The Confederate Flag - how do you feel about it? (Illinois, Chicago)

[missymomof3]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

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!

I am flattered, thank you!

[southernlady5464]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

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!

Thank you very much, that is very nice of you. Liz

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, miamiman did have brunch, and it was amazing. First of all, I am definitely not engaging my own personal opinion. The history of the Confederacy relating to slavery is not opinion, it is fact. You, and SO many others on here refuse to even acknowledge that fact as one of the main factors for the Civil War and the meaning behind the Confederate flag, making it extremely difficult for me to accept you as being well-educated on matters yourself. I am completely aware that a tariff was placed on trade that affected the value of the South's main crop, cotton. You, sir, however, fail to mention who was picking that cotton, and sustaining the South's economy. Please stop acting as though the cotton picked itself, or the majority of production fell on the backs of "law-abiding" (haha), hard-working, white Southerners. No, the majority of those people were too busy sitting on their rocking chairs, eating fried chicken and drinking sweet tea, that they didn't make, of course (occasionally whipping a slave or two when they got bored). Give that a rest. One of the PRIMARY reasons for that tariff was to advance the economy of the North, which in the 1820s, wasn't as consistent as the economy of the South. Had it not been for slaves, plantations in the South would have NEVER grown as large as they did during that period, and the economy of the South would have been MUCH weaker.

However, in the North, mechanization became king. While the North may not have produced a crop that alone was a valuable as cotton, the region still produced a variety of crops, and was MUCH more efficient as doing so through mechanization. I guess you didn't realize that in 1860 nearly half of the United States' corn was produced in the North, 80 percent of the nation's wheat was produced in the North, and almost 90 percent of the nation's oats. Again, I realize that none of these crops carried as much value as cotton, but they were still important nevertheless, and for the most part weren't harvested off of the backs of slaves. The North even had twice as many pack animals as the South. Although, there was mechanization in the North that definitely could have employed slave labor, the majority of the industry didn't. The most documented case of slave labor employed in manufacturing was at an iron company in Richmond, which by ALL accounts at the time, was NOT a Northern city.

So here, we see that slave labor could have been employed in Northern factories and farms, but that was clearly not the case. So the argument that there was no place for a mass amount of slave labor to be employed in the North at the time is a weak argument, at best. The South was so reliant on slavery, that it's economy would have collapsed anyway without their labor. Even despite the fact that tariff was put in place, come the beginning of the Civil War, the value of cotton was at an all time high, and for the most part, the South was still quite well off. You need to realize that the facts you stated concerning the factors that initiated the war are tied up in slave labor any and every way you put it. I've heard the argument that Southerners didn't want to give up any of their power, so they attempted to secede. You need to realize that the slave economy sustained the South at that time, so any threat from the North to rip the South's foundation out would have caused major issues. And it definitely did, when the Confederacy lost the war.

See, the major issue I have is over your refusal to state the whole story. No one is ignoring the fact that the majority of Southerners did not run large scale farms and plantations, but that was often due to personal economic reasons, and not morality. I have little respect for even the Confederate soldier who owned no slaves, had no desire to, but still fought for the Confederate cause. That very cause is a blemish in American history, and should not be represented with a flag nearly 150 years after the fact. The flag supposedly the symbol of the "struggle" of Confederate soldiers to retain their way of life is offensive, because that way of life had such a negative effect on millions of people over the course of hundreds of years.

You can continue to wave the flag around like some mad person, while it's getting taking down left and right because the majority of us realize the pain that it holds for so many people to this day. Hopefully, your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will realize the stain the Confederacy has put on U.S. history, and not engage in any of that flag praising and waving foolishness.

That's my story, and the story of millions in this country, and we're sticking by it.

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

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.



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.



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.



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?



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?



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..."



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.

All right. First and foremost, with me tolerance is mostly a two way street. But, when on the other end of the street, is a legacy of hatred and suppression, all respect and tolerance goes out of the window. Your request at me respecting your "beliefs and principles" concerning this matter would be granted on the same day I do so for the Taliban and the KKK (read: never). I am not apologetic if I have offended anyone, for this is the United States, and I have every right to do so. I have a belief system that will not be compromised by refusal to state the whole truth, and a meticulously selective restatement of ACTUAL facts. I agree wholeheartedly that no one is successfully force feeding me any facts about the meaning behind the Confederate flag. After doing the slightest bit of additional research on the topic myself, my agenda is even stronger than it was when I made my first post on this thread. Confederate flags shouldn't be furled anywhere, they should be shreaded, and the pieces should be used as a play toy for rotweilers.

I will go by the facts that are recognized by most in this country as being true, because, once again, none of us were actually there. However, slavery undeniably took place, and I have failed to here even a SLIGHT acknowledgement of this "little" piece of Southern history.

Please provide a direct link to the Harris Poll you make reference to. For all I know, 6 black people in Hopscotch, Arkansas, who are all direct descendants of Confederate soldiers could have been polled. There are so many other factors that could have played into the final results of that poll, that just accepting your assertion that 68 percent of black people are not offended by the Confederate flag is difficult. Even with your Mississippi example, how in world is it known that one-third of blacks voted to keep the flag up? If even you can come up with rationale for that, the majority of blacks voted to take it down. How many blacks came out to the polls? The people who usually show up to vote in those types of measures are those who feel extremely passionate about it. They're either usually either extremely for or against the issue to show up to vote for these types of issues. I am definitely not ignorning the fact that 33 percent did vote in favor the flag, I just need to know how many and under what conditions.

It's common knowledge that the Confederate flag represents hatred. It's really not about having the ability to separate the Confederate flag from slavery and hatred, it's about having the ability to avoid ignorance by telling myself that the battle flag has NOTHING to do with slavery AT ALL (which would not just be ignornant, but stupid, as well). I think if we both agree the many people associate the Confederate flag with slavery, I think we should both be able to link slavery with hatred and oppression? KKK? Neo-nazi groups? Hate and more hate. Regardless of whether or not you want to see your "pure" battle flag being used for hateful purposes, it always has been and it is today. That, in itself, would be enough for MANY to show disdain for all that it represents.

TexReb, can you please, at the VERY least, acknowledge the group of people who supported the South for hundreds of years? What was the primary purpose of the Civil War, and please tell me how it had NOTHING to do with these people at all? I could really use the entertainment.

[Don D.]

I think the gentleman from Florida just used about six thousand words insisting on acknowledgement that (1) slavery did exist, and (2), that slavery was one of the reasons for secession, resistance to northern bullying and the war. Newsflash! Acknowledged.

That slaves picked cotton and cotton sustained the economy of the South is not nor has ever been denied. Acknowledged.

That the northern states produced more corn, wheat and oats than the South is not nor has been argued. Acknowledged. It is also acknowledged that none of those products were exported to the UK or Europe. Nor were peanuts or blueberries. The subject of the discussion is cotton and how government tariffs on cotton exports drove the South's decisions to a large degree. Need we also weave into the discussion a paragraph on which states ginned up the most marmalade or shoe leather?

The gentleman gets a bit ahead of himself, indeed a bit ahead of history in his angst to introduce mechanization and industrialization into the discussion.

I suggest the gentleman spent upwards of 90% of his time and post stating facts upon which we all agree and has done a nice job of stating our position from an accurate historical perspective. I'm surprised, yet I suspect he did not know he was doing that.

But, where he continues to run aground is in 'telling us' what was in the minds of individual farmers and others a century and a half ago, why they didn't do this or that and his continued monotonous insistence that once a certain geographic parallel was crossed, moving Southward, only evil men could be found.

I will ignore his demand that statistics and links be provided regarding the Mississippi flag and the vote to retain it several years ago. The flag measure was appended to a routine election day ballot and folks went to the polls in great numbers, not to vote for or against a flag, but as a routine matter of electing state politicians. The flag measure was appended to the process, giving each of us an opportunity to voice an opinion, after having voted in the regular, general election. The state's liberal newspaper, The Clarion Ledger, is the source for statistics regarding who voted for and against the flag's retention. The gentle combatant from Florida can do his own research.

Next I expect that he will attempt to convince me that, although cotton was king of the US economy in 1860, it was actually the mining of lignite in central Mississippi, the burgeoning peanut industry in Georgia and the need for rocket engine parts at the NASA centers in the South that led these bad people to continue the evil practice of slavery.

In conclusion, while I appreciate the research he's finally begun doing to advance our case, I continue to hold out hope that he will eventually begin making a bit more sense when he draws conclusions from those facts. We'll have him displaying the First Confederate within the month.

[momof2dfw]

I for one would LOVE to know his ancestoral history???? He states that he is a "Southerner" but to what length? How far back does his family go in American history? When did they arrive in America and where? Where did they migrate to in America? What wars did his forefathers fight in? I have a hunch but I'll not assume anything right now

[southernlady5464]

I for one would LOVE to know his ancestoral history???? He states that he is a "Southerner" but to what length? How far back does his family go in American history? When did they arrive in America and where? Where did they migrate to in America? What wars did his forefathers fight in?

Missy, I would too...I love genealogy research. It fascinates me. Liz

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by miamiman

All right. First and foremost, with me tolerance is mostly a two way street. But, when on the other end of the street, is a legacy of hatred and suppression, all respect and tolerance goes out of the window.

HAHAHAHA Yeah, I know what you mean. I encounter that attitude frequently (usually among the PC bunch). That is, tolerance is a two way street UNLESS someone disagrees with ME. In that case, they are by definition intolerant, and intolerance is not to be tolerated.

Originally Posted by miamiman

Your request at me respecting your "beliefs and principles" concerning this matter would be granted on the same day I do so for the Taliban and the KKK (read: never). I am not apologetic if I have offended anyone, for this is the United States, and I have every right to do so. I have a belief system that will not be compromised by refusal to state the whole truth, and a meticulously selective restatement of ACTUAL facts. I agree wholeheartedly that no one is successfully force feeding me any facts about the meaning behind the Confederate flag.

I wasn't necessarily referring to your "respecting (my) beliefs", as I was an overall manner, which Shadow covered in a recent post of his. On a personal level, the more you post (read: rant and rave), and the way you present your case, the less I care what you think, to be honest.

Also, you are not offending me in the slightest, as I am not easily offended no matter the topic. I think you flatter yourself too much in believing that your presentation is of such magnitude that it arouses such feelings, anyway. Amused disdain is more like it.

Originally Posted by miamiman

After doing the slightest bit of additional research on the topic myself, my agenda is even stronger than it was when I made my first post on this thread. Confederate flags shouldn't be furled anywhere, they should be shreaded, and the pieces should be used as a play toy for rotweilers.

You are free to use and/or desecrate the Confederate Flag, or any flag, in any manner you please. Just as the KKK and neo-nazis are. What either you or they do doesn't necessarily change a thing so far as how others may perceive it

Originally Posted by miamiman

I will go by the facts that are recognized by most in this country as being true, because, once again, none of us were actually there. However, slavery undeniably took place, and I have failed to here even a SLIGHT acknowledgement of this "little" piece of Southern history.

Obviously then, you haven't bothered to read this thread. In fact, I don't who HASN'T acknowledged it. I said on several occasions in the early part of the thread that it would be downright foolish to argue that slavery had nothing at all to do with the War. And that further, for some, it was likely THE issue (mostly the tiny minority of wealthy slaveowners who wanted to protect their own interests). But that is your problem if you haven't bothered to look.

Originally Posted by miamiman

Please provide a direct link to the Harris Poll you make reference to. For all I know, 6 black people in Hopscotch, Arkansas, who are all direct descendants of Confederate soldiers could have been polled. There are so many other factors that could have played into the final results of that poll, that just accepting your assertion that 68 percent of black people are not offended by the Confederate flag is difficult.

The Harris poll results of some years ago were published in a local newspaper and news magazine as I recall. I will see if I can locate them thru search. And what I said was that, in this particular poll, as I remember it, 68% said they were not personally bothered by it. It didn't mean they revered it, it just meant, likely, it wasn't a big issuse for them (same way I don't care if a black person wants to wear or display a Malcomb X flag or shirt). Like most people, they just prefered to live and let live Contrasted to how, say, the black "race-baiters" would like to exploit and stir up tension for their own purposes, or a lot PC whites prefer to see it, so they can feel good about themselves by tooting horns and beating breasts about their sensitivity.

Originally Posted by miamiman

It's common knowledge that the Confederate flag represents hatred. It's really not about having the ability to separate the Confederate flag from slavery and hatred, it's about having the ability to avoid ignorance by telling myself that the battle flag has NOTHING to do with slavery AT ALL (which would not just be ignornant, but stupid, as well).

Oh boy! LOL This statement, that it is "common knowledge" that the Confederate Flag represents "hatred" is a very good example of what myself and others notice about your arguments and case. One of which seems to be an inability to separate fact from YOUR personal opinion. Or to understand that some may take the same facts and form different opinions.

So far as the second part about "avoiding ignorance" (whatever exactly that means, but oh well), an association of the Battle Flag with slavery, depends on many factors and within what context. Lets see, ok. Slavery existed in the South. The Southern states seceded and, to some in the South, slavery was an important issue. A war was fought and, during this conflict, the Battle Flag was carried by Confederate soldiers. Therefore, the Battle Flag has "something" to do with slavery. Is that your premise and conclusion?

Fine. I agree. Now then, in the Texas Ordinanace of Secession, a failure of the federal government to live up to its promise to protect settlers, from Indians, along the exposed frontier, was cited as one reason for severing ties with the northern states. A war was fought, and during the conflict, the Battle Flag was carried by Confederate soldiers. Therefore, the Battle Flag has something to do with a broken promise set forth in the original annexation agreement. Then of course, in some of the ordinances passed in the Upper South states, the reason for joining the Confederacy were combinations of a commitment to consentual government, state soveriengty, unjustified coersion, etc. A war was fought and during the conflict....etc, etc. Bottom line? Not only are you arguing something no one has suggested, but making connections that are not only specious as you present them, but can also be used to prove a point opposite of the one you intended.

[quote=miamiman;1521528]I think if we both agree the many people associate the Confederate flag with slavery, I think we should both be able to link slavery with hatred and oppression? KKK? Neo-nazi groups? Hate and more hate. Regardless of whether or not you want to see your "pure" battle flag being used for hateful purposes, it always has been and it is today. That, in itself, would be enough for MANY to show disdain for all that it represents. [/QUOTE

Slavery by its very nature is "oppressive." Does it stem from "hatred"? Not necessarily. It was an institution that has existed since the dawn of time, among all people, and, depending on which instance of slavery one is talking about, "hatred" may or my not have played a role in it. In Egypt? Rome? America? Africa today? Your use of "hatred" as applies to the topic as concerns slavery and the WBTS does not make a lot of sense.

The KKK and neo-Nazi groups? Yes, now there is where "hate" could be applied. But at least in the case of the former, the Christian Cross is also often used. And both use the American Flag. In fact, for MANY, the Christian cross and American Flag in and of themselves are symbols of (depending) intolerance, imperialism, hate, oppression, etc. But again, as has been said time after time after time again, EVERY symbol in history carries SOME negative baggage to some individuals and/or groups. That fact may or may not influence how I perceive the symbol. And in the case of the Confederate Battle Flag, the fact slavery existed and was one of many causes of the eventual conflict, or the fact some disreputable groups use it in the mistaken belief it is about racial hatred, does not diminish its meaning and symbolism for ME. I do not see an offensive banner. I see offensive people using it.

For me, once again, the Battle Flag represents my Southern history and heritage, my ancestor's fighting spirits, regional pride, and American political principles such as true federalism (i.e. states rights), consentual government, etc. Maybe you can't and maybe some others can't separate the the two, but I can and further, so can MANY others.

Originally Posted by miamiman

TexReb, can you please, at the VERY least, acknowledge the group of people who supported the South for hundreds of years? What was the primary purpose of the Civil War, and please tell me how it had NOTHING to do with these people at all? I could really use the entertainment.

Once again, your posts are extremely difficult to decipher so far as what you are talking about. Acknowledge WHAT group of people who supported the South for hundreds of years? The tiny minority of slave-holders? The much larger group of yeoman farmers? The women of the South? The soldiers? In later years, the United Confederate Veterans, the SCV or UDC? The Southern Congressional Caucus? Or some other group? WHAT are you talking about?

Or, are you referring to the KKK or neo-nazis? Well, other than the original KKK, which was largely in response to the excesses of Radical Reconstruction, then faded out aftewards, the KKK has no more intrinsic connection to the South than it does any other region (less in many cases and instances). Neo-nazi? Even less, if at all. And what do you mean, in either case, that they "supported the South" (assuming these groups are who you are referring to) When? In what way?

The primary purpose of the War Between the States? I have posted on this previously. There were many different issues and reasons, and often all were intertwined with, and inter-related to, one another. So go back and read them. I am not going to keep repeating something that has already appeared many times. Again, it is your problem if you remain unaware of its (and those of others) existences.

So finally, WHICH issue which had to do with WHAT people? And WHEN?

If you want entertainment, trying to figure out your phrasing and/or point is a good start. Now, time for me to get to work.

Everyone have a good day!

[Steve-o]

Is this thread still going? lol

lol Oh man.

[pwehrs]

[SIZE=3] OLD GLORY[/SIZE]
How Do You Feel About It? - Patricia Wehrs
September 17, 2007

[SIZE=3]The American Flag flies today as a symbol that displays our freedom. Freedom – it is ONLY by of the grace of the Almighty and by the sacrifices of our young and brave, that “Old Glory” still waves…Least we never forget. [/SIZE]All our flags (The American Flag , MIA, Union, Confederate, State, Battalion, ect.) represent our proud history, respect those flags and what they represent, fly them high with pride and with appreciation of those who have gone before us.

[SIZE=3]In honor of [/SIZE]2nd Lieutenant Emil Miles Gentry[SIZE=3], our flag will fly at half mast this October.[/SIZE]

2nd Lieutenant Emil Miles Gentry, a US Army Air Force pilot, graduated the Air Force Advanced Flying School at Williams Field, AZ on 30 October 1942; wed Elizabeth Lee the same day; Emil was declared MIA in May of 1943 (at age 26) during the Army's WWII Pacific Campaign. The plane, in which he was co-pilot, was found in New Guinea in 1951; the crew’s remains were found in 2003 and positively identified through DNA testing in 2005. October 2007, 65 years from the month of his wedding and flight school graduation, Emil Gentry will now be laid to rest at home – Forever Young.

[SIZE=3]Now I write about someone I never met, yet I know so well. I write of my feelings, I write about my Uncle Emil. Though I have never met him, I know him from the stories of my grandmother, as her only son, and my mother, her only brother. It is thanks to them he lives in my soul. My grandfather spoke little of Emil, but when he did, his mouth would slightly smile and his blue eyes just glistened with tears of loss.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Emil was very much into his music and Native American history and lore. He played many string instruments, the mandolin, the guitar, the ukulele and banjo. My mother, Dorris, played the same instruments; she and my grandmother could also play the piano. The whole family sang and did so very well. Emil and his friends actually went to a recording studio in Chicago and cut a few records. Sorry, they were destroyed in the fire in 1979. The heat did them in. So there you go, little sister Nancy that is from where you get your beautiful voice and piano playing abilities, Dawne Patricia, you follow suite! And of course we won’t forget the boys. Brother, Rick, and nephew, Matt , who both play the string instruments and sing too. You know if we lived back on the farm in the early 1900’s , we would have one great Front Porch Band. So, thanks Uncle Emil, your talents live on.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Emil also loved the great out-of-doors, spending many hours exploring and hunting for Native American artifacts. His collection of arrow heads, stone hatchet heads and primitive tools was extensive. My brother, Rick now proudly displays the collection of arrow heads. Emil also made a lot of Indian pottery, bead work and clothing. The clothing and War Bonnet he made have long disappeared. However, I have a picture of him in the full feathered war bonnet, with the added note that neither the Pottawatomie nor the Chippewa wore this type of head dress. The typical head dress for them was a head band with three feathers at the back or side of the head.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Flags & Feathers remind us of our joys and sorrows, our love and freedoms.[/SIZE]

Emil Gentry is the cherished son of the late Floyd and Cynthia Caroline (Dorris) Gentry; beloved brother of the late Dorris Elizabeth (Gentry) McGrath Tanis and uncle to the late Barbara Jayne McGrath. Emil is survived by his wife Elizabeth (Lee) DavisCA; nieces Patricia J Wehrs of Puerto Rico and BellevueWA; Elizabeth Ann of BarringtonIL; Nancy Louise of MariettaGA; and his nephew Richard Thomas of BeloitWI. Emil is mourned by his large extended family, including 15 great-nieces and -nephews and 7 great-great-nieces and -nephews.

A memorial service will be held for Emil from 3pm to 9pm on Monday, October 15, 2007 at the Riggin-Pillatsch Funeral Home, 322 N Division Street in Emil's hometown of Carterville in Southern Illinois. Emil's remains will be buried in the Gentry/Dorris family plot of HillcrestCemetery, CartervilleIL the following day - Tuesday, October 16, 2007.

A memorial service for the entire crew of 13 in the downed plane will be held in St Louis on Thursday, October 18, with interment of remains at JeffersonBarracksNationalCemetery, 2900 Sheridan Road, St. Louis, MO63125, the following day - Friday, October 19, 2007 (314.260.8691 - www.cem.va.gov/pdf/jeffbarr.pdf).

Questions regarding arrangements for Emil Gentry may be directed to Michael Burke of the Riggin-Pillatsch Funeral Home: 618.985.2131.