Flag remains symbol of rebellion, big...

Flag remains symbol of rebellion, bigotry

There are 49 comments on the Baltimore Sun story from Nov 25, 2008, titled Flag remains symbol of rebellion, bigotry. In it, Baltimore Sun reports that:

Let's forget the deep racial overtones of brandishing the Confederate flag and concentrate on what the flag really means .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Baltimore Sun.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
dixie awake

United States

#1 Nov 25, 2008
i have issues with the black caucas,the new black panthers,
black firemen association,black cops association, bet, black college fund,naacp,6 to 8 black boys trying to stomp
a white boy to death,then being rewarded for it. protesters
lying about the attempted murderers.
when the blacks start demanding fair treatment for
all,not just themselves. when terroist attacks by black
people,against other people stop.
people are tired of seeing our children murdered
by these beasts.
mr.blackwell you stop this racial terrorism and we will
talk about the flag,but until black terrorism is stopped
,i will fly my flag and protect my kith and kin,by any
means,any means it takes.
Eileen Og

Atlanta, GA

#2 Nov 25, 2008
Good post from "dixie awake." All the propaganda and lies fomented by the like of the NAACP (they needed an issue to raise money and still do), J. Jackson and his ilk is total ROT. The flag was designed for use in the battles of the War to Prevent Southern Independence and has become a symbol the world over for the fight against tyranny, mostly the tyranny of governments totally out of control, which these United States have now and have had for about 150 years. I am sick of the whining of state school-"educated" people who don't have a clue what they're talking about, but who follow blindly their so-called leaders, and like "dixie awake" I will fly the Confederate Battle Flag proudly and with great pride in being a Southerner.
Zorro

United States

#3 Nov 25, 2008
No, the Civil War was a war initiated by the CSA between the rebellious Southern Slave States of the Confederacy and the national Northern States of the United States of America over slavery.

If you want to have pride over how your ancestors fought for the right of people to own other people and to deny full equality and citizenship to human beings to others, I won't stop you.

So, if you want your southern state to secede at this time, go ahead. We won't stop you this time. Just remember that most of the wealth and resources are in the 'liberal states' in the Northeast and West Coast, and 9 out of 10 of the poorest states are in the former Confederacy.
Eileen Og wrote:
Good post from "dixie awake." All the propaganda and lies fomented by the like of the NAACP (they needed an issue to raise money and still do), J. Jackson and his ilk is total ROT. The flag was designed for use in the battles of the War to Prevent Southern Independence and has become a symbol the world over for the fight against tyranny, mostly the tyranny of governments totally out of control, which these United States have now and have had for about 150 years. I am sick of the whining of state school-"educated" people who don't have a clue what they're talking about, but who follow blindly their so-called leaders, and like "dixie awake" I will fly the Confederate Battle Flag proudly and with great pride in being a Southerner.
Eileen Og

Atlanta, GA

#4 Nov 25, 2008
Zorro, The War was not initiated by the Confederacy, and the South was not a rebellious nation any more than the colonies were rebellious when they seceded from England in the 1770's. A Peace Commission was appointed by President Davis, they traveled to Washington to present their proposals and President Lincoln refused to see them. If you're interested in learning the truth of history, try "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" by Jefferson Davis, or for easier reading "The South Was Right!" by Walter D. and James R. Kennedy. The victor of any war gets to write the history of that war any way it wants, and the north has skewed the history of our country totally. Seek the truth sir. At present you are one of the brainwashed hordes.
Raphael Waldburg-Zeil

Madrid, Spain

#5 Nov 25, 2008
Dear Mr. Blackwell,
I am not an American citizen neither do I reside in American soil. But I like to read American newspapers. Your readers letter was most surprising to me. To call the American War of 1861-65 " a direct attack" against the USA means really not to know basic historical facts. The USA did not allow certain States to withdraw from a Union they had contracted as sovereign entity by ratification of the Constitution. The War was a war of conquest, and "agression" of the US against the States formed in the CS. To compare tha actions of the Confederacy to the ones of Al-Quaeda not only does not honor you as a citizen, it is highly offensive to almost every American. I can tell you that good Americans like Col. Josuah Chamberlain or Col. Robert G. Shaw would rotate in their graves by hearing this nonsense. There was a time of mutual respect for the past in your country. Have a look at the Confederate Constitution, have a look at what President Eisenhower said during the first Centennial of the War. Have some respect for your past. And: learn that in the mid-19th century a black man could enjoy a better life in New Orleans than in New Jersey or Chicago. Learn your history, Sir. A kind recommendation from a man who loves and admires your country.
dixie awake

United States

#6 Nov 25, 2008
Zorro wrote:
No, the Civil War was a war initiated by the CSA between the rebellious Southern Slave States of the Confederacy and the national Northern States of the United States of America over slavery.
If you want to have pride over how your ancestors fought for the right of people to own other people and to deny full equality and citizenship to human beings to others, I won't stop you.
So, if you want your southern state to secede at this time, go ahead. We won't stop you this time. Just remember that most of the wealth and resources are in the 'liberal states' in the Northeast and West Coast, and 9 out of 10 of the poorest states are in the former Confederacy.
<quoted text>


zorro,cut eyeholes in your mask,pull
your anus. pick up a book instead of
foil. let the northeast raise their
food. small wonder the difference
in wealth,the damned yankee mercenries
looted the richest states. when we go out we wll ruin you. meth labs on
the border. open the printing presses
just like the yankees.yall can't
protect your country from a bunch
of camel herders. your downfall is
already fore told in the bible. alas,
babelyon,is fallen,is fallen.
Zorro

United States

#7 Nov 25, 2008
Yankee mercenaries looted the richest states. LOL.

They were called Union soldiers. They emancipated or liberated millions of brutalized human beings from bondage and slavery.

Antebellum, southern wealth was based and tied up in the value of human slaves or chattel. It was the slaves that were worth so much money because they were so very productive.

Only the upper classes owned any significant number of slaves and they were the ones who pushed for secession and war against the United States. They were the southern political and economic leaders. Depending on the decade, only about 1/4 to 1/3 of southerners owned slaves. Still, the majority of them were willing to go to war to defend the right to own slaves.

As for the rest, babble on about Babylon. Our soldiers currently occupy Babylon, Mesopotamia. It is now Iraq.
dixie awake wrote:
<quoted text>
zorro,cut eyeholes in your mask,pull
your ****. pick up a book instead of
foil. let the northeast raise their
food. small wonder the difference
in wealth,the damned yankee mercenries
looted the richest states. when we go out we wll ruin you. meth labs on
the border. open the printing presses
just like the yankees.yall can't
protect your country from a bunch
of camel herders. your downfall is
already fore told in the bible. alas,
babelyon,is fallen,is fallen.
Zorro

United States

#8 Nov 25, 2008
Jefferson Davis didn't ask for the peace conference until February 3, 1865 when the war was already lost.

At the beginning of the war, the Southern Confederation of States declared their independence and wanted recognition as an independent nation.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/Lincoln%20at%20Ha...

Before Lincoln had been inaugurated several states had already seceded and had seized federal property, customs-houses, post offices, naval vessels, armories, and forts.

"Seven states declared their independence from the United States before the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln as President on March 4, 1861; four more did so after the Civil War began at the Battle of Fort Sumter (April 1861). The United States of America held secession illegal and refused recognition of the Confederacy...Following the Battle of Fort Sumter, Lincoln called for the remaining states in the Union to send troops to recapture Sumter and other forts and customs-houses[47] in the South that Confederate forces had claimed, some by force.

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Stat...

"Attempts to secede from the Confederate States of America by some counties in East Tennessee were held in check by Confederate declarations of martial law.[51][52]."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_A...

So, in terms of the truth and history, you are wrong and wrong and more wrong.
Eileen Og wrote:
Zorro, The War was not initiated by the Confederacy, and the South was not a rebellious nation any more than the colonies were rebellious when they seceded from England in the 1770's. A Peace Commission was appointed by President Davis, they traveled to Washington to present their proposals and President Lincoln refused to see them. If you're interested in learning the truth of history, try "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" by Jefferson Davis, or for easier reading "The South Was Right!" by Walter D. and James R. Kennedy. The victor of any war gets to write the history of that war any way it wants, and the north has skewed the history of our country totally. Seek the truth sir. At present you are one of the brainwashed hordes.
Zorro

United States

#9 Nov 25, 2008
While Mr. Blackwell's comparison with Al-Qaeda is only somewhat inaccurate, your criticism of his writing is full of inaccuracies and unfounded and your suggestion that he learn his history laughable.

Mr. Blackwell expressed his objection to the use of the Confederate Flag because it has been used for decades by the Klan and White Supremacists as a symbol--not at all unlike what the Swastika means to Jewish people around the world.

The Confederacy sought to be recognized as an independent state so that it could keep millions of human beings at chattel slaves in bondage.

To that end, the CSA attacked federal property, forts and seized federal custom houses and post offices. Later, Confederate armies tried to capture Washington DC on several occasions. Confederate leaders condemned to death all Black soldiers fighting for the Union and all white generals who free Black slaves. Rebels and southern sympathizers terrorized abolitionists and Republicans and anti-slavery towns.

After the Civil War ended, the Union Army attempted to suppress the KKK and White League and their ilk. They succeeded in only driving those terrorists underground until the Reconstruction ended. Then the KKK and white supremacists acted in near impunity lynching and terrorizing the newly free Blacks for decades.
Raphael Waldburg-Zeil wrote:
Dear Mr. Blackwell,
I am not an American citizen neither do I reside in American soil. But I like to read American newspapers. Your readers letter was most surprising to me. To call the American War of 1861-65 " a direct attack" against the USA means really not to know basic historical facts. The USA did not allow certain States to withdraw from a Union they had contracted as sovereign entity by ratification of the Constitution. The War was a war of conquest, and "agression" of the US against the States formed in the CS. To compare tha actions of the Confederacy to the ones of Al-Quaeda not only does not honor you as a citizen, it is highly offensive to almost every American. I can tell you that good Americans like Col. Josuah Chamberlain or Col. Robert G. Shaw would rotate in their graves by hearing this nonsense. There was a time of mutual respect for the past in your country. Have a look at the Confederate Constitution, have a look at what President Eisenhower said during the first Centennial of the War. Have some respect for your past. And: learn that in the mid-19th century a black man could enjoy a better life in New Orleans than in New Jersey or Chicago. Learn your history, Sir. A kind recommendation from a man who loves and admires your country.
Jimmy L Shirley Jr

Boynton Beach, FL

#10 Nov 25, 2008
MASSACHUSETTS 1803: The state of Massachusetts threatened secession in 1803. They were protesting the Louisiana Purchase. Massachusetts said that this purchase would dilute their power within the Union. Many of the politicians in Massachusetts argued that they had the right to secede. Daniel Webster defended Massachusetts in this attempt. The secession of Massachusetts was avoided by negotiation and compromise between Webster, Henry Clay and President Thomas Jefferson.
HARTFORD CONVENTION: The New England region, once again, was the subject of secession when in 1814 all of the New England states, who had earlier demanded that the United States enter the War of 1812, became dissatisfied with the war when it cut into their potential for making a profit. New England states held close mercantile ties to Great Britain. Both Massachusetts and Connecticut refused to contribute militia to the federal government. In spite of an embargo enacted by Congress in December 1813, New Englanders continued to sell supplies to British troops in Canada and to British vessels offshore. This demand for wartime provisions benefited New England businessmen and their states, as did the enhanced market for domestic manufactures.
During the fall of 1814 twenty-six delegates from the New England states met in Hartford, Connecticut. This meeting is known as the Hartford Convention. The Hartford Convention had been organized by the Federalist Party. Of the 26 delegates, 12 were from Massachusetts, 7 from Connecticut, 4 from Rhode Island, 2 from New Hampshire, and 1 from Vermont. Maine was still a district within Massachusetts. At this meeting the New England states put together a list of demands in order to protect the interests of their region. Federalist extremists, such as John Lowell Jr. and Timothy Pickering, contemplated a separate peace between New England and Great Britain. Political cartoons of the day depicted England's King George III trying to lure Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island back into the British fold. The delegates drafted articles for secession and drafted proposals to challenge what they saw as President James Madison's military despotism with the intent to force him to resign. Before the results of this convention could reach Washington, D.C., the war came to an end.
Source: http://www.scv674.org/SH-4.htm
Jimmy L Shirley Jr

Boynton Beach, FL

#11 Nov 25, 2008
Congress had failed to reach any compromise with the States that had now chosen to seceded. The Commonwealth of Virginia promoted a peace conference in the hope that the delegates could arrive at some amicable compromise, then secession fever might diminish and the seceded states might be convinced to rejoin the Union. Governor John Letcher and the Virginia Legislature proposed to hold this National Peace Conference early in 1861 to make one final attempt to overt the break up of the union. On January 19, 1861 all states were invited to send delegates to the convention which would meet in Washington, D.C. on February 4, 1861. The Washington Peace Conference met at the Willard Hotel, in Washington, from February 4th through February 27th, 1861, but only some of the states sent representatives. The Lower South, and Arkansas, boycotted the convention. The seceding states were forming the Confederacy and thought that the compromise was a game to trick the border areas into staying in the Union rather than joining the new Confederacy. Representatives of 21 of the States still in the Union, among them, Maryland, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, Delaware, and Virginia were in attendance. Former president John Tyler of Virginia was the presiding officer.

The attitude of Northern extremists toward the convention can be seen when Michigan senators were initially opposed to their state’s participation in the conference. But on February 9, both of them telegraphed their governor to send delegates. They did so on the grounds that moderate members of the assemblage seemed likely to prevail and that more obstructionists were needed. J.A. Seddon of Virginia, David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, and Lot M. Morrill of Maine, did their utmost to obstruct the gathering.

The absence of thirteen states was too great a hurdle for the convention to overcome. In the last days of the Buchanan Administration, the conference agreed to resolutions framed as a single amendment made of seven sections. This amendment and its sections were very similar to the Crittenden Compromise, although slightly different in wording and a few details. When these resolutions were presented to a Senate committee, they were rejected 28-7. The House, on March 1, refused to suspend its rules in order to consider the amendment. Neither North or South seemed to want to listen to the proposal. Soon Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee also seceded to join the new Confederacy.

The final attempt at compromise in order to prevent the dissolving of the Union, came from Congress because the Peace Conference failed produce the desired results. The Corwin amendment was and remains a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution offered by Ohio Congressman Thomas Corwin during the closing days of the 2nd Session of the 36th Congress as House Joint Resolution No. 80. The proposed, but not yet ratified amendment would have forbidden the Federal banning of slavery and was a last-ditch effort to avert the outbreak of the Civil War. Corwin's measure emerged as the House of Representatives' version of an earlier identical proposal in the Senate by William Seward. This Congressional compromise effort would have been an amendment to the constitution, but is almost never discussed by present day historians because it discredits their banner of a "war to free the slaves" and the northern icons, people they hold up as the moral beacons of America. The proposal was that the Northern legislators would guarantee slavery for states that already had it. This amendment passed both houses of Congress without any slave states present, offering proof that the failure of previous compromise efforts was based on opposition to the spread of slavery, rather than a vote against slavery itself.

Source: same as above
Jimmy L Shirley Jr

Boynton Beach, FL

#12 Nov 25, 2008
The Crittenden Compromise was authored by Kentucky Senator John Crittenden a Whig and disciple of Henry Clay and who interestingly enough had two sons that would become generals on opposite sides in the war. Crittenden was part of a Senate committee called a "Committee of Thirteen," formed to address the crisis of the possible secession of the South. The committee consisted of: Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, and Robert Toombs, of Georgia, representing the Lower South; R.M.T. Hunter of Virginia, Lazarus W. Powell and Crittenden, both of Kentucky, representing the border land states; Stephen A. Douglas and William M. Bigler of Pennsylvania and Henry M. Rice of Minnesota, represented the Northern Democrats; William H. Seward from New York, an ardent abolitionist and Republican Party founder, Jacob Collamer, of Vermont, Ben Wade of Ohio, James. R. Doolittle of Wisconsin and James W. Grimes of Iowa, representing the Northwestern radicals.
At first, Davis declined to serve because of the position he and his state were known to occupy, but under the advice of friends he changed his mind. The committee was named on the very day that South Carolina seceded from the union. The committee had little time and would have to act rapidly. It should be noted that not one of the committee leaders was in close working relations with Lincoln, especially after Jefferson Davis broke with him. Curiously, Seward, became the principal intermediary between the committee and the staunch Unionists of the Cabinet. Leadership within the committee lay with Crittenden. On the day the committee was formed, Crittenden proposed six Constitutional amendments, seeking to satisfy both sides of the sectional crisis.
Crittenden's plan, one of seven offered from within the committee, received earnest attention. The Compromise, as offered on December 18, 1860, consisted of a preamble, six proposed constitutional amendments, and four proposed Congressional resolutions. Martin Van Buren declared that the amendments would certainly be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Crittenden received hundreds of assurances from all over the North and the border states that his policy had reached the popular heart. Before long, resolutions and petition were pouring in upon Congress. In New York City, 63,000 people signed an endorsement of the plan. Another petition bore the names of 14,000 women, scattered from North Carolina to Vermont. From St. Louis came nearly a hundred pages of names, wrapped in the American flag.
But the five Republicans in the committee were influenced not by public opinion but by personal conviction, party principle, and the voice of free-soil leaders. The four minor Senators were inclined to wait for guidance from Seward. Seward was waiting for a statement of policy from Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had already made his mind up. He was never for a moment moved by the Crittenden Compromise which was one of the most fateful decisions of Abraham Lincoln’s career. The first committee vote was taken in Seward’s absence and the proposal was defeated by the Republican majority. Four days later the committee reported to the Senate that it could reach no conclusion.

Source: http://www.scv674.org/SH-4.htm
Also for the above
Jimmy L Shirley Jr

Boynton Beach, FL

#13 Nov 25, 2008
Early in January, Crittenden rose in the Senate to make a proposal that his compromise should be submitted to the people of the entire nation for a popular vote. The proposal inspired widespread enthusiasm. Stephen Douglas declared in the Senate, on the same day Crittenden’s proposal was made, January 3, 1861, that he would "venture to prophesy that the Republicans themselves would approve the proposed amendments." Horace Greeley later declared that in a popular referendum, the compromise would have prevailed by "an overwhelming majority." Basically the plan reaffirmed accepted the boundary between free and slave states that had been set by the Missouri Compromise (1820–21), extended the line to California, and assured the continuation of slavery where it already existed by decision of individual states. In addition, upheld the fugitive slave law (1850) with minor modifications, and called for vigorous suppression of the African slave trade. At a peace conference called by the Virginia legislature in 1861, the compromise gained support from four border state delegations. But neither radical Northerners nor radical Southerners liked the plan. Because of Republican obstruction, interposing delay after delay, it failed in the house by a vote of 113 to 80 and in the Senate in March by a vote of 20 to 19.

While compromise was failing in the Senate, it was doing little better in the House, which was even worse adapted to the task of peacemaking. A body too large, too contentious, and too strongly Republican for mediation effort. The House had agreed, on December 4, 1860, to form a special committee of one from each state to discuss the condition of the union. Two days later, Speaker Pennington appointed the "Committee of Thirty-Three." The committee consisted of sixteen Republicans, fourteen Democrats and three Opposition members. But he failed to name a single Douglas man from the North and most of his Southerners were unrepresentative of public opinion. He also chose too many radical Republicans. The committee was more inclined to quarrel than to agree. No member of the committee offered a plan that caught the national attention like the Crittenden Compromise.

Source:
Same as above
Edward H Sebesta

Rio Vista, TX

#14 Nov 25, 2008
Very good letter.

The Confederate flag is also the symbol of the neo-Confederates, a racist movement with additional prejudices against various groups and against Democracy itself.

Edward H. Sebesta is an editor for “Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction,” Univ. of Texas Press, Dec. 1, 2008. There is a web page for this book at:
http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exhagn...
delusional

Okeechobee, FL

#15 Nov 25, 2008
What don't you remember about the War Between the States???? The South did not secede by way of an attack on the US. They left peaceably and after Lincoln called for thousands of troops to illegally invade the south to COERCE those states back into what has become a disgraceful alliance.

You are far from any sense when you equate the South to the muslim terrorists and don't forget that it was our United States that killed innocent civilians both before during and after the War. And you have issues with the South?
Terry

United States

#16 Nov 25, 2008
Kevin is 100%...mistaken. His premise is completely screwed up. Al-Quaida is a terrorist organization that attacks innocent men and children - much in the same way Northern armies waged war on Southern civilians, white and black. I know plenty of folks, white-black-and other shades of tan that feel the Confederate Flag is a symbol of heritage that has been misused by hate groups. The rightful meaning is to represent the Confederate soldier who fought to defend his home and state (which at that time in history, the state was his "Country")
Jimmy L Shirley Jr

Boynton Beach, FL

#17 Nov 25, 2008
How is it that the U.S. government has applauded secession around the world - Panama, Sweden, South Korea/Vietnam, Soviet Republics, Slovakia, Czech Republic, East Timor, Texas from Mexico, the break-up of old Yugoslavia - yet when we tried it in the 1860's, it was allowed to be peaceful. Instead, it was brutally, unmercifully suppressed, resulting in more than 50,000 civilian dead.
Why was that, Mr. Sebesta?
Eileen Og

Atlanta, GA

#18 Nov 25, 2008
One more comment to Zorro re his post #8. The peace commissioners from the CSA were in Washington in March and April 1861. They were A. B. Roman of Louisiana, Martin Crawford of Georgia, and John Forsyth of Alabama. The north, including the new president, Lincoln, did not want peace, they wanted war. The South wanted a peaceful secession and peaceful relations with the North, but got war instead. Read Vol l of "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" by Jefferson Davis, beginning with chap. VII for much more info on the peace commission. That is, if you're interested in the truth instead of continuing to parrot the lies you've been taught.
Zeek

AOL

#19 Nov 26, 2008
This is not true. North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas did not join the Confederacy until after the Lincoln Admistration asked those states to send 75,000 troops to invade the Seven States that had seceded and formed the Confederate States. The Governors of these states refused this request that was in bold violation of the US Constitution, and then and only then, did the state legislatures of these four states pass Ordnances of Secession.

Many make a blanket statement that the states that made up the Confederacy did so "to keep slavery" which was, an institution that was protected by the US Constitution, makes completely no sense. Why secede to keep what you already have?

To say is the Confederacy was formed to attack the United States is absolutely false, as these four states seceded from the United States to keep from invading their neighboring states.

So then it was the United States government that "attacked like terrorists", not the Confederate States, which only seeked independence from the United States, with no intention whatsoever of attacking the United States.

As Confederate President Jefferson Davis stated on behalf of the Confederate States "We only want to be left alone."
bigdeal

South Point, OH

#20 Nov 26, 2008
In all honesty, displaying the Confederate flag doesn't offend anyone. The ones saying that it does are taking the opportunity to whine and cry about being enslaved over 150 years ago, which none living today were not. It's an opportunity to beg for reparations, which in fact, they may get from obama. Lastly, if it does offend someone, the hell with them. It is nice to upset thin skinned whiney people.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Opinion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News How 'new atheists' are just as dangerous as the... 23 min thetruth 132
News Patrick Blanchfield: Stirring emotions, shootin... 48 min serfs up 7
News Viewing Ramadan, Islam's holy month, through ey... 1 hr Old Pom 4
News The Atheist Delusion': Ray Comfort's Masterpiece 1 hr thetruth 73
News The Republican Party is dead 2 hr VorenusI 1,749
News Why I quit atheism 2 hr thetruth 271
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 2 hr Nopal 240
More from around the web