Tea Party flew Confederate flag on Fourth of July parade float (enemies, ethic)

[shpanda]

People still put up the Confederate flag all the time in the south, this isn't really anything worthy of a thread.

It has nothing to do with slavery, rather being a southerner. You do realize how badly the south was destroyed in the Civil War right? They still had pride and continued on. You also have to understand with the whole "racism" thing... the north didn't actually give a damn about human beings being used as slaves. The north was industrialized and didn't need anyone for the farms. This isn't excusing slavery, I'm merely pointing out that hatred for the south is pretty ridiculous.

[Sunnysee]

Folks are desperate to find something wrong with our Tea Party Patriots. What they can't do is show us racists signs, so they reach. They fail of course.

[Savoir Faire]

Originally Posted by comanchepilot

I don't understand the fuss -

The Confederate Flag is a sign of challenge to the government in Washington DC. The major problem is that the victors spun the war. The South LEFT the US. They did not invade it, did not challenge the federal government or its authority or claim over any piece of land other than their own. The South wanted to go their own way with their own rules and standards and the North invaded THEM. The North insisted that the South remain, despite the central element of the Constitution being that the states freely joined to create the union, which seems to mean that you can freely no longer wish to be a member of that union. We allow divorce after all, we do not force men and women to remain married if they despise each other.

Anyone who fairly looks at the slavery situation would also come to the rapid conclusion that its likely slavery would have ended in the South within the same generation of the leaders of the Confederacy. They saw it coming. Lincoln after all, did not free a single slave in any jurisdiction in which he had control over. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed blacks in areas that the North did not control. Lincoln, on Jan 1, 1863, did not free a single slave in any part of the South controlled by the Union Army. Bet you didn't know that and if you did, did not realize the implications of it.

I think those of you who have such an visceral reaction to the Confederacy and its flag need to go back to school and actually LEARN the history - and not what Hollywood has told you. The facts and the story are very different from the 'freeing the slaves' story you have been told. Very few of the northern armies raised by the states would have come and fought a war to free black slaves. . . . it was NEVER about the slaves. It was about money and wealth. Pure and simple.

What the hell was the battle of Gettysburg, a break dance competition?? The Confederates invaded the North.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Savoir Faire

What the hell was the battle of Gettysburg, a break dance competition?? The Confederates invaded the North.

Well, yes. And even the only civil war battle fought in New Mexico, the battle of Glorieta Pass, was an attempt by the Confederates to break the west off from the rest of the Union and establish the Confederacy to the Pacific Ocean. It is often referred to as the "Gettysburg of the west".

The Battle of Glorieta Pass: A Shattered Dream

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by RobinD69

Did you actually read the constitution or just the talking points? Well I did and the referance to negroes was to no longer ship them in nor take them from other states.

If by "other states" you mean other states in the CSA, you're absolutely mistaken. People could certainly be freely traded across state lines inside the Confederation. (Interestingly, trade with slave states in the US was also mentioned in the CSA constitution, although with the option of legally banning it.)

[LuckyGem]

I think most people missed the whole point of why the Confed flag was flown on that float, and it is explained in the article posted in the OP.

On March 16 1861, La Mesilla hosted a territorial secession convention. 12 days before the convention, seven states left the U.S. to form the Confederate States of America, and nearly one month later the Civil War's first major aggression took place at Fort Sumner.

Both Union and Confederate governments claimed control over the New Mexico Territory, which extended through Arizona and southern Nevada.

As with the war, the territory split horizontally. On July 15 1861, Confederates from Texas took over Mesilla and established the Arizona Territory from southern New Mexico through Tucson, Ariz.

[Scotty011]

Originally Posted by LuckyGem

I think most people missed the whole point of why the Confed flag was flown on that float, and it is explained in the article posted in the OP.

It does not matter to these people why it was flown. They can only see what they want to see.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

I certainly did not intend anything to fly over your head, perish the thought.

That is nice to confirm...

You're a refreshing change from most of the CSA defenders around here, in that you can actually formulate an argument. You're still mostly wrong, of course, but at least there's a spirited defense.

Your position that I am "wrong" is noted! LOL Well, yeah, of course I am...according to your interpretation of history. Just as you are in my book by the same criteria. But I understand that those who have grown up on reading the winner's version of history, have a difficult time looking at things from a different perspective. Blunt fact is, that history is not an objective subject. Facts of history can be interpreted different ways by different people, depending upon quite a few factors.

Can you imagine (I bet you can, but lots of folks can't) what we would be reading in history classes if the British had won what we call the American Revolution? Hell, we would all be exposed to the socially osmosis thesis that what a great thing King George III had the fortitude to put down a bunch of upstart "rebels" -- in what would be known as the "Colonial Rebellion" -- who had the audacity to dump perfectly good tea into the Boston Harbor. We might be known as the "American Colonies of Great Britain" and be reading of how "traitors and rebels" such as George Washington, Sam Adams, and the signers of the Declaration of Independence were "justifiably" -- according to British law -- hanged for instigating a "rebellion".

I even feel bad for pointing out the unintended irony in your misspelling of "condescend".

I appreciate that. I reciprocate by saying I feel the same by pointing out that you failed to capitalize "constitution", when brought up as a proper noun and preceded by the adjective "U.S." So let's make a deal, ok (no pun intended with old game show), refrain from either of us playing "grammar police", ok?

Read the thread. Apparently the point had to be hammered home.

What has to be "hammered home" about it? *puzzled look* The Confederate Constitution was more explicit in its protection of slavery...but still allowed for its abolition did the states choose to do so. Same as did the one of the Old Union. What was different other than some "tweaking" as you put it?

It was the major issue. It was the issue that could bring about the South's political will to secede. It was the issue that brought about at least 40-plus politically motivated murders in Kansas, as pro- and anti-slavery fractions fought it out. Larger considerations? Of course they aired the rest of the laundry list of grievances, but don't try to pretend that the first round of secessions weren't triggered by Lincoln's pro-abolition stance.

I don't have to "pretend" nor hedge. Anyone who thinks that the slavery issue stood alone and apart as the triggering force has either bought into the morality play, or else is fooling themselves. The issue of slavery in the territories brought things to a head, so to speak...but even a good part of that is that the North did not want blacks into the said territories. As it was, slavery had pretty welll What many Southerners feared is that the expansion of slavery was only the excuse to launch more extensive assaults against the concept of federalism. And it cannot be said history has not vindicated the South in this regard.

Notice what you did there? Slipped from reasons for secession to reasons for war. They are different. Initially, the political will for secession was deeply rooted in the slavery debate. We can read the speeches and the secession declarations.

LOL Of course I "notice" what I did "there". I refused to let you frame the terms of the the discussion. Nothing sinister nor coy about that at all. Yep, we CAN lay out the speeches and declarations of secession. I have no problem about that. Only four of the original seceding states (and this has been said above) specifically brought up slavery (South Carolina, Mississppi, Texas, and Georgia). Of those, at least two (Texas and Georgia, also listed other considerations...such as the unfair tariffs imposed upon the South, and the failure of the feds to live up to the guarantees of the Annexation Agreement. The other seven states of the CSA concerning Texas -- including the Lower South states of Alabama and Louisiana -- said nothing nothing about the instutution at all. Instead? They were powerful declarations of the general principal of states rights and/or the belief the federal government -- by the intent and wording of the Constitution had no power to coerce any state into remaining part of the Union if they wished to peacefully seperate themselves from it. Simple as that.

ANd there's no reason to act hurt and surprised that war came about, the CSA completely expected it. Grabbing Union military assets would be considered an act of war by anyone.

Good try, but no cee-gar! This is almost a picture perfect example of what I meant earlier by how we can all (yes, I mean me too!), can take the same "undeniable facts" and form different interpretations and opinions about the same.

I know what yours is. Here is mine: Ft. Sumter was NOT a Union installation. It originally belonged the the soveriegn state of South Carolina, in the Charleston Harbor, and was used as a federal installation. Not any different, really, than the State of Texas "leased" Ft. Belknap" to the feds during the frontier days. But anyway, the CSA government offered to pay the North for the costs of the fort. Instead, Lincoln chose to use Ft. Sumter as an excuse to launch an uncalled for, unjustified, invasion of the South...a people who had done them no wrong...and even offered about every olive branch possible in terms of a peaceful settlement (payment for federal installations, a mutual econonomic/defence alliance/open the Missisippi River for free navigation), but the offers were spurned.

Bottom line is (naturally only IMHO), Ft. Sumter was a Confederate installation in Confederate territorial waters. It could no more be permanently tolerated than could a British installation in the Boston Harbor during the American Revolution. The Confederates have every possible opportunity for the northern troops to withdraw with all military honors. Instead? Again, Lincoln chose provocation and war.

Good stuff. It even prohibits riders in bills, something the US Constitution sorely lacks. But the entire "don't take away our right to own people" kinda sours the entire thing for me.

We agree on the first part of it. But what about the rest of the story(as in the second part of your statement? Did or did not the original Constitution not protect the "right to own people"? And is it or not true that the northern states abolished slavery only when it entailed no economic hardship for the slave merchants, and none for the slave owners themselves.? If I am wrong, then I will gladly admit it. If I am right? Then I hope you will do the same....

A trade that was already prohibited by law, so pardon me for not being super-duper overly impressed. Yes, the trade had been legal up until 1808. The point is, the rest of the civilized world was moving on from slavery. The CSA elected officials who spoke of it as a morally superior institution to fight for. And they codified that point of view constitutionally.

LOL Oh, hell *airy gesture*, I "get" it perfectly. LOL If it (slavery) ended before the South ended it, then it must be excluded from the inconvenient fact that it was northern slave merchants who were responsible for the whole thing. Right? This HAS to be a yankee spin-top thing...

Good lord a mercy...the North continued to profit from the existence of slavery in the South until the end of the War. Where the hell else did the cotton come from to clothe them, and provide the substance for the northern textile mills (which made "slave" labor out of young kids)?

By the way, do you know what was the last state to abolish slavery and the first to legalize it? Hint: Both were in the Union.

As for acknowledging the sovereignty of the individual states, that pretty much lasted until the war turned sour. Heck, the CSA was the first to draft people to fight, at times over the member states' spirited objections.

Yes, the draft was unpopular on both sides, no question on that one.

That's not the game, friend. You need to cite the North's own words. Your interpretation of events won't cut it.

*winks* Really, you don't like it that I will not play along with your attempt to steer the car, do you? Oh well, so sorry, your self-defined rules of the "game" are not mine. Because I can grab the steering wheel quite easily. And will. I hope that is plain enough. If not? Then re-read it.

Now then, I know what the "North's" own words were (although lots kinda depend on how you define and present what the "north" said). For instance, Lincoln wanted to deport all the blacks back to Africa...and one of the reasons was he considered them inferior to whites. When Horace Greely asked him why he didn't just let the South (Lower South at that time), he said along the lines of "I need their tax money."

What "words" are you talking about??

Thanks. I am.

Heck, maybe one day we'll have a beer! I appreciate a worthy opponent!

[LookinForMayberry]

Originally Posted by Savoir Faire

Tea party defending racism and traitorous secessionists

It's called "Free Speech," and "Right to Assembly." It's why our soldiers have died, to protect that freedom. Preserve for all, or for no one, but you don't get to select who gets to say what. Those are the rules.

[NCN]

The name of the article is RACIAL JUSTICE OR MILITARY NECESSITY?. The name of the magazine is the History Channel Magazine and the date of the magazine is March/April 2009.

Those of you that do not know the facts of how the Civil War started and the politics of it could really educate yourselves a bit by reading this article. I have lived in North Carolina all of my life except for a couple of years when my husband was in school; but there are things in this article, and I think I saw the program on the history channel, that explained the War, how it started and what happened after the war was over in the South.

I also watched a local history college class that applied to North Carolina and its role in the Civil War and the politics involved in everything that happened. Putting both programs together gave me an education into how reconstruction happened and was stopped.

After seeing these two programs, I am even more proud to be Southern and am very proud of our ancestors. They stood up for states rights which is really what the war was about. Years ago I read a fiction book called THE BLACK SWAN by Day Taylor. It was a historical novel about a blockade runner and viewed the war from the Southern prospective. In that book it was stated that the only reason the slaves were brought into the picture was to keep France from helping the South.

I think a lot of people from the North are looking at this war and their part in it through rose colored glasses as to how the United States that were left handled themselves. Looking from the Southern prospective, we tried to leave the United States and the North would not let us. I think the South was honorable in all its dealings and first defended the states rights, but we lost and the United States still wants to stick its nose where it has no business being. So I would say that the flag is appropriate for the Tea Party as a symbol. They seem to be for the way the constitution originally was written.

As one person said before; the civil war was an unnecessary war that changed nothing that would not have been changed over time. What concerns me is that we are so far from what the forefathers had in mind when they started this country. I do not like the communistic direction this administration seems to want our government to go to. And I am not sure any of the candidates understand what the United States was meant to be.