CDZ A Very Interesting Video of the South as 'Other'

[usmbguest5318]

[
I think the slavery issue boiled over, the South could see their power weakening in national elections and they struck back the only way they could.

So the South invaded the North and conducted a scorched Earth campaign from Dc to Baltimore to New York then Boston...no, wait, that was General Sherman through the South.

roflmao

The Southern states seceded from the United States and formed their own new nation; thus for the entirety of any given state's membership in the CSA, those states and their citizens did not construe themselves as part of the United States. The consequence of secession is that the USA saw itself, must as the English did in the Revolutionary War, as crushing a rebellion. The CSA, in contrast, saw itself as securing its status as a new nation.

The fact of the matter is the South lost. Because it lost, the truth of the matter is that United States did not invade anything. Rather it sent men and materiel to its southern region to subdue treasonous insurrectionists. Had the CSA won the war, then it'd be appropriate to attest to the North/USA having invaded.

The crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand-in-hand with the defenders of the (US) Government.
-- Gen. George Thomas

​

Aside:

It is worth noting that in D.C., the only statue honoring a Confederate is that of Albert Pike. He, however, is commemorated as a Freemason, not as a Confederate officer. The words engraved on the memorial describe the multitalented Pike (1809-1891) thusly: AUTHOR, POET, SCHOLAR, SOLDIER, JURIST, ORATOR, PHILANTHROPIST and PHILOSOPHER. Pike was a strict nativist. He joined the Know-Nothing Party — those anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant agitators — but left when he found the party’s support of slavery insufficiently intense.

At the outbreak of the Civil War, the transplanted Yankee supported the Confederacy and was made a brigadier general in its army. Pike seems not to have been a good soldier. He oversaw a regiment of Native Americans but was unable to control them at the Battle of Pea Ridge in 1862. Some of the men under his command committed atrocities, scalping fallen Union soldiers. After further run-ins with his superiors in Richmond, Pike was reprimanded and resigned his position.

After the war -- and a pardon from President Andrew Johnson -- Pike returned to work as a lawyer and writer. He moved to Washington in 1868 and threw himself wholeheartedly into the minutiae of Freemasonry, an organization he had been involved with since 1850.

It is Pike’s Masonic activities — he wrote frequently on the topic and served as Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction — that prompted the construction of the memorial in 1901. The monument, with statues by sculptor Gaetano Trentanove, was paid for by the Masons. It was said of Pike, “He found Freemasonry in a log cabin and left it in a Temple.” His body is interred in the House of the Temple, headquarters of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, at 16th and S streets NW, where there is a museum in his honor and the contents of his library are kept.

(The first place I ever lived on my own was an apartment on the 6th floor of that apartment building you see in the photo above. I liked it because the balconies -- the jutting-out parts of the exterior -- are enclosed and because there were all sorts of things to do within two minutes walking distance. I only lived there for a year.)​

 

[Picaro]

Nah, too many references to slavery in the individual state's articles of secessions and in quotes from southern supremesists like alexander stephens.

1. What some urban leaders thought about slavery and their own personal thoughts about why the South seceded is not the full picture and do not speak for all Southerners. These word smiths did not pick up their rifles and go fight, they sat behind their desks and tried to rally the troops with what they personally thought was important.

2. The phrase "slave states" was synonymous with "Southern states" at that time and was the phrase most often hurled at Southerners and put in use. Using it does not prove that the secession was due to slavery. "Slave States" was simply a descriptive phrase for that block of states.

3. Lincoln and numerous other Union leaders stated repeatedly that they were not fighting to end slavery, so no, they did not invade the South for that purpose and that was the start of the Civil War.

4. Nothing supports the idea that the North fought the initial years of the war to end slavery at all, and after the Emancipation Proclamation it was used to try to boost moral and harm the still rebelling territories and justified not returning slaves to their owners in captured rebel territory, which prior to that the union forces were bound by law to do. Since this motivation was adopted so late into the war it could not have possibly been among the initiating causes of that war.

Sure some farm boy someplace was duped into defending Tennesseeians, bit it almost has to be because of low literacy rates.

Lol, such a dismissive and condescending remark. Do you really think you are being either objective or impartial at all?

It is nice though the revisionists are sorta saying slavery is bad and are distancing themselves from it. Maybe by the year 2500 humanity will get it together.

ROFLMAO, the proponents of the idea that slavery was the cause of the Civil War are the revisionists, bubba, but I and others are simply trying to set the history back to its true narrative.

We disagree then. Most importantly we disagree in style, I come out and say what I believe. You are like an ex girlfriend of mine who had motivations for every seemingly open ended question.

Instead of saying "I think the traitors who fought against the united states did it because they felt the constitutional election of a president was unfair not slavery" or whatever your opinion is, you hid it like the racists here think they hide themselves by talking in code.

In reference to my crack about maybe people who could not read misunderstood the reason for the war, have you read the Texas declaration of causes?

I just don't understand how anyone who could read would think they were signing up to fight for anything but slavery.

To help you, there is a case to be made by those who did not own 20 slaves or whatever who were drafted into southern service. The heroic thing to do would be resist or surrender to the north at first chance but most fought pretty admirably (like the SS, those boys WERE good soldiers).

Civil disobedience is a bit much to expect or demand from the average man I admit.

Now if you want to start a different topic about racism in the north go ahead. I will tell you the protesters firing up here in StLouis have a just cause and merely express themselves poorly to say the least. All day long I will agree with you racism runs rampant in all of humanity but IMO that does anything but help your point

roflmao, you use accusations of feminism to attempt to distract from the topic.

Fact is that asserting that the Civil War had one cause is simply idiotic, especially slavery.

Yes. Only one state had seceded by January, 4 or 5 more as a result of Buchanan's attempt to blockade and collect tariffs at Charleston, and the rest didn't secede until Lincoln decided to copy Buchanan and force a war. It was Lincoln wanting massive corporate welfare programs for the Midwest and northern states, and changing up the entire Federal govt.s revenue stream to put the payments for all that welfare onto the South.

 

[Picaro]

In any case, all the current up roar over statues is just a bunch of fraudulent nonsense involving tards with no real issues pretending to have principles and moral superiority when they have none; sniveling about Confederate statues has all the modern moral relevance of denouncing the Hittites invading Egypt. they had nothing to do with it, and there is zero evidence they would have been 'anti-slavery' if they had been there themselves. They're just attention whoring phonies.

 

[Windparadox]

`
`
What part did religion play in the civil war. Neither film really addressed that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

`
`
What part did religion play in the civil war. Neither film really addressed that.

Well....

 

[Windparadox]

Well....

`
Well, next time I'll make sure to exclude anything you have to say. For all others, "in your own words," Thanks.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well....

`
Well, next time I'll make sure to exclude anything you have to say. For all others, "in your own words," Thanks.

??? Did you click on the link?

• Did you not want to know what role religion played?
• Did I not point you to multiple sources that provide credible answers to exactly the question you asked?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Southern states seceded from the United States and formed their own new nation; thus for the entirety of any given state's membership in the CSA, those states and their citizens did not construe themselves as part of the United States. The consequence of secession is that the USA saw itself, must as the English did in the Revolutionary War, as crushing a rebellion. The CSA, in contrast, saw itself as securing its status as a new nation.

The fact of the matter is the South lost. Because it lost, the truth of the matter is that United States did not invade anything.

So might makes right in your world, hmm? If Russia invaded the Baltic states again and annexed them, it would be legal because it would prove that Russia somehow has that right?

Dont mistake my meaning here; it is good that the Union won the war, but I think that must be based on the threat the Confederacy mad to Union industry by adopting a policy of free trade and open borders that would have made it impossible for the union to maintain its tariff system and the leaders of the Confederacy knew this. They intentionally were trying to undermine the Union economically and thus obligated a Northern invasion.

The abolition of slavery with the EP brought God onto their side.

It is worth noting that in D.C., the only statue honoring a Confederate is that of Albert Pike. He, however, is commemorated as a Freemason, not as a Confederate officer. The words engraved on the memorial describe the multitalented Pike (1809-1891) thusly: AUTHOR, POET, SCHOLAR, SOLDIER, JURIST, ORATOR, PHILANTHROPIST and PHILOSOPHER. Pike was a strict nativist. He joined the Know-Nothing Party — those anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant agitators — but left when he found the party’s support of slavery insufficiently intense.......

After the war -- and a pardon from President Andrew Johnson -- Pike returned to work as a lawyer and writer. He moved to Washington in 1868 and threw himself wholeheartedly into the minutiae of Freemasonry, an organization he had been involved with since 1850.

It is Pike’s Masonic activities — he wrote frequently on the topic and served as Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction — that prompted the construction of the memorial in 1901. The monument, with statues by sculptor Gaetano Trentanove, was paid for by the Masons. It was said of Pike, “He found Freemasonry in a log cabin and left it in a Temple.” His body is interred in the House of the Temple, headquarters of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, at 16th and S streets NW, where there is a museum in his honor and the contents of his library are kept.

(The first place I ever lived on my own was an apartment on the 6th floor of that apartment building you see in the photo above. I liked it because the balconies -- the jutting-out parts of the exterior -- are enclosed and because there were all sorts of things to do within two minutes walking distance. I only lived there for a year.)​

Yes, I have been there and said a rosary for the Freemasons and Mr Pike that his soul might find peace and Freemasonry could return to its former influence within our nation. It is much of the social binding that has helped form this united nation from the manifold denominations and ethnicities that compose it.

I once attempted to join the Freemasons, but my wife (a devout Catholic) refused to hear of it. So I had to cancel those plans.

the Freemasons are an admirable organization though they are much slandered.

 

[Toronado3800]

[
I think the slavery issue boiled over, the South could see their power weakening in national elections and they struck back the only way they could.

So the South invaded the North and conducted a scorched Earth campaign from Dc to Baltimore to New York then Boston...no, wait, that was General Sherman through the South.

roflmao

Look at the years involved and what I said. Nothing there said Sherman was humane. Effective but not humane. He also has 0% to do with the cause of the war. I don't understand why you brought that up as a response.

IMO slavery was the cause of the war. I did not start to debate how it was fought. If you want to start another topic on that you can, or we can switch gears.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The Southern states seceded from the United States and formed their own new nation; thus for the entirety of any given state's membership in the CSA, those states and their citizens did not construe themselves as part of the United States. The consequence of secession is that the USA saw itself, must as the English did in the Revolutionary War, as crushing a rebellion. The CSA, in contrast, saw itself as securing its status as a new nation.

The fact of the matter is the South lost. Because it lost, the truth of the matter is that United States did not invade anything.

So might makes right in your world, hmm? If Russia invaded the Baltic states again and annexed them, it would be legal because it would prove that Russia somehow has that right?

Dont mistake my meaning here; it is good that the Union won the war, but I think that must be based on the threat the Confederacy mad to Union industry by adopting a policy of free trade and open borders that would have made it impossible for the union to maintain its tariff system and the leaders of the Confederacy knew this. They intentionally were trying to undermine the Union economically and thus obligated a Northern invasion.

The abolition of slavery with the EP brought God onto their side.

It is worth noting that in D.C., the only statue honoring a Confederate is that of Albert Pike. He, however, is commemorated as a Freemason, not as a Confederate officer. The words engraved on the memorial describe the multitalented Pike (1809-1891) thusly: AUTHOR, POET, SCHOLAR, SOLDIER, JURIST, ORATOR, PHILANTHROPIST and PHILOSOPHER. Pike was a strict nativist. He joined the Know-Nothing Party — those anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant agitators — but left when he found the party’s support of slavery insufficiently intense.......

After the war -- and a pardon from President Andrew Johnson -- Pike returned to work as a lawyer and writer. He moved to Washington in 1868 and threw himself wholeheartedly into the minutiae of Freemasonry, an organization he had been involved with since 1850.

It is Pike’s Masonic activities — he wrote frequently on the topic and served as Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction — that prompted the construction of the memorial in 1901. The monument, with statues by sculptor Gaetano Trentanove, was paid for by the Masons. It was said of Pike, “He found Freemasonry in a log cabin and left it in a Temple.” His body is interred in the House of the Temple, headquarters of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, at 16th and S streets NW, where there is a museum in his honor and the contents of his library are kept.

(The first place I ever lived on my own was an apartment on the 6th floor of that apartment building you see in the photo above. I liked it because the balconies -- the jutting-out parts of the exterior -- are enclosed and because there were all sorts of things to do within two minutes walking distance. I only lived there for a year.)​

Yes, I have been there and said a rosary for the Freemasons and Mr Pike that his soul might find peace and Freemasonry could return to its former influence within our nation. It is much of the social binding that has helped form this united nation from the manifold denominations and ethnicities that compose it.

I once attempted to join the Freemasons, but my wife (a devout Catholic) refused to hear of it. So I had to cancel those plans.

the Freemasons are an admirable organization though they are much slandered.

So might makes right in your world, hmm?

Insofar as I am not the topic of discussion for this thread, nor should I be, I will not answer the question noted above, for whether "might makes right in [my] world" is really of no matter for this line of discussion, except insofar as your positing it has the potential to shift the rhetorical focus to me and my world and away from the actions of the leaders of the USA and CSA.

So might makes right in your world, hmm?

That is an inference you made regarding what I wrote. That I wrote and believe what I wrote re: the matter of the Confederacy and its defeat does not mean I also, by necessity or happenstance, have a core principle that equates to or devolves to "might makes right." Be that as it may, there will surely be situations whereof one can read my brief remarks about one or another aspect of of a matter and abstract from those isolated statements that I ascribe to the "might makes right" principle. Quite simply, the remarks I made about how the nations involved in the American Civil War aren't about me. They aren't made to express or imply anything having to do with or without my principles.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Southern states seceded from the United States and formed their own new nation; thus for the entirety of any given state's membership in the CSA, those states and their citizens did not construe themselves as part of the United States. The consequence of secession is that the USA saw itself, must as the English did in the Revolutionary War, as crushing a rebellion. The CSA, in contrast, saw itself as securing its status as a new nation.

The fact of the matter is the South lost. Because it lost, the truth of the matter is that United States did not invade anything.

So might makes right in your world, hmm? If Russia invaded the Baltic states again and annexed them, it would be legal because it would prove that Russia somehow has that right?

Dont mistake my meaning here; it is good that the Union won the war, but I think that must be based on the threat the Confederacy mad to Union industry by adopting a policy of free trade and open borders that would have made it impossible for the union to maintain its tariff system and the leaders of the Confederacy knew this. They intentionally were trying to undermine the Union economically and thus obligated a Northern invasion.

The abolition of slavery with the EP brought God onto their side.

It is worth noting that in D.C., the only statue honoring a Confederate is that of Albert Pike. He, however, is commemorated as a Freemason, not as a Confederate officer. The words engraved on the memorial describe the multitalented Pike (1809-1891) thusly: AUTHOR, POET, SCHOLAR, SOLDIER, JURIST, ORATOR, PHILANTHROPIST and PHILOSOPHER. Pike was a strict nativist. He joined the Know-Nothing Party — those anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant agitators — but left when he found the party’s support of slavery insufficiently intense.......

After the war -- and a pardon from President Andrew Johnson -- Pike returned to work as a lawyer and writer. He moved to Washington in 1868 and threw himself wholeheartedly into the minutiae of Freemasonry, an organization he had been involved with since 1850.

It is Pike’s Masonic activities — he wrote frequently on the topic and served as Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction — that prompted the construction of the memorial in 1901. The monument, with statues by sculptor Gaetano Trentanove, was paid for by the Masons. It was said of Pike, “He found Freemasonry in a log cabin and left it in a Temple.” His body is interred in the House of the Temple, headquarters of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, at 16th and S streets NW, where there is a museum in his honor and the contents of his library are kept.

(The first place I ever lived on my own was an apartment on the 6th floor of that apartment building you see in the photo above. I liked it because the balconies -- the jutting-out parts of the exterior -- are enclosed and because there were all sorts of things to do within two minutes walking distance. I only lived there for a year.)​

Yes, I have been there and said a rosary for the Freemasons and Mr Pike that his soul might find peace and Freemasonry could return to its former influence within our nation. It is much of the social binding that has helped form this united nation from the manifold denominations and ethnicities that compose it.

I once attempted to join the Freemasons, but my wife (a devout Catholic) refused to hear of it. So I had to cancel those plans.

the Freemasons are an admirable organization though they are much slandered.

So might makes right in your world, hmm?

Insofar as I am not the topic of discussion for this thread, nor should I be, I will not answer the question noted above, for whether "might makes right in [my] world" is really of no matter for this line of discussion, except insofar as your positing it has the potential to shift the rhetorical focus to me and my world and away from the actions of the leaders of the USA and CSA.

So might makes right in your world, hmm?

That is an inference you made regarding what I wrote. That I wrote and believe what I wrote re: the matter of the Confederacy and its defeat does not mean I also, by necessity or happenstance, have a core principle that equates to or devolves to "might makes right." Be that as it may, there will surely be situations whereof one can read my brief remarks about one or another aspect of of a matter and abstract from those isolated statements that I ascribe to the "might makes right" principle. Quite simply, the remarks I made about how the nations involved in the American Civil War aren't about me. They aren't made to express or imply anything having to do with or without my principles.

Dont take it personally, Xelor. You are one of my favorite liberals here.

It was merely a rhetorical question.

 

[Picaro]

`
`
What part did religion play in the civil war. Neither film really addressed that.

Very little, except among a small faction of abolitionists that were Calvinists and opposed slavery for decades because of their religions. the bulk of abolitionists were more in the mode of Lincoln and white nationalists, they wanted to ship them all back to Africa, not 'free' them, which was the mainstream for abolitionists, not religious reasons. The Republicans ran different campaigns in the midwest than they did in the eastern states, which is why one can easily find contradictions and conflicting rhetoric. Lincoln in fact lost votes in the 1862 mid-term elections because midwestern voters thought he was leaning too far toward the anti-slavery platform; the only thing that saved him a slim margin in Congress was his private army controlling the ballot boxes in the border states and parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania. The 1864 campaign was pretty much the same, with Seward in New York running different rhetoric than the Republcians were spouting in the Midwestern states.

There are several books on this out there, written before PC Nazis came to control academia, and I posted some essays in the History Forum covering the economic issues from 1820 up to the civil war, and beyond re labor issues and mass immigration's effects; both sides took advantage of immigrant ignorance of American geography in their claims during campaigns.

 

[Picaro]

Well....

`
Well, next time I'll make sure to exclude anything you have to say. For all others, "in your own words," Thanks.

Good for you; you will save lots of time for yourself.

 

[MizMolly]

I have lived in the South since 1973. You do not see Confederate flags waving nor any obsession with the Confederacy. Most of the discussions on slavery, the Confederacy, etc. are done on these message boards.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I have lived in the South since 1973. You do not see Confederate flags waving nor any obsession with the Confederacy. Most of the discussions on slavery, the Confederacy, etc. are done on these message boards.

I believe that you don't or haven't. Others, huge quantities of them, do and they do while just driving around.

• Brandon, FL
  
  
  
  
  
  
• The Virginia Flaggers: Va Flaggers Highway Memorial Battle Flags Update
  
  • Route 60 around Lexington
    
    
    
    
    
• Mississippi state flag
  
  
  
  
• Roanoke, VA
  
  
  
  
• I-95, one of the busiest highways in the whole of the U.S., sightings of Confederate flags
  • Fayetteville, NC -- This flag could be seen while driving on I-95,
    
    
    
    
  • Fredericksburg, VA
    
    
    
    
    
    
  • Stafford, VA
    
    
    
    
  • Prince George County, VA -- Confederate flag erected alongside U.S. 301 is also visible to drivers on I-95 because it flies on an 80 foot flagpole. The flag itself is 20x20 feet.
    
    
    
    
    
• Waldron, Ark.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Perhaps you might sometimes allow someone else drive so you can safely avert your eyes away from the road and the traffic on it and see the flora, fauna, and among other things, Confederate flags flying?

 

[bodecea]

Nah, too many references to slavery in the individual state's articles of secessions and in quotes from southern supremesists like alexander stephens.

1. What some urban leaders thought about slavery and their own personal thoughts about why the South seceded is not the full picture and do not speak for all Southerners. These word smiths did not pick up their rifles and go fight, they sat behind their desks and tried to rally the troops with what they personally thought was important.

2. The phrase "slave states" was synonymous with "Southern states" at that time and was the phrase most often hurled at Southerners and put in use. Using it does not prove that the secession was due to slavery. "Slave States" was simply a descriptive phrase for that block of states.

3. Lincoln and numerous other Union leaders stated repeatedly that they were not fighting to end slavery, so no, they did not invade the South for that purpose and that was the start of the Civil War.

4. Nothing supports the idea that the North fought the initial years of the war to end slavery at all, and after the Emancipation Proclamation it was used to try to boost moral and harm the still rebelling territories and justified not returning slaves to their owners in captured rebel territory, which prior to that the union forces were bound by law to do. Since this motivation was adopted so late into the war it could not have possibly been among the initiating causes of that war.

Sure some farm boy someplace was duped into defending Tennesseeians, bit it almost has to be because of low literacy rates.

Lol, such a dismissive and condescending remark. Do you really think you are being either objective or impartial at all?

It is nice though the revisionists are sorta saying slavery is bad and are distancing themselves from it. Maybe by the year 2500 humanity will get it together.

ROFLMAO, the proponents of the idea that slavery was the cause of the Civil War are the revisionists, bubba, but I and others are simply trying to set the history back to its true narrative.

Lincoln and the Union Army did not invade the South, at the time the Union moved soldiers into Fort Sumter the Civil War had not commenced. That said, the bombardment of the Fort by Southern Forces, and the responding return fire by the Union Soldiers began the Civil War.

States Rights was the euphemism, and the Right to own slaves was the major component of that claim.

If Guam voted to be independent, would you support Trump using military forces to keep them in the Union?

If Guam then fired on U.S. Soldiers on U.S. soil, absolutely.

 

[MizMolly]

I have lived in the South since 1973. You do not see Confederate flags waving nor any obsession with the Confederacy. Most of the discussions on slavery, the Confederacy, etc. are done on these message boards.

I believe that you don't or haven't. Others, huge quantities of them, do and they do while just driving around.

• Brandon, FL
  
  
  
  
  
  
• The Virginia Flaggers: Va Flaggers Highway Memorial Battle Flags Update
  • Route 60 around Lexington
    
    
    
• Mississippi state flag
  
  
  
  
• Roanoke, VA
  
  
  
  
• I-95, one of the busiest highways in the whole of the U.S., sightings of Confederate flags
  • Fayetteville, NC -- This flag could be seen while driving on I-95,
    
    
    
    
  • Fredericksburg, VA
    
    
    
    
    
    
  • Stafford, VA
    
    
    
    
  • Prince George County, VA -- Confederate flag erected alongside U.S. 301 is also visible to drivers on I-95 because it flies on an 80 foot flagpole. The flag itself is 20x20 feet.
    
    
    
• Waldron, Ark.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Perhaps you might sometimes allow someone else drive so you can safely avert your eyes away from the road and the traffic on it and see the flora, fauna, and among other things, Confederate flags flying?

It is not the norm, you can find Confederate flag in the North too Pleasantville, Iowa.



.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I have lived in the South since 1973. You do not see Confederate flags waving nor any obsession with the Confederacy. Most of the discussions on slavery, the Confederacy, etc. are done on these message boards.

I believe that you don't or haven't. Others, huge quantities of them, do and they do while just driving around.

• Brandon, FL
  
  
  
  
  
  
• The Virginia Flaggers: Va Flaggers Highway Memorial Battle Flags Update
  • Route 60 around Lexington
    
    
    
• Mississippi state flag
  
  
  
  
• Roanoke, VA
  
  
  
  
• I-95, one of the busiest highways in the whole of the U.S., sightings of Confederate flags
  • Fayetteville, NC -- This flag could be seen while driving on I-95,
    
    
    
    
  • Fredericksburg, VA
    
    
    
    
    
    
  • Stafford, VA
    
    
    
    
  • Prince George County, VA -- Confederate flag erected alongside U.S. 301 is also visible to drivers on I-95 because it flies on an 80 foot flagpole. The flag itself is 20x20 feet.
    
    
    
• Waldron, Ark.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Perhaps you might sometimes allow someone else drive so you can safely avert your eyes away from the road and the traffic on it and see the flora, fauna, and among other things, Confederate flags flying?

It is not the norm, you can find Confederate flag in the North too Pleasantville, Iowa.View attachment 150224

.

It is not the norm...

I hope you're right. I suspect you are right to the extent that fewer than 50%+1 of Southerners display Confederate flag images/objects. That said, my experience doesn't suggest that it's so far afield from "the norm" -- I'd say a large plurality of Southerners display Confederate imagery -- that one won't readily come by individuals and organizations displaying the Confederate flag.

For example, I've yet to take a drive into or in the South and not at least once see a Confederate flag somewhere -- flying at someone's house/yard or on a bumper or other place on a vehicle are the most common places I see them. For me, that's nearly 60 years of driving in and around the south for one-off trips -- business, vacation, or visit family -- to come 2017 still have not have had so much as one trip were I saw not one Confederate flag. Contrast that with D.C., where I live and the Cape Cod area where I have a summer home. I go weeks and months without ever seeing a Confederate flag or even other Confederate-ish imagery.

(And, no, I'm not including souvenir businesses' merchandise on offer. I'm referring to merely going about my business and lo and behold there appears before me a Confederate flag.)

It is not the norm, you can find Confederate flag in the North too Pleasantville, Iowa.

Be that as it may, your initial claim was that one does not "[in the South], see Confederate flags waving nor any obsession with the Confederacy." However many Confederate flags one observes in the North has nothing to do with that.

It is not the norm, you can find Confederate flag in the North too Pleasantville, Iowa.

I don't know what is the norm re: the incidence/probability of observing a Confederate flag in the South. Some of what I know:

• 2015 News story about sales of Confederate flag items:
  • "Somebody in Rhode Island ordered in 50 Confederate (lapel) pins," said Kerry McCoy, owner of Flag and Banner in Little Rock, Arkansas. The order came in on Monday, when Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina called for the removal of the Confederate flag from the grounds of the state capitol.
    
  • Freddie Rich, owner of Rebel Store in North Carolina, said his sales of Confederate items is "unbelievable right now. This is something I never envisioned." Rich said he shipped out 200 Confederate flags in the last 24 hours, compared to his usual sales of a dozen flags a day.
• 2017 News stories about sales of Confederate flags specifically
  • Belinda Kennedy, owner of Alabama Flag and Banner in Huntsville, Ala., said the company, which sells American flags and manufactures Confederate flags, sold around 12,000 [Confederate] flags last year.
    
  • Who's buying the flags? Hard to say, but according to a 2015 map created by Jody Sieradzki of Dadaviz and shared by The Washington Post, people in Virginia, Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina and Texas did more Google Shopping searches for Confederate than American flags.
• 2017 Redneck Games
  
  
  
  
  
  

Aside:

At the end of the day, when I see a Confederate flag willfully displayed by someone -- on a pole, on their ass or lapel, etc. -- what I know is that they cannot be doing so out of patriotism for the United States of America because the simple fact is that the Confederate States of America (CSA) was the nation that used that flag/symbol, and the CSA, not the USA, lost the Civil War. The CSA is no more, yet supposedly American citizens with willful pride display the CSA's imagery.

Insofar as displaying "Stars and Bars" cannot be patriotic toward the USA, folks who display it must necessarily be expressing their affinity for something having to do with the CSA and what it stood for. Some will say it today represents "Southern pride."

What the hell is "Southern pride" such that it is not, as slavery/racism are, inextricably linked to CSA/Confederacy

• is distinguished from the pride of people hailing from or living in any other region of the U.S. and that is unique to the South?
• necessitates associating it with the flag of the CSA/Confederacy?

New Englanders are proud to be New Englanders. Ditto folks form other regions of the country. You what flags/symbols they use? I don't really know. I see bumper stickers about crabs and lovers in MD and VA. I see flags depicting patriots in New England.

The South today isn’t what it was in the 1860s -- predominantly poor, rural, isolated. The modern South is the fastest growing region in the US; it is the most populated, nearly doubling the size of the West and Northeast combined with over 117 million residents. The South has a thriving economy, its GDP dwarfing both the Northeast and the West.

There's plenty to be proud of. Why tarnish that pride by conflating it with, or risking that others construe one as doing so, the Confederacy.​

 

[MizMolly]

I have lived in the South since 1973. You do not see Confederate flags waving nor any obsession with the Confederacy. Most of the discussions on slavery, the Confederacy, etc. are done on these message boards.

I believe that you don't or haven't. Others, huge quantities of them, do and they do while just driving around.

• Brandon, FL
  
  
  
  
  
  
• The Virginia Flaggers: Va Flaggers Highway Memorial Battle Flags Update
  • Route 60 around Lexington
    
    
    
• Mississippi state flag
  
  
  
  
• Roanoke, VA
  
  
  
  
• I-95, one of the busiest highways in the whole of the U.S., sightings of Confederate flags
  • Fayetteville, NC -- This flag could be seen while driving on I-95,
    
    
    
    
  • Fredericksburg, VA
    
    
    
    
    
    
  • Stafford, VA
    
    
    
    
  • Prince George County, VA -- Confederate flag erected alongside U.S. 301 is also visible to drivers on I-95 because it flies on an 80 foot flagpole. The flag itself is 20x20 feet.
    
    
    
• Waldron, Ark.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Perhaps you might sometimes allow someone else drive so you can safely avert your eyes away from the road and the traffic on it and see the flora, fauna, and among other things, Confederate flags flying?

It is not the norm, you can find Confederate flag in the North too Pleasantville, Iowa.View attachment 150224

.

It is not the norm...

I hope you're right. I suspect you are right to the extent that fewer than 50%+1 of Southerners display Confederate flag images/objects. That said, my experience doesn't suggest that it's so far afield from "the norm" -- I'd say a large plurality of Southerners display Confederate imagery -- that one won't readily come by individuals and organizations displaying the Confederate flag.

For example, I've yet to take a drive into or in the South and not at least once see a Confederate flag somewhere -- flying at someone's house/yard or on a bumper or other place on a vehicle are the most common places I see them. For me, that's nearly 60 years of driving in and around the south for one-off trips -- business, vacation, or visit family -- to come 2017 still have not have had so much as one trip were I saw not one Confederate flag. Contrast that with D.C., where I live and the Cape Cod area where I have a summer home. I go weeks and months without ever seeing a Confederate flag or even other Confederate-ish imagery.

(And, no, I'm not including souvenir businesses' merchandise on offer. I'm referring to merely going about my business and lo and behold there appears before me a Confederate flag.)

It is not the norm, you can find Confederate flag in the North too Pleasantville, Iowa.

Be that as it may, your initial claim was that one does not "[in the South], see Confederate flags waving nor any obsession with the Confederacy." However many Confederate flags one observes in the North has nothing to do with that.

It is not the norm, you can find Confederate flag in the North too Pleasantville, Iowa.

I don't know what is the norm re: the incidence/probability of observing a Confederate flag in the South. Some of what I know:

• 2015 News story about sales of Confederate flag items:
  • "Somebody in Rhode Island ordered in 50 Confederate (lapel) pins," said Kerry McCoy, owner of Flag and Banner in Little Rock, Arkansas. The order came in on Monday, when Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina called for the removal of the Confederate flag from the grounds of the state capitol.
    
  • Freddie Rich, owner of Rebel Store in North Carolina, said his sales of Confederate items is "unbelievable right now. This is something I never envisioned." Rich said he shipped out 200 Confederate flags in the last 24 hours, compared to his usual sales of a dozen flags a day.
• 2017 News stories about sales of Confederate flags specifically
  • Belinda Kennedy, owner of Alabama Flag and Banner in Huntsville, Ala., said the company, which sells American flags and manufactures Confederate flags, sold around 12,000 [Confederate] flags last year.
    
  • Who's buying the flags? Hard to say, but according to a 2015 map created by Jody Sieradzki of Dadaviz and shared by The Washington Post, people in Virginia, Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina and Texas did more Google Shopping searches for Confederate than American flags.
• 2017 Redneck Games
  
  
  
  
  
  

Aside:

At the end of the day, when I see a Confederate flag willfully displayed by someone -- on a pole, on their ass or lapel, etc. -- what I know is that they cannot be doing so out of patriotism for the United States of America because the simple fact is that the Confederate States of America (CSA) was the nation that used that flag/symbol, and the CSA, not the USA, lost the Civil War. The CSA is no more, yet supposedly American citizens with willful pride display the CSA's imagery.

Insofar as displaying "Stars and Bars" cannot be patriotic toward the USA, folks who display it must necessarily be expressing their affinity for something having to do with the CSA and what it stood for. Some will say it today represents "Southern pride."

What the hell is "Southern pride" such that it is not, as slavery/racism are, inextricably linked to CSA/Confederacy

• is distinguished from the pride of people hailing from or living in any other region of the U.S. and that is unique to the South?
• necessitates associating it with the flag of the CSA/Confederacy?

New Englanders are proud to be New Englanders. Ditto folks form other regions of the country. You what flags/symbols they use? I don't really know. I see bumper stickers about crabs and lovers in MD and VA. I see flags depicting patriots in New England.

The South today isn’t what it was in the 1860s -- predominantly poor, rural, isolated. The modern South is the fastest growing region in the US; it is the most populated, nearly doubling the size of the West and Northeast combined with over 117 million residents. The South has a thriving economy, its GDP dwarfing both the Northeast and the West.

There's plenty to be proud of. Why tarnish that pride by conflating it with, or risking that others construe one as doing so, the Confederacy.​

I should rephrase my posting, I did not mean you never see Confederate flags flown, it is just not very common, or I dismiss them. It isn't a big deal to me. Of course, there will be more Confederate flags in the South, that is what the Confederacy stood for. Ironically, the KKK is known for this flag, however, they also fly the American Flag, good ole red white and blue.As far as people being proud to be Southern, it is a heritage, not about slavery. People like the charm and Southern hospitality you do not see up North. You see "Black Pride" why? You don't chose your race, why are you proud of something you can't control?

 

[Correll]

Nah, too many references to slavery in the individual state's articles of secessions and in quotes from southern supremesists like alexander stephens.

1. What some urban leaders thought about slavery and their own personal thoughts about why the South seceded is not the full picture and do not speak for all Southerners. These word smiths did not pick up their rifles and go fight, they sat behind their desks and tried to rally the troops with what they personally thought was important.

2. The phrase "slave states" was synonymous with "Southern states" at that time and was the phrase most often hurled at Southerners and put in use. Using it does not prove that the secession was due to slavery. "Slave States" was simply a descriptive phrase for that block of states.

3. Lincoln and numerous other Union leaders stated repeatedly that they were not fighting to end slavery, so no, they did not invade the South for that purpose and that was the start of the Civil War.

4. Nothing supports the idea that the North fought the initial years of the war to end slavery at all, and after the Emancipation Proclamation it was used to try to boost moral and harm the still rebelling territories and justified not returning slaves to their owners in captured rebel territory, which prior to that the union forces were bound by law to do. Since this motivation was adopted so late into the war it could not have possibly been among the initiating causes of that war.

Sure some farm boy someplace was duped into defending Tennesseeians, bit it almost has to be because of low literacy rates.

Lol, such a dismissive and condescending remark. Do you really think you are being either objective or impartial at all?

It is nice though the revisionists are sorta saying slavery is bad and are distancing themselves from it. Maybe by the year 2500 humanity will get it together.

ROFLMAO, the proponents of the idea that slavery was the cause of the Civil War are the revisionists, bubba, but I and others are simply trying to set the history back to its true narrative.

Lincoln and the Union Army did not invade the South, at the time the Union moved soldiers into Fort Sumter the Civil War had not commenced. That said, the bombardment of the Fort by Southern Forces, and the responding return fire by the Union Soldiers began the Civil War.

States Rights was the euphemism, and the Right to own slaves was the major component of that claim.

If Guam voted to be independent, would you support Trump using military forces to keep them in the Union?

If Guam then fired on U.S. Soldiers on U.S. soil, absolutely.

You are lying.


The media would blame Trump for not pulling the soldiers and you would swallow it like a two dollar whore.