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.
Excellent points and observations in your post, VA. Just want to call respectful attention (since I mentioned it before as well! ~L~) that, while you are correct that the ORIGINAL Battle Flag was square in design (the one of Beauregard and the ANV), the familiar rectangular version was not only the Confederate Naval Jack, but the standard of the Army of Tennessee as well. There was little, if any, difference in the design or pattern.
Where the real variations came in, was at the regimental or company level.
Anyway, no biggie, just something in the FWIW department!
Very interesting... Have not done a lot of reading on the Army of Tennessee, so was unaware of that.... So much reading yet to do on the Eastern theatre that I can only hope to some day get to do some on the Western.....
I did do one term paper on Vicksburg in college (A very well-done paper arguing that Pemberton, in fact, had a masterful defense of Vicksburg and that Joseph Johnston cost the Confederacy the town by not swiftly coming to Pemberton's aid.... Very interesting). That's about the extent of my more in-depth knowledge of the war in the west..... Thanks for the info.
I am not sure why Lincoln chose to fight the War. Can you tell us? Seems like going by his statement to Greely it was because he feared losing the money the Southern states provided the treasury. But anyway, you tell me. Why DID he choose to invade the South?
I haven't been following the whole conversation - but actually the south "started the war" by fired on Ft. Sumter. It was an obviously very clever political maneauvering on Lincoln's part to get the south to start the agression, but there you go. After that point it was seen by many in the north and many in Europe that Lincoln had the moral high ground to invade the south to put down the rebellion to protect U.S interests.
Actually, the war started with the first states succeding from the union and at that point some U.S. arsenals, etc in the south were seized (without bloodshed) - but Lincoln was not even in office then (Buchanan was in office).
This topic resurfaces every 3 months! I hate re-arguing old topics, amazed this got 58 pages, must be alot of new member.
I haven't been following the whole conversation - but actually the south "started the war" by fired on Ft. Sumter. It was an obviously very clever political maneauvering on Lincoln's part to get the south to start the agression, but there you go. After that point it was seen by many in the north and many in Europe that Lincoln had the moral high ground to invade the south to put down the rebellion to protect U.S interests.
Actually, the war started with the first states succeding from the union and at that point some U.S. arsenals, etc in the south were seized (without bloodshed) - but Lincoln was not even in office then (Buchanan was in office).
This topic resurfaces every 3 months! I hate re-arguing old topics, amazed this got 58 pages, must be alot of new member.
I appreciate your very reasonable tone and opinion, sir, even in disagreement. Believe me, the way you present your case is a very welcome sight, as opposed to those who do nothing but boil theirs down to "you are a hateful racist..etc, ad nauseum." I dare say they don't make their own Union ancestors very proud...
But anyway, as to your point. This one was discussed a bit earlier...I think somewhere between page 19 and 23. I hasten to add that I am NOT being facitious or a smartass in mentioning that. It is just that you might go back and take a look at it.
But to sort of sum it up, the question of whether or not the Confederacy "started" the war by firing on Ft. Sumter depends on whether or not one believes that the Southern states had a "right" to secede to begin with...and form their own nation. IF so, then they, by extension, had the right to act in its defense. In this case, not accepting the presence of armed troops in an armed installation in Confederate territorial waters. Therefore, signaling hostile intentions from a foriegn power.
I guess the most basic way to say it is that, the armed garrison of the United States (i.e. northern states who kept the name by default) in Fort Sumter, in the Charleston, South Carolina, harbor, were in the territorial waters of the Confederate States of America. And further, they had been given every honorable opportunity to withdraw. And promised every reasonable safeguard to do so.
But anyway, the point is, MY point is valid if and only if one believes that that secession was in violation of the voluntary agreement and compact later known as the Constitution. If not, then not. If so, why not?
Again though, sir, thanks for your very reasoned out post!
I appreciate your very reasonable tone and opinion, sir, even in disagreement. Believe me, the way you present your case is a very welcome sight, as opposed to those who do nothing but boil theirs down to "you are a hateful racist..etc, ad nauseum." I dare say they don't make their own Union ancestors very proud...
But anyway, as to your point. This one was discussed a bit earlier...I think somewhere between page 19 and 23. I hasten to add that I am NOT being facitious or a smartass in mentioning that. It is just that you might go back and take a look at it.
But to sort of sum it up, the question of whether or not the Confederacy "started" the war by firing on Ft. Sumter depends on whether or not one believes that the Southern states had a "right" to secede to begin with...and form their own nation. IF so, then they, by extension, had the right to act in its defense. In this case, not accepting the presence of armed troops in an armed installation in Confederate territorial waters. Therefore, signaling hostile intentions from a foriegn power.
I guess the most basic way to say it is that, the armed garrison of the United States (i.e. northern states who kept the name by default) in Fort Sumter, in the Charleston, South Carolina, harbor, were in the territorial waters of the Confederate States of America. And further, they had been given every honorable opportunity to withdraw. And promised every reasonable safeguard to do so.
But anyway, the point is, MY point is valid if and only if one believes that that secession was in violation of the voluntary agreement and compact later known as the Constitution. If not, then not. If so, why not?
Again though, sir, thanks for your very reasoned out post!
Are you arguing that the Constitution provided for the secession of states, and the establishment of a separate Confederate States of America?
Are you arguing that the Constitution provided for the secession of states, and the establishment of a separate Confederate States of America?
If so, please indicate the relevant section.
You are framing the question wrong. The 9th and 10th Ammendments give the people and soveriegn states all powers not specifically delegated to the central government.
Therefore, you are the one who needs to answer the question of where is the federal government given the power to forcibly prevent it (secession)?
It is a Sunday in the South...gotta go start fixin' some fried chicken, okra, and black-eyed peas. For that reason, I will have to put off any replies/rebuttals/etc, until tomorow!
You are framing the question wrong. The 9th and 10th Ammendments give the people and soveriegn states all powers not specifically delegated to the central government.
Therefore, you are the one who needs to answer the question of where is the federal government given the power to forcibly prevent it (secession)?
Article I, Section 10:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation..."
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation..."
Did you miss that one?
Nope, sure didn't! And why do you use such flippant phraseology? (i.e. Did I "miss" that one..?) Is that supposed to impress or intimidate?
Why can't you make your case without the snide remarks?
But to the point? The Article and Section you mention applies ONLY to states which were still a part of the voluntary contract known as the Constitution of the United States of America (largely written by Southern men).
That is, say, Texas couldn't enter into, once it became a part of the larger Union, enter into a seperate treaty with Great Britain. Or New York with Scotland. Or whatever. Do you truly think the clause meant anything different than that? Do you honestly think any state, having not long ago seceded from England, and thus recognized by the Treaty of Paris, would have entered into a confederation of their own if it were stipulated that none could get out of it under any circumstances?
But anyway, the seven states of the Lower South (South Carolina thru Texas) made a "popular" decision -- by legislative process -- to sever connections with the northern states. Therefore, the compact was null and void.
Now then, please prove your case that the Southern states had no right to leave the Union and form their own. In other words, refute the principle of consentual government.
Nope, sure didn't! And why do you use such flippant phraseology? (i.e. Did I "miss" that one..?) Is that supposed to impress or intimidate?
Flippant? Your posts up to this point indicate a willingess to overlook a major clause of the Constitution. If my citing it intimidates you, you're way too sensitive; if you're impressed with a little sarcasm, what can I say? You're easily impressed, I guess.
Why can't you make your case without the snide remarks?
Nothing snide about it. You referred to the Constitution, and I quoted a section of it that addressed your question.
But to the point? The Article and Section you mention applies ONLY to states which were still a part of the voluntary contract known as the Constitution of the United States of America (largely written by Southern men).
Where do those clever Southerners who wrote the Constitution say within the document that it is voluntary? I missed that, too.
That is, say, Texas couldn't enter into, once it became a part of the larger Union, enter into a seperate treaty with Great Britain. Or New York with Scotland. Or whatever. Do you truly think the clause meant anything different than that? Do you honestly think any state, having not long ago seceded from England, and thus recognized by the Treaty of Paris, would have entered into a confederation of their own if it were stipulated that none could get out of it under any circumstances?
Damn right I do. Especially after that disastrous experience with the Articles of Confederation, which was -- as you well know -- a joke and a trainwreck.
But anyway, the seven states of the Lower South (South Carolina thru Texas) made a "popular" decision -- by legislative process -- to sever connections with the northern states. Therefore, the compact was null and void.
Feel free to describe it that way. I prefer to say that the southern states, unable and unwilling to marshall the legal means to ensure the existence of slavery in the new states being added to the Union, engaged in a civil insurrection against the United States of America.
Now then, please prove your case that the Southern states had no right to leave the Union and form their own. In other words, refute the principle of consentual government.
Consensual government depends on the rule of the majority. That is the basis of English constitutional law. The southern states were a minority. They lost the legislative battle on the federal level, and rather than accept their defeat, waged warfare against the federal government. It's that simple -- and that tragic.
Kick stand up this morning at 7:00 a.m., first light, double T-Shirt under a thicker long-sleeved one. Haven't ridden for a few months. South to Raymond (Battle Of), trying to keep my pipes silent due to the gathering at many churches along the road.
One of my favorite places...marked by a tiny white sign which says "Confederate Cemetery". I know the place so well, every inch of it, have picked up stones and placed them reverently, have brought others from stained to brilliant white. Counted the markers as I always do and saluted the high pole, this time flying the Third National.....It's changed out periodically.
I laid down on my back alongside all these dead men and thought about this gathering of opinions, this thread, the sincere comments, the inflamatory ones, the blasphemy, the reverent, the insulting, the opaque and the oblique.
It occurred to me that I ought to do something. And that is to admit that all of the detractors on this thread are right. They are right when they say that thousands of rednecks and hoodlums and racists fly various flags associated with The Confederacy. We need to admit that.
But the larger and more underlying point is that these hoodlums and rednecks and other bastards who have hijacked and stolen-away the various flags of the Confederacy have no right to them. Nor do they have a right to hold them high, pretending they have meaning to them and to ride around acting asses insulting me and the rest of us with their screaming dishoner.
I dare say if we would pull over a representative sampling of pickup trucks displaying the first, second or third Confederate National flag, the Bonnie Blue, the Confederate Naval Jack or any of the other sixteen or more flags representing the Confederacy, not one out of a hundred would have a clue in hell as to the authority, identity, definition or meaning of the flag they display.
So, can we finally all agree, as has been said multiple times here, that the Flags have different meanings to different people? To some, as illustrated in the penultimate paragraph, they have no meaning whatever. To others, they mean something perhaps not at all associated with the Confederacy and its principles. Yet to a few of us, the flags have serious historical relevance and importance and are tied firmly to heritage.
But, we will never get anywhere claiming that display of these flags has some sort of universal horror or ignorance or racist intent. People who display what is referred to as 'Rebel Tags' typically have no idea what the flag means or what any of the other flags of the Confederacy meant or mean. I reckon their ignorance is not their fault....although I wonder.
And I understand how the objectors in this discussion find fault with those people. I agree that they're ignorant. They have no idea what any of the flags meant 150 years ago or what they mean today. Too many of them simply bolt a flag on and holler 'Yee Hah' and dare others to confront them. I am offended by those people too.
And, having made these admissions, please understand that there are thousands of us who do sincerely approach a serious study of the history and how it all happened and what it all meant then and now. Please don't ridicule us for that serious journey. We are not ignorant rednecks and we are not racists. We are simply tied inextricably to our ancestors and have a heartfelt yearning desire to go back mentally in time and feel their feelings and know their thoughts and understand their principles.
Can we at least agree on this and stop insulting one another?
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.
