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.
Daniel Miller from Texas Nationalist Movement on Glenn Beck
That was an interesting interview!
Actually, I think if the rest of the country could just kick out Washington D.C. and parts of the NE and West Coast, there would be no need for us to secede! LOL
Just in the hypothetical "for-what-its-worth" department, I DO have an issue with the way that animated map of regional secession is drawn though. Texas -- I am confident -- would not form an alliance with the true SW states (i.e. New Mexico and Arizona). Instead, it would bond with its natural allies...the southeastern states of which most of its settler stock came from to begin with.
Texas is essentially a Southern state. It's "Southwestern" label is a very different critter from the interior SW. That is to say, its -- as a whole --basic history/culture/etc is Southwest as in "Western South". Where the Old South meets and blends into the post-bellum frontier west. Not a common culture with the "southern West"
Texas shares very little in common -- other than some superficial topographical similarities -- with the "Southwest" of the aforementioned "southern West". The American South is the dominant influence on Texas. Whereas Mexico and Native-American culture made the major impact on New Mexico and Arizona.
Oh well, how the hell did I get to rambling on THIS topic? Who knows? I'll just shut up now!
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.
Well, which was what?
SC seceded explicitly because the states that would become the Confederacy wanted to maintain slavery as its economic engine. Unfortunately life was changing and there was nothing they could do to make it stop or turn back the clocks. You know how that is.
No one minds regional pride. It's that hostile, belligerent attitude that's puzzling. You all are so defensive, but for what? It appears to me you all love your history so much that you celebrate the negative along with the positive, and deny that the Southern legacy included serious human rights problems right up until about 50 years ago. You need to just be frank about it and move on.
I still think that "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."
Opponents of the Confederate flag see it as an overt symbol of racism (especially directed toward African Americans), both for the history of racial slavery in the United States, and the establishment of Jim Crow laws by Southern states following the end of Reconstruction in late 1870s, enforcing racial segregation within state borders for nearly a century until the Civil Rights Movement.
Supporters of the flag view it as a symbol of heritage and the freedom of the distinct cultural tradition of the South from the oppression of Northern government. Also, in light of some schools and universities banning it as a racist symbol in their "speech codes", it could also be seen as a symbol of freedom of speech.
The answer to the poll is, of course, both. It is a symbol of America's past and should be interpreted as such. Ban it and we will forget our history, a bad idea for both those who support the flag and those who are insulted by it.
The answer to the poll is, of course, both. It is a symbol of America's past and should be interpreted as such. Ban it and we will forget our history, a bad idea for both those who support the flag and those who are insulted by it.
S.
I agree. Both of the poll answers are true.
And, banning it is not the answer.
but....
Today, choosing to display the Confederate Flag (also called the Southern Cross) is choosing to be identified with the more than 500 hate groups that have taken the flag as their emblem.
Thank you for the examples, I appreciate them. Some random thoughts:
Again, history itself is not biased, for heaven's sake. That's just the dumbest thing Ive read in a while.
Well, fair enough, but your obstinacy in refusing to get the point is about the dumbest thing I have ever read!
No, HISTORY is not biased, but interpretation of historical facts ARE! That is what I am saying. History is formed by what came before us. Imperfect men/women who lived and shaped it. In turn, the later interpretation and recording of it comes from the same who may have their own reasons for writing it as they do.
It baffles me that you don't get this simple point. I mean, ok, it is a "fact" that water freezes at 32 degrees. Therefore, it is a fact that this tempreture is necessary to make ice-cubes.
However, while it may be a "fact" that the newly formed Confederacy fired the first shots on Ft. Sumter, it is subject to "historical bias" as to whether they had justification or not. To some, it was an act of war upon the United States. To others (like me), the Confederacy was simply excercising the right all soveriengn nations have. That is, to use force to remove the presence of armed soldiers of a a foriegn nation within their territorial waters (to say nothing of that it was deliberately provoked by the Lincoln administration in order to gain northern public opinion support).
Quote:
I take it you mean that the South's quite rational stances are dismissed or ignored or distorted in education and lowest-common-denominator type popular culture. I pointed out that there are hundreds of books, monographs, articles, historical societies etc that work hard to present the South's point of view.
Yes, there are. Unfortunately, most people don't have opportunity to read them. Or are unaware of their existance (personally, the best I ever read was Jefferson Davis' "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government"").
Anyway, to back track, it is a no-brainer that even in the South, the WBTS is presented with a northern slant. Oh sure, in Texas or Mississippi or North Carolina, the Southern side might be given a better treatment than in Kansas, Massachuetts or New York, but at best, even in the former, it is (at least today) almost apologetic in tone and content.
BTW -- my ex-wife (my kids' mother) is from Kansas and she showed me one of their history books. I have another ex-girlfriend from MA, and she showed me one of theirs (she works for the school district up there and we are still good friends). My gawd, they were almost beyond belief in their presentation of the "Civil War" One would think the South was a horrid netherworld of evil slave owners and the righteous crusading northerners had nothing more than the altruistic desire to free the slaves. To use the old cliche' I didnt know whether to laugh or cry! LOL
Quote:
If you want to continue on being a passive observer and a victim of books and movies that come your way, sitting and complaining about how they dont tell the Real Story, be my guest. I dont see why any adult would want to do that, though, unless their goal is the complaining and resenting part.
See above.
Quote:
Hmm, what else. Ken Burns's mass-audience TV series -- please give some examples where it's biased. Did it not try to present the South's POV, or did it omit crucial information? Please let me know, or give me links to someplace online that discusses this, I havent seen it in awhile.
Where do I start? For one thing it is telling that Ken Burns turned down an offer to debate Charles Lunsford over the content of the film. As I say, I actually enjoyed watching it. It took a very unique approach to history with the use of still photos with narrative.
However, to address your question, the emphasis as to the causes of the conflict (in the Burns presentation) focussed on slavery as a moral issue. Which it clearly wasn't. It ignored the New England/NE slave trade. The vast majority of northerners couldn't have cared less about the plight of blacks (indeed, some had laws forbidding black residency). In a nut-shell it made it appear as if the Southern states whole reason for seceding was wrapped up into slavery...
Quote:
The history of slavery in the states that by 1860 were non-slave states is immaterial, why do you keep on and on about it? Are you resentful at the North's hypocrisy, because the North acted all shocked, as if they never had traded in slaves when in fact they certainly had? That seems to be a key issue: "When those who seem to have such a deep-rooted disdain for the South and her history..." I guess that's a good enough way to stay passive and continue to cling to old angers.
I keep "going on and on" about it, because those who seem to have a deep-rooted disdain/contempt for the South and her history keep going on an on about it. When "they" stop, I will.
Quote:
Of course, the Southern states "wanted nothing more than to go in peace" and continue on as they had been. Why wouldnt they? Unfortunately the issue of whether slaves were human beings or property arose, an issue deeper than states' rights.
Other than a few abolistionist circles (many of whom came from families whose fortunes had been made off the slave trade), can you provide any empirical evidence at all that the moral considerations of slavery were a motivation for northerners to suit up and invade the South?
If the War had been over slavery in this regard, it is doubtful it would have ever occured.
Quote:
I really dont understand the battle that Southerners continue to fight. You seem to be insisting on the 1860 slaveowners' South getting respect and being understood... that the "takeaway idea," that humans are not property and that the South went to war in order to maintain it as an economic tool, took hold in the national consciousness instead of a sympathetic understanding of the South's situation and the times.
And I don't understand why so many non-Southerners (even Southerners) keep bringing up this topic. The mantra "get over it" seems to be one of the common-denominators of those who expend so much time and energy over the Confederate Flag. It is ridiculous to US why it is so. The answer is really less complicated than they are willing (or wanting) to believe. It represents pride in our region, our common Southern history and heritage. The fighting spirits of our ancestors.
BTW -- many of the orginal seceding Lower South states (South Carolina thru Texas) mentioned other reasons for seceeding. Texas, for instance, outlined the failure of the federal government to live up the the Annexation Agreement to protect settlers along the exposed frontier. The Upper South states didn't mention slavery at all.
Quote:
The Southern slaveholders's POV is taught in schools, I think starting around at a high school level, where the concept of "economic need" vs. "moral imperative" can be understood and discussed. Have you looked at school textbooks and the different grades' suggested reading material regarding the issue? Maybe you could lobby your state school board to adjust the content of national textbooks to be more fair.
Uhhh, DL? I am a public school teacher of many years, so I think I am fairly familiar with high school textbooks and what they contain.
Quote:
Or you could even write something yourself
I have. I don't mention it very often because it might sound like I am bragging. But I am a published writer..yet, alas, of no consequence at all. LOL My minor in college was journalism and I have won awards at the state level. I written a few mediocre articles and have a book right now I am working on with a co-author, and is actually being promoted aforehand in a few circles. My trash is nothing I will ever retire on with the royalties, but I have actually been paid a dime or two for a couple of them! Hey, the dime was good for a cup of coffee or a draw beer! LOL
Quote:
I have a request. Would you look at the Wikipedia Battle of Ft Sumter entry and show me where the "Background" section is incorrect? (Then you could edit it, if it's wrong, to set the record straight for millions of people around the world who *do* turn to W'pedia as a source of information.
Seriously, Id appreciate it if you'd actively point out the errors in that "Background" section, and in the Ken Burns documentary, and other specific sources from which Americans get their misinformation regarding the South.... thank you for the two examples.
Be happy to! Thanks for the suggestion! . Soon as I get a chance! BTW -- I have contributed quite a bit to Wikepdia. For example, the "Southern United States", "Deep South" and "Texas in the Civil War" articles...
Well, fair enough, but your obstinacy in refusing to get the point is about the dumbest thing I have ever read!
No, HISTORY is not biased, but interpretation of historical facts ARE! That is what I am saying. History is formed by what came before us. Imperfect men/women who lived and shaped it. In turn, the later interpretation and recording of it comes from the same who may have their own reasons for writing it as they do.
It baffles me that you don't get this simple point. I mean, ok, it is a "fact" that water freezes at 32 degrees. Therefore, it is a fact that this tempreture is necessary to make ice-cubes.
However, while it may be a "fact" that the newly formed Confederacy fired the first shots on Ft. Sumter, it is subject to "historical bias" as to whether they had justification or not. To some, it was an act of war upon the United States. To others (like me), the Confederacy was simply excercising the right all soveriengn nations have. That is, to use force to remove the presence of armed soldiers of a a foriegn nation within their territorial waters (to say nothing of that it was deliberately provoked by the Lincoln administration in order to gain northern public opinion support).
Yes, there are. Unfortunately, most people don't have opportunity to read them. Or are unaware of their existance (personally, the best I ever read was Jefferson Davis' "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government"").
Anyway, to back track, it is a no-brainer that even in the South, the WBTS is presented with a northern slant. Oh sure, in Texas or Mississippi or North Carolina, the Southern side might be given a better treatment than in Kansas, Massachuetts or New York, but at best, even in the former, it is (at least today) almost apologetic in tone and content.
BTW -- my ex-wife (my kids' mother) is from Kansas and she showed me one of their history books. I have another ex-girlfriend from MA, and she showed me one of theirs (she works for the school district up there and we are still good friends). My gawd, they were almost beyond belief in their presentation of the "Civil War" One would think the South was a horrid netherworld of evil slave owners and the righteous crusading northerners had nothing more than the altruistic desire to free the slaves. To use the old cliche' I didnt know whether to laugh or cry! LOL
See above.
Where do I start? For one thing it is telling that Ken Burns turned down an offer to debate Charles Lunsford over the content of the film. As I say, I actually enjoyed watching it. It took a very unique approach to history with the use of still photos with narrative.
However, to address your question, the emphasis as to the causes of the conflict (in the Burns presentation) focussed on slavery as a moral issue. Which it clearly wasn't. It ignored the New England/NE slave trade. The vast majority of northerners couldn't have cared less about the plight of blacks (indeed, some had laws forbidding black residency). In a nut-shell it made it appear as if the Southern states whole reason for seceding was wrapped up into slavery...
I keep "going on and on" about it, because those who seem to have a deep-rooted disdain/contempt for the South and her history keep going on an on about it. When "they" stop, I will.
Other than a few abolistionist circles (many of whom came from families whose fortunes had been made off the slave trade), can you provide any empirical evidence at all that the moral considerations of slavery were a motivation for northerners to suit up and invade the South?
If the War had been over slavery in this regard, it is doubtful it would have ever occured.
And I don't understand why so many non-Southerners (even Southerners) keep bringing up this topic. The mantra "get over it" seems to be one of the common-denominators of those who expend so much time and energy over the Confederate Flag. It is ridiculous to US why it is so. The answer is really less complicated than they are willing (or wanting) to believe. It represents pride in our region, our common Southern history and heritage. The fighting spirits of our ancestors.
BTW -- many of the orginal seceding Lower South states (South Carolina thru Texas) mentioned other reasons for seceeding. Texas, for instance, outlined the failure of the federal government to live up the the Annexation Agreement to protect settlers along the exposed frontier. The Upper South states didn't mention slavery at all.
Uhhh, DL? I am a public school teacher of many years, so I think I am fairly familiar with high school textbooks and what they contain.
I have. I don't mention it very often because it might sound like I am bragging. But I am a published writer..yet, alas, of no consequence at all. LOL My minor in college was journalism and I have won awards at the state level. I written a few mediocre articles and have a book right now I am working on with a co-author, and is actually being promoted aforehand in a few circles. My trash is nothing I will ever retire on with the royalties, but I have actually been paid a dime or two for a couple of them! Hey, the dime was good for a cup of coffee or a draw beer! LOL
Be happy to! Thanks for the suggestion! . Soon as I get a chance! BTW -- I have contributed quite a bit to Wikepdia. For example, the "Southern United States", "Deep South" and "Texas in the Civil War" articles...
Great post Reb! Anyway I saw what you said about you being a writer, care to mention some works you've done?
I want to take the time to thank all the confederates who have shared their southern pride on this thread and have kept our heritage strong through the last 145 years.There was a widow of a confederate soldier who died recently in Arkansas and a few widows of these heroes still remain.Thank ya'll.Thank you South Carolina and Mississippi for keeping the men who rode with Wade Hampton alive by flying the battle flag on your statehouse and state flags.Thank you Georgia for making April confederate history month and you to Texas.Thank you Alabama and the Sons of Confederate veterans,each time I go to Gulf Shores I see that huge flag in Montgomery,"the cradle of the confederacy" that you fly so proudly even after 2 reconstructions.North Carolina I visit Raleigh often and that huge flag on that southerners land,thank you sir.Thank you native Floridians,I have seen that flag in Tampa,courtesy of the SCV,your state has seen more yankees than all others combined.Tennessee,thank you for Columbia and SCV headquarters.Thanks to all the unreconstructed southerners who have kept this wonderful heritage we share alive and well.Thank you for teaching your children and making sure we have future southern gentlemen and belles.Thank you General Stonewall,you did not die in vain "I'll speak my southern english,as natural as I please.I'm in the heart of dixie,dixie's in the heart of me.Someday when I make,when luck finds a way.Somewhere high on lookout mountain,I'll just smile with pride and say,that my home's in Alabama,Southern born and Southern bred" Alabama
Texasreb, I looked at your edits at "Texas in the Civil War" and you do know what you're talking about, but the big question remains. I dont understand why you avoid addressing the human rights issue tangled up with, represented by, the Confederate flag -- even deny that there could possibly be one. You foist responsibility off onto the Northern states which had held slaves instead.
Do you address it openly somewhere else?
Everything else just seems to be armchair-generaling, to me.
My family has lived in South carolina since 1741, and possibly since the 17th century if there were records still in existence. i know that my family's surname, Rawlinson, was noted as being here prior to 1700, but there is nothing I can find from then until 1741.
I have had relatives who served in every war this country has ever fought, including three in the Revolutionary War.
My GG Grandfather, Henry Williamson Dixon, was a member of the 6th SC Regiment during the Civil War and wounded in Richmond on the way home from fighting at the Second Manassas. There were also several who enlisted in Georgia units.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why, in 2010, with four hundred years of American history behind us and God only knows how many years of civilization, the only part of this existence that is of any importance or represents "heritage" to many Southerners is the five years of fighting a war they started against their own country and lost decisively to a superior force. It seems to me that that would be the one time frame they would choose to forget.
Just what is it that makes this five years so appealing? Is it some reality that we are not aware of, or are you all longing for the romanticized history of Gone With The Wind that never was?
Great post Reb! Anyway I saw what you said about you being a writer, care to mention some works you've done?
Thanks DK!
Well, like I say, they ain't anything I am ever going to retire from the royalties on! LOL I don't really talk about it much cos they ain't anything to talk about...
I shore as hell ain't a "writer" in the proper sense of the word (that is, making a real living off of it!)
I won some awards back in college when I wrote for my campus rag (News Writing, Column writing, features, etc). And have had a few feature articles and editorials published in some minor historical concerns. And I do some for a certain webzine publication devoted to Southern type stuff. Anyway, if you are interested, I can send you a few links to some of my garbage! Just DM me, ok?
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.
BTW -- I have contributed quite a bit to Wikepdia. For example, the "Southern United States", "Deep South" and "Texas in the Civil War" articles...
