Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Confederate battle flag continues to be a symbol of regional pride
freelancestar ^ | 2/10/2004 | BUFFY RIPLEY

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: buffy; confederate; confederateflag; dixie; dixielist; flag; vcu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,041-1,048 next last
To: CobaltBlue
And I've got a free speech right to tell him that the Civil War was about slavery, pure and simple. The so-called "state's rights" is code for the right to own slaves.

I am a Southerner and a realist. While many elite Southerners were certainly fighting for slavery, I do believe that most others were not, in fact the Confederate Constitution called for the abolishment of slavery. It was dying and would have died even if they had won the war. In fact if the North had not taken to arms right away they could have easily made a few minor concessions, reunite the nation, and avoid war. It would probably have taken more time, perhaps decades, but I think if they had used sanctions and limited blockades to accomplish this they could have ended slavery without blood shed.

Many of the common folks were simply fighting because the Yankees were invading their territory. My mothers family came from Georgia and Alabama, during the civil war many, not most of the men served in the Confederacy. My fathers side was from southern Alabama (sometimes called LA) and the panhandle of Florida. Not many served, one brother helped build ships in Mobile,and another served in the Army and suffered a wound. But Southern Alabama had almost no invasions except for some navel battles outside Mobile.

All in all the support for the Confederacy was lackluster. I would say most of my ancestors had Rett Butlers attitude toward the Confederacy.

That said some of those elite Southerners were mighty powerful and too eager to enter war. So the end result may have been the same.

41 posted on 02/10/2004 11:56:15 AM PST by ItsTheMediaStupid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Tenth Amendment/Declaration of Independence/What you said BTTT! Remember the scene in Gettysburg, scripted btw from a historical exchange, in which the Union officer thought the captive Confederates had been fighting for rats? LOL!

Seems the PC crowd forgot to police up that scene. You can imagine what it would have sounded like, if it had fallen from the pen of "Red Eric" Foner.

43 posted on 02/10/2004 11:59:02 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ItsTheMediaStupid
While many elite Southerners were certainly fighting for slavery, ......

Actually, the biggest planters were among the least willing secessionists. They formed the core of the Constitutional Union Party, which nominated James Bell, one of the four principal candidates for president in 1860. Their platform was one of continuation of the Union and working for Southern goals within a constitutional framework. They joined the secessionists only after it became obvious that the secession cause had in fact prevailed.

44 posted on 02/10/2004 12:04:53 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: D Rider
It is the Confederate Navy Flag.

It is the 2nd Confederate Naval Jack (1st official) adopted in 1863.

45 posted on 02/10/2004 12:06:18 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: lentulusgracchus
Remember the scene in Gettysburg, scripted btw from a historical exchange, in which the Union officer thought the captive Confederates had been fighting for rats? LOL!

My friend, they told the truth. The War of Northern Aggression WAS over rats. Those evil, greedy yankees wanted to deprive us our our rats. They had the same rats, but wanted to deprive us of our rats.

A friend asked me once if I had a "rotten pen".

47 posted on 02/10/2004 12:07:18 PM PST by 4CJ (||) Support free speech and stop CFR - visit www.ArmorforCongress.com (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
The Confederate States of America was a compilation of southern states.......

Excuse me, Buffy? Does that mean that Grant "decompiled" Lee?

48 posted on 02/10/2004 12:07:22 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Compilation = greatest hits (as in greatest states!)
49 posted on 02/10/2004 12:10:13 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ItsTheMediaStupid
in fact the Confederate Constitution called for the abolishment of slavery.

No, it doesn't. You seem like an intelligent person, and a reasonable person, so it pains me to have to tell you that this assertion is so false as to be laughable.

Some person you trusted, who likewise believed in the Glorious Lost Cause, told you this and you accepted it as an article of faith. 'T'ain't so.

Here's the Confederate Constitution. You may search high and low, but you won't find a provision which called for the abolishment of slavery.

The Confederate Constitution.

50 posted on 02/10/2004 12:12:55 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
I grew up in the Deep South during the era of segregation

As did I, if you'll remember our previous conversations on another thread. I argued against segregation when I was growing up, not a particularly popular stance among my classmates and coworkers.

I am eligible to join the Daughters of the Confederacy based on several ancestors, but have zero desire to do so as long as they spread lies.

I'm curious. What lies are they spreading?

Why not just tell the truth? Slavery was important to the Southern economy. Making the South give up slaves was as destructive as it would be to us if we had to give up gasoline. I had ancestors who owned slaves. I am not ashamed of it nor proud of it. It's a fact.

I agree. I too had a few ancestors who owned slaves. Does the UDC not acknowledge slavery was important to the South? My impression was they worked to promote patriotism, heritage, and history.

Further, by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for purposes of the census, the South had representation in Congress disproportunate to their voting power.

Without that compromise (and others such as the return of fugitive slaves), the South probably wouldn't have ratified the Constitution in the first place, and the United States as we know it would never have come to be. The South wanted to count the slaves a full persons as far as voting went. The North didn't. They reached a compromise that counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person as far as representation in Congress went. Of course, the slaves couldn't vote, even in the North.

On the positive side, that Southern voting power probably gave us Thomas Jefferson as president and helped stop the abuses by Federalists in the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Spreading slavery to the western territories was a way of keeping that power.

I agree. And keeping it from spreading was also a way to increase Northern power and the numbers of "free" states. The Northern politician could and did pander to white voters in the North by offering land without competition from Southern plantation owners.

The Civil War was about money and power, preserving an economic way of life. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is a lot of merit in what you say. Where I grew up it was called the War Between the States. I think slavery was the main cause of the war. Northern states were openly violating the Constitution with regard to returning fugitive slaves and disobeying a Supreme Court ruling on the rights of slave owners in the territories.

There were other issues, of course. In Texas, the Federal government was not doing a good job of protecting Texans from invasions from Mexico and raids by Indian tribes. That is mentioned in their Declaration of Causes for secession. It was a sore point in Texas. I know because I had two Texas great-great-grandfathers, one of whom fought the Mexican bandits along the Rio Grande and one who fought the Indians as part of a frontier batallion. Come to think of it, the Federal government is not doing such a hot job protecting us from invasions from Mexico today.

51 posted on 02/10/2004 12:12:56 PM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Colt .45
"It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act." --James Madison, Federalist No. 39

Good-quote bump.

This quote needs to be the core of every American History and high-school civics course in the nation, instead of the Hamiltonian shibboleths about "We the People" (how about "We the States"?) and "One Nation under God". Monism is statism is totalitarianism. Liberals talk about diversity -- until the subject gets to diversity of opinion, the only diversity that counts!

52 posted on 02/10/2004 12:15:00 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
A friend asked me once if I had a "rotten pen".

LOL! And now all the Rats live up North! Welladay!

53 posted on 02/10/2004 12:16:38 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
The biggest lie told by the UDC is that the Confederacy achieved the status of a separate nation. From their website, "Let's Say....'The War Between the States'":

>>The fact that for four years the Confederacy maintained an entirely separate government (with its own currency, commerce, army and navy) established the Confederate States of America as a separate nation.
This nation, the Confederate States of America, levied and collected revenue, enlisted its armies and issued cotton bonds which were accepted in foreign commercial marts.
Its navy, though small, fought brilliantly, and introduced with the VirginiaMerrimac) a new type of warship, the ironclad.
The Confederate Flag, "The Stars and Bars" was recognized all over the world as belonging to a nation other than the United States of America. The "War Between the
States" does not imply a war between individual states. The noun, "States," is used in its collective sense. the official titles of the contending parties during the conflict were the "United States" and the "Confederate States."
Therefore, since the war was between two groups of states, the United States and the Confederate States -- two separate nations -- the most exact name for that great conflict of the 1860's is "War Between the States."<<
http://www.hqudc.org/

No way. Nice try, but no cigar.
54 posted on 02/10/2004 12:21:18 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
I think slavery was the main cause of the war. Northern states were openly violating the Constitution with regard to returning fugitive slaves and disobeying a Supreme Court ruling on the rights of slave owners in the territories.

True, but don't forget how green-visored heads in New York snapped to the fact that their meal ticket had just taken a walk. And remember Lincoln's exclamation about the tariff money that Treasury was taking from the transatlantic trade that the Warehouse Act, a dozen years or more before, had funneled through New York.

You can talk about rights and independence all you want, but don't screw with a New York payday.

55 posted on 02/10/2004 12:23:43 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Lincoln stated in several speeches that the white race was superior and that he could care less about the issue of slavery. In fact, he profited from the sale of his father-in-law's slaves fully two years after the end of the "War of Northern Aggression".

"And, if true, fully two years after he was dead. So how did Lincoln manage that neat little trick?"

There you go again. Revising history with actual facts. You darned revisionist you. You ARE the "damnyankee minister of propaganda."

(Im just jealous because you got to reply to that before I had a chance to)

56 posted on 02/10/2004 12:27:14 PM PST by hirn_man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Sorry, not the abolishment of slavery but to stop importing and spread of slavery.

"Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy."

57 posted on 02/10/2004 12:32:25 PM PST by ItsTheMediaStupid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
The "injurious economic policies of the incoming party" was the abolition of slavery in the territories!
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_georgia.html

58 posted on 02/10/2004 12:32:30 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Seems the PC crowd forgot to police up that scene. You can imagine what it would have sounded like, if it had fallen from the pen of "Red Eric" Foner.

I don't even want to imagine that - movie would be shown with a 'Barf Alert' as a precaution.

59 posted on 02/10/2004 12:33:50 PM PST by 4CJ (||) Support free speech and stop CFR - visit www.ArmorforCongress.com (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ItsTheMediaStupid
No, go back and read it again. There was no power to prevent the spread of slavery, only the importation of slaves. That was because slaves from outside had already been infected with revolutionary ideas, and were dangerous.

When Louisiana was a colony, the governor outlawed the importation of slaves when the Haitian revolution started, but this was abolished when Louisiana became part of the United States.

So people started a sideline of breeding slaves for sale. Lovely, no?

60 posted on 02/10/2004 12:36:21 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,041-1,048 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson