The Confederate battle flag continues to be a symbol of regional pride

freelancestar ^ | 2/10/2004 | BUFFY RIPLEY

[rustbucket]

...don't forget how green-visored heads in New York snapped to the fact that their meal ticket had just taken a walk.

I neglected to mention it. Thanks. I've posted about it before. The Texas Declation of Causes says: "They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance."

Protectionist tariffs were basically a transfer of money from the South to the North, all done in the name of motherhood and apple pie. Without the South, the North didn't have goods to export that even came close to what they were importing. Eventually they would have to devalue their currency or cut way back on imports.

[D Rider]

Here is some history for you about the origin of the flag and some units that flew it: Battle Flag of the Army of Tennessee.

sorry, but the link you gave doesn't work for me.

[wtc911]

sec9 par4...No law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

I'm not black but if I were I might feel justified in feeling anger at the display of any emblem of a group who codified my ancestors enslavement.

[johnb838]

The war was also about whether the north had the right to electorally isolate the south and therefore make them into less than equal partners in the United States of America. The north crushed the south when the south would not accede to this, and every big government problem we have today, and every elitist northeastern liberal diss of our region has its roots in this. After the war, we had noone but each other.

[D Rider]

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

Was there a first Navy Jack or did they just use the stars and bars like the army?

[meandog]

I actually do not know very much about the Western theater - my reenactment unit portrays an artillery battery that was in the Army of Northern Virginia. Also, almost all of the reenactments in this area (Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania) are of Eastern battles.

I blame 80 percent of the defeat of the Confederacy on the incompetence of the AoT. Except for a few cavalry raids by the brilliant N.B. Forrest and a few others, it was a bumbling drag on the CSA's military power. Lee could not adequately fight off the North's aggression with fools running the army to his rear, sapping his food stores, rolling stock, armaments and equipment. Much of the fault lies at Davis's feet who promoted generals such as Braxton Bragg and Leonidas Polk (by trade an Episcopal bishop) to do the fighting. Then there was John Bell Hood, who was fair under Lee's watchful leadership but abysmal in command on his own. It ended up costing the people of Georgia, S.C., and N.C. their homes and property to war criminal Sherman and his terrorists!

[CobaltBlue]

I could argue with someone whose tagline says "Cold War, Vietnam Era, Desert Storm Veteran - Pride in my Southern Ancestry!", but why bother?

Anybody who thinks the South won the Cold War and Desert Storm appears to be beyond reason to me.

So I'll just give you a more-or-less snappy comeback -- with respect to your argument in favor of secession -- you lost that argument already. Remember?

[meandog]

The flag of the AOT, therefore, is a rag of shame... Fly a more appropriate standard to represent Southern heritage!

[cinFLA]

First (unofficial) Confederate Naval Jack

[cinFLA]

It is not the Confederate Battle Flag!. It is the Confederate Navy Flag. The Confederate Battle Flag is square and the diagonal blue strips are dark navy blue. Just a point of correction.

The Confederate Navy Ensigns were the 1st National (pre 83) and the 2nd National after it was adopted in 1883 at which time the Official Navy Jack (the Rectangular CBF) was adopted as the jack.

[D Rider]

As one noted Southern Historian pointed out, The North fought the war with one arm tied behind its back, while the south gave everything it had. This was mostly due to political considerations in the North. The Democrats were against the war (so what is new, huh?) And activly ran against it, as did thier candidate Gen. McCellan (sp?) in 1864.

[Modernman]

The Civil War was about heritage--European heritage.

European heritage equals owning slaves? Or are you trying to say something else?

[D Rider]

McCellan=McClellan, I knew it looked wrong.

[Modernman]

Sorry, not the abolishment of slavery but to stop importing and spread of slavery

This was already illegal under US law, so this provision did nothing but maintain the status quo. Rather, the Virginia slave-breeders were big supporters of outlawing the importation of slaves from outside the US- they didn't want the competition.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

while the south gave everything it had.

I dissagree, the South had a difficult time recuiting troops outside of the states near the Mason Dixon line. Many people were not that intrested in the politics and would not join till the Yankees were near. Even then they often deserted the battlefield. The plantation owners who got he South into that mess could not recruit enough soldiers, nor did they have enough guns and cannons.

[D Rider]

The Confederate Navy Ensigns were the 1st National (pre 83) and the 2nd National after it was adopted in 1883...

Of course you meant '63'. Don't you wish you could go back and edit out your typo's

[rustbucket]

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.

I take it your argument is with the "separate nation" part of these statements. What does it take for a country to be recognized as a nation? Treaties with other nations?

Its navy, though small, fought brilliantly, and introduced with the VirginiaMerrimac) a new type of warship, the ironclad.

Strictly speaking, they are incorrect. Iron-plated ships had been used by the British and French against Russian forts in the Crimea in 1855. And the first use of an ironclad against wooden ships was not the CSS Virginia/Merrimac in 1862, but it was another Confederate ironclad out of New Orleans against Federal picket ships in October 1861. At least, as far as I know that was the first.

Of course, the Confederacy might lay claim to the "cotton-clad" ships that defeated bigger US ships (like the USS Harriet Lane), but I don't know the origin of the cotton-clads. For all I know, they could be a Yankee invention, though I've seen reference to their use by Confederates in April 1861.

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.

It would probably be more correct if they said ships flying the flag were recognized as ships of a belligerent and allowed into port on that basis. That was the situation, I think. However, a European consul did apply for and receive an exequatur from the Confederate government in Richmond in July 1861. By such, he was officially recognized as the consul of his government.

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."

I certainly don't feel it was a civil war by the common definitions of the term. The South didn't want to take over the government of the United States. They just wanted to leave the Union with the same rights they had when they entered.

Are these the whole of your objections to the UDC?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

Just the same, slavery would have died out in the south. Many people were uncomfortable with it, some land owners would free as many slaves as they could afford, ususally as a gift to a slave close to their heart. Often they were freed in their will, though many states made this illegal. Later the cotton gin and other agicultrual inventions would have made slave owning, at least in large numbers, unprofitable. Later, freed slaves would have brung large political power to stop slavery. When I think of this maybe it was better that we (the south) lost that war.

[labard1]

"I'm not black but if I were I might feel justified in feeling anger at the display of any emblem of a group who codified my ancestors enslavement."

I suspect you'd feel anger at most national emblems (the US flag included), if you really meant that.

[4CJ]

And keeping it from spreading [to the territories] 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.

Two items: the Arizona Territory had been available for slave expansion for a decade, yet only 21 slaves were enumerated in the 1860 census out of 2,421 inhabitants. New Mexico enumerated 64 out of 87,034, Nevada 45 of 6,812, and Utah 89 of 40,273. A total of 219 slaves out of 136,540 inhabitants, only 0.16% were slaves. Slavery was not expanding into the territories.

Secondly, the southern states wanted the public lands SOLD instead of given away, for obvious economic reasons.