 |
| Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 04:31 am |
|
41st Post |
JDC Duncan
Guest
|
eff you & your effing flag! - shane
Last edited on Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 04:03 am by
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 02:25 pm |
|
42nd Post |
TimHoffman01
Member
|
Actully the Army of Tennessee did feature some units who used a rectangular St. Andrews cross design in the late war (1863-64 thereabouts), if I remember correctly it was meant to differentiate them from the ANV. That said, they still used it with unit designations and I believe their pattern also had a border, as did the square ANV pattern. It was not plain as the knockoffs are today. Also the Naval Jack was rectangular. How often CS naval ships actually used it as opposed to Nationals of the various patterns, I can't say.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 02:33 pm |
|
43rd Post |
HankC
Member
|
JDC Duncan wrote: ole & all :
the St Andrews Cross was square. The flag you are refering to, what the general public refers to as the "Rebel Flag", the rectangular St Andrews,
When one thinks of the rebel flag it is of a blue St Andrews cross with white stars on a red background. It does not matter if it is square, rectangular or circular; on a flagpole or on a bikini...
HankC
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 02:49 pm |
|
44th Post |
| Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 03:30 pm |
|
45th Post |
David White
Member
|
Read Coski's Book The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem. It is an eye opener no matter whether you stand on either side of the fence or right smack dab on top of it. Excellent book.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 04:06 pm |
|
46th Post |
| Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 05:17 pm |
|
47th Post |
| Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 05:22 pm |
|
48th Post |
HankC
Member
|
JDC Duncan wrote: Sir:
I understand your point; and it is the same as my point. When the general public thinks of the "Rebel Flag", they think of any emblem with any variation of the St Andrews. I am saying that I believe this flag, a rectangular St Andrews, was not flown by the Armies of the Confederacy, and would like some confirmation or repudiation of that. I believe this flag was of a much later time period, specifically the 1920s, but as I said, I can't locate a reliable source on this issue.
regards,
JDC
My own opinion is that flags are symbolic. The content and context count - not the shape.
As an interesting aside, they were made square for ease of manufacture.
HankC
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 05:48 pm |
|
49th Post |
| Posted: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 05:55 pm |
|
50th Post |
David White
Member
|
JDC:
Have you been to Ft. McKavett before? If not you are in for a treat and speaking of relics notice all the 100 year old+ tin cans lying on the ground around the cookhouse, when I wrote that in many cases relic hunters pick up items that are a dime a dozen I was thinking of all those "relics" lying on the ground at Ft McKavett.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24th, 2007 02:32 am |
|
51st Post |
susansweet
Member
|
Dave, thanks for the title of the book. I heard the author interviewed on NPR last year and put the book on my mental list to get . I was thinking of it reading the post but couldn't for the life of me remember what it is called. Now I will write it down
sigh my dear laptop crashed and burned yesterday I am working on a I swear Civil War era iMac It does just keep working though although it is 5.0 dial up. New computer on it's way . Remember all back up files. I have learned Oops thread stealing . So anyway I always thought the square was Army of NV. The other the Navy flag, I have learned her in California our UDC flies the Stars and Bars for meetings. Which is funny as other have no clue what it is .
Again thanks for the title and author .
Susan
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 07:34 pm |
|
52nd Post |
TimHoffman01
Member
|
Hi Susan (and others),
Your post reminded me of two interesting personal annectdotes fairly recently:
My father (NJ Yankee that he is) was visiting my mother's side family reunion this past July in upstate NY. While there he noted the flag that was flying in front of a neighbor's house. He remarked on it to my uncle (who was hosting) who said something along the lines of "yeah, we noticed he was flying a revolutionary flag there, but something about it just looks a little different from how I've always seen the Betsy Ross flag." My father thought that was very humerous and tried explaining to him, and other family members, that it was, in fact, a Confederate flag known as the Stars & Bars. They didn't believe him at first, since it wasn't the "cross flag."
The second annectdote was during a recent trip with my in-laws to Williamsburg. They have the state flags of all 13 colonies flying at the visitor center. As we walked by I started chuckling and my brother-in-law asked what was funny. I asked if he rememberd the controversy surrounding the Georgia state flag and demands that the battle flag be taken off it. He said he did. I then pointed out the Georgia state flag and asked him if he couldn't see what was funny. He just looked at me. I should probably point out that he also happens to be from NJ and also isn't the most into history beyond 1900. I pointed out that, excepting the Georgia state seal, the new pattern state flag was, in fact, the Stars & Bars, 1st national of the Confederate States. He also asked if the S&B wasn't the one with the "crossed bars."
These just go to show how recent events, far more than actual history, often color or completely change symbolism, meanings and even memories. I've always felt that the battle flag was a military flag and needed to be kept that way - displayed only in Museums, in the hands of actual reenactment units, and possibly on military memorials, but NOT on houses, and flapping in camps. I was actually surprised how many CS Reenactors at a recent event agreed with that, but had been over ruled by a more vocal minority who were intent on making political statements and who believed (whether the rest of us do or not) that if they curtail flying it at all, then they will lose any ability to fly it at all, even where it should be.
The question to me, has not so much been "what does it really mean," since it is clear that it means two very different things to different groups of people and NEITHER can be said to be wrong. The actual question is more along the lines of "what do we do about it?" and "can preceptions be recovered such that it can be shown in its proper historical context without others having an immediate negative response?"
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 10:27 pm |
|
53rd Post |
| Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 12:13 am |
|
54th Post |
| Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 07:07 am |
|
55th Post |
| Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 05:14 pm |
|
56th Post |
| Posted: Fri Mar 30th, 2007 03:59 pm |
|
57th Post |
Digger
Member
|
Ultimately, the North's financial well being depended on tariffs, and forcing the south to purchase goods from the north. This was the main reason for the pressure put on the south by the north. Slavery was at the time not the primary focus or reason for discord and tension. Massachusetts had a law that forbade "freedmen" from settling within it's borders. Sounds pretty darn racist to me.
Remember, the slave trade was started by, and profits were enjoyed by the north. Don't be foolish in thinking that the North was innocent in the institution of slavery. In addition, the North only abolished slavery, as it was an unworkable model for thier economy. Instead they created indentured servitude, and treated the irish workers worse than slaves. Beatings, evictions, slums, etc. were typical.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30th, 2007 05:18 pm |
|
58th Post |
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Digger wrote: Ultimately, the North's financial well being depended on tariffs, and forcing the south to purchase goods from the north. This was the main reason for the pressure put on the south by the north. Slavery was at the time not the primary focus or reason for discord and tension. Massachusetts had a law that forbade "freedmen" from settling within it's borders. Sounds pretty darn racist to me.
Remember, the slave trade was started by, and profits were enjoyed by the north. Don't be foolish in thinking that the North was innocent in the institution of slavery. In addition, the North only abolished slavery, as it was an unworkable model for thier economy. Instead they created indentured servitude, and treated the irish workers worse than slaves. Beatings, evictions, slums, etc. were typical.
Have you ever read the words of the Politicians themselves; the Declaration of Causes are quite clear that Slavery was at the forefront; it's detailed in the CS Constitution and made patently clear by the words of Stephens the CS VP and others.
Tarriffs are a feel good smoke screen propogated by the Lost Cause after the war.
The North was not innocent; nor did the US start the War or Secession. The war was started by the CS over slavery... paint it any way you like but Slavery was the root cause of Secession.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30th, 2007 05:36 pm |
|
59th Post |
Digger
Member
|
It was the main reason that the south was willing to and did secede, however, it wasn't the main reason that the north had for going to war. The north went to war to protect it's own financial interests (also the reason the south seceded.) The old saying is true with a twist (Cher chez l'argentte) "follow the money".
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30th, 2007 09:10 pm |
|
60th Post |
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Digger wrote: It was the main reason that the south was willing to and did secede, however, it wasn't the main reason that the north had for going to war. The north went to war to protect it's own financial interests (also the reason the south seceded.) The old saying is true with a twist (Cher chez l'argentte) "follow the money".
The US was attacked... war started.
|
|
Back To Top
|
Current time is 03:49 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|
|
