The Confederate Flag - how do you feel about it? (Taliban, polls)

[Don D.]

"Lord have mercy on this woman. Please get a clue. Many of those plantations weren't even created until slaves arrived. Agricultural production would have NEVER reached the size it did if it weren't for slaves. There were PLENTY of farms in the North. The fact of the matter is, they never grew to the size of the plantations in the South because of the absence of slave labor. Slave labor determined the size of the plantations, plantations didn't determine the size of slave labor. That's like saying the size of house will determine how many children a married couple has. Absurd. Try again."

Obviously, that quote is from miamiman, the king of multi-quote and abject historical ignorance; the man for whom a little bit of knowledge is a monumentally dangerous thing, not only for himself, but for anyone he comes near.

There were 'plenty of farms in the north'? Really. I'll stand by while he multiquotes some historical fact to support that. How many crops from northern farms were exported to Europe and beyond? How many northern agricultural exports were tariffed as was cotton, the predominant crop of the entire country? How much cotton was cultivated in the north and placed under the burdensome tariff structure that forced the South to consider breaking away in the first place? The economy of the north was more and more becoming dependant upon value-added processing and marketing and international shipment of..........what? Cotton.

Ahh, the chicken-or-the-egg-controversy. Which came first...the plantation or the labor? The size of the family determines the size of the house. Now there's a lesson in architecture and sociology.

But, what seems missing in the lecture miami delivers is a lesson in climatology. It should be no newsflash to most that the climate visitied by God upon the Southern states supported agricultural production. 'Cotton was king' was not only the motto of the South and the nation in the 1860s, it lasted through the 1950s and is still true, to some degree today. The cotton producing states of the South made and propped up the national economy prior to the war of northern aggression. Does miamiman think beets, potatoes and sparsely populated corn fields were packing the cashiers' drawers of northern banks?

Wealthy individuals from the northeast and from Europe migrated Southward, seeking agricultural enterprise and profit, not unlike searchers of gold headed west some years later. Land was acquired, agricultural enterprises sprung up, slave traders in the northern states developed a network of shipping operations through which Africans were purchased (or swapped) from other Africans and the farms were populated with labor. Those farming operations grew, naturally, into what would be called plantations, depending on acreage and economic output.

Self-appointed 'Historians', like miamiman, would have you think bad people and assorted idiots from the bustling South decided to row up some crops, got pretty handy at it and lightbulbs popped on in their heads telling them they needed to sail away in the dead of night to a foreign continent and steal away with thousands of their citizens.....only to beat them into submission and make laborers of them. And that obese white men in straw hats sat on breezy store-porches, chewing on johnson grass, plotting another nighttime trip during which more Africans could be snatched up, stolen away, and forced into a life of conscription.

Arguably, a majority of the national economy was built on and survived by cotton. (Remember that the Industrial Revolution had not yet occurred). The labor necessary to bring cotton to market, right or wrong, was determined by this entire nation to be slave labor. There was nothing regional about that decision. To repeat, that was a national, not a regional decision made by a few rotund, toothless hicks in Southern states. I think this is where we need to insert Mr. Miami's 'get a clue'!

That the government, appointed and empowered by the body of various states, decided to skim Southern cotton-profits through a system of tax levies and tariffs was the major determinant of the 'disagreement' that would later be referred to as The Civil War, more correctly the War of Northern Aggression.

Get a clue, Indeed.

(Happy Sunday! Mississippi State beat Auburn yesterday. War Eagle Indeed.)

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by ShadowCaver

To all: I hereby apologize for my post http://www.city-data.com/forum/1499090-post419.html, where I gave miamiman evidently too much respect.
It was my hope that there would be some intelligent give-and-take, but that has been proven wrong. The following is just one example of such:



To not care about a people nor their history, when it is a flag of these people that is being discussed, damn,,, that kinda is an ignorant way of thinking, IMHO. Besides, is not the states that formed the Confederacy not a part of the USA - and therefore is not the history of this region of the USA therefore not germane to this discussion, let alone not important to your and my country? To state that you do not care about 'the history of,,, its people', wow, that is very simple and sad manner of thinking. Strange, not once in any of the the posts in this thread that those have posted defending the flag, have I read anyone disparaging nor using such language about those that hailed from the north [well, besides a quip above regarding carpetbaggers ]. Could it be that some of us are not quite so quick to judge, nor to paint an entire region or its people with a the same brush, while realizing that history is a very complicated and entangled subject? Again, both sides had their ills, their sad stories, their different means of oppression and hate and bigotry - and yes both sides had slaves, although of course the south had many much more w/in its borders, the north was not quite a pure as some would believe. In any case, again, the flag that is of discussion here is not a racist flag - it is a flag that has been used by others that have come since that time to use for their own terrible and wrong agendas, just as these same groups have used the Bible and the US flag to promote their ways too. Should these other items be also then be symbols of racism?

This is ignorance I am willing to undertake. I have taken history classes, and some of the posts I have seen here are extremely off-base and Confederate-oriented. I have taken the time to read and consider what many on here have said, despite how incorrect they might be. I vehemently disagree with many of the assertions here, and I refuse to be force-fed some incorrect version of history, because the masses in this thread want to call it fact. I would be much more open to hearing Confederate history from people who are open to listening and considering others viewpoints; because, face it, none of us were there, none of us know the full truth.

I have acknowledged that the North wasn't perfect, even acknowledging that documentation of slave counts in New Jersey was very likely skewed significantly to make it appear as the state had fewer slaves than it did. I am FULLY aware that there was no perfect part of the country. I am aware that there was no line that could suddenly be crossed in which greedy, immoral disappeared. I am simply stating that the Confederate flag has a extremely negative connotation associated with it by many blacks and whites in this country, and I am showing that I agree with their assertions as well. Many people are against the Confederate flag because they interpret it to represent oppression and slavery. I am fully aware that the flag has different meanings to different people, but to read and accept that the flag is nothing more than innocent sign of heritage recognition is not something I am willing to do. The fact is, in this day and age, the flag is consistently seen as a sign of hatred by most, and is being removed from the tops of state capital building where it has flown for many, many decades. These are the very same states in which I, and others, have made loose reference to when talking about the states who fought the hardest for the Confederacy and threatened to secede.

I am aware that I am one of the few, if not the only, white Southerner on this board who refuses to accept the Confederate viewpoint as fact. I have listened to enough skewing of the facts and skirting around the issues to make me ill. To completely ignore slavery as a part of the Confedenerate as momof2dfw attempted to do is EXTREMELY ignorant, and quite ridiculous.

Lastly, there is no way you can't separate the issue of racism and the Confederate flag. The primary reason there is contention surrounding the flag is because of racism and slavery that was perpetuated by the Confederacy. There are strong opinions surrounding the Bible and the U.S. flag, some which I am sure include oppression. The topic here is about the Confederate flag. I was giving my two cents about how many, including myself, view the flag. I apologize if I have offended anyone, but hey, opinions do that sometimes.

[Don D.]

Miamiman must have had brunch. He's settled a bit and not nearly as inflamatory and relentlessly obstinate. Yet, he still refuses to acknowledge history, retreating as always to his 'opinion'. Opinion is not historical accuracy. It's fine to have an opinion about the 'flag issue' one way or another. Nobody disagrees with everyone's right to do that. We all should have an opinion.

But, what is onerous is the passing off as fact and history what amounts only to opinion.

Here are a few more facts for all to consider while forming or adhering to or changing their opinion:

1) Tariffs were the primary source of federal revenue in the 19th century.

2) In 1860, the American Southern states produced 84.5% of the world's cotton.

3) In 1860, the United Kingdom imported/consumed 49% of the worlds cotton production, Europe 32.4% and the United States, 18.6%

4) In the year 1800, cotton exports amounted to 7.1% of the United States' exports. In 1820, that figure had risen to 32%. By 1840, cotton amounted to 52% of the exports of this country. And by the year 1860, leading up to the war, cotton, heavily taxed and tariffed by the north, amounted to almost 58% of all exports from United States ports.

Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge knows where I'm going with those facts. To assert that 'There were farms in the north too', is to deny history and facts. To assert that the South was a patchwork of hick farmers going against the national mindset, importing slave labor for their own selfish purpose, is to deny history and fact.

The institution of slavery had it's origin in the banking institutions of the north and the profits of it were generated by northern states and northern slave-traders. Slave trading was a natural response (given the conditions and mindset of the nation 150 years ago) to the fact that cotton production demanded field hands.

Merchants and seamen and politicians and exporters in the northern states, not the South, determined that the way to satisfy the economical needs of the nation was through conscription (forced labor). All of America either were participating in the institution of slavery, turned a blind eye to it for their own economic interests, or simply had no knowledge of it. (not many were connected to the net).

Do we need to keep revisiting drivel such as miami keeps spewing forth, totally absent factual information and historical accuracy? Do we really need to know that he 'hates the flag'? Do we really need to keep hearing that he thinks the flag offends people? Apparently so.

As he and several others have said.....they thought this was just a poll. Nobody told them they should be prepared to present facts.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by miamiman

This is ignorance I am willing to undertake. I have taken history classes, and some of the posts I have seen here are extremely off-base and Confederate-oriented. I have taken the time to read and consider what many on here have said, despite how incorrect they might be. I vehemently disagree with many of the assertions here, and I refuse to be force-fed some incorrect version of history, because the masses in this thread want to call it fact. I would be much more open to hearing Confederate history from people who are open to listening and considering others viewpoints; because, face it, none of us were there, none of us know the full truth.

Just returned a bit ago from the dove hunt and ready to jump back in the fray!

Miamiman? At times, as Shadow said earlier, you appear reasonable. Other times, as he also indicated, you cross that line between admirably standing up for your beliefs and having a complete lack of respect for the beliefs and principles of others.

Of course, to be fair, I too perhaps get a bit testy on occasion, and use language that that could come across as a biting and rude as well. And for that, I apologize to anyone who may have been offended. It wasn't intended. I don't take disagreement personal, and believe in civil and respectful debate.

With that said, though, let me try and make something clear. In fact, it is something I have said almost since the beginning of this thread, and is something I think should be a basic premise when discussing historical controversies and things connected. That is, history is not an objective science. Facts can be presented, but the interpretation of those facts are ALWAYS going to vary, depending on perspective.

For instance, A truly "objective" history would consist only of names and dates, and even then there could be problems. To prove how this might apply to the topic at hand, consider the following statement: "The first major land engagement of the American Civil War was the Battle of Bull Run."

Most people reading this in a history book today would likely consider it simple objective fact, right? BUT, in reality it reflects a very definite prejudice. For one thing, a "Civil War" is one fought between two factions within the same country. As it was, the states of the South formed their own nation and government prior to the commencement of hostilities.

Also, the yankees tended to name battles after the nearest body of water while the Rebs usually referred to it by way of a local landmark or settlement. Thus, for us "Southern Partisans" the proper wording would be: "The first major land engagement of the War Between the States was the Battle of First Manassas."

So, what I am saying is, no one is trying to "force feed" you anything at all. You are free to interpret basic facts as you please. The only thing asked is that you get those basic facts straight (for instance, your statement that "all men are created equal" appears in the Constitution, or that the North could "outlaw" the Confederacy, etc). After that, make your arguments stem from a logical premise.

Originally Posted by miamiman

I have acknowledged that the North wasn't perfect, even acknowledging that documentation of slave counts in New Jersey was very likely skewed significantly to make it appear as the state had fewer slaves than it did. I am FULLY aware that there was no perfect part of the country. I am aware that there was no line that could suddenly be crossed in which greedy, immoral disappeared.

This is to your credit. Many people don't. Or are unaware of it at all. That is, the extent of slavery in the North, nor the segregation and discrimination that existed. Sometimes, hell, at least equally, as appalling as anything in the South. At least Southerners were not hypocrites about it all.

Originally Posted by miamiman

I am simply stating that the Confederate flag has a extremely negative connotation associated with it by many blacks and whites in this country, and I am showing that I agree with their assertions as well. Many people are against the Confederate flag because they interpret it to represent oppression and slavery.

Yes, it does. And believe it or not, I understand it as well. However, in reading this post, and your previous one suggesting that, because some people are offended, it should be removed from public display or that we Southerners should furl and fold and box it away on the same grounds, reminds me a bit of this old "line" by Stephen Crane"

A man said to the universe: 'Sir, I exist!' 'However,' replied the universe. 'The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation.

In other words, I am not going to surrender my own principles, heritage, etc, because "someone might be offended." And the word "might" is a bit operative too. Are you aware that, in a Harris Poll some years ago, that 68% of blacks surveyed said they had no personal problem with the Confederate Flag? And that, when it came up for a vote as to whether or not to retain it on the Mississippi State Flag, that a third of blacks voted to keep it?

Be very careful when you use adjectives like "many", because just as "many" may not fit the mold one is trying to present.

Originally Posted by miamiman

I am fully aware that the flag has different meanings to different people, but to read and accept that the flag is nothing more than innocent sign of heritage recognition is not something I am willing to do. The fact is, in this day and age, the flag is consistently seen as a sign of hatred by most, and is being removed from the tops of state capital building where it has flown for many, many decades.

You don't have to (accept it, that is). Really, as has been stated by me, Don, and others, our purpose is not so much to convince those whose minds are already made up, as to give a different side of it to those hwo may otherwise know little or nothing about the South, its symbols, its side of the War, etc.

Again, "hatred by most." Can you back this up with anything other than it is YOUR own experience and/or opinion?

Originally Posted by miamiman

These are the very same states in which I, and others, have made loose reference to when talking about the states who fought the hardest for the Confederacy and threatened to secede.

I am not at all sure what you mean by this. Fought hardest for the Confederacy and threatened to secede? Uhhh, didn't they secede first?

Originally Posted by miamiman

I am aware that I am one of the few, if not the only, white Southerner on this board who refuses to accept the Confederate viewpoint as fact. I have listened to enough skewing of the facts and skirting around the issues to make me ill. To completely ignore slavery as a part of the Confedenerate as momof2dfw attempted to do is EXTREMELY ignorant, and quite ridiculous.

See above how "facts" relate to history. And no one that I know of is ignoring slavery. What momof2dwf did was, very articulately, put it all in a very astute and relevant framework. One being that "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones..."

Originally Posted by miamiman

Lastly, there is no way you can't separate the issue of racism and the Confederate flag. The primary reason there is contention surrounding the flag is because of racism and slavery that was perpetuated by the Confederacy.

Yes there is. Because I do so. Seperate it from hatred and racism, that is. The fact that YOU can't, has no bearing on what I can do. In fact, I make it a personal -- and inherited -- obligation to do so. I am not willing to see the Confederate Battle Flag become the property of hate groups. And the best way I know for that proud and honorable banner to become just that, is for Southerners proud of our history, region, and heritage, to refuse to keep it as ours.

[Don D.]

I have only one thing to say, and by God this is something that not a one of you can deny or objectify or reason away or pretend to not have noticed. And that is that Reb has learned how to multi-quote!

[callicott3]

Originally Posted by expgc

Last time I checked we are still free to express ourselves in this country. If we are going to let illegals wave their Mexican flags in protest, then what difference should it make for someone waving a confederate flag? Not everyone who waves or displays are confederate flag is a racist. What are you afraid of?

It's important to remember history.......good or bad. I am from Lexington, SC (originally, Chatsworth, CA) and I understand the reason behind flying a Confederate flag. There ARE those who see the 'Stars and Bars' as a symbol of hate and racism. I belong to the OCR ( Order of the Confederate Rose ) a group of ladies who assist their local SCV (Sons of Confederate Veterans
I also am a re-enactor. I belong to the PSRS ( Palmetto Soldier's Relief Society ) I fly the 'Bonny Blue'....it is unfortunate that the Confederate Battle Flag (the one usually associated with "hate groups") is a "trigger" for anger. The Confederate flag (of which there are 7, in case anyone is interested) is nothing to be afraid of. It is the people, who use it as a symbol of Hate, you should be afraid of.

[callicott3]

Originally Posted by Don D.

"Lord have mercy on this woman. Please get a clue. Many of those plantations weren't even created until slaves arrived. Agricultural production would have NEVER reached the size it did if it weren't for slaves. There were PLENTY of farms in the North. The fact of the matter is, they never grew to the size of the plantations in the South because of the absence of slave labor. Slave labor determined the size of the plantations, plantations didn't determine the size of slave labor. That's like saying the size of house will determine how many children a married couple has. Absurd. Try again."


Obviously, that quote is from miamiman, the king of multi-quote and abject historical ignorance; the man for whom a little bit of knowledge is a monumentally dangerous thing, not only for himself, but for anyone he comes near.

There were 'plenty of farms in the north'? Really. I'll stand by while he multiquotes some historical fact to support that. How many crops from northern farms were exported to Europe and beyond? How many northern agricultural exports were tariffed as was cotton, the predominant crop of the entire country? How much cotton was cultivated in the north and placed under the burdensome tariff structure that forced the South to consider breaking away in the first place? The economy of the north was more and more becoming dependant upon value-added processing and marketing and international shipment of..........what? Cotton.

Ahh, the chicken-or-the-egg-controversy. Which came first...the plantation or the labor? The size of the family determines the size of the house. Now there's a lesson in architecture and sociology.

But, what seems missing in the lecture miami delivers is a lesson in climatology. It should be no newsflash to most that the climate visitied by God upon the Southern states supported agricultural production. 'Cotton was king' was not only the motto of the South and the nation in the 1860s, it lasted through the 1950s and is still true, to some degree today. The cotton producing states of the South made and propped up the national economy prior to the war of northern aggression. Does miamiman think beets, potatoes and sparsely populated corn fields were packing the cashiers' drawers of northern banks?

Wealthy individuals from the northeast and from Europe migrated Southward, seeking agricultural enterprise and profit, not unlike searchers of gold headed west some years later. Land was acquired, agricultural enterprises sprung up, slave traders in the northern states developed a network of shipping operations through which Africans were purchased (or swapped) from other Africans and the farms were populated with labor. Those farming operations grew, naturally, into what would be called plantations, depending on acreage and economic output.

Self-appointed 'Historians', like miamiman, would have you think bad people and assorted idiots from the bustling South decided to row up some crops, got pretty handy at it and lightbulbs popped on in their heads telling them they needed to sail away in the dead of night to a foreign continent and steal away with thousands of their citizens.....only to beat them into submission and make laborers of them. And that obese white men in straw hats sat on breezy store-porches, chewing on johnson grass, plotting another nighttime trip during which more Africans could be snatched up, stolen away, and forced into a life of conscription.

Arguably, a majority of the national economy was built on and survived by cotton. (Remember that the Industrial Revolution had not yet occurred). The labor necessary to bring cotton to market, right or wrong, was determined by this entire nation to be slave labor. There was nothing regional about that decision. To repeat, that was a national, not a regional decision made by a few rotund, toothless hicks in Southern states. I think this is where we need to insert Mr. Miami's 'get a clue'!

That the government, appointed and empowered by the body of various states, decided to skim Southern cotton-profits through a system of tax levies and tariffs was the major determinant of the 'disagreement' that would later be referred to as The Civil War, more correctly the War of Northern Aggression.

Get a clue, Indeed.

(Happy Sunday! Mississippi State beat Auburn yesterday. War Eagle Indeed.)

Thank you, so much, for understanding the issue, Don! I had to learn all of that, before I joined any of the organizations, I mentioned. SCV, OCR, etc. I also teach Women's History, for 'Home Schoolers'. It is so important for our children (ALL of our children) to understand the causes and effects of any conflict. Most especially, one within our own country. It is part of American History, for better or worse!

[callicott3]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

To each his own on the issue, but to my way of thinking, the quickest way for the Confederate Battle Flag to be dishonored and associated exclusively with hate groups is for decent Southerners to let them claim exclusive rights to it by default. Personally, I welcome the opportunity to explain to transplanted northerners or perhaps a minority who may see it negatively, my reasons for displaying it. And I can honestly say, in the vast majority of cases, the person has come away, if not necessarily agreeing with me in all ways, at understanding and accepting that most Southerners intend nothing obnoxious and/or hateful by it.

So far as the present and past goes, I see no reason we can't live fully in the one yet honor and learn from the other!

It's a shame that more don't appreciate their past. Like it or not, folks. I'm curious............did the "original Americans", who fought the British, burn and dispise the Union Jack? I know there are some, for what ever reason, will see this as an "it's not the same" issue. It is. I am pretty sure that, given the circumstances of each, that the Union Jack was used "as a symbol of hate" at some point. They (we) "got over it".......isn't it time?

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by callicott3

I belong to the OCR ( Order of the Confederate Rose ) a group of ladies who assist their local SCV (Sons of Confederate Veterans
I also am a re-enactor. I belong to the PSRS ( Palmetto Soldier's Relief Society ) I fly the 'Bonny Blue'....it is unfortunate that the Confederate Battle Flag (the one usually associated with "hate groups") is a "trigger" for anger. The Confederate flag (of which there are 7, in case anyone is interested) is nothing to be afraid of. It is the people, who use it as a symbol of Hate, you should be afraid of.

Very nice to meet you, Miss Callicott! Don and I are both proud members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Some women in our local area (North Texas) are in the process of organizing an OCR chapter here. God Bless you Dixie ladies for all you do! *smiles* Here is an except from a tune of the era!

Oh yes, she is a Southern girl
And glory in the name
And boasted with far greater pride
Than glittery wealth and fame

She envies not the Northern girl,
Whose robes are beauty rare
Though diamonds grace her snowy neck,
And pearls bedeck her hair.

Hurrah, Hurrah,
For the Sunny South so dear
Three cheers for the "Homespun Dress"
That Southern ladies wear...

This is dedicated to you, BlueSkies, MissyMom, Momof2, Southernlady, and (please forgive me if I left any names out!) all of the rest of the wonderful ladies of our sweet, sunny, Southland who see fit to defend her and her heritage!

[southernlady5464]

Welcome, Miss Callicott, to the thread. It's nice to see another voice of reason. Texas Reb, Don D. BlueSkies, MissyMom, Momof2 and ColdCanadian along with myself have tried to present the history of the south and the flag to little avail. We hope those who have read this thread without posting have managed to learn something.

But we feel like we are beating a dead horse. So many have their minds made up and refuse to think there might be a different view of history. One not written by the victors. But as much of the truth as possible. And we've presented sources from all over. Not just those from the south.

Glad to have you join us. Liz