Confederate symbols in North Carolina (extermination, living in, authority)
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.
Now I see why anything with "the battle flag of TREASON" on it. Is selling like hot cakes! N.C. is full of confederate defenders. Next you'll say the "Rebs"were patriots
Why people try to celebrate and defend the most shameful time and people(Rebs) in our country's history is beyond me.
I'm sorry but it looks like there are still a lot of closet Rebs out there. The good news is they are in the minority now,and always will be. I hope. I imagine they are the same people who"Want their country back"! Guess what guys,it's never coming back. So get over it!
Lol, thanks for definitively proving you don't understand either the meaning if the word, nor anything about history.
The confederacy didn't attempt to overthrow the government of the United States, it attempted to leave the voluntary association of those states. Get the difference?
I'd like to know what I said that was infantile unless you just couldn't resist another jab, but not as subtle as when you came back with "colored" the official classification for those regiments was US Colored Troops.
Geez, I wrote all of that in an effort to play nice and express my apologies and I feel like you read two sentences.
This:
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbound_295
t. If you are as knowledgeable as you say that you are
Is infantile. Not a big deal. As I said, annoying, not hurtful. We all have our monuments. None of what I said was meant to be an ad hominem attack and I am not trying to tear you down. Frankly, I enjoy the discussion on the topics because my wife has absolutely zero interest in history/politics/sociology and what have you. You know as well as I do that to say the above remark to someone in a face-to-face conversation would come off very poorly. That is all I was saying.
As for the "colored" issue, you are reading in to a criticism that was never there. The quotations around colored are really just me giving into excessive political correctness. I would be a hypocrite if I were to say that vestiges of the Civil War that African Americans find insulting should be limited, only to use that term. As such I added the quotations to emphasize that this is not an appellation that I chose. A necessary caution after seeing how many on these boards pounce on the slightest issue. Your right, it is the official classification. And I don't find anything wrong with you using it, nor should anyone when it is clearly in a historical context. I just didn't feel comfortable using it myself, primarily for the sake of my argument. Truthfully, again, it never dawned on me that you would find that grating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinadawg2
Lol, thanks for definitively proving you don't understand either the meaning if the word, nor anything about history.
The confederacy didn't attempt to overthrow the government of the United States, it attempted to leave the voluntary association of those states. Get the difference?
If we are going to argue using semantics, sure it attempted to overthrow the United States government. "Overthrow" is not a true synonym of dissolve. The Confederacy was an attempt to forcibly remove the United States government from power in the South, as such it was an attempt to overthrow them IN the South.
More importantly, were they to simply break away peacefully from the Union, that is one thing. The forced seizure of federal property and the shots fired on Fort Sumter take the discussion in a whole new direction
Lol, thanks for definitively proving you don't understand either the meaning if the word, nor anything about history.
The confederacy didn't attempt to overthrow the government of the United States, it attempted to leave the voluntary association of those states. Get the difference?
Voluntary association?? So I geuss N.C. could just do the same today? Since its voluntary? You and your comments are ridiculous. I understand that.
Btw you must have missed the part about waging war on one's own country
Looks like we got us a real live Reb,in 2015. Who woulda thunk it lol.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,811 posts, read 34,654,152 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxtheRoadWarrior
Geez, I wrote all of that in an effort to play nice and express my apologies and I feel like you read two sentences.
This:
Is infantile. Not a big deal. As I said, annoying, not hurtful. We all have our monuments. None of what I said was meant to be an ad hominem attack and I am not trying to tear you down. Frankly, I enjoy the discussion on the topics because my wife has absolutely zero interest in history/politics/sociology and what have you. You know as well as I do that to say the above remark to someone in a face-to-face conversation would come off very poorly. That is all I was saying.
As for the "colored" issue, you are reading in to a criticism that was never there. The quotations around colored are really just me giving into excessive political correctness. I would be a hypocrite if I were to say that vestiges of the Civil War that African Americans find insulting should be limited, only to use that term. As such I added the quotations to emphasize that this is not an appellation that I chose. A necessary caution after seeing how many on these boards pounce on the slightest issue. Your right, it is the official classification. And I don't find anything wrong with you using it, nor should anyone when it is clearly in a historical context. I just didn't feel comfortable using it myself, primarily for the sake of my argument. Truthfully, again, it never dawned on me that you would find that grating.
I'm a baby boomer. Colored was the only polite term used to refer to people of African ancestry through the 50s & well into the 60s. It was considered very rude by people of African ancestry to be called black. In the late 60s it started to change, generationally. I do not consider colored to be a Civil War era term for that reason. I used it in the historical context. For you to put it in parentheses certainly appeared to be a slap at me. I do think that the clear issue is that the US Colored Troops were paid less than their white counterparts. But then what do you want from a society where the law forbade women from most jobs and dictated that they be paid half of the wage that their male counterparts earned for the same job. The vestiges of that live on today.
I could list reasons why I think that both sides donated their own share of blame but that isn't specific to North Carolina.
I do suggest that you look up Tilghman Vestal, a NC native Quaker who had the misfortune of being in Tennessee when the war broke out. I could counter with some appalling actions during the war on the Union side but they wouldn't be NC specific.
You are the one who said that you have a masters in history. I don't know you personally to verify that. I made a statement and acknowledged that if you are really a holder of a masters of history you would already know that. That's the type of thing that people say in real life for that exact reason. It's a qualifier. To call that infantile is an aggressive comment on your part, in my opinion.
If we are going to argue using semantics, sure it attempted to overthrow the United States government. "Overthrow" is not a true synonym of dissolve. The Confederacy was an attempt to forcibly remove the United States government from power in the South, as such it was an attempt to overthrow them IN the South.
More importantly, were they to simply break away peacefully from the Union, that is one thing. The forced seizure of federal property and the shots fired on Fort Sumter take the discussion in a whole new direction
Remember Lincoln's call for troops? THAT took the discussion in a whole new direction.
I'm a baby boomer. Colored was the only polite term used to refer to people of African ancestry through the 50s & well into the 60s. It was considered very rude by people of African ancestry to be called black. In the late 60s it started to change, generationally. I do not consider colored to be a Civil War era term for that reason. I used it in the historical context. For you to put it in parentheses certainly appeared to be a slap at me. I do think that the clear issue is that the US Colored Troops were paid less than their white counterparts. But then what do you want from a society where the law forbade women from most jobs and dictated that they be paid half of the wage that their male counterparts earned for the same job. The vestiges of that live on today.
I could list reasons why I think that both sides donated their own share of blame but that isn't specific to North Carolina.
I do suggest that you look up Tilghman Vestal, a NC native Quaker who had the misfortune of being in Tennessee when the war broke out. I could counter with some appalling actions during the war on the Union side but they wouldn't be NC specific.
You are the one who said that you have a masters in history. I don't know you personally to verify that. I made a statement and acknowledged that if you are really a holder of a masters of history you would already know that. That's the type of thing that people say in real life for that exact reason. It's a qualifier. To call that infantile is an aggressive comment on your part, in my opinion.
Again, I agree that both sides share blame, just that it is not equal. I would also acknowledge the clear distinction between the Upper and Lower South. Despite the fact that the former supplied the vast majority of troops, supplies, and leadership, it certainly had a different ideological foundation than its southern neighbors.
As for the atrocities, I know quite well that both are guilty of some heinous acts (Andersonville and Camp Douglas being two often cited atrocities), and I will be the first to say that the Union was not some righteous protector of the liberties of African Americans. As has so often been the case in history, the United States needed a slow and steady progression of events to put right former wrongs, so I am not saying the Union is without guilt.
As for the last part, I regret even bringing it up, and I am not going to talk the issue in circles. Again, I did find the remark about my education annoying, and I am quite certain it would have never been mentioned had John not said what he said. Contrary to his claims, I really am not one to constantly cite my credentials, especially not when I am but a lowly high school teacher. The only time I feel the need to do so is if someone is asking for advice (especially as regards teaching) or if someone has the audacity to tell me to "go back and learn some history." If it was not intended to be condescending, you're right, that was me being aggressively defensive. I would defend this, though, because this specific thread has had its fair share of both passive and active attacks; however, if it was intended to be condescending, and only you could know, I would only ask that you avoid it in the future. It only makes discussions like this even more divisive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinadawg2
Remember Lincoln's call for troops? THAT took the discussion in a whole new direction.
He only did this AFTER the attack on Fort Sumter. The South shells federal troops on federal property, what is he supposed to do? I can only imagine the outrage were that to happen in the modern day.
You can't just conveniently skip the attack on Fort Sumter in an effort to characterize the Union as the aggressor.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,811 posts, read 34,654,152 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxtheRoadWarrior
Again, I agree that both sides share blame, just that it is not equal. I would also acknowledge the clear distinction between the Upper and Lower South. Despite the fact that the former supplied the vast majority of troops, supplies, and leadership, it certainly had a different ideological foundation than its southern neighbors.
As for the atrocities, I know quite well that both are guilty of some heinous acts (Andersonville and Camp Douglas being two often cited atrocities), and I will be the first to say that the Union was not some righteous protector of the liberties of African Americans. As has so often been the case in history, the United States needed a slow and steady progression of events to put right former wrongs, so I am not saying the Union is without guilt.
As for the last part, I regret even bringing it up, and I am not going to talk the issue in circles. Again, I did find the remark about my education annoying, and I am quite certain it would have never been mentioned had John not said what he said. Contrary to his claims, I really am not one to constantly cite my credentials, especially not when I am but a lowly high school teacher. The only time I feel the need to do so is if someone is asking for advice (especially as regards teaching) or if someone has the audacity to tell me to "go back and learn some history." If it was not intended to be condescending, you're right, that was me being aggressively defensive. I would defend this, though, because this specific thread has had its fair share of both passive and active attacks; however, if it was intended to be condescending, and only you could know, I would only ask that you avoid it in the future. It only makes discussions like this even more divisive.
He only did this AFTER the attack on Fort Sumter. The South shells federal troops on federal property, what is he supposed to do? I can only imagine the outrage were that to happen in the modern day.
You can't just conveniently skip the attack on Fort Sumter in an effort to characterize the Union as the aggressor.
I do hope that you look up the readily available information about Mr. Vestal. He was in an area of Tennessee that didn't have a meeting. He took instruction from his meeting in Guilford County & his troubles began. He ended up in prison in Richmond & later Salisbury. The problem was ironed out for Quakers in NC, however the Confederate governor of Tennessee chose to make an example of him & his NC family, the Mendenhalls, could do nothing.
Frankly, Salisbury prison camp is a giant monument to the bad side if the war.
I just looked back over this thread from a couple of days ago.....and to respond again that a previous post that compares Nazi Germany to the Confederate States is no comparison at all.
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.
. So get over it!
