Posted on 02/10/2004 6:16:00 AM PST by stainlessbanner
IS THE Confederate battle flag a symbol of hate? Although there are certain connotations that have been improperly associated with the Confederate flag, there are still many people within the American population who display it to show pride in their heritage.
Heritage, not hate.
The Confederate States of America was a compilation of southern states that seceded from the United States of America. Following the formation of this new government, the grievances between the North and South produced hostility and warfare.
Our differences divided us as a nation. Yet during that period, there arose a certain Southern solidarity that people cannot forget.
A liberal federal judge has banned the display of Confederate flags in cemeteries near our area. Could he, not the Southerners who revere the flag, be the prejudiced one?
Only two days out of 365 in a year are people allowed to fly the Confederate battle flag in Point Lookout in Maryland. There have been many appeals, but the judge concluded that it "could" cause hateful uprisings and counter-actions to prevent the flag from flying.
So much for those who died during the Civil War bravely fighting for the South. 3,300 Confederate soldiers died at Point Lookout Cemetery, and the flag would commemorate their lives and their deaths.
Although many people do not understand or agree with what the Confederate States of America stood for, these men gave their lives and had the courage to stand up for what they believed in.
In fact, Confederates fought for the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution--states' rights, no taxation without fair representation and freedom from oppressive government.
They weren't fighting for hate. They weren't fighting to destroy a race.
They were fighting to preserve the government that they had chosen--the Confederate States of America--the government that allowed them to preserve their own way of life.
Fact: The overwhelming majority of Southerners never owned slaves. Slavery as an institution was fading, and making way for more pragmatic agricultural practices, including the use of immigrant labor.
Too many people today do not agree with what Southern soldiers stood for, often basing their opinion on faulty history or willful ignorance. That doesn't mean that we should respect the soldiers from Dixie any less.
Ignorance has turned the South's past into a history of hate. I have grown up in the South. I am not racist. I consider myself to be an open-minded person.
I do have Dixie Pride, though.
I grew up in a Civil War town that has a Confederate Cemetery in the middle of it. There's even a store called "Lee's Outpost."
Yes, there are people who live in Fredericksburg who consider the Confederate flag as a symbol of hatred and racism. However, they do not know what it is truly about.
The war between the states was a time when brother fought against brother. It was a time when people didn't have the choice to be passive.
Ultimately, regardless of one's feelings about the flag, banning the Confederate flag is unconstitutional under the Bill of Rights. Flying the flag is considered a form of speech--and if it is legal to burn an American flag, it should be legal without question to fly the Confederate one.
I do own a Confederate flag. I'm a Southerner, proud of my heritage, and I take pride in the fact that my ancestors rose to the occasion and fought for their form of government.
They did not give their lives to protect slavery in the South. They did not die to keep African-Americans from sharing the same liberties and freedoms that they were blessed with. They believed they were fighting for their families, homes and states against an oppressive government in the North.
The book "The South Was Right" provides many facts to support this.
In the end, it almost doesn't matter why they fought. We claim to be a nation that believes in freedom of speech, where everyone can have their own beliefs and not be looked down on for it.
Are we or aren't we?
What makes this country great is that we have the right to make up our own minds about things. People are asked if they believe in freedom of speech. They reply, "Yes, of course I believe in freedom of speech."
Yet when they don't agree with the speech, sometimes they contradict themselves.
As a nation with millions of citizens, we will never agree on any principles or ideas as a whole--except for the fact that freedom cannot be replaced, and rights cannot be sacrificed.
So why should the Confederate flag be an exception? Free speech applies to everyone, and Southerners have great reasons to be proud of their past.
BUFFY RIPLEY is a sophomore at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Before the mere fact that Sumter was there and the Davis regime wanted it was cause enough to bombard it. Now there is trade issues involved? OK, but Sumter did nothing to interfere with trade into and out of Charleston, just like Gitmo does nothing to interfere with trade into and out of Guantanamo City. So, is that still reason for Castro to take it over?
First, you tell me that I shouldn't presume to understand the motivation of others, and then you explain what the Confederates really thought. Too funny!
The lease on Gitmo is perpetual and can be canceled only with the agreement of both parties so long as the rent is paid. The ownership of Sumter was permanent, and a result of an act of the South Carolina legislature deeded the land to the U.S. Neither the Davis regime or the Castro government had any claim to the property. Yet I guess that they both had a right to bombard it. But only one did, and only one started a war.
Huh?
Then we're in agreement. The Confederate started the Civil War by bombarding Fort Sumpter.
I mean, it's not like the consequences were a big surprise. If you bomb a US fort, there will be retaliation.
Like Osama bin Laden gave the US an eviction notice? Like Arafat gives the Israelis an eviction notice?
So if, say, the Idaho Militia decided to secede from the Union, we'd just let them? You're living in a dream world.
Just letting the Confederates leave the Union was never an option. No way. There was only room for one United States, not two, and most especially not another one that was willing to attack us with force and arms.
We've covered the subject many times - no need to rehash.
The descendants of the people who were enslaved by constitutional law have a problem with the flag that is emblematic of that constitution.
There are folks who are using the issue for strictly political purposes but there are also those who are genuinely offended. If history were different, if the CSA constitution did not include this legally sanctioning language then their argument would be weakened. But that is not the case and no degree of emotional posturing will change the history.
As for racism in the north, you are correct, it was real and widespread. What it was not was codified. If Cheney and Goodman had come to Illinois from Mississippi only to end up murdered by the law and buried in a ditch rather than the other way around or if Bull Conner were mayor of Cleveland, etc...then there would be reason for black anger to be directed toward the north instead of the south. But, that is not the history. The history is that these things happened over and over in the south. And that it was support from the north that helped change it. The feeling is that folks from the north were murdered because they stood with us...members of law enforcement in the south killed them.
Your emotions about the emblems of the south are of course legitimate but they are not the only legitimate emotions Americans can feel. You won't change their minds and they won't change yours. Folks like me...we see the validity in both positions. The world is not always exclusively this or that...it is sometimes both.
Again, I expect people to read more into my words than is here. I'm saying up front, go ahead if it makes you feel good but understand that doing so is dishonest and I will not reply to or respect any such response.
Congress was in session when many of those forts were seized, yet Congress did not declare war, or consider them to be acts of war.
Lincoln, even before taking office, communicated to Scott that he would take the forts, despite the armistices in effect, and his word of honour pledged to the commissioners and to Supreme Court Justice Campbell. Lincoln LIED. He sent armed forces into the port. The South defended herself.
If some large, drug-crazed democrat walked up to you with a weapon, threatened to kill you and then proceeded to attempt it, would planting a .45 in his body be an act of agreession or defense?
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.