Poll: For our African-American posters, which of these flags do you see as racist symbols?

Which of these flags do you see as racist symbols?

  • Any and all Confederate flags

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • First official flag of the Confederacy

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Second official flag of the Confederacy

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Third official flag of the Confederacy

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Confederate Battle Flag

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Confederate Navy Jack

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • No Confederate flags

    Votes: 5 45.5%

  • Total voters
    11

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
My friend, I haven't made my point clear enough to be understood, let me try again.

The reason I think the Rebel flag should be retired is because it was the battleflag of an army fighting the United States. That is the same reason I think the Confederate statues should be retired, the men depicted fought against the United States.

The widespread opinion that the war was fought to preserve slavery is just added incentive to do what I advocate, but not the determining factor. There is no contradiction in my argument once you understand what I'm getting at.

It's as simple as that. Trying to confuse the issue by talking about Washington's ownership of slaves, or dismissing the fact that the Rebel flag was the battleflag of an army that fought our country, is not the issue, in my very humble opinion.

Is there any common ground?
Surely we can all agree that we are glad the Confederacy lost the war.
Here is the source of a lot of the troubles associated with the Civil War. When you fight a war to force states to remain in a country that the majority did not wish to remain in, you are going to have some problems.
That is the original sin of Lincoln's "new birth of freedom." It was fundamentally antidemocratic.
Having won that war, the Union was forced to eject popularly-elected state governments and replace them with appointed military governors. Alabama was disestablished and became part of Military District No. 3. That is also fundamentally antidemocratic.
Having fought that war in such a way as to "make them howl," having killed tens of thousands and destroyed billions of dollars worth of private property, well, folks do not take kindly to being treated that way by the government that is claiming their loyalty.
After the war, once southerners elected Representatives and Senators to represent them in Congress, and northern Republicans did not like the men southerners elected, so they refused to seat any of them, even the pro-Union representatives (this despite Art. IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution which says no states can be deprived of its representation in the Senate without the state's consent). Republicans effectively disfranchised millions of southerners. People do not take kindly to that. In fact, they tend to resent it.
The Federal government behaved so atrociously during Reconstruction that Congress forbade the army to engage in law enforcement in the US (The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878). The army's bad behavior gave birth to the Solid South. There was almost no Republican party in the South for a century. I would recommend you take a look at Walter Fleming's Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama. An Alabama bishop was arrested because he failed to pray for the president of the United States. (Fleming, p. 326) A young white man in Greensboro got into an altercation with a black US soldier, and ended up shooting a white Union officer, then escaped. The army grabbed the shooter's brother (who was not involved) and got ready to hang the wrong man. The townspeople bribed the US Army commanding office to the tune of $10,000 and the innocent man was released. (Fleming, p. 269)
This was the toxic brew in which Civil War monuments were erected. Eventually the federal government did re-earn the loyalty of southerners, but communities all over the South still erected monuments to the local men who had fought trying to protect then from the wrongs mentioned above.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. It's a complicated issue. My view is, Americans live in the United States. Trying to withdraw from the United States with a war can be seen as fighting for the ground you live on, but that ignores that the ground being fought over is, first and foremost, American soil.
Interesting. When, in your view, was the Union endowed with the attribute of indivisibility?
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
Here is the source of a lot of the troubles associated with the Civil War. When you fight a war to force states to remain in a country that the majority did not wish to remain in, you are going to have some problems.
That is the original sin of Lincoln's "new birth of freedom." It was fundamentally antidemocratic.
Having won that war, the Union was forced to eject popularly-elected state governments and replace them with appointed military governors. Alabama was disestablished and became part of Military District No. 3. That is also fundamentally antidemocratic.
Having fought that war in such a way as to "make them howl," having killed tens of thousands and destroyed billions of dollars worth of private property, well, folks do not take kindly to being treated that way by the government that is claiming their loyalty.
After the war, once southerners elected Representatives and Senators to represent them in Congress, and northern Republicans did not like the men southerners elected, so they refused to seat any of them, even the pro-Union representatives (this despite Art. IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution which says no states can be deprived of its representation in the Senate without the state's consent). Republicans effectively disfranchised millions of southerners. People do not take kindly to that. In fact, they tend to resent it.
The Federal government behaved so atrociously during Reconstruction that Congress forbade the army to engage in law enforcement in the US (The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878). The army's bad behavior gave birth to the Solid South. There was almost no Republican party in the South for a century. I would recommend you take a look at Walter Fleming's Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama. An Alabama bishop was arrested because he failed to pray for the president of the United States. (Fleming, p. 326) A young white man in Greensboro got into an altercation with a black US soldier, and ended up shooting a white Union officer, then escaped. The army grabbed the shooter's brother (who was not involved) and got ready to hang the wrong man. The townspeople bribed the US Army commanding office to the tune of $10,000 and the innocent man was released. (Fleming, p. 269)
This was the toxic brew in which Civil War monuments were erected. Eventually the federal government did re-earn the loyalty of southerners, but communities all over the South still erected monuments to the local men who had fought trying to protect then from the wrongs mentioned above.
And thankyou for that info. It is stuff I am well aware of, I assure you. I'm 63 and have lived the bulk of my life in Alabama. My hometown was burnt to the ground during the war, they left three or four buildings standing.

I'm an American first, and a Southerner second. I wouldn't give up my loyalty to either one. I simply think trying to withdraw from the Union was unacceptable, no matter what the conditions were. We change things at the ballot box here in America, not with a war. That's my story & I'm sticking to it.
#######
I like this pledge: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible , with liberty and justice for all."
 
Last edited:

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,620
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
Here is the source of a lot of the troubles associated with the Civil War. When you fight a war to force states to remain in a country that the majority did not wish to remain in, you are going to have some problems.
That is the original sin of Lincoln's "new birth of freedom." It was fundamentally antidemocratic.
Having won that war, the Union was forced to eject popularly-elected state governments and replace them with appointed military governors. Alabama was disestablished and became part of Military District No. 3. That is also fundamentally antidemocratic.
Having fought that war in such a way as to "make them howl," having killed tens of thousands and destroyed billions of dollars worth of private property, well, folks do not take kindly to being treated that way by the government that is claiming their loyalty.
After the war, once southerners elected Representatives and Senators to represent them in Congress, and northern Republicans did not like the men southerners elected, so they refused to seat any of them, even the pro-Union representatives (this despite Art. IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution which says no states can be deprived of its representation in the Senate without the state's consent). Republicans effectively disfranchised millions of southerners. People do not take kindly to that. In fact, they tend to resent it.
The Federal government behaved so atrociously during Reconstruction that Congress forbade the army to engage in law enforcement in the US (The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878). The army's bad behavior gave birth to the Solid South. There was almost no Republican party in the South for a century. I would recommend you take a look at Walter Fleming's Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama. An Alabama bishop was arrested because he failed to pray for the president of the United States. (Fleming, p. 326) A young white man in Greensboro got into an altercation with a black US soldier, and ended up shooting a white Union officer, then escaped. The army grabbed the shooter's brother (who was not involved) and got ready to hang the wrong man. The townspeople bribed the US Army commanding office to the tune of $10,000 and the innocent man was released. (Fleming, p. 269)
This was the toxic brew in which Civil War monuments were erected. Eventually the federal government did re-earn the loyalty of southerners, but communities all over the South still erected monuments to the local men who had fought trying to protect then from the wrongs mentioned above.
Sorry but there is no moral excuse the south seceding. It was morally wrong and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Sorry but there is no moral excuse the south seceding. It was morally wrong and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
I'm afraid you have some reading to do.
Ever heard of Potawatomie?
Do you know who Heyward Shepherd was?
Ever heard of Barclay Coppoc, Francis Merriam, John Brown, Jr. and how Republican governors Samuel Kirkwood and William Dennison acted to protect them?
Have you read Hinton Rowan Helper's Impending Crisis?
Have you ever read Long John Wentworth writings?
Do you have any knowledge of the Texas Troubles of 1860?
Ever heard of the Talladega Plot?
Alabamians in 1860 knew about all of these things. Just because you are not familiar with them does not mean they were not. Yet you feel authorized to judge them despite you lack of knowledge. It is very glib to dismiss Alabamians' security concerns when you do not face the dangers they faced.

And the tens of thousands of deaths would not have happened at all if Lincoln had done the democratic thing and the constitutional thing and let the seceding states go. Blaming the deaths on the southern states is as obtuse as blaming the rape victim for her black eye. "If you hadn't resisted, you would not have been hurt."
 
Last edited:

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
I'm an American first, and a Southerner second. I wouldn't give up my loyalty to either one. I simply think trying to withdraw from the Union was unacceptable, no matter what the conditions were. We change things at the ballot box here in America, not with a war. That's my story & I'm sticking to it.
#######
I like this pledge: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible , with liberty and justice for all."
CV, Alabamians are exceptionally patriotic. That is one of the things I like the most about them.
You were born in the mid-1950s, after the process of reunification was completed. Southerners participating in the Spanish-American War was a big step to southerners rejoining the Union (and being allowed to rejoin the Union), another big step was southerners fighting in WW I. Then, TVA and WW II were processes in which the US earned the loyalty of Al. A lot of these monuments were erected before that process was complete, while it was ongoing. You wee born after it was completed.
I say all that because it is possible that Alabamians viewed things differently than we do today.
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
CV, Alabamians are exceptionally patriotic. That is one of the things I like the most about them.
You were born in the mid-1950s, after the process of reunification was completed. Southerners participating in the Spanish-American War was a big step to southerners rejoining the Union (and being allowed to rejoin the Union), another big step was southerners fighting in WW I. Then, TVA and WW II were processes in which the US earned the loyalty of Al. A lot of these monuments were erected before that process was complete, while it was ongoing. You wee born after it was completed.
I say all that because it is possible that Alabamians viewed things differently than we do today.
I understand people from both sides focus on different outrageous injustices that were going on to justify the war, or not going to war, and as you point out, there were many. You have an extensive and impressive knowledge of all the particulars. It is my humble opinion that Americans and Alabamaians back then are (or should be) the same as me, Americans first, Southerners second.
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
CV, Alabamians are exceptionally patriotic. That is one of the things I like the most about them.
You were born in the mid-1950s, after the process of reunification was completed. Southerners participating in the Spanish-American War was a big step to southerners rejoining the Union (and being allowed to rejoin the Union), another big step was southerners fighting in WW I. Then, TVA and WW II were processes in which the US earned the loyalty of Al. A lot of these monuments were erected before that process was complete, while it was ongoing. You wee born after it was completed.
I say all that because it is possible that Alabamians viewed things differently than we do today.
As an amazing aside, which I suspect you will appreciate, my grandfather was a veteran of the Spanish-American war. My father's father. That still boggles my mind.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,620
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
I'm afraid you have some reading to do.
Ever heard of Potawatomie?
Do you know who Heyward Shepherd was?
Ever heard of Barclay Coppoc, Francis Merriam, John Brown, Jr. and how Republican governors Samuel Kirkwood and William Dennison acted to protect them?
Have you read Hinton Rowan Helper's Impending Crisis?
Have you ever read Long John Wentworth writings?
Do you have any knowledge of the Texas Troubles of 1860?
Ever heard of the Talladega Plot?
Alabamians in 1860 knew about all of these things. Just because you are not familiar with them does not mean they were not. Yet you feel authorized to judge them despite you lack of knowledge. It is very glib to dismiss Alabamians' security concerns when you do not face the dangers they faced.

And the tens of thousands of deaths would not have happened at all if Lincoln had done the democratic thing and the constitutional thing and let the seceding states go. Blaming the deaths on the southern states is as obtuse as blaming the rape victim for her black eye. "If you hadn't resisted, you would not have been hurt."
No and its not necessary to know them to know that slavery was wrong and I'm guessing that "Alabamians in 1860 knew about all of these things" is a bit of an exaggeration. Alabamians in 1860 were probably more concerned with their day to day lives.
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
CV, here is my problem in a nutshell. You are demonizing, not just the confederacy (intentionally lowercase) but the men who fought for their state/community/beliefs. As a veteran myself, I consider all the sacrifices men and women have made for this country to be both compelling and history worthy. I am not going to second judge ANY soldier (unless it is extreme to the nth degree). ALL societies have been built on the ruins/backs of others. Who are we, in our comfortable homes and lives, not worried about food, shelter, or today, even about electricity, that we think we have the moral high ground to judge people from another, virtually alien existence (from our point of view). Personally, I will honor ALL the men and women who have given their lives for this country ... not just the ones who were victorious.
I'm sorry you saw fit to give me a negative, I had been impressed that we had made it this deep into the thread without that type sentiment.

If you give your life wearing a uniform, in my opinion, whether you were trying to kill American soldiers or fighting alongside Americans is important to me. I simply don't understand how people can justify thinking people who gave their life trying to kill American soldiers were patriotic, as I consider myself as Southern as anyone.

Edit: in reading this post again, I realized I forgot to thank you for your service.
 
Last edited:

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
As an amazing aside, which I suspect you will appreciate, my grandfather was a veteran of the Spanish-American war. My father's father. That still boggles my mind.
At my local watering hole is a poster of the 2nd Virginia Infantry of the Spanish American War. That was the last war in which the US Army used state designation. In the mobilization for WW I, state units would be formed, moved to training locations and given US regimental numbers. The 5th Virginia Infantry of the Civil War (part of the famous Stonewall Brigade) became the 2nd Virginia Infantry in the SpanAm and the 116th US Infantry in WW I. It is still called the Stonewall Brigade to this day.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,659
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
At my local watering hole is a poster of the 2nd Virginia Infantry of the Spanish American War. That was the last war in which the US Army used state designation. In the mobilization for WW I, state units would be formed, moved to training locations and given US regimental numbers. The 5th Virginia Infantry of the Civil War (part of the famous Stonewall Brigade) became the 2nd Virginia Infantry in the SpanAm and the 116th US Infantry in WW I. It is still called the Stonewall Brigade to this day.
My GGF fought in the 1st Alabama, USA... :)
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL
...I simply think trying to withdraw from the Union was unacceptable, no matter what the conditions were. We change things at the ballot box here in America, not with a war...
You couldn't be more wrong.

From the birth of our nation, the right of the people to "throw off" an abusive government, i.e. to secede, and form their own government was paramount. Once we declared our independence, we viewed our land as our own, independent, sovereign State - or, to be more precise, as our own 13, independent, sovereign States. The British, of course, viewed our land as still being their land with a bunch of petulant rebels inhabiting it and sent in their troops to straighten us out. We then, of course, viewed those troops as an invading army which is exactly what they were. So, the Revolutionary War was actually started by the British, as a reaction to our declaration of secession from their government. In the end, we won and a new nation was born - as a direct result of sovereign States seceding from the British government.

However, our history of secession didn't end there. Just ask our nation's first 16 presidents. You know, the ones before George Washington.

While George Washington was our country's, i.e., our Republic's, first president our nation's first government was formed under the Continental Congresses and the Articles of Confederation. This first government ended up failing and was eventually replaced by the U.S. Constitution, by which our Republic of sovereign States was formed. The impetus for this change? Some of those sovereign States seceding from the government of the Confederation.

As for the U.S. Constitution, there was much consternation regarding its ratification by many States whose leaders and people were concerned that the sovereign States were not explicitly granted the right of secession. This fear was generally quieted by the assertion that the right of secession was an inalienable right of any sovereign State and, therefore, could neither be granted nor denied by the Republic.

While there was some debate over whether or not the Republic should or should not have the power to prevent the secession of its sovereign States, this was still the generally held view until shortly before the next time some of the Republic's sovereign States chose to exercise their right to secede: the Civil War.

At this point, just as in the case of the Revolutionary War, the old government refused to acknowledge that it had been thrown off and sent in troops to straighten things out. Again, of course, the States which had seceded rightly viewed those troops as an invading army and responded accordingly. So, the Civil War was started by the remainder of the U.S.A., as a reaction to the sovereign States of the C.S.A. seceding from their government.

And, not coincidentally, the leaders of that old government violated their own Constitution in order to, first, prevent other sovereign States from seceding, e.g., Maryland and Delaware, and to, second, "restore" the States which had already seceded to the Republic under the rallying cry of "preserving the Union", thereby superseding the rights of any and all of its sovereign States.

This mindset continued and was cemented following the Civil War, when the Supreme Court eventually, officially declared that secession of the Republic's individual States was unconstitutional.

As a result, I personally view this as our nation's third government:
circa 1776-1789: Confederation of the United States - A confederation of independent, sovereign States.
circa 1789-1860: United States of America, part 1 - A republic of independent, sovereign States.
circa 1860-present: United States of America, part 2 - A republic of dependent, limited, subordinate States.
 
Last edited:

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,659
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
You couldn't be more wrong.

From the birth of our nation, the right of the people to "throw off" an abusive government, i.e. to secede, and form their own government was paramount. Once we declared our independence, we viewed our land as our own, independent, sovereign State - or, to be more precise, as our own 13, independent, sovereign States. The British, of course, viewed our land as still being their land with a bunch of petulant rebels inhabiting it and sent in their troops to straighten us out. We then, of course, viewed those troops as an invading army which is exactly what they were. So, the Revolutionary War was actually started by the British, as a reaction to our declaration of secession from their government. In the end, we won and a new nation was born - as a direct result of sovereign States seceding from the British government.

However, our history of secession didn't end there. Just ask our nation's first 16 presidents. You know, the ones before George Washington.

While George Washington was our country's, i.e., our Republic's, first president our nation's first government was formed under the Continental Congresses and the Articles of Confederation. This first government ended up failing and was eventually replaced by the U.S. Constitution, by which our Republic of sovereign States was formed. The impetus for this change? Some of those sovereign States seceding from the government of the Confederation.

As for the U.S. Constitution, there was much consternation regarding its ratification by many States whose leaders and people were concerned that the sovereign States were not explicitly granted the right of secession. This fear was generally quieted by the assertion that the right of secession was an inalienable right of any sovereign State and, therefore, could neither be granted nor denied by the Republic.

While there was some debate over whether or not the Republic should or should not have the power to prevent the secession of its sovereign States, this was still the generally held view until shortly before the next time some of the Republic's sovereign States chose to exercise their right to secede: the Civil War.

At this point, just as in the case of the Revolutionary War, the old government refused to acknowledge that it had been thrown off and sent in troops to straighten things out. Again, of course, the States which had seceded rightly viewed those troops as an invading army and responded accordingly. So, the Civil War was started by the remainder of the U.S.A., as a reaction to the sovereign States of the C.S.A. seceding from their government.

And, not coincidentally, the leaders of that old government violated their own Constitution in order to, first, prevent other sovereign States from seceding, e.g., Maryland and Delaware, and to, second, "restore" the States which had already seceded to the Republic under the rallying cry of "preserving the Union", thereby superseding the rights of any and all of its sovereign States.

This mindset continued and was cemented following the Civil War, when the Supreme Court eventually, officially declared that secession of the Republic's individual States was unconstitutional.

As a result, I personally view this as our nation's third government:
circa 1776-1789: Confederation of the United States - A confederation of independent, sovereign States.
circa 1789-1860: United States of America, part 1 - A republic of independent, sovereign States.
circa 1860-present: United States of America, part 2 - A republic of dependent, limited, subordinate States.
I consider that the romantic view...
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
Well, my wife has called me a hopeless romantic more than once! :biggrin2:
You are the one that opened this thread. I tried to participate in a civil manner, yet you thought it was appropriate to tag me with a negative. Seems kind of narrow minded to me to request points of view by opening a delicate topic for discussion, then dish out negatives when you don't care for a point of view.

I assume you did it because in your heart you know you are wrong. I've made my point multiple times, it's time for me to stop, I'm not looking for unpleasantness.

I'm on General Lee's side on this issue as he said there should be no Confederate monuments. I'm gratified he understood what some today can't seem to grasp.
 
Last edited:

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
I cannot believe that anyone born and reared in the South, who is a certain age, can truthfully say he never harbored a racist thought at some point in his life. And BTW this is not limited to people who live in what would be described as the Old South. Racism permeates every city and town in this country and always will. Is it truly about what happened or is it about what we are going to do now that will define our country? Our national history needs to be kept in perspective and that depends on what your perspective is.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.