, would be a flaw or foible. Inconsistency can be a flaw or foible--provided you understand the context of what is involved. But one's personal opinion on an historic issue is not such.
William Flax
Did the State of Massechusetts have a right to abolish slavery, or were "states rights" only fer slave drivers?
No, I am making an absolute moral claim: Slavery is, and always has been, morally wrong, no matter how common or accepted it has been in various human societies.
Unless you are a beliver in Moral Relativism, I do not understand your arrogance in passing judgment on the roots of Western Morality.
I pass judgment on past behavior for the simple reason that it was morally wrong. Nothing else matters.
Secondly, when you equate traditionally accepted social institutions with radical revolutionary movements, which crushed traditional societies in Russia and Germany, you are again making reality subject to your subjective vision.
The fact that something was traditionally accepted gives that activity no moral weight whatsoever.
But do not pretend a moral superiority to people who were closer to the mainstream of Human history than are you.
The fact that they were closer to the mainstream in no way makes their behavior morally acceptable.
You do not have that moral superiority.
Of course I do. My moral character is well ahead of the average slaver, Nazi, communist, segregationist and member of the lynch mob.
As I recall, the prohibition went to the newly freed, not to long-standing residents. It certainly did not go to the self-employed.
I'm actually Canadian, so I wouldn't know. From my perspective, the state of massachusetts has the right to abolish or uphold anything so long as its not fundamentally anti-American, as slavery is. That's the good and bad of state's rights: you take the bad with the good, because you are ceding control to the citizens of the respective state involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.