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

freelancestar ^ | 2/10/2004 | BUFFY RIPLEY

[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.

[GOPcapitalist]

I think you are falling into a fallacy that seeks to reduce human behavior into easily quantifiable categories and that simply cannot be done.

[GOPcapitalist]

Then again, you could always take the leftist academic route and shout "racism" at anyone who questions any findings that suggest anything less than Partisan's desired "slave breeding" farm. Or maybe that X-factor could be simply attributed to the negative "karma" that the white male protestant slaveowner contributed to society. Assert that, bury it in a few complex but utterly meaningless calculus equations that prove nothing more than A=A, bloviate for 10 pages in a circular semantical exercise, and send it in for publication. After all, isn't that what passes for scholarship these days?

[PeaRidge]

GOPcapitalist

Yes, well put Sir!

[PeaRidge]

It certainly passes for what Wlat, Grand Old Peanut, and Cobaltkitty sluff off here.

[rustbucket]

I don't think this is what Sheila Jackson Lee meant:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1089196/posts?page=27#27

[mac_truck]

I am from the South originally, and therefore am considered an expert on Southern culture.

Whatever you say, bubba.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Southern independence was very much about the preservation of slavery as an underpinning of the Southern economy. If you read the CSA Constitution you will notice that it is very similar to the US Constitution, but adds specific protections for slavery. If you read the contemporary speeches of the secessionist and CSA leaders, you will find that preservation of the Southern way of life, including the continuance of slavery, was very much on their minds.

Bears repeating.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

I like the Moody True Blues...

Do do I..."I'm Just A Singer In A Rock and Roll Band"..."Melancholy Man"..."Eyes of a Child"

[stand watie]

non-sense!

for the 5-6% of southerners who actually owned slaves, the preservation of chattal slavery was VERY important.

for the other 94-96% of southerners, it was NOT an issue AND our ancestors were NOT going to die for some rich guy's "right to won slaves".

you position is SILLY, IGNORANT & NOT the TRUTH.

secession was about LIBERTY. nothing more,nothing less.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

the unionist LUNATIC fringe on FR (less the Minister of Damnyankee Propaganda = N-S) will believe ANYTHING as long as it is ANTI-southern & dripping with HATRED.

that is the plain, un-varnished TRUTH.

in point of fact, they are so dumb that they think "domain master" is SERIOUS!

free dixie,sw

[rustbucket]

Moody True Blues -- the modern band of the similar name was why the Confederate unit name caught my eye.

Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president

That honor probably goes to John Hanson, first president of the United States. He was selected (unopposed) by Congress in 1781 after the Articles were ratified. See: Hanson. According to this site, Hanson declared the fourth Thursday of November to be Thanksgiving Day. Timewise that beat the heck out of Lincoln's Thanksgiving.

Davis was selected as temporary president by the Confederate Congress in February 1861. He was later elected president (unopposed) under the Confederate Constitution in November 1861.

[Non-Sequitur]

He was later elected president (unopposed) under the Confederate Constitution in November 1861.

And I understand it was close.

[capitan_refugio]

How are you Stand? I figured my comment might raise your hackles! I'll tell you why you are partially right, and mostly wrong.

#1 The secessionists in the South were (to use a modern phrase) the "power elite." They were the oligarchy of wealthy land owners and slave holders. I'm talking about Stephens, Toombs, Cobb, and that whole group. I'm NOT talking about the poor, dumb, schleps, like some of my Tennessee ancestors, who ended up fighting a war for them!

The Southern power elite had controlled their States, and to some extent, the Continental and Federal governments since the mid-1700's.

#2 Where was the money in the 1850's? The South had a poorly developed industrial base. They had a mediocre (relative to the mid-Atlantic states and New England) mercantile class. They had a strong agricultural base. It was very, very important for the southern states to protect their agricultural economy. This is why they furiously fought some of the onerous tariff measures. This was nothing new, as the 1830's nullification crisis during the Jackson Administration showed.

"secession was about LIBERTY. nothing more,nothing less."

You are a smart guy, Stand. You studied this stuff in college (as did I). You know your statement is SIMPLISTIC and amounts to nothing more than propoganda.

[capitan_refugio]

Don't bring up that old Hanson red herring again!

The office of "President of the United States" was created in the Constitution of 1787. Prior to that, it did not exist. There were several people who served as the presiding officer of the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation, but that did not make them the President of the United States.

[rustbucket]

Hey capitan.

Thanks for your comment. I can see both sides of the argument. However, from the Articles:

"The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A Committee of the States', and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction -- to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years"

I gather that Hanson's correct title was the "President of the United States in Congress Assembled". It is a nit in my opinion not to give him the recognition he deserves. He had the power to correspond and negotiate with foreign governments and was given a household and servants. Hanson in fact formed the first departments to run the government, formed the first cabinet, established the first post office, and had Benjamin Franklin as his Secretary of State, though I'm not sure what Franklin's office was called back then.

The powers of the president were expanded under the 1787 Constitution. Washington remains the first president under the Constitution. Washington reportedly congratulated Hanson in a letter upon Hanson's selection as president, saying, "I congratulate your excellency on your appointment to fill the most important seat in the United States."

[capitan_refugio]

I have recent read "A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution" by Prof. Carol Berkin (first published 2002, paperback edition, 2003). I also then re-read the old classic "Miracle at Philidelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787" by Catherine Drinker Brown (1966, 20th edition 1986).

In both books the authors dicuss the sessions in which the office of President of the United States were discussed. There were several competing ideas, including a triumvirate and a President by Committee. Indeed, the idea of "national" office occupied by a solitary individual was very distasteful to some delegates, as it was too close to the idea of a king (who they had dumped just a few years earlier). So I think it is incorrect to suggest that the powers of an existing office were simply being "expanded." I see the Presidency as novel for its time.

The Constitution created a new office, which embodied both the executive power of the government and the role of chief-of-state, without conceding the legislative powers. Hanson and his fellow "presidents" were, in reality, only presiding officials in a governmental body.

But it always makes for a good discussion!

[PeaRidge]

Here are the words of the time which demonstrate that the secession was about much more than you would like to present.

....
"In theory, the distribution of all power appeared to rest upon principles of equality and justice; and if the Government had been honestly and wisely administered, it was the noblest system ever created for rational men. But man was, as he ever has been, selfish and ambitious, and, under the guide of those passions, the whole system became thoroughly perverted from its original designs.

"It was a Confederated Republic, with powers expressly granted by States, and defined under a limited compact or constitution, and never was, in any sense, a simple democracy, with a majority of people to govern. It was this profound fallacy as to a democracy, originated by designing demagogues or superficial thinkers, which, within the last thirty years, radically changed the whole nature of the Government.
....
"Under such fundamental differences as these, the preservation of separate States in the form of a Republic, with a limited compact, was the very law of our existence, and the perversion to a simple democracy of mere numbers, was our political death. The most corrupt of all governments, if extensive enough to embrace different interests, is a simple democracy of numbers. It necessarily soon runs into practical anarchy, and thence into a military despotism, as protection from the horrors of anarchy. Now that the Northern States are forced to organize to themselves, this career, to them, is as certain as destiny itself, and is inherent in their very organization.
....
"Under these circumstances, if we fail to grow wise from the lessons of experience, and allow any considerations to weaken the federative action of our system, and increase the tendency to a simple democracy of numbers, we, too, will soon sink into the same ruin, where an unrestrained military government will raise its strong and mighty structure, beneath whose shadow the very boundaries of the States will be lost and forgotten amid the scattered fragments of a broken and dismembered empire."

Governor Francis Pickens, South Carolina, 1861

[capitan_refugio]

By 1861, South Carolina ("Too small for a republic; too large for an insane asylum") had already seceeded. The concept of the "confederated republic" and the "limited compact" harken back to South Carolina's favorite son, John Calhoun ("...a smart fellow, one of the first among second-rate men, but of lax political priciples and a disordinate ambition not over-delicate in means of satisfying self.").

The contention that the United States was a league of confederated, sovereign states, and that the Constitution was a simple, non-binding compact has been discussed here many a time. There is no sense in re-hashing that issue. In your quotation, you present the Governor's after-the-fact "spin" for South Carolina attempting to seceed. The principles of the CSA, and how it was to differ from the USA, are laid out in the CSA Constitution. The text is easily found on the net. As time allows, I will be glad to provide other contemporary quotes.

Thank you for your research into the issue.

[rustbucket]

Speaking of presidents, here is an odd piece of trivia. It turns out Benjamin Franklin was President of Pennsylvania. Actually, he was President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania but called the President of Pennsylvania. For example, from the Journal of the Continental Congress:

Also, according to indorsement, was read a letter from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, forwarding a letter from the President of Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin.

[PeaRidge]

No need to bother; I have a copy of the Confederate Constitution at hand.

Insofar as your dismissal of Governor Pickens' address, here are his comments before secession, if you care to read.

....
"Any thing tending to change or weaken this government and the subordination between the races not only endangers the peace, but the very existence of our society itself.

"We have for years warned the Northern people of the dangers they were producing by their wanton and lawless course. We have often appealed to our sister States of the South to act with us in concert upon some firm and moderate system by which we might be able to save the Federal Constitution, and yet feel safe under the general compact of union; but we could obtain no fair hearing from the North, nor could we see any concerted plan, proposed by any of our co-States of the South, calculated to make us feel safe and secure.

"Under all these circumstances, we now have no alternative left but to interpose our sovereign power as an independent State, to protect the rights and ancient privileges of the people of South Carolina.

"This State was one of the original parties to the Federal compact of union. We agreed to it, as a State, under peculiar circumstances; when we were surrounded with great external pressure, for purposes of national protection and to advance the interests and general welfare of all the States equally and Alike; and when it ceased to do this, it is no longer a perpetual union.

"It would be an absurdity to suppose it was a perpetual union for our ruin. The Constitution is a compact between co-States and not with the Federal Government. On questions vital, and involving the peace and safety of the parties to the compact, from the very nature of the instrument each State must judge of the mode and measure of protection necessary for her peace and the preservation of her local and domestic institutions, South Carolina will therefore decide for herself, and will, as she has a right to do, assume her original powers of government as an Independent State, and as such, will negotiate with other powers, such treaties, leagues or covenants, as she may deem proper."

So as is evident, any assertion that Pickens' post-secession speeches do not represent the truth and the reality of pre-secession thinking can be shown as invalid by virtue of his consistancy.

However, that is not the point. Your assertions have been debated ad nauseum here, with everyone remaining unconvinced of the truth of the secession. By reading the documents, it is evident that seceding states had many reasons of their own to take that step. The important question is what prompted Lincoln to order armed warships to Charleston while everyone knew it would cause war.