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

freelancestar ^ | 2/10/2004 | BUFFY RIPLEY

[rustbucket]

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

Sorry. Try this one: Flag History

Gen. Johnston of the Army of Tennessee in 1863 picked the rectangular battle flag commonly known today as the CBF. It was Johnston who proposed the St. Andrews cross on the battle flag back in 1861, when the battle flag was being designed. As senior officer he approved the final design of the battle flag that was used in 1861 (the square flag of the Army of the Potomac, later known as the Army of Northern Virginia). The Confederate War Department recognized it as a battle flag.

Rectangular St. Andrews cross battle flags were also flown in the Trans-Mississippi Department. Most were square but there were some rectangular ones in the Trans-Mississippi.

[D Rider]

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.

Must disagree, the southern soldier and leadership was far superior to the north for most of the war. And calling the southerners a bunch of deserters is just plain incorrect. It is incorrect on both sides. The battles of the civil war showed American men that gave and took better than men should have to. Please re-think what you have suggested. It is hisorically incorrect as well as disrespectfull to the soldiers who died and were maimed on both sides.

It's just economics, the north used a fraction of its resources to fight the war. The South used all of theirs. Frankly, if Lincoln would not have been reelected the south would have won. This was what Jeff Davis was counting on. Even Lincoln thought he would loose the election.

The screwy thing was that the south had the moral upper hand issue of States Rights. Until Lincoln stumbled into freeing of the Slaves. This changed opinion in the north in ways that Lincoln didn't even expect. It gave the northern soldiers and populous their moral mandate to win.

[CobaltBlue]

Are these the whole of your objections to the UDC?

Well, three of the houses closest to me are owned by black families. If, for some strange reason, my copy of the UDC monthly magazine got delivered to them by mistake, I'd feel mighty embarrassed.

Anything you're ashamed to do in public, better not to do in private.

[labard1]

"Anything you're ashamed to do in public, better not to do in private."

Lots of us have private pleasures we'd rather not indulge in public. Some of them are even thought to be good and beneficial to the Republic.

[D Rider]

The link you gave me does not go into as much detail and say's that they used the square flag.

[rustbucket]

Yes, they used a square flag, but different units also used rectangular ones later on. There was no such thing as an official Confederate Battle Flag for all armies. Different units fought under their own flags.

I fly the flag of the Army of Tennessee, which is where some of my ancestors lived during the war. How about you?

[Modernman]

Anything you're ashamed to do in public, better not to do in private.

boy, your love-life must be real boring :-)

[labard1]

Or interesting.

[CobaltBlue]

There are certain aspects of a well-bred person's life which for purposes of public discussion are presumed to be non-existent. For example, according to Miss Manners, it's ok to go outside in your bathrobe to pick up the newspaper because no well-bred person would even notice you.

[D Rider]

1st tenn.

6th tenn.

14th tenn.

23rd tenn.

For a few.

[wtc911]

A couple of differences, the Union followed its flag and bled on it to destroy the nation that codified slavery in perpituity.

The Union did not give birth to night riders who terrorized blacks under the flag in the latter part of the 19th century and then again in the mid 20th century.

And, if I were black and looked at the overall history of America's treatment of my ancestors I might very well harbor a corner of resentment toward both flags. There are lots of black Americans who do.

What seems to me to be inescapable and irreconcilable in this flag issue is that there are two opposing views as to what the flag means and both views are legitimate and understandable. It further seems to me that there are those on both sides who use the flag to antagonize. These people (whom I see as the NAACP boycott types and the all yankees are dirt and can go to hell types) accomplish nothing but the deeper entrenchment of the other side and the loss of goodwill from those of us with nothing at stake.

The gulf between die hard folks on the opposite sides will not be bridged anytime soon, if ever.

Now I can sit back and wait for my words to be twisted and intentionally misinterpreted. To those who will try to tell me what I must really mean, let me say now that you're wrong and I will not bother to reply.

[D Rider]

My family came later.

Our civil war was when my uncle George flew his 25 daylight missions over places like Dresden. And my Dad patrolled the Atlantic. One of my Grandmothers had the last letter from any family we had over there from just before the war. Haven't heard from them since. Life in East Germany must have been a bitch.

[rustbucket]

I see that a rectangular St. Andrews cross flag was used by the Twelfth Texas Cavalry in 1861. Source: "Battle Flags of Texas in the Confederacy" by Sumrall.

I salute your square battle flags.

[PhilipFreneau]

Great post! Personally, I am offended by anyone who speaks unfavorably of the Confederate flag. At least 3 of my direct ancestors fought for the Confederacy, and at least two fought in the Revolution. In both cases they fought against tyranny -- they were very honorable men.

[Non-Sequitur]

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

Hey, I'm just waiting for his answer. This should be good.

[Gianni]

I guess people are free to follow your link and read for themselves the paragraphs dedicated to protectionism, subsidiaries for Northern business, disproportionate tax burden, and denial of rights in the territories.

In the future, don't be surprised if everything you read after running a "grep doc 'slavery'" focuses on slavery.

[labard1]

I was just reading your earlier post literally. Virtually every country "codified enslavement" at one time or another. It wasn't until the 19th Century that England led the anti-slavery crusade. The CSA was in no way unique (or even unusual) over the long sweep of history. Given that history, it's somewhat questionable for the CSA's emblem to be almost uniquely reviled.

Many blacks who came to this country in slavery were not free in Africa. It's easy to romanticize about "Roots", but the reality of life there was hardly idyllic. This is NOT a justification of slavery, but few complain about African slavery (which, indeed, continues to this day) or decry such emblems as existed for African "countries" which sold their subjects (and neighbors) to traders who shipped them to the West Indies and the US.

(I hope you'll agree that I've not " twisted and intentionally misinterpreted" your posts. I've certainly not tried to do so.)

[D Rider]

3rd Tenn.

41st Tenn.

Here we go. Your right they differed by regiment as well as date as well as materials used to make them. The previous group were silk. These look like cotton.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

I'm sorry but I'm not aware of any evidence at all that exists in support of any of your claims. Slavery wasn't dying out, it was thriving. Few, if any, people down south had a problem with it, and few slave owners freed their chattel because all the southern states made it difficult to do so. The cotton gin was the reason for the resurgance in slavery in the early 1800's because it made large scale cotton production profitable, not unprofitable. And in the south before the Civil War, blacks no vote, no rights that a white man was bound to recognize, no political voice at all, much less one powerful enough to end an institution as ingrained as slavery was.

[Non-Sequitur]

I guess people are free to follow your link and read for themselves the paragraphs dedicated to protectionism, subsidiaries for Northern business, disproportionate tax burden, and denial of rights in the territories.

Damn those subsidiaries anyway.