A question for SouthernN'Proud....?

Here we go again...:rolleyes:

1. The flag in SaP's avatar is not the confederate flag. It's the confederate battle flag. Don't confuse the two, and don't claim something that isn't true.

2. The "War of Northern Agression" (how droll), true enough, was not about slavery. It wasn't about food and cotton either (Ohio and Pennsylvania were food producers, as were New York, New Jersey, and, believe it or not, Illinois). It also wasn't about railroads, which the South had in abundance. It was about toeing the line. As for the north having more slaves, I'll give you that, with a caveat...before 1847... ;). After the start of the "War of Reunification", all states on the Union side had abolished slavery.
 
Winky said:
So if one flag stands for Nazism the other for slavery then what does this one evoke?
Click to expand...

Yes, many many misguided individuals have usurped this flag and used it to stand for racist idealology. These individuals and groups are as misguided as are those who think the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery.
Click to expand...
 
Gato_Solo said:
After the start of the "War of Reunification", all states on the Union side had abolished slavery.
Click to expand...


On paper. They were called butlers, housemaids, and chambermaids.

Secession was still a legal option guaranteed the individual states. Until someone did it, that is. Then they were invaded and forced at gunpoint to "toe the line" as you put it. Sound familiar?
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Then they were invaded and forced at gunpoint to "toe the line" as you put it. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...
Iraq? Afghanistan?

Disclaimer: I am in full support of whats been done in those countries to remove people who don't toe the line

That makes me wonder....what would happen now if a state was to try and secede from the US? Now that everything is 'different'. Would the union march in there and try and claim it back or would they let it go as part of democratic due process?

Same actually goes with Canada....what would happen in Canada if Quebec was to finally be successful in it's secession attempts?
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
On paper. They were called butlers, housemaids, and chambermaids.
Click to expand...

And police, and firemen, and doctors, and lawyers, and newspapermen...and they were all paid for their services. ;)

SouthernN'Proud said:
Secession was still a legal option guaranteed the individual states. Until someone did it, that is. Then they were invaded and forced at gunpoint to "toe the line" as you put it. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

Ummm...the Constitution has no provision for secession. Never did. The document we had before the Constitution was written, in 1787, had a secession clause, but that never carried over to the Constitution.

The document used to govern the US between 1779 and 1787 was called The Articles of Confederation, from which the CSA made their constitution...
 
Raven said:
Same actually goes with Canada....what would happen in Canada if Quebec was to finally be successful in it's secession attempts?
Click to expand...

Off hand...I'd say that we won't be succesful in seperation. The population is changing more towards the moderate side. The new generations don't know about or care for the reasoning behind the current 'protect the french language' laws, nor why there is such an issue based on language at all.

The latest thing that's being tossed about is an 'independant province within a strong Canada' . It's pretty weak and seems more like a last-ditch effort to me. It'd mean keeping the Canadian dollar, the military, the police, the lack of passports, medicare etc etc...but having a stronger control over where the tax money goes and is spent.

As for the famous swastica. It's got a VERY long history.

  • China
    India
    Japan
    Tibet
    Greece
    Gnostic
    Hittite
    Jains
    Egypt
    Ancient Crete
    Ancient Troy (level of excavation unknown)
    Scotland (Picts)
    Ancient Ireland
    Kickapoo Indians
    Tennessee and Ohio Indian burial mounds (Hopewell Mound)
    Pottawatomie Indians
    Hopi Indians
    Zuni Indians
    Old Norse
    Brigantes of Ancient Britain, who used it as a symbol of the goddess Bride.
    Plains Indians (who were originally -farmers- until they were pushed into the Plains by neighboring tribes, and then became nomadic)
    Central American Maya and Aztec (two -very- different cultures!)
    Buddhist (found on the soles of the Buddha's feet, in statuary)
    Found in the Catacombs of Rome (see Crux Dissimulata)
    Pre-Hejira Arabs
    Seen by the author on a quilt pattern (age and pattern name unknown)
    A variant with only three arms is used on the Isle of Man, and is known as a "triskeleon." It is usually represented as three -legs- and thus suggests the act of running. This may be a hold-over from its associations with the goddess Bridget (Bride). the symbol of St. Bridget's Cross becomes -much- more interesting at this point, and might be considered a swasticka-variant.
    Depicted within a triangle symbolizing the goddess Astarte in some parts of the Ancient Middle East.
    The Manichaeans
    Ancient Rome, where it was a symbol of Jupiter Tonans and Pluvius
    A coin of Ethelred of Northumbria (9th cent. CE)
    Embroidered on Christian vestments (8th and 9th cent. CE)
    English heraldry: CHAMBERLAYNE (Argent, a chevron between three fylfots gules) circa 1394 CE
    German heraldry: VON TALE (Ecartele en equerre de gueules et d'argent) (date unknown) (English blazon: Quarterly per fylfot gules and argent.) "Equerre" refers to the carpenter's square, and may be a clue as to the usage of it by the early Christians, due to Joseph's occupation as a carpenter.
    German heraldry: NSDAP (Nazi Party) (Gules, on a roundel argent a fylfot reversed in bend sable) circa 1920-1945 CE. (note: many other combinations of designs were used by the NSDAP, usually combining gules, sable and argent with the swasticka.)
    German medieval brasses (usage unknown)
    MS Landsdowne, no. 874, circa 1480 CE, uses the name "fylfot" to describe a monogram of the initials "F.F."
    Austria (an anti-Semetic emblem used post WW-I)
    Estonia (circa WW-I and post-War)
    Finland (circa WW-I and WW-II)
    Pre-WW II United States Army 45th Division patch
 
MrBishop said:
Off hand...I'd say that we won't be succesful in seperation. The population is changing more towards the moderate side. The new generations don't know about or care for the reasoning behind the current 'protect the french language' laws, nor why there is such an issue based on language at all.

The latest thing that's being tossed about is an 'independant province within a strong Canada' . It's pretty weak and seems more like a last-ditch effort to me. It'd mean keeping the Canadian dollar, the military, the police, the lack of passports, medicare etc etc...but having a stronger control over where the tax money goes and is spent.
Click to expand...
You never know, look at the US election for suprise turnouts.....
Maybe they won't be as close as the last couple of referendums (from what I understand from the canadian chicks teachings :)), but do I see what you mean about the moderate side so that turn-out isn't very likely :)
 
Gato_Solo said:
And police, and firemen, and doctors, and lawyers, and newspapermen...and they were all paid for their services. ;)
Click to expand...

Nice myth, unfortunately not true. It helps ease consciences among the northern states living in denial of their own history, thus it is propogated ceaselessly. The sad part is, however, it simply isn't true.

Oh, no doubt free slaves and other blacks held paying jobs there during the time period...as they did in the South as well. No one is denying that. But not all blacks in the north were free either.

Secession was a states' right under the Constitution. While it is true that the Confederate States based their own constitution largely on the Articles, the act of secession was legal at the time it was done. Plain and simple. States took a legal action they had a right to take, and were invaded by the nation they seceded from and forced to rejoin.

People want to see things a certain way, and no amount of fact will alter their beliefs. I used to be one of them. I took the time to learn what really happened. It was well worth my time to do so.

Think as you like, it matters not to me. All I ask is that opinions be based on fact, not PC endorsed, sanitized homogonized fairy tales created to justify an illegal act.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Nice myth, unfortunately not true. It helps ease consciences among the northern states living in denial of their own history, thus it is propogated ceaselessly. The sad part is, however, it simply isn't true.

Oh, no doubt free slaves and other blacks held paying jobs there during the time period...as they did in the South as well. No one is denying that. But not all blacks in the north were free either.
Click to expand...

And your source of information is? Not to say you're 'misinformed', but just to try and understand why all my history books in my school were wrong...(I graduated High School in 1980...15 years before 'PC' started to rear it's ugly head)


SnP said:
Secession was a states' right under the Constitution. While it is true that the Confederate States based their own constitution largely on the Articles, the act of secession was legal at the time it was done. Plain and simple. States took a legal action they had a right to take, and were invaded by the nation they seceded from and forced to rejoin.

People want to see things a certain way, and no amount of fact will alter their beliefs. I used to be one of them. I took the time to learn what really happened. It was well worth my time to do so.

Think as you like, it matters not to me. All I ask is that opinions be based on fact, not PC endorsed, sanitized homogonized fairy tales created to justify an illegal act.
Click to expand...

Show me...in the constitution...where secession is valid. And please don't use the 'catch-all' of the Constitutional Convention. ;)
 
It will take me some time to find the appropriate links. I am on my work computer now, and we recently reimaged our home computer and switched to XP. Like dumbasses we forgot to keep our bookmarks, so I lost all that stuff. Bear with me, and I'll forward it when I am able to find them again. I'll likely do so in PM as well so as not to clutter up the board and waste disinterested people's time with it. It might take a few days for me to track down the precise site I am looking for, but hopefully I can find it again.

Enjoying the discourse by the way. Opposing viewpoints are always potential learning sources. Nice to have a (pardon the pun) "Civil" discussion about it with a non-emotional, educated person.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
It will take me some time to find the appropriate links. I am on my work computer now, and we recently reimaged our home computer and switched to XP. Like dumbasses we forgot to keep our bookmarks, so I lost all that stuff. Bear with me, and I'll forward it when I am able to find them again. I'll likely do so in PM as well so as not to clutter up the board and waste disinterested people's time with it. It might take a few days for me to track down the precise site I am looking for, but hopefully I can find it again.

Enjoying the discourse by the way. Opposing viewpoints are always potential learning sources. Nice to have a (pardon the pun) "Civil" discussion about it with a non-emotional, educated person.
Click to expand...
On the internet? :eek6:

Keep it going guys, I'm liking this discussion :)
 
:lurk:

Damn, this is kinda pleasant, ain't it? This is OTC, isn't it? Damn, I just know I've been nailed with a reroute virus.
 
Well I am relatively uneducated on Civil War history, but I do know that just because a law is enacted does not at all mean people will comply. Especially not right away and especially if it isn't strictly enforced. I've no doubt many northernes keps slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation.
 
Ok, I consulted the token black guy here at work. (He calls himself that). For the most part he is a pretty level headed guy and doesn't look for racism. Over the past three years we've become pretty good friends. Anyway, I asked him what he thought about the confederate flag. His response was that he didn't like it. I asked him if he thought it was racist and he said yes, that he did. He said he does understand the heritage argument, and that it was the flag of a nation that wanted independence, but that the overwhelming feeling it gives him is that it is racist. He did go on to say that he did not think it should be banned, but that he does agree with the State decisions not to display it publicly. If it is displayed by an individual, fine, but not by a government.
 
He, like every other free person, has every right to his opinions. I have little doubt that those opinions are based at least in part on personal experience, sadly.

As I stated earlier, many groups and individuals have usurped the flag for their own nefarious purposes. Racism exists. Everywhere. Both ways. As simple a fact as can ever be stated.

I hold no opinion either way on states using it in whole or in part in their state flags.

I harbor nothing but contempt for those misguided souls who actively practice racist ideals, regardless of their skin color, nationality, or "reasons".

I too have asked persons of elevated skin pigment about their feelings on the issue. I have received the entire gamut of responses from outright intolerence and hatred to opinions more sympathetic toward it than my own. I have even talked with descendents of people whose ancestors fought for the South as Black Confederates. Yes, they existed. I too hold to the opinion that each individual holds their own opinions about it, as well as their own level of intensity of those feelings. Not one thing wrong with that either.

I go back to post one in this thread. I was asked about my own leanings and thoughts on it. I gladly gave those. I at no point denied the validity of any other opinion about it. I have disputed some points of historical fact, but never an opinion. Those are harmless. Incorrect statements presented as fact are not quite so harmless, as others will draw misguided opinions based upon those statements.

Everyone please feel free as a bird to harbor your own opinions about it, as well as those who display it regardless of the reason for the display. I admit, I feel genuine pain when I see it improperly display or used in any manner not befitting its true symbolism. I also feel pain when I see broadbased negativity attached to it or its bearers without the benefit of discussion such as has been taking place here. It really does mean that much to me. My ancestors fought and died for it and the ideals it represented. Their memories are being desecrated in the name of "I'm offended". That's tough to swallow quietly sometimes. Particularly when the offended party has no idea what they are talking about and is basing their stance purely on second- or third-hand information drawn from a pool of ignorance.

I think I've contributed about all I can on this issue, aside from supplying the requested links one person asked for, which I will do when time and physical health permit. Outside that, or any additional specific questions sent my way, I fear anything else I could add to this discussion would begin edging into redundancy. I was asked; my answers are right here for anyone to see at their convenience. I thank you all for the discussion and the civility and genuine interest which accompanied it.

God bless Dixie. It's up to us to save her heritage and defend her honor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top