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.
False. President Lincoln worked for equal rights for blacks.
You have little that supports your premise. Although Lincoln might well have been glad to snap his fingers and have all negroes resettled elsewhere, that wasn't going to happen. He began to clear the way -- as you well know -- for full civil right for them. He did this with both his public proclamations and private letters:
"...peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it."
A. Lincoln
8/23/63
"When you give the Negro these rights," he [Lincoln] said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood
...By the close of the war, Lincoln was reccomending commissioning black officers in the regiments, and one actually rose to become a major before it was over. At the end of 1863, more than a hundred thousand had enlisted in the United States Colored Troops, and in his message to Congress the president reported, "So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any." When some suggested in August 1864 that the Union ought to offer to help return runaway slaves to their masters as a condition for the South's laying down its arms, Lincoln refused even to consider the question.
--"Lincoln's Men" pp 163-64 by William C. Davis
Also:
"I know as fully as one can know the opinions of others that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us some of most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of colored troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt the rebellion, and that at least one of those important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers....I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections, often urged, that emancipation, and arming the blacks, are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted, as such, in good faith. You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union... negroes, like other people act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept....
"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
4/11/65
Lincoln had been setting the stage for equal rights for at least a year -- as you well know.
Private
General Hunter
Executive Mansion
Washington D.C. April 1, 1863
My dear Sir:
I am glad to see the accounts of your colored force at Jacksonville, Florida. I see the enemy are driving at them fiercely, as is to be expected. It is mportant to the enemy that such a force shall not take shape, and grow, and thrive, in the south; and in precisely the same proportion, it is important to us that it shall. Hence the utmost caution and viglilance is necessary on our part. The enemy will make extra efforts to destroy them; and we should do the same to perserve and increase them.
Yours truly
A. Lincoln
_________________________________________________________
Hon. Andrew Johnson
Executive Mansion,
My dear Sir:
Washington, March 26. 1863.
I am told you have at least thought of raising a negro military force. In my opinion the country now needs no specific thing so much as some man of your ability, and position, to go to this work. When I speak of your position, I mean that of an eminent citizen of a slave-state, and himself a slave- holder. The colored population is the great available and yet unavailed of, force for restoring the Union. The bare sight of fifty thousand armed, and drilled black soldiers on the banks of the Mississippi, would end the rebellion at once. And who doubts that we can present that sight, if we but take hold in earnest? If you have been thinking of it please do not dismiss the thought.
Yours truly
______________________________________________
Major General Banks Executive Mansion,
Washington, March 19, 1863.
My dear Sir,
Hon. Daniel Ullmann, with a commission of Brigadier General, and two or three hundred other gentlemen as officers, goes to your department and reports to you, for the purpose of rising a colored brigade. To now avail ourselves of this element of force, is veri important, if not indispensable. I therefore will thank you to help Gen. Ullmann forward with his undertaking, as much, and as rapidly, as you can; and also to cany the general object beyond his particular organization if you find it practicable. The necessity of this is palpable if,as I understand, you are now unable to effect anything with your present force; and which force is soon to be greatly diminished by the expiration of terms of service, as well as by ordinary causes. I shall be very glad if you will take hold of the matter in earnest. You will receive from the Department a regular order upon this subject.
Yours truly
_________________________________________________________________
Private
March 13, 1864
Executive Mansion
Washington
Hon. Michael Hahn
My dear sir,
I congratulate you on having fixed your name in history as the first free-state Governor of Louisiana. Now you are about to have a convention which among other things, will probably define the elective franchise. I barely suggest for your private consideration, whther some of the colored people may not be let in -- as for instance the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in oyr ranks. They would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewll of liberty within the family of freedom. But this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to you alone.
Yours truly
Executive Mansion,
My dear General Grant:
Washington, August 9, 1863.
I see by a despatch of yours that you incline quite strongly towards an expedition against Mobile. This would appear tempting to me also, were it not that in view of recent events in Mexico, I am greatly impressed with the importance of re-establishing the national authority in Western Texas as soon as possible. I am not making an order, however. That I leave, for the present at least, to the General-in-Chief.
A word upon another subject. Gen. Thomas has gone again to the Mississippi Valley, with the view of raising colored troops. I have no reason to doubt that you are doing what you reasonably can upon the same subject. l believe it is a resource which, if vigorously applied now. will soon close the contest. It works doubly, weakening the enemy and strengthening us. We were not fully ripe for it until the river was opened. Now, I think at least a hundred thousand can, and ought to be rapidly organized along it's shores, relieving all the white troops to serve elsewhere.
Mr. Dana understands you as believing that the emancipa- tion proclamation has helped some in your military operations. I am very glad if this is so. Did you receive a short letter from me, dated the 9th, of July? Yours very truly
__________________________________________
Lincoln meant to expand equal rights to black soldiers because his inate sense of justice could allow no less.
Walt
That is simply false.
"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."
George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786
"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existance. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds [at the constitutional convention] led each State in the convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude...the constitution, which we now present, is the result of of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculularity of our political situation rendered indispensible."
--George Washington to the Continental Congress September 17, 1787
"It is idle to talk of secession." R.E. Lee 1861
Walt
Yep. That's why he signed the amendment right? That's why he wanted to deport the blacks right? That's why he asked Gen. Butler in Apr 1865 about having the blacks rewarded for the service by sending them to Panama, right? Some sense of justice.
Yep. That's why he signed the amendment right? That's why he wanted to deport the blacks right?
That was before black soldiers fought and died for the life of this country.
That's why he asked Gen. Butler in Apr 1865 about having the blacks rewarded for the service by sending them to Panama, right?
No proof.
Some sense of justice.
"It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it.
Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."
A. Lincoln, 8/24/63
Walt
Au contraire! One party to the converstaion has documented it in his book. He also documents in another book the summons to Washington to meet Lincoln, as does Hay for 11 Apr 1865 @ 09:00.
Lincoln is on record supporting colonization (Mitchell et al), and his AG documents that Lincoln requested Mitchell to remain on the payrolls.
In a court of law the testimony of one eyewitness is admissable.
Ah, the old "suitors of Penelope" argument -- once the big doors to the dining hall swing shut, "all hope abandon", eh?
You misunderstand the meaning of a "perpetual Union" (as the Articles of Confederation called it). "Perpetual" means "continuously operating" or "concurrent" with a sense of sine die, no fixed end -- not in the sense of "for all time". This is the legal definition of "perpetuity" as opposed to "permanence".
There is no language in the Constitution granting a permanent sovereignty to the Union of the States, however much Hamilton may have wanted it (he and the Federalists didn't get it, they being in the minority) and however much Lincoln may have asserted it from the bully pulpit and Jay and Marshall from the tribunal of the Chief Justice.
The fact of the matter, shown by rustbucket's quotes of Madison and others above and confirmed in another thread by a recent opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas and quoted by 4ConservativeJustices, is that the Constitution had to amalgamate the Peoples of the States in order to share or redistribute Sovereignty by equally explicit language in the Constitution. These articles or clauses not being present, the People remained identified with the State, and the power to resume Sovereignty through secession, not having been explicitly given away, continued to rest with the State, or with the People, in the language of the Tenth Amendment.
The Tenth Amendment was the deal-maker article of the Bill of Rights, the sine qua non of ratification. The Federalists had to agree to all the articles of the Bill of Rights in order to secure ratification. The Antifederalists won the argument over where ultimate Sovereignty would reside and whether the Peoples of the States would be amalgamated into a lumpen People of the United States. The phrase "People of the United States" is used in the Preamble of the Constitution, reflecting Hamilton and Jay's and the other Federalists' intention, not realized in the outcome, to accomplish this pooling of Sovereignty into an indissoluble and permanent Union. They did not achieve their goal, and the language of the Preamble alone remains.
The "People" remains defined in U.S. constitutional law as the People of a State -- Lincolnian revolution not having worked its way in law, but only in politics -- as described by Madison in The Federalist and Marshall and Thomas afterward, the various contrary opinions handed down as dicta by John Jay and John Marshall to the contrary notwithstanding.
My foot. It's as serious as a heart attack. I described the looting of the nation by the victorious Unionist faction through the operation of the 1862 railroad legislation, the Morrill and later tariffs, and the operation of the industrial lobby during the Gilded Age. Class hatred it isn't: I just note where the spoils went, for the purposes of informing future, constitutional disgorgement proceedings.
The aftermath of the Civil War and the fetid feast of the trusts during Grant's and later administrations was precisely what Madison and Calhoun (his student) worried about: that a faction would take control of the national government and use it to exploit the Republic like a personal gold mine. That is essentially what happened.
I agree. If my farm has been devastated, my livestock run off, my wife raped, my sons killed in combat or in federal prisons, I think that the peculiar institution would be uppermost in my thoughts, too.
But you're talking to an ideologue who lies like a rug, is a veriest demolition derby of the truth, who's been pantsed about it, who's been shown to be in the wrong, but who goes on lying and posting in bad faith out of stubbornness that can only come from the deepest and most tendentious animus against Southerners and the South.
I don't post to that guy. He is a liar, as Mary McCarthy once said about the Communist troll Lillian Hellman, even when he uses words like "and" and "the".
That's what I'm talking about!
Ed Sebesta is a Marxist troll. So, for that matter, is Pacifica.
Yes, the Left has always liked to put on a good freak show.
Then they stuff somebody out a window and seize the State, and start arresting people.
Non-Sequitur arrives from his abode in the vasty deep to post. Let us listen in...
"Squack! The confederates did it too! The confederates did it too! Tu Quoque! Squack!"
As you have been informed previously, that is incorrect. Here is a breakdown of the existing secession documents from 13 states, a territory, and the indian tribes. As you can see, only a limited number of them cite slavery as their cause.
| DOCUMENT |
|
|
|
| South Carolina - SO |
|
|
|
| South Carolina - DofC |
|
|
|
| Mississippi - SO |
|
|
|
| Mississippi - DofC |
|
|
|
| Florida - SO |
|
|
|
| Alabama - SO |
|
|
|
| Georgia - SO |
|
|
|
| Georgia - DofC |
|
|
|
| Louisiana - SO |
|
|
|
| Texas - SO |
|
|
|
| Texas - DofC |
|
|
|
| Virginia - SO |
|
|
|
| Arkansas - SO |
|
|
|
| North Carolina - SO |
|
|
|
| Tennessee - SO |
|
|
|
| Missouri - SO |
|
|
|
| Kentucky - SO [r] |
|
|
|
| Arizona - SO [t] |
|
|
|
| Cherokee - DofC |
|
|
|
| Choctaw et al - AofC |
|
|
|
KEY:
One problem: the yankees never wanted to make the south give up their slaves and even passed a constitutional amendment at Lincoln's urging to permanently ban congress from ever abolishing it. They only took the emancipation route as a war measure well after the war was started.
It did set up its own government, did it not? It did engage in war with another belligerent national army, did it not? The CSA attained de facto nationhood in early 1861 and retained it until 1865 - a brief but indisputable period of history.
From your link:
The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all. All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon.
Sounds to me like their economic beef was with the yankee tariffs, subsidies, handouts, and government funded internal improvements schemes being reinstated now that they had found "new allies" in the anti-slavery crowd to let them take control of the government as a sectional party.
How about this one?
"No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
In case you are unfamiliar with it (don't worry - about 99.999% of the population is) that is the text of an adopted amendment to the United States Constitution that passed both the US House and Senate in 1861. It was never ratified because the war broke out and states quickly turned their attention to other things.
Of further historical note is the circumstance of that amendment. It was introduced by William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state. Seward did so at the personal request of none other than Lincoln himself. Lincoln also publicly lobbied for the amendment's adoption and gave it a ringing endorsement in his first inaugural address.
My point - If the codification of one's ancestor's enslavement is grounds to hate an emblem, then blacks should be calling for the abolition of the United States flag and the removal of the Lincoln Temple in Washington, D.C.
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.