I'm pretty sure you know Ohio wasn't part of the old Confederacy. Just in case, here is a picture of one of Ohio's native sons to remind you.
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.
what DOES offend my sense of "FAIR PLAY" is that a person, who is smart enough to log onto FR, would
1.be "scared or offended" by our CSA battle-flags (especially when the poster is NOT even from the USA!),
2. would BELIEVE that KNOWINGLY dishonest damnyankee propaganda AND/OR
3.would POST such UTTER NONSENSE in ANY public forum, as if it were factual.
furthermore, i suspect you are "mincing words". i believe you "opted out of the thread" only because you were LOSING the argument, rather than because i did ANYTHING to you, except disagree with that anti-dixie propaganda (which, fwiw, is out of the most extreme,socialist/Communist, south-HATING, LEFTIST,fringe of the northeastern "academic community").
free dixie,sw
Let's look at why I was scared. The people holding those flags were also calling for all people like me to be cleansed from the earth. The people holding the flags openly associated with convicted murders (and in some cases were murderers themselves). The people holding the flags idolized Hitler, and were also waving around swastkia flags.
There's no argument to lose. I was not even arguing until you came along. I was explaining how the flag could be seen as offensive, and suggested a way to redeem it, and expressed an opinion how noble Southerners like the poster who defended a black man from the KKK did more to redeem the flag than, say, people like you are doing.
I don't hate the South, I in fact love the South and idolize many parts of it. I am a huge fan of Robert E. Lee, I have family in North Carolina, North Florida, Texas and friends in Louisiana. The South is one of my favourite places to vacation (I do like skiing at Whistler a bit more). But you are constantly insulting me, calling me a coward, ignorant, stupid, etc. etc. Why should I stay?
There you go again..changing your story right in the middle of it.
How large was the rally in 1976 Stand, twenty people?
Were there "over 10,000 US flags & HUNDREDS of CROSSES but not even ONE CSA flag on display" as you stated earlier?
Somehow I kinda doubt it.
"...say they are reminders of the slavery era and Alabama's racist past>'
EVERY STATE had a "racist" past and slavery was pretty much the normal state of things in most states until the American Revolution and half the Country until the Civil War.
The Stars and Bars was the flag of the Confederacy, not the flag of slavery.
Liar. Prove it. Show one piece of documentation that proves Butler was selling slaves to the Caribbean in 1864. And don't pull that Watie standby, "When I was a graduate student I saw a letter that the liberal academic damnyankee establishment doesn't let anyone see." If that was the truth, DiLorenzo and his ilk would be all over it.
Galveston U-Boat?
They know it... and I appreciate the fact that they bucked the trend of nearly every other northern state.
I'm pretty sure you know Ohio wasn't part of the old Confederacy. Just in case, here is a picture of one of Ohio's native sons to remind you.
from every one of you posts, one would assume that you're a south-HATER, like ditto & m.espinola.
what i can't figure out is where in Canada that you EVER saw a CSA flag, unless you were at one of the many "Civil War Reenactments".
please tell me why,when ,where,how,etc. (fwiw, i've spent a good bit of time in your beautiful country & absent a reenactment, i've NEVER seen a battleflag or any other CSA flag for that matter.)
free dixie,sw
get used to that idea, if DECENT northerners don't start shouting down the most HATEFILLED of the damnedyankees (DYs are AT MOST 15-20% of northernborns. they are just the LOUDEST & most HATEFUL.) there will be a time in the NOT too distant future, when the south won't be in the union.
even a cottontail rabbit will fight if backed into a corner.
free dixie,sw
You rang, Sam? :)
Yea, that little side topic had absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the Civil War.....(sure)
See Declaration Of Independence.
I also think that you are overstating even your own position, when you suggest that we all expect "social equality." That idea is inherently Communistic. It is certainly not something I expect or would even accept. No free society has ever expected such a thing. Every free society, save only the most primitive, where all the men have the same occupation, etc., has its hierarchy, based upon the values of that society. Even the Communists--despite their pretensions--have their elites.
Jefferson and Adams favored a "Natural Aristocracy," rather than one based purely upon ancient merit or conquest, as was the case in much of the Old World, and the fluid social economy on which we thrived. But they certainly never promised, sought or would have accepted "equality."
William Flax
You do not set the moral standards for any man but yourself.
I believe, somewhere above, I posted what Senator Daniel Webster, the articulate Northern foe of slavery said about what you try to justify here. (Webster)
When you postulate a State remaining in the Union, but its citizens--in the case of your people--openly defying a law, specifically authorized by the Constitution, hammered out after great efforts by the Founding Fathers; you advocate what is rebellion upon the part of those defying the law and anarchy in any State that allows it.
Your being upset at political or social institutions, does not entitle you to simply ignore the legal system. I am furious at the idea of the Federal Government sticking its nose into civilian education and health care. But that would not justify my taking exta legal means to interfere with the Federal programs.
Of course, your ancestors were free to argue their views, as I am free to argue mine. But that does not justify anarchy.
William Flax
As a young child I was first introduced to the family heritage while walking through the orchard down on the farm with my great-aunt.
We'd walk by little piles of rocks and she'd say "They say there's a slave-catcher buried there".
She did this for quite a few piles of rocks.
One day I made an inquiry into what this was about and one of the great-uncles took his plough out and destroyed the evidence.
It was years later that I discovered that, in fact, slave-catchers regularly trespassed on the farm as they chased after hapless Negroes then fleeing from them to the relative safety of a nearby Quaker settlement.
My understanding of things is that Quakers didn't shoot the slave-catchers, but the Baptists and Methodists were not constrained.
It'd been best for the slave-catchers to not engage in armed pursuit of innocent people across our property, but they were, of course, the stupidest folk ever tossed up by the Old South and deserved every ounce of lead they managed to catch.
Thanks for continuing to argue what your leftist professor has told you.
That's what I would have said when I first discovered these Civil War threads. But today I don't know if it would work. First of all, there's the question of whether flag critics would accept such a redemption. And it's rather late in the day to undertake such a project now.
But beyond that, some flag supporters aren't interested in such redemptive action. Their idea is that the Confederacy and the South were "right" -- already justified and beyond criticism and reproach. Those who would want reconciliation, repentance, or redemption are too apologetic and conciliatory for their tastes.
What would such "redemption" mean? It might mean that the flag flies over cemeteries and historic sites and maybe on holidays, and people don't complain because they recognize that it's an American historical symbol of men who fought bravely for a cause that may not have been the best. That's what moderates could live with and achieve.
But the flag's most vociferous promoters want it to be a much more visible and everyday symbol. They want flying the flag to mean that the Confederacy was "right" in a fundamental way, and that's something many other Southerners or Americans wouldn't want.
Moreover the flag is still going to be a symbol of division and animosity, even if it could be cleansed of its associations with White supremacy. Some people would like to make the flag a symbol of Southern solidarity -- White and Black -- against the hated "Yankee." How much of an improvement would that be?
Would it work? Plenty of Southern Blacks wouldn't trust such a notion. There are enough racist supporters of the flag to make them feel uncomfortable about making the flag their symbol. And the history that would have to be swept under the rug to do so would be considerable. The animosity towards other parts of the country might not be something to encourage, either.
I'm not sure such a project of "redemption" would work or would necessarily be for the best. The problem is that for some flag supporters, Confederate flags aren't like Irish, Italian, Polish, German or Puerto Rican flags to be flown in a holiday parade and put away for the rest of the year. They are meant to be much more "living symbols" and there's a lot of animosity tied up in them.
I'd say that the way to live up to "Southern" or "Northern" or "Eastern" or "Western" or "White" or "Black" values is to be a good American and a good human being. Once you make it a matter of true Southern values against the horrible rest of the country, the problems start.
Purely Southern values or purely Northern values can be feeble or vicious compared to an intelligent combination of the two. To be all John Calhoun or all Daniel Webster, all William Lloyd Garrison or all Wade Hampton is a poor substitute for trying to find what's best in each region, and live up to it.
“I also told the army not to take any nigger refugees. Grant had urged me to ‘clean the country of Negroes,’ but I wasn’t going to do that: would just slow us down. Only niggers I wanted were able bodied men to work as army laborers”
“I didn’t agree with Grant or the Administration that niggers could make good soldiers…”
"I am not in favor of Negro citizenship."
"I hope anything I may have said or done will not be construed as unfriendly to Mr. Lincoln or Stanton. That negro letter of mine I never designed for publication, but I am honest in my belief that it is not fair to our men to count negroes as equals. Cannot we at this day drop theories, and be reasonable men? Let us capture negroes, of course, and use them to the best advantage…”
“…I have had the question put to me often: 'is not a negro as good as a white man to stop a ballot?' Yes, and a sand bag is better; but can a negro do our skirmishing and picket duty? Can they improvise roads, bridges, sorties, flank movements, &c., like the white man? I say no. Soldiers must and do many things without orders from their own sense, as in sentinels. Negroes are not equal to this. I have gone steadily, firmly, and confidently along, and I could not have done it with black troops, but with my old troops I have never felt a waver of doubt, and that very confidence begets success. . . ."
"The principle [of the Proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States government." Lincoln, 1862
Hmmm... how did the voting break down again? God Bless the SOUTH!!!!
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.