Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


The Rebel Battle Flag - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Fri Mar 30th, 2007 09:47 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
61st Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

  The view of the Confederates who fired on Ft. Sumter was that it was in South Carolina, and South Carolina was no longer part of the United States. Therefore, it was the US government that was illegally on their territory.

  The attack on Ft. Sumter was both foolish and unnecessary. To achieve the removal of Major Anderson's garrison, the Confederates only had to wait him out. He himself told them when he would have to evacuate the fort. But at that point in time, cooler heads could not prevail. Thus, the Confederates handed Lincoln exactly what he was hoping for, an attack on a US installation.

   With this gift, Lincoln was able to rally public opinion to raise an army for the invasion of the south. Before that, there was some sentiment for letting the: "Wayward Sisters" leave peacefully. Now attitudes hardened. Jefferson Davis' wish to be: "Left alone" would not come to pass.

   One can only speculate how things would have transpired if the southerners had respected federal property, and offered compensation to the US government. I do not think that it would have mattered to Lincoln. He would have found some other excuse to act against him, since accepting secession was out of the question for him.

 

 



 Posted: Fri Mar 30th, 2007 11:30 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
62nd Post
Digger
Member


Joined: Fri Mar 30th, 2007
Location: Torrington, Connecticut USA
Posts: 5
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

That's actually a matter of legal distinction.  If you agree that secession was and is the right of the individual states, and thus they are sovereign entities, then the US wasn't attacked.  Rather, they were tresspassing.  However, if you believe that secession was illegal, then yes, PTG Beauregard did launch an attack on the US.  It all hinges on secession an it's legal merits.



 Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 04:28 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
63rd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The north went to war to protect it's own financial interests (also the reason the south seceded.)

I'd like to read your source for this. The belief is expressed quite frequently, but I've never found the source for it.

Ole



 Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 01:04 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
64th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The US was attacked, her troops fired upon (Ft Sumter) and taken hostage (Texas).  An act of war pure and simple.

American soldiers robbed and humiliated, simply because they were US soldiers.  Legal scmegal, noone else in the world saw it as the CS did as no other nation recognized them.

 

Ole; the financial interests were slavery; they said it proudly at the time.  It wasn't until after the war that the politicos who started the ball rolling tried to change history.

Last edited on Sat Mar 31st, 2007 01:06 pm by Johan Steele



 Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 02:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
65th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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.  Tariffs are a common way to nurture home-grown industry at the expense of inports. Railroad iron was a primary target (as was furniture). It's difficult to say the 'North' benifited more than the 'South'. The tariff was the government's major funding source...Slavery was at the time not the primary focus or reason for discord and tension.  The Compromise of 1820, Kansas-Nebraska Act, publication of 'Uncle Tom's Cabin', Compromise of 1850, Fugitve Slave Act, Lincoln-Douglas debates and Dred Scott decision are pretty fair indicators of the nation's political and social focus. I'm not aware of any major event concerning the tariff after the South Carolina nullifiation crisis which was more of a trumped-up personal battle between Jackson and Calhoun than anything.Massachusetts had a law that forbade "freedmen" from settling within it's borders.  Sounds pretty darn racist to me.Absolutely. Racism pervaded the entire country.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.  Frequently true...North, south, east and west - all were culpable (some more or less than others) in the institution of slavery. 340,000 Yankees and 280,000 southerners died to destroy it...
 

HankC



 Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 07:18 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
66th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

   It is true that no major nation recognized the Confederacy as a separate nation, but that does not mean that there was no sympathy for the southern cause. Nations like England and France gave some consideration to recognition, but the United States Government declared that such a recognition would result in war. The European countries found it more expedient to give the southerners belligerent status, giving them the right to obtain loans and buy arms from neutral powers.

   It can be maintained that Lincoln's declaration of a blockade was actually recognition of the Confederacy as a separate nation. A blockade was something that one country imposed on another. Countries do not blockade their own ports, they close them. Thus, imposition of a blockade while at the same time denying that a separate nation existed was inconsistent.

   The lead-up to war was hardly: "Pure and simple." The process evolved over half a century, as the intensity of sectional conflicts grew. The culture of a rapidly growing industrializing north and that of a southern system resembling feudalism could not be reconciled. Conflict eventually became inevitable after decades of trying one compromise or another.

   It is true that the institution of slavery was the catalytic element that led to the war. But it was only part of a larger disagreement, that of how much power the federal government should have over the states. As the southerners saw it, the system was no longer fair. Thus, they made the decision to withdraw from the connection to the federal government that they had voluntarily entered into. In fact, the conflict cannot even be classified as a true civil war, since the southerners were not trying to destroy or take over the US Government, only to leave it.

   In the end, the question of how much authority the federal government had was decided, but only at the end of a bayonet. As Napoleon said: "Morality is on the side of the heavier artillery."

 

 

 

 



 Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 01:22 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
67th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top


Johan Steele worte

The US was attacked... war started.

The Confederate State of America were defending their rights..... war started.

The rebel flag is not a symbol of racism, only the people who use it for that purpose are promoting racism. The flag is no more than an historical symbol of an army and country that fought for the freedom it felt they deserved.

Shadowrebel



 Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 01:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
68th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The Confederate State of America were defending their rights..... war started.

Exactly what rights were the Confederate States of America defending when they opened fire on Fort Sumter?

Ole





 Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 11:40 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
69th Post
Widow
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location: Oakton, Fairfax County, VA
Posts: 321
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TexasDef, here's another factor to consider:

   It is true that the institution of slavery was the catalytic element that led to the war. But it was only part of a larger disagreement, that of how much power the federal government should have over the states. As the southerners saw it, the system was no longer fair. Thus, they made the decision to withdraw from the connection to the federal government that they had voluntarily entered into. In fact, the conflict cannot even be classified as a true civil war, since the southerners were not trying to destroy or take over the US Government, only to leave it

Ever since the Revolution, the southern states had strong political power in Congress and the White House.  At that time, the Executive Branch was weak and the Legislative Branch was by far the strongest of the three.

With the population increasing faster in the North than in the South, it was obvious that eventually the southern states would be outnumbered in the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate.  The Constitution specified that a slave counted as 3/5 of a free person in the decennial census.  Even with that, the increase in slaves was not as great as the immigrants in the north.

I believe that was why the slave states were so anxious to expand slavery into the territories, and to annex Mexico, Central America, Brazil, and Cuba.  Anything to keep their proportional representation equal with the rapidly increasing population in the northern states.

Again, just my belief here.  The northern states saw the expansion of slavery in both Nebraska and Kansas territories as a threat to their increasing political power.  Some in the North had strong opinions against slavery, and others were indifferent.  But nobody wanted to see the balance of power slip away because of the 3/5 rule.

Patty

PS I tried posting this a little while ago, and it didn't seem to work.  Sorry if it appears twice.

Last edited on Sun Apr 1st, 2007 12:16 pm by Widow



 Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 12:14 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
70th Post
Widow
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location: Oakton, Fairfax County, VA
Posts: 321
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Javal, please delete this.  Thx, Patty

Last edited on Sun Apr 1st, 2007 12:18 pm by Widow



 Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 02:05 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
71st Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Shadowrebel wrote:
Johan Steele worte

The US was attacked... war started.

The Confederate State of America were defending their rights..... war started.

The rebel flag is not a symbol of racism, only the people who use it for that purpose are promoting racism. The flag is no more than an historical symbol of an army and country that fought for the freedom it felt they deserved.

Shadowrebel


 

The Decleration of Causes is quite clear on exactly what Rights were being defended by the CS.  Freedom & Liberty had not been threatened when the opening salvos were fired.  A few fire eaters wanted Secession and a war; they got it.  THey were plotting and planning it in 1859... at least.  A minority of wealthy Powerful politicos made a powerplay and failed.  600,000 odd Americans paid in blood... they didn't.

THe Rebal flag most see for $20 at your local shop is not a flag of the CS that ever flew over a field of battle.  It is a flag villified, coopted and corrupted by the Klan.

The CS did not represent freedom, IMO quite the reverse is true.  This is why:

Jeff Davis was never elected; he was appointed by his peers.  Yes, he was on a ballot; he was the only name on said ballot.  That is not an election.

After 1862 the CS resorted to forcible Conscription because not enough men were willing to join the CS Army... they did not want to fight what they saw as a rich man's war and poor man's fight.  All of those 1 year enlistments were made durational enlistments because the CS govt realized they were about to have a crisis because of a lack of re-enlistments.

If a man owned 20+ slaves he was exempt from conscription and also able to end his enlistment and return home.  At an average coat of $1000 for a field hand... wealthy people certainly.

The CS govt consistantly failed to pay their troops from May/June 1864 on.  W/ many never being paid again after Jan of 1864.

Every member of the CS Congress was a slave holder.

The CS incorporated an internal passport sys; w/out a passport an individual was liable to summarily arrested and imprisoned w/out trial... man or woman.  The cost of a passport... ruled out most of the poor and the hassle it took to get one ruled out many more.

The tithing sys that paid the bills of the CS govt & fed the Army hit the poor and middle class far more heavily that the wealthy plantation owner... IIRC members of the CS Congress were exempt.

Etc., etc.

The CS Army had the highest desertion rate of any Army in US Military History, exceeding 60% at times.  The average CS soldier voted w/ his feet.  When Sherman made his march through Georgia & SC; there were more CS deserters in the area than CS troops.

THe lost Cause under men like Early did a superb job of rewritting & distorting history... along w/ plenty of outright lies in the mix.  The reality of the CS was a far cry from the Lost Cause Mythos. 

I might agree w/ you if people flew the square flag that was carried by so many Regts of the ANV or Cleburne famous one... I would be even more inclined to believe so if I saw an ancestors name or a Regt's battle honors.  That would be honoring an ancestor's courage & fortitude.  But the modern "CBF" isn't.  The flag I see most often doesn't even copy a flag carried by men on the sharp end.  Instead it is a flag immortalized by the Klan of the 20th Century; a symbol of the Lost Cause and everything it stood/stands for.  If you want to memoralize a bunch of stay behinders that wouldn't know the difference between a Lorenz or a Spencer and profitted from Secession then fly the CS Natl flag.  If you want to memorolize the MEN who did the fighting and dieing on the sharp end fly a copy of a Regimental flag actually carried into battle.

I fly the flag that has flown over more liberations than any other in history; a flag that stands for freedom.  She may have been sullied and stained a time or two... but she represents freedom in a way no other in history has and it is not a wannabe CBF.



 Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 04:17 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
72nd Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

  Widow, what you say is quite true. The attempt to preserve a balance in political power went back half a century before the war began. Northerners were against adding new slave states because due to the 3/5 rule, they considered that these states would be overrepresented in Congress. They also resented having to compete with slave labor. Thus, you see an example in the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Missouri was brought in as a slave state and Maine as a free state. In this way, the balance in the Senate was preserved.



 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 01:17 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
73rd Post
calcav
Member
 

Joined: Sat Jan 28th, 2006
Location: Corinth, MS
Posts: 160
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Furl that banner! for 'tis weary:

Round its staff 'tis drooping, dreary;

Furl it, fold it, it is best;

Furl it, hide it, let it rest.

Abram Joseph Ryan, April 1865, soon after Lee's surrender

Ryan, a native of Hagerstown, Maryland was a Catholic priest and poet. On the 1st of September, 1862 he entered the Confederate service as a chaplain and served throughout the war.

The CBF is not our flag. It never has been. It was the flag of the veterans of the Confederate States of America, and theirs alone. They would unfurl their flags at reunions, a practice which was fitting and honorable. They are all gone and their flags have gone, for the most part, to museums. This too is fitting and honorable. Here the flags can be a tool for education and a physical reminder of the past. Reeneacments are a form of education and the CBF is absolutely neccessary at these functions. How could you have one without the CBF?

It has been argued that the flag is flown to honor ancestors that fought under it. Honoring ancestors is an important part of understanding who we are and how we got here. We honor them by sharing with others who they were; the great deeds they performed, the tribulations they suffered. There is no sharing, no educating, no honoring, when the CBF is flown from a pick up truck, a bumper sticker or a girl friends bikini. There is no honor when the CBF is emblazzoned with a photo of Forrest, Hank Williams, Jr., or Dale Earnhardt's #3.

It is well known that a radical element of society kidnapped the CBF to be used as a symbol of their racist agendas. Displaying the flag out of the context of education is an invitation for confrontation and controversy. The in-your-face display of the CBF does nothing to honor the true veterans who served under the flag. And isn't that the point? To honor our ancestors in a fitting way? Personaly I will take Father Ryan's advice to let it rest. After all, it was his flag.

Last edited on Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 01:22 am by calcav



 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 01:38 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
74th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote:   Widow, what you say is quite true. The attempt to preserve a balance in political power went back half a century before the war began. Northerners were against adding new slave states because due to the 3/5 rule, they considered that these states would be overrepresented in Congress. They also resented having to compete with slave labor. Thus, you see an example in the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Missouri was brought in as a slave state and Maine as a free state. In this way, the balance in the Senate was preserved.

The 3/5 rule was not, in my reading, a bone of contention. What the south wanted was the senators -- there'd never be enough slaves in the territories to have much effect on the House, even with the 3/5 rule.

I believe the noise over slaves in the territories was more whipped up than real -- if you have slaves you ain't gonna move to Kansas, or if you don't and want to move to Kansas, your resentment is going to be against the idea that you can't. Kansas was never going to be a slave state, no matter what kind of initial vote was taken.

Competition in labor? Don't see it in the territories. In New York, maybe, and New England, and industrialized areas, but the territories would be agricultural beyond any foreseeable future. Free labor was of concern only when the discussion of emancipation came up -- something the secessionists ignored when stirring up resentment against the north.

It may be true that the secessionists saw the inevitability of losing power on the national scene, but they didn't seek to avoid it through creating new slave states as the apologists would like us to believe. They sought to avoid it by creating a nation of their own design -- one in which they would hold all power and not have to contend with party politics or compromise.

Just a few initial thoughts.

Ole



 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 01:51 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
75th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

calcav wrote: The CBF is not our flag. It never has been. It was the flag of the veterans of the Confederate States of America, and theirs alone. They would unfurl their flags at reunions, a practice which was fitting and honorable. They are all gone and their flags have gone, for the most part, to museums. This too is fitting and honorable....
-----------------------
...It is well known that a radical element of society kidnapped the CBF to be used as a symbol of their racist agendas. Displaying the flag out of the context of education is an invitation for confrontation and controversy. The in-your-face display of the CBF does nothing to honor the true veterans who served under the flag. And isn't that the point? To honor our ancestors in a fitting way? Personaly I will take Father Ryan's advice to let it rest. After all, it was his flag.


I wish I were half so eloquent, calcav.

Ole



 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 06:36 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
76th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

   Ole, I agree that the SOUTHERNERS considered maintaining a balance in the Senate to be more important than the number of House seats they had. But I still believe that many in the north considered that the slave states had more House seats than they deserved to have because of the 3/5 Compromise. It was, after all, a compromise made to gain the support of the southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention. It worked to the advantage of the southern states.

   I would also maintain that slaveowners had a competitive advantage, not only in the east, but even in the territories. A large scale operation, or even a smaller one, whose owners don't have to pay their workers will usually outcompete one whose owners have to pay wages or provide the labor themselves.  The larger the size of the slaveholder's operation, the more of an advantage it was likely to have.

   It was clear to many in the south that they were losing the delicate balance of power that they had struggled so long to maintain. If their system could not expand, they feared, they would find themselves surrounded by adversaries and outvoted in the Congress. The considered that their interests would suffer in such an environment, and they chose to opt out. The final result of this, however, was not at all what most of them expected.



 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 10:25 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
77th Post
Widow
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location: Oakton, Fairfax County, VA
Posts: 321
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote:

   Ole, I agree that the SOUTHERNERS considered maintaining a balance in the Senate to be more important than the number of House seats they had. But I still believe that many in the north considered that the slave states had more House seats than they deserved to have because of the 3/5 Compromise. It was, after all, a compromise made to gain the support of the southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention. It worked to the advantage of the southern states.


Well said, TexDef.  The 3/5 compromise also increased the number of electors each slave state had in the Electoral College.  The result was that 8 presidents were from Virginia (don't ask me to list them, please), and a good many others were sympathetic to the South.

I'm not sure, but I understand that in some states, you had to own land to be eligible to vote.  Nifty way to keep the common riff-raff from interfering with your politics.  In other states, where industrialization made land ownership irrelevant, the owner of an iron foundry and the workers in a garment factory had the right to vote.  These are just some of the many factors that went into that horribly confusing mix.

Patty



 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 10:27 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
78th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ole wrote: Exactly what rights were the Confederate States of America defending when they opened fire on Fort Sumter?
The right of self-government, property, freedom, slavery(even if we feel it is wrong), and secession. I know these issue belong in another thread but, you deserved an answer. If you or anyone else would like further discussion on these issue starting a new thread is in order. 

Regards

Shadowrebel



 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 10:52 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
79th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan Steele wrote:  THe Rebal flag most see for $20 at your local shop is not a flag of the CS that ever flew over a field of battle.  It is a flag villified, coopted and corrupted by the Klan.
If this flag is the one causing all the controversy and an actual flag of the CS then ban that flag not any use by the Confederacy.

Johan you are entitled to your opinion and I respect you opinion but, IMHO my answer to the following is:
The CS did not represent freedom, IMO quite the reverse is true.  This is why:
Jeff Davis was never elected; he was appointed by his peers.  Yes, he was on a ballot; he was the only name on said ballot.  That is not an election.

There are many people who are unopposed in election and that does not mean their election is not valid. George Washington for two term, only because he decide to leave after two, come to mind. He was unopposed and not even on a ballot. The rest of what you post I do not see what it has to do with freedom.

THe lost Cause under men like Early did a superb job of rewritting & distorting history... along w/ plenty of outright lies in the mix.  The reality of the CS was a far cry from the Lost Cause Mythos. 

This need further explaining as I do not wish to assume what rewritting and distorting and outright lies you refer to.

I agree that if you wish to honor the people of the Confederacy by flying a flag it should be an proper flag.

I fly the flag that has flown over more liberations than any other in history; a flag that stands for freedom.  She may have been sullied and stained a time or two... but she represents freedom in a way no other in history has and it is not a wannabe CBF.

Again, I do not wish to assume; what flag are you speaking of?

I repeat that a flag is nothing more then an historical symbol and only people make things symbols of hate. IMHO, you must take things in the historical period it came from.

I realize some of this discussion is not for this thread, as I stated in my reply to Ole. However, you also deserved an answer, as does anyone here, to a well stated post. Again I respect your opinions and rights to them.

Regards,

Shadowrebel



 Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 11:04 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
80th Post
Widow
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location: Oakton, Fairfax County, VA
Posts: 321
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

How I enjoy this thread!  Different opinions, but respectful and considerate.  The more discussion, the more questions and answers, the more I learn.  Thanks to all of you.  Patty



 Current time is 02:27 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.5067 seconds (18% database + 82% PHP). 32 queries executed.