Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm,in 2003 43% of the military were southerners while only 36% of the US popu;lation.Over 60% of the fighting force were southerners in every war.Just look up what % of the military are southerners and you prove me wrong.As far as movies and books,your kidding right.From Mississppi Burning to Slingblade.I have read the C Van Woodward's of the world and it is pure hatred from their mouth.Do I care if you think I represent the Confederate flag like you think I should?I have said nothing hateful to anyone.And what does Tawana Bradley have to do with anything
References are standard if making assertions of 'fact' beyond your feelings, so go ahead and provide them. Your feelings are contemptuous of the "northern elitists". I do hail from the north, so naturally I must be what you hate. I'm more knowledgeable about my own patriotism as a veteran. You're implying what about my northern lack of patriotism? Is my blood less worthy?
Mississippi burning never happened? Mississippi Burning
White republicans were never abused by Forrest's men? Never happened? Reconstruction
The southern historical association doesn't think well of C Van Woodward when they award prizes in his name annually? Vast northern elitist smear campaign (from a man educated predominantly in the south)???
Do I think you care? I don't think you care a thing about anyone or anything but the story you want to believe. Problem is, it has little bearing on reality, and you do smear/ disgrace that confederate flag with every ounce of animosity engendered in....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
To: Y'all from Dixie and it's humble servant( Coon Dawg)
On the Warpath
Hateful is as hateful does. You have no willingness to be Americans unless you terrorize America to rewrite the constitution to suit yourselves. Not going to happen. I'm sad to see what a neighbor Ferd has to contend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne
No, not Tawana Brawley.
Trial by media doesn't sound like American justice proscribed by founders to me. Too bad anyone in USA would have to doubt that Mary's killer was still among them. Too bad anyone would abuse jurisprudence for despicable purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Still, I will take some time out and -- with patience, love and charity, reply a bit...
the SCV declares in the first part of its charter "An unquestioned alligieience to the Constitution of the United States". Also, it annually re-affirms a resolution passed in convention back in 1992 (or so). That is, condeming the use of the Battle Flag by any indiviudal/group using it for the purposes of hate/political extremism.
=delusianne;12790978]^ I find that quote at Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam, by James M McPherson, attributed to "a Union surgeon," though in another book McPherson attributes it to "a Union officer."
Yes, I think it WAS McPhersons works were I first read it. He was no fan of the Southern side, but he was at least semi-fair (as these things go) in his presentation. He twisted history to suit his own outlook...but then again, that is the nature of the beast. History is not an objective subject.
I will be the first to admit my own viewpoint is extremely biased in favor of the South. I don't apologize for it. I am an unapologetic, un-reconstructed Son of the South.
But really, history is NOT an objective subject. I came to my own conclusions after many years of reading books and such on the "Civil War". Like many Southerners, I grew up just hearing how wrong our side was. Fought to the end, yes...but that our side was "wrong"
What I began to glean is the simple truth that the winners write the history. When I began to put two and two together, it became an epiphany (sp?) of sorts. That, hey, all this stuff is really biased in itself. In a nut-shell, what passes for "objective" history is -- in many ways -- a disrespect to my own Southern history and heritage. And my people.
That is part of the reason I joined the SCV...and made it a point to speak to public organizations and give the Southern side of the war. I OWE that to those who came before me. During that time I have met African-Americans who shared the same outlook. My g-g-g grandfathers who never owned a slave, and were dirt poor....just knew they needed to take up a rifle and defend their homeland...can't speak up for themselves for obvious reasons.. I can. And will.
I hope the day will never come that my grandsons will be ashamed to own that I was a Confederate Soldier." -- Private A. Y. Handy, 32nd Texas Cavalry, C.S.A.
Yet dragging canoe, great day, and yourself ignore transgressions among your own occurring in this very thread?
What, exactly, are we ignoring? On the contrary, I would say we address every point. We don't pretend the South was a utopia. Rather, we say (in so many words, in an historical context) that identify the saints before condeming the sinners. Nothing is more ludicrous than non-southerners to presume to judge us for our past, when they are totally ignorant of the dirt in their own living room.
What really strikes me is that most of these threads (not this one so much, but many of them) are usually started by those with an axe to grind against the South. We, in turn, are just defending ourselves. The historical analogy is that when the North invaded the South, our forefathers defended themselves. And their homes.
The "Johnny Reb" was mostly a young boy/man who never owned a slave. Somewhere between 18 - 25. Never gave it a thought. He didnt have any slaves, nor had any need for it. His whole life revolved around just keeing the family fed. That might have meant he was head of the household with a wife and kids...or just one still living at home and helping to do what he could. All he knew were that some people called "yankees" were coming down -- for reasons he could not fathom -- to stomp he and his down. He had done no harm to them. So why did they want to do harm to him and his?
So he thought, well, where do I sign my name to protect me and mine? This fellow probably joined an organized company of like-minded neighbors which called themselves "The Mississippi Rifles", the "Texas Dixie Bowie Knives" or the "Tennessee Mountain Boys". They didnt have anything against blacks, or, really, even northerners. They were just young men who did what duty called them to do. In the war, battle flags were created and became the standard of those young men in the field. Some were square, some were rectangular, some had a large center star, some had none. Some were reversed colors. All the soldiers knew was that it was a point of honor. And like all soldiers in any war, all they really wanted ? To just go back home and be with their loved ones...
If anyone really wants to know why I feel as I do about the Confederate Flag (which ever version it may be), then the above is it. I fill up with love and respect when I reflect on it all. Those boys were my ancestors, my kin, my people. They aren't around to speak up for why they did what they did. I am, and will.
I have a picture of one of my Confederate ancestors on my wall. Along with the medallion presented my great-great-grandmother when he passed away. It reads: IN MEMORIUM. Joseph Johnston Camp 144. United Confederate Veterans. Thomas Andrew Bailey. Adams Mississippi Cavalry
Dad gum...I just wish it could talk to me. More than that, I wish he could....
Yes, I think it WAS McPhersons works were I first read it. He was no fan of the Southern side, but he was at least semi-fair (as these things go) in his presentation. He twisted history to suit his own outlook...but then again, that is the nature of the beast. History is not an objective subject.
I will be the first to admit my own viewpoint is extremely biased in favor of the South. I don't apologize for it. I am an unapologetic, un-reconstructed Son of the South.
But really, history is NOT an objective subject. I came to my own conclusions after many years of reading books and such on the "Civil War". Like many Southerners, I grew up just hearing how wrong our side was. Fought to the end, yes...but that our side was "wrong"
What I began to glean is the simple truth that the winners write the history. When I began to put two and two together, it became an epiphany (sp?) of sorts. That, hey, all this stuff is really biased in itself. In a nut-shell, what passes for "objective" history is -- in many ways -- a disrespect to my own Southern history and heritage. And my people.
That is part of the reason I joined the SCV...and made it a point to speak to public organizations and give the Southern side of the war. I OWE that to those who came before me. During that time I have met African-Americans who shared the same outlook. My g-g-g grandfathers who never owned a slave, and were dirt poor....just knew they needed to take up a rifle and defend their homeland...can't speak up for themselves for obvious reasons.. I can. And will.
I hope the day will never come that my grandsons will be ashamed to own that I was a Confederate Soldier." -- Private A. Y. Handy, 32nd Texas Cavalry, C.S.A.
Well.. I'd respectfully disagree about historians, at least of the modern day, who have all the exhaustive information from both sides available to them and more every day. I dont think McPherson is biased; I dont know other CW authors (not even Bruce Catton) but if you'd give a couple of quotes or illustrate somehow a bias that McPherson shows -- I guess you mean he's anti-Southern -- please post, I'd like to know. (Maybe a link to reviews that point this out wd be easy, I can figure it out from there.)
Of course history can be objective, of course it can be presented without bias, and it generally is nowadays, if the author is responsible, and you can tell by his footnotes (and a dozen other things) whether he is or not. Of course he may be presenting a particular POV, and that's generally announced up front as the, or a, hook that makes *this* publication different. But there are so many hundreds of books and monographs and studies focusing on every conceivable angle of the CW era, from both sides, detailed studies of individuals from both sides and their times, battles from both sides... not to mention the raw material *these* authors used, all still out there... they mostly all strive to be honest and even-handed nowadays, but if you feel, or know, that a particular author is writing in a biased way that's not just trying to illustrate a point, there's so much out there on the topic of the CW! Just move on to the next one.
You're not helplessly in the clutches of some cabal of anti-Southern propagandists.
For example there are plenty of scholarly publications on the economy of the South, explaining the practical side of slavery, defending slaveowners and explaining how the necessary POV that turned humans into property worked, and came to be. These arent biased, they're putting together an important and accurate picture. Maybe controversial to some but honesty is the right way to go.
But biased and subjective works -- the older, the moreso -- are hugely illuminating too though harder to put together at first. They're your source material. That Century magazine letter to the ed I gave you a link to, for example. That guy was there during the war and Reconstruction; no historian writing 150 years later can convey the passion that man felt (and they might miss the details that bring it to life, too).
"Defending their homeland," well, your g-g-g grandparents's homeland *was* invaded eventually, but you have to admit, their own states' leaders set them up by seceding, out of pride and anger. Their secession is what brought on the war... and the South was doomed to fail, it never could have survived autonomously. The people of the South were helpless and doomed and ruined for generations because the leaders -- of both sides -- failed to negotiate, understand and cooperate. "A rich man's war and a poor man's fight."
I think it's tempting to romanticize a past, but it's bad history and poisonous to your cause in the long run not to acknowledge its negative sides, or to distort them, or even to refuse to admit they exist.
The confederate flag is a symbol of supreme ignorance and a shameful, disgraceful period in this country's history. It ranks lower than used toilet paper in value. This is what it represents to this yankee.
Well.. I'd respectfully disagree about historians, at least of the modern day, who have all the exhaustive information from both sides available to them and more every day. I dont think McPherson is biased; I dont know other CW authors (not even Bruce Catton) but if you'd give a couple of quotes or illustrate somehow a bias that McPherson shows -- I guess you mean he's anti-Southern -- please post, I'd like to know. (Maybe a link to reviews that point this out wd be easy, I can figure it out from there.)
Of course history can be objective, of course it can be presented without bias, and it generally is nowadays, if the author is responsible, and you can tell by his footnotes (and a dozen other things) whether he is or not. Of course he may be presenting a particular POV, and that's generally announced up front as the, or a, hook that makes *this* publication special. But there are so many hundreds of books and monographs and studies focusing on every conceivable angle of the CW era, from both sides, detailed studies of individuals from both sides and their times, battles from both sides... not to mention the raw material *these* authors used, all still out there... they mostly all strive to be honest and even-handed nowadays, but if you feel, or know, that a particular author is writing in a biased way, there's so much out there on the topic of the CW! Just move on to the next one.
And etc, etc. But it still boils down to that history is NOT an exact pure science. It is biased. History is made up of many different people, cultures, outlooks, etc, doing what they do best...and interpretted and recorded by those with their own biases in favor of the same or hostile to the same.
Take the great documentary film "Civil War" by Ken Burns. It was good from the perspective of orginality and so. But? It was pretty much a northern version of the War.
Hey, let me do it this way. What if I said: The Civil War was fought between the years of 1861- 1865 and the first major land engagement was the Battle of Bull Run? Not many would have a problem with it, right?
As it is though, it contains a very biased "northern" outlook. That is to say, the "Civil War" suggests it was a government putting down a rebellion. Which was not true. The Confederate States were a soverign nation. At best, the best way is to say "War Between the States" Also, Southerners tended to name battles after the nearest body of water.
So from MY perspective, the "right" way to put it is this: The War for Southern Independence was fought between the years of 1861-1865, and the first major land engagement was the Battle of First Manasas.
For sure, this is a very innocuous example. But see what I mean?
But here is a better one. The "winners history" says the South started the war because they fired on Ft. Sumter. Ok...but from the Southern perspective (the one I share in) the Union garrison in the fort were armed troops within Confederate territorial waters. It was no more acceptable than British troops would have been in the Boston Harbor during the American Revolution. The newly formed Confederacy offered every compromise possible. Instead, the Lincoln government provoked an incident which lead to a needless war upon a people who had done nothing to deserve it.
Quote:
You're not helplessly in the clutches of some cabal of anti-Southern propagandists.
LOL Damn right I ain't!
Quote:
For example there are plenty of books on the economy of the South, explaining the practical side of slavery, defending slaveowners and showing the objectifying POV that was necessary in a sympathetic light. These arent biased, they're giving putting together an important and accurate picture. Maybe controversial to some but honesty is the right way to go.
I am reading one right now. In fact, it was a gift from our mutual friend, DeltaPlanter...
Quote:
"Defending their homeland," well, your g-g-g grandparents's homeland *was* invaded eventually, but you have to admit, their own states' leaders set them up by seceding, out of pride and anger.
LOL (I sure keep laughing out loud, huh? LOL) Anyway, are you saying the Southern states set themselves up for invasion because they no longer wanted to have a political connection with the northern states? In other words, the principle of that "government derives its powers from the consent of the governed" no longer applied when the Southern states excercised it? Lets ask/put it this way: Where in the constitution was the Lincoln administration given the right to invade and make war upon a people who, again, had done them no wrong? And wanted nothing more than to go in peace?
[quote] Their secession is what brought on the war {/QUOTE]
See above. Please explain how why the secession of the American Colonies was different than that of the American South. Or Texas from Mexico?
Quote:
I think it's tempting to romanticize a past, but it's bad history and poisonous to your cause in the long run not to acknowledge its negative sides, or to distort them, or even to refuse to admit them.
Tell you what, and I mean this sincerely...
When those who seem to have such a deep-rooted disdain for the South and her history will fess up to the "sins" of their own history of slave-trading, slavery, segregation, sundown towns, and etc? Then...I might truly return the compliment.
Until then, then...wellll, to be blunt about it...they can take a flying smackaroo upon me own Bonnie Blue Texas Dixie Southern Battle Flag covered posterior!
Let me add that, Delusiane...you yourself seem to be fair-minded and all. This is nothing personal against you...I hope you know.
.
The confederate flag is a symbol of supreme ignorance and a shameful, disgraceful period in this country's history. It ranks lower than used toilet paper in value. This is what it represents to this yankee.
Epic fail of a post. I was recently shopping at a local flea market and some of the nicer 3'x5' Confederate Flags were selling for $35. The vendor said it's an item that moves, he sells plenty of them. I don't recall anyone selling used toilet paper or even giving it away for that matter. My advice to you .......do not start a business anytime soon.
Sure. The ONLY thing I ever agreed with Obama on was that we southerners cling to our guns and our Bibles. I am sure there are people all over this country who would die for their faith and this country, but if you've ever experienced true southern pride, you would agree that there is nothing like it. I am taken back to the many weeks I would spend with my grandparents growing up. My grandfather PROUDLY displayed his confederate flag from his front porch, but that man hated no one. My grandmother, cousins & I would sit and shell green beans, shuck corn and sing southern hymns that still bring me comfort in my life today. My grandparents were very very poor, and every generation before them was worse off than the one before. They didn't own slaves. That misguided viewpoint always baffles me. My grandfather, however, kept that flag flying until the day he died.
As I think about the many true southerners who are fighting for our country, I would venture to believe that they likely have very similar stories, and preserving those memories and that heritage means everything. I can tell you without hesitation, if I were faced with death every single day, I would CLING to that which always comforted me...the legacy my grandparents left for their children and grandchildren.
References are standard if making assertions of 'fact' beyond your feelings, so go ahead and provide them. Your feelings are contemptuous of the "northern elitists". I do hail from the north, so naturally I must be what you hate. I'm more knowledgeable about my own patriotism as a veteran. You're implying what about my northern lack of patriotism? Is my blood less worthy?
Mississippi burning never happened? Mississippi Burning
White republicans were never abused by Forrest's men? Never happened? Reconstruction
The southern historical association doesn't think well of C Van Woodward when they award prizes in his name annually? Vast northern elitist smear campaign (from a man educated predominantly in the south)???
Do I think you care? I don't think you care a thing about anyone or anything but the story you want to believe. Problem is, it has little bearing on reality, and you do smear/ disgrace that confederate flag with every ounce of animosity engendered in....
Hateful is as hateful does. You have no willingness to be Americans unless you terrorize America to rewrite the constitution to suit yourselves. Not going to happen. I'm sad to see what a neighbor Ferd has to contend.
Trial by media doesn't sound like American justice proscribed by founders to me. Too bad anyone in USA would have to doubt that Mary's killer was still among them. Too bad anyone would abuse jurisprudence for despicable purpose.
Yet dragging canoe, great day, and yourself ignore transgressions among your own occurring in this very thread?
You are getting out of hand.I have shown you the numbers of how the south is the most proud and patriotic region.It is fact.You have so much passion in you crusade against me and my rebels that you would have proven me wrong,one more time,the south is 45% of the military yet only 35% of the population,again,47% of the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan were southerners while only 35% of the population,so there is no debate there,moving on.You are the only one using the word hate,that means you have lost your argument,you are cocked and ready to fire,but have no ammo.The worst thing you have done though,in your blind anti southern hatred is compare the Tawana Brawley case,who is a thug and lied and tried to ruin many officers of the law lives to a little girl savagely beaten and raped and murdered,you are grasping for straws and that is a pathetic comparison.Do I smear my confederate flag,maybe in you opinion,which means as much to me as boobs on a boarhog.What I do is show my nephews and nieces and every child of the south our wonderful battlefields across this land.I praise NB Forrest and Stonewall Jackson to these beatiful southern kids.I tell them of the days Wade Hampton rode and the "wool hat boys".Yes indeed,I praise these men who died in my backyard in the Chattanooga and Chickamauga campaign.I instill everything unique god has given us.I make sure that future generations love their southern heritage.You are wrong again see,I do the confederate flag and our southern ancestors proud
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm more knowledgeable about my own patriotism as a veteran. You're implying what about my northern lack of patriotism? Is my blood less worthy? 
