The Confederate Flag

[OnePercenter]

Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Arabs, Africans and more were all involved in slavery......At the time as in the past slavery was a way of life for many nations and cultures....You can't try to pick and choose whom you want to be guilty since they were all guilty of slavery. It was not just blacks that were slaves, there were white, yellow, brown, red, you name it they all were slaves at one time, either by a foreign nation or the ones they lived in by feudal order..
You can't just pick and choose those you wish to condemn because that is not logical....

America's first slave owner was a black man.

So in conservative-ese, that makes it right? Or just a convenient pinhead excuse?

 

[Asclepias]

Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Arabs, Africans and more were all involved in slavery......At the time as in the past slavery was a way of life for many nations and cultures....You can't try to pick and choose whom you want to be guilty since they were all guilty of slavery. It was not just blacks that were slaves, there were white, yellow, brown, red, you name it they all were slaves at one time, either by a foreign nation or the ones they lived in by feudal order..
You can't just pick and choose those you wish to condemn because that is not logical....

America's first slave owner was a black man.

Bad research. Try again. That has been debunked thoroughly and repeatedly. Hugh Gwyn was the first documented slave owner


John Punch (slave) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Thus, the black man, John Punch, became a slave unlike the two white indentured servants who merely had to serve a longer term. This was the first known case in Virginia involving slavery."[24] It was significant because it was documented.

 

[SmedlyButler]

There was nothing inherently offensive about the swastika either. It was used for centuries before being usurped by the Nazis
There is nothing inherently offensive about the name Adolph. But you don't see it used much anymore

The Confederate Battle flag was a symbol of the Southern Rebellion until it was usurped by the KKK as a symbol of black oppression. To many blacks that flag symbolizes the men who came in the night and burned and lynched. During the Civil Rights movement, that flag was waived as a reminder of the protesters slave roots

It may have been a perfectly acceptable symbol at one time....but it no longer is

And that would be a fair analogy had the Confederacy been about ethnic cleansing and white supremacy like Hitler and the Germans. Before it was a symbol of Southern rebellion or black oppression, it was the battle symbol of the Confederate Army. Under it, over 100,000 Southern Americans died fighting a war for their independence.

Instead of black people being offended by the flag, they should view it as an important and historic part of their past, where their ancestors ultimately won their emancipation. It is not often noted, but 65,000-100,000 southern blacks participated in the Confederate army as soldiers or other service personnel such as cooks, musicians, guards, and scouts. John Parker, a former slave reported that the "Richmond Howitzers were regiment partially manned by black people. They fought at the 1st Battle of Bull Run where they operated the second battery. A black regiment also fought for the confederates during this battle."

Frederick Douglass reported, "There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the rebels." James Washington was a black confederate non-commissioned officer. He was the 4th Sergeant in a rec Co. D 35th in the Texas Cavalry in the Confederate Army. Freeman blacks were used in the Louisiana Native Guards, know in French as the Corps d’Afrique. On Nov. 23, 1861, the Louisiana Native guards fought along the Mississippi next to the white regiments. The Guards consisted of at least 33 black officers and 731 black enlisted men.

So while it was uncommon, less than 1.5% of the Confederate Army, there were some blacks who also fought and died under the Southern Cross. And while we are all familiar with the abhorrent racist symbolism the flag has been hijacked to represent, it has also been historically used as a symbol of pride... During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS Columbia flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of Columbia, the ship's namesake and the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines).

your attempt to put "lipstick on a pig". No matter how well said, or how well you try to dress it, it's still a pig.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Arabs, Africans and more were all involved in slavery......At the time as in the past slavery was a way of life for many nations and cultures....You can't try to pick and choose whom you want to be guilty since they were all guilty of slavery. It was not just blacks that were slaves, there were white, yellow, brown, red, you name it they all were slaves at one time, either by a foreign nation or the ones they lived in by feudal order..
You can't just pick and choose those you wish to condemn because that is not logical....

To expound further, there were not many actual soldiers, infantrymen dying in battle, who owned slaves. Only 2% of the Southern population were landowners of large plantations where most of the slaves were, and none of those wealthy plantation owners fought in the general army. If there were any serving at all, it was as generals or officers. Most of their sons never served, back then they had an "in-proxy" policy by which a person could send someone to fight in their place. Many of the wealthy southerners did just that. So when we talk about the actual men who died fighting the Civil War for the South, very few if any were actual slave owners and most of them didn't even know anyone who owned slaves.

In the North, the State of New York actually contemplated seccession. They did not approve of sending their sons off to fight this war, particularly if it was over the issue of slavery. Many cities actually flew the Confederate Flag in defiant protest and boycott of the war.

Lincoln himself stated; "If I can preserve the Union by keeping slavery, I will do that. If I can preserve the Union by getting rid of slavery, I will do that." So we see by his very words, the issue of the war was not slavery but the preservation of the Union.

on the wall years before the war;

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.
Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.
In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.

You might compare his public justifications for the war to FDR's public spin on what he knew was an inevitable war with the Nazis. You know that with public sentiment at the
time if he declared the war was about slavery his coalition would have fell apart. Your characterization of New York's mood demonstrates this knowledge. So obviously this statement;

Boss - So we see by his very words, the issue of the war was not slavery but the preservation of the Union

is disengenuous at best, closer to deception really.

 

[Asclepias]

Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Arabs, Africans and more were all involved in slavery......At the time as in the past slavery was a way of life for many nations and cultures....You can't try to pick and choose whom you want to be guilty since they were all guilty of slavery. It was not just blacks that were slaves, there were white, yellow, brown, red, you name it they all were slaves at one time, either by a foreign nation or the ones they lived in by feudal order..
You can't just pick and choose those you wish to condemn because that is not logical....

To expound further, there were not many actual soldiers, infantrymen dying in battle, who owned slaves. Only 2% of the Southern population were landowners of large plantations where most of the slaves were, and none of those wealthy plantation owners fought in the general army. If there were any serving at all, it was as generals or officers. Most of their sons never served, back then they had an "in-proxy" policy by which a person could send someone to fight in their place. Many of the wealthy southerners did just that. So when we talk about the actual men who died fighting the Civil War for the South, very few if any were actual slave owners and most of them didn't even know anyone who owned slaves.

In the North, the State of New York actually contemplated secession. They did not approve of sending their sons off to fight this war, particularly if it was over the issue of slavery. Many cities actually flew the Confederate Flag in defiant protest and boycott of the war.

Lincoln himself stated; "If I can preserve the Union by keeping slavery, I will do that. If I can preserve the Union by getting rid of slavery, I will do that." So we see by his very words, the issue of the war was not slavery but the preservation of the Union.

The preservation of the Union was because the South was ceding over the issue of slavery. They even state this in their articles of secession.

Declaration of Causes of Secession

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

The CornerStone Speech echos the same sentiment.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephens' March 1861 speech declared that African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had put to rest the "agitating questions" as to the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization".

 

[Boss]

Oh slavery was an issue guys, please don't think I am claiming otherwise. However, it was more of an economic issue than a civil rights issue. Let's not pretend the Union was fighting for equality of the negro, because I assure you, that was not the case. It took another century for that battle to be fought.

From the Southern perspective, they had purchased slaves in good faith, it was perfectly legitimate in the eyes of the law and the SCOTUS had upheld that these slaves were property. It was no different than if people bought horses to do labor today and the government suddenly came along and indicated it was going to set all the horses free. Under the constitution and the rulings of SCOTUS, the Southerners had a legitimate complaint. It's abhorrent by today's standards, we think of it as reprehensible, and it is... TODAY! We can't go back in time and retroactively apply today's standards to the past. At the time of the Civil War, indeed, until AFTER the Civil War was over and we ratified the 13th and 14th Amendments, slavery in America was legal, legitimate and upheld by the SCOTUS and Congress.

No one here is making any excuses for, or trying to justify the institution of slavery. You can pretend that is what is happening if you like, but you're being dishonest. A lot of people like to try and "glorify" the North and imagine the South as a bunch of racist monsters who wanted to keep blacks in chains. The reason slaves were predominantly in the South is because that was how you harvested cotton, sugar cane and tobacco. If those crops could grow in the North, there would have been plenty of slaves there too.

 

[Boss]

You know that with public sentiment at the
time if he declared the war was about slavery his coalition would have fell apart. Your characterization of New York's mood demonstrates this knowledge. So obviously this statement;

Boss - So we see by his very words, the issue of the war was not slavery but the preservation of the Union

is disengenuous at best, closer to deception really.

You're actually making my point. Leading up to the war, during the debate over the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska act, Lincoln was actively trying to work out solutions with Southern congressmen which would have allowed slavery to remain legal until 1911. Among some of his more "equality-based" solutions offered up, were plans to ship all the slaves off to someplace else. Lincoln even authorized the purchase of land in Central America and sent about 100 former slaves and other free blacks there, where they died of malaria and typhoid fever. In his famous debates with Douglas, Lincoln said: "I have never held that the negro can ever live in equal station among whites."

By today's standards of racism, about 99.5% of the white US population was racist. The Civil War had nothing to do with giving black people equality.

 

[Asclepias]

Oh slavery was an issue guys, please don't think I am claiming otherwise. However, it was more of an economic issue than a civil rights issue. Let's not pretend the Union was fighting for equality of the negro, because I assure you, that was not the case. It took another century for that battle to be fought.

From the Southern perspective, they had purchased slaves in good faith, it was perfectly legitimate in the eyes of the law and the SCOTUS had upheld that these slaves were property. It was no different than if people bought horses to do labor today and the government suddenly came along and indicated it was going to set all the horses free. Under the constitution and the rulings of SCOTUS, the Southerners had a legitimate complaint. It's abhorrent by today's standards, we think of it as reprehensible, and it is... TODAY! We can't go back in time and retroactively apply today's standards to the past. At the time of the Civil War, indeed, until AFTER the Civil War was over and we ratified the 13th and 14th Amendments, slavery in America was legal, legitimate and upheld by the SCOTUS and Congress.

No one here is making any excuses for, or trying to justify the institution of slavery. You can pretend that is what is happening if you like, but you're being dishonest. A lot of people like to try and "glorify" the North and imagine the South as a bunch of racist monsters who wanted to keep blacks in chains. The reason slaves were predominantly in the South is because that was how you harvested cotton, sugar cane and tobacco. If those crops could grow in the North, there would have been plenty of slaves there too.

To the point of your OP. The confederate flag is a reminder of that period for Black people and the flag of the traitors for others. I don't see any redeeming qualities except to use it to wipe toilets with. The south will never rise again so flying the flag is tantamount to treason if you want to look at it objectively even without the slavery issue.

 

[SmedlyButler]

You know that with public sentiment at the
time if he declared the war was about slavery his coalition would have fell apart. Your characterization of New York's mood demonstrates this knowledge. So obviously this statement;

Boss - So we see by his very words, the issue of the war was not slavery but the preservation of the Union

is disengenuous at best, closer to deception really.

You're actually making my point. Leading up to the war, during the debate over the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska act, Lincoln was actively trying to work out solutions with Southern congressmen which would have allowed slavery to remain legal until 1911. Among some of his more "equality-based" solutions offered up, were plans to ship all the slaves off to someplace else. Lincoln even authorized the purchase of land in Central America and sent about 100 former slaves and other free blacks there, where they died of malaria and typhoid fever. In his famous debates with Douglas, Lincoln said: "I have never held that the negro can ever live in equal station among whites."

By today's standards of racism, about 99.5% of the white US population was racist. The Civil War had nothing to do with giving black people equality.

You try to finesse your way out of this "the issue of the war was not slavery but the preservation of the Union" by morphing it to this "The Civil War had nothing to do with giving black people equality". Make up your mind what position you want to defend.

 

[Politico]

The confederate flag is the redneck Swastika.

O beautiful, for racist skies
For white supremacy
For Rush and Glenn
Our favorite guys
and NASCAR fantasy!
America! America!
The immigrant expel
Protect us good white Christian folk,
the rest condemn to hell.

This thread was already full of stupid. You just made it worse.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Oh slavery was an issue guys, please don't think I am claiming otherwise. However, it was more of an economic issue than a civil rights issue. Let's not pretend the Union was fighting for equality of the negro, because I assure you, that was not the case. It took another century for that battle to be fought.

From the Southern perspective, they had purchased slaves in good faith, it was perfectly legitimate in the eyes of the law and the SCOTUS had upheld that these slaves were property. It was no different than if people bought horses to do labor today and the government suddenly came along and indicated it was going to set all the horses free. Under the constitution and the rulings of SCOTUS, the Southerners had a legitimate complaint. It's abhorrent by today's standards, we think of it as reprehensible, and it is... TODAY! We can't go back in time and retroactively apply today's standards to the past. At the time of the Civil War, indeed, until AFTER the Civil War was over and we ratified the 13th and 14th Amendments, slavery in America was legal, legitimate and upheld by the SCOTUS and Congress.

No one here is making any excuses for, or trying to justify the institution of slavery. You can pretend that is what is happening if you like, but you're being dishonest. A lot of people like to try and "glorify" the North and imagine the South as a bunch of racist monsters who wanted to keep blacks in chains. The reason slaves were predominantly in the South is because that was how you harvested cotton, sugar cane and tobacco. If those crops could grow in the North, there would have been plenty of slaves there too.

on this issue that I find "reprehensible". Come on now, "It (slavery) was no different than if people bought horses to do labor today..." Your rhetorical excess really undermines any credibility you still hang on to. Here's a test on how well you've got the situational ethics thing nailed down. In fifty words or less give a moral justification for these statements by Jeff Davis.

"If slavery be a sin, it is not yours. It does not rest on your action for its origin, on your consent for its existence. It is a common law right to property in the service of man; its origin was Divine decree."

"African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing."

"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

 

[hazlnut]

 

[hazlnut]

 

[hazlnut]

The South and Neo-confederates have been trying to rewrite their history ever since the lost.

Too bad we have their founding documents and letters to foreign nations which prove it was all about Slavery and White Supremacy.

Their founding documents show that the South seceded over slavery, not states’ rights. But the neo-Confederates are right in a sense. Slavery was not the only cause. The South also seceded over white supremacy, something in which most whites—North and South—sincerely believed. White southerners came to see the 4 million African Americans in their midst as a menace, going so far as to predict calamity, even race war, were slavery ever to end. This facet of Confederate ideology helps explain why many white southerners—even those who owned no slaves and had no prospects of owning any—mobilized so swiftly and effectively to protect their key institution.

Getting the Civil War Right | Teaching Tolerance

 

[Geaux4it]

The PC police seem to be gaining momentum with this issue of late. I see more and more commentary about it on the Internet and hear people commenting from time to time on television. So I decided maybe it's time to open a thread on the topic and deliver my personal views on the matter.

Let me begin by saying, I have done some pretty extensive research into my genealogy, as my family name is very rare and unusual. Before the Internet and boundless resources to discover this kind of information, we mostly relied on elder family members to tell us about our past. My grandmother used to say we were "Black Dutch" and for years, I had no idea what that meant or what it was. As it turns out, the term "Black Dutch" can mean almost anything. It is a 'catch-all' identifier that has been used by several mixed cultural groups through the years.

Interestingly enough, my ancestors were actually the original "Black Dutch" and they came from German peasantry living in the Black Forest from almost Biblical times. Seems some King, I think it was Otto II, wanted to exterminate all the poor people in society, as a means to raise the culture to a higher level. In order to escape persecution, many peasants in Germany fled into the Black Forest, and thus began the legacy of the Black Dutch. In the 17th and 18th centuries, it was also used by Jamaicans, Haitians, people of mixed Caribbean descent, and also by some Native Americans who married Europeans.

Much of my ancestry was hidden for many years out of fear of persecution. After years of research online through Ancestry.com and other sources, my sister and I have pieced together the colorful quilt of our personal lineage. I am largely Native American, with two great grandparents who were full blooded Cherokee and Choctaw. I have the German peasant Black Dutch, along with African, Creole and Asian ancestry as well. Now, the thread topic is not about my background, but I just wanted to stipulate this from the start, so as to avoid any misunderstanding as to my intentions or persuasions when it comes to the topic. For all intents and purposes, I am a Mutt. I'm probably less "white European" than anything, and what little bit I have in me is peasant class.

I've grown up in Alabama, the Heart of Dixie. All my life, I have seen the Confederate Flag. I have at least two ancestors who fought and died in the Civil War, fighting for the Confederacy. I've read countless books on the war, watched hours of documentaries, heard several lectures and I'm constantly digging for new information because it's a subject that has always interested me. I will say two things here, first... it is troubling to me how much 'disinformation' has been taught regarding the Civil War, and two... it is despicable how racist supremacist groups hijacked the battle flag of the Confederacy and made it into a symbol of hate. But even more disturbing to me is how uneducated people have bought into the image and view the flag as something offensive.

Regardless of whether some are offended by the flag, it is a part of American history and our past. I've never understood the mindset that seeks to ban the flag or remove it from view in public. Is this supposed to erase something or correct anything? Couldn't we just as easily make the same argument that we should pretend the Civil War never happened and we never had slavery in America? What about images of Dr. King, the police using firehoses in Birmingham, Bull Connor, George Wallace... why not erase them from memory as well?

There are many things in our past to be ashamed of. The fact that our founding fathers weren't compelled to end slavery at the onset of this nation and it's constitution is probably first and foremost to me, but also, the way Italian and Irish immigrants were treated, the way Asian immigrants were treated, the way many Latino immigrants are still being treated. To me, the battle flag of the Confederacy is kind of a trivial thing to get your panties in a wad about. Especially when it comes to the point about banning it and removing it from public view.

Why not instead, use it as a learning tool? Recognizing the significance in both the Southern and Northern viewpoints surrounding the Civil War and why it was fought? Acknowledging that we don't have a right to not be offended by something? Understanding that tolerance is accepting something that may bother you? Finally, realizing that hiding away our symbols of the past in a dark closet is never going to change our history.

I fly the flag here on occasions as it's part of my family heritage. And yes, I'm proud of it. Yes, the North won the war but all the South ask now is to be left the cluck alone.

It's a beautiful flag indeed

-Geaux

 

[Sallow]

The PC police seem to be gaining momentum with this issue of late. I see more and more commentary about it on the Internet and hear people commenting from time to time on television. So I decided maybe it's time to open a thread on the topic and deliver my personal views on the matter.

Let me begin by saying, I have done some pretty extensive research into my genealogy, as my family name is very rare and unusual. Before the Internet and boundless resources to discover this kind of information, we mostly relied on elder family members to tell us about our past. My grandmother used to say we were "Black Dutch" and for years, I had no idea what that meant or what it was. As it turns out, the term "Black Dutch" can mean almost anything. It is a 'catch-all' identifier that has been used by several mixed cultural groups through the years.

Interestingly enough, my ancestors were actually the original "Black Dutch" and they came from German peasantry living in the Black Forest from almost Biblical times. Seems some King, I think it was Otto II, wanted to exterminate all the poor people in society, as a means to raise the culture to a higher level. In order to escape persecution, many peasants in Germany fled into the Black Forest, and thus began the legacy of the Black Dutch. In the 17th and 18th centuries, it was also used by Jamaicans, Haitians, people of mixed Caribbean descent, and also by some Native Americans who married Europeans.

Much of my ancestry was hidden for many years out of fear of persecution. After years of research online through Ancestry.com and other sources, my sister and I have pieced together the colorful quilt of our personal lineage. I am largely Native American, with two great grandparents who were full blooded Cherokee and Choctaw. I have the German peasant Black Dutch, along with African, Creole and Asian ancestry as well. Now, the thread topic is not about my background, but I just wanted to stipulate this from the start, so as to avoid any misunderstanding as to my intentions or persuasions when it comes to the topic. For all intents and purposes, I am a Mutt. I'm probably less "white European" than anything, and what little bit I have in me is peasant class.

I've grown up in Alabama, the Heart of Dixie. All my life, I have seen the Confederate Flag. I have at least two ancestors who fought and died in the Civil War, fighting for the Confederacy. I've read countless books on the war, watched hours of documentaries, heard several lectures and I'm constantly digging for new information because it's a subject that has always interested me. I will say two things here, first... it is troubling to me how much 'disinformation' has been taught regarding the Civil War, and two... it is despicable how racist supremacist groups hijacked the battle flag of the Confederacy and made it into a symbol of hate. But even more disturbing to me is how uneducated people have bought into the image and view the flag as something offensive.

Regardless of whether some are offended by the flag, it is a part of American history and our past. I've never understood the mindset that seeks to ban the flag or remove it from view in public. Is this supposed to erase something or correct anything? Couldn't we just as easily make the same argument that we should pretend the Civil War never happened and we never had slavery in America? What about images of Dr. King, the police using firehoses in Birmingham, Bull Connor, George Wallace... why not erase them from memory as well?

There are many things in our past to be ashamed of. The fact that our founding fathers weren't compelled to end slavery at the onset of this nation and it's constitution is probably first and foremost to me, but also, the way Italian and Irish immigrants were treated, the way Asian immigrants were treated, the way many Latino immigrants are still being treated. To me, the battle flag of the Confederacy is kind of a trivial thing to get your panties in a wad about. Especially when it comes to the point about banning it and removing it from public view.

Why not instead, use it as a learning tool? Recognizing the significance in both the Southern and Northern viewpoints surrounding the Civil War and why it was fought? Acknowledging that we don't have a right to not be offended by something? Understanding that tolerance is accepting something that may bother you? Finally, realizing that hiding away our symbols of the past in a dark closet is never going to change our history.

I fly the flag here on occasions as it's part of my family heritage. And yes, I'm proud of it. Yes, the North won the war but all the South ask now is to be left the cluck alone.
It's a beautiful flag indeed

-Geaux

Well no, they did not.

They seized US territory, fired on US troops and were fighting to enslave Americans.

They were despicable, treasonous and the lot of them should have been executed.


The only thing the Traitorous southern flag is good for is toilet paper.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rebel-Confederate-Flag-Toilet-Paper/sim/B001B0ZMI8/2]Amazon.com: Rebel Confederate Flag Toilet Paper: Explore similar items[/ame]

 

[Geaux4it]

The PC police seem to be gaining momentum with this issue of late. I see more and more commentary about it on the Internet and hear people commenting from time to time on television. So I decided maybe it's time to open a thread on the topic and deliver my personal views on the matter.

Let me begin by saying, I have done some pretty extensive research into my genealogy, as my family name is very rare and unusual. Before the Internet and boundless resources to discover this kind of information, we mostly relied on elder family members to tell us about our past. My grandmother used to say we were "Black Dutch" and for years, I had no idea what that meant or what it was. As it turns out, the term "Black Dutch" can mean almost anything. It is a 'catch-all' identifier that has been used by several mixed cultural groups through the years.

Interestingly enough, my ancestors were actually the original "Black Dutch" and they came from German peasantry living in the Black Forest from almost Biblical times. Seems some King, I think it was Otto II, wanted to exterminate all the poor people in society, as a means to raise the culture to a higher level. In order to escape persecution, many peasants in Germany fled into the Black Forest, and thus began the legacy of the Black Dutch. In the 17th and 18th centuries, it was also used by Jamaicans, Haitians, people of mixed Caribbean descent, and also by some Native Americans who married Europeans.

Much of my ancestry was hidden for many years out of fear of persecution. After years of research online through Ancestry.com and other sources, my sister and I have pieced together the colorful quilt of our personal lineage. I am largely Native American, with two great grandparents who were full blooded Cherokee and Choctaw. I have the German peasant Black Dutch, along with African, Creole and Asian ancestry as well. Now, the thread topic is not about my background, but I just wanted to stipulate this from the start, so as to avoid any misunderstanding as to my intentions or persuasions when it comes to the topic. For all intents and purposes, I am a Mutt. I'm probably less "white European" than anything, and what little bit I have in me is peasant class.

I've grown up in Alabama, the Heart of Dixie. All my life, I have seen the Confederate Flag. I have at least two ancestors who fought and died in the Civil War, fighting for the Confederacy. I've read countless books on the war, watched hours of documentaries, heard several lectures and I'm constantly digging for new information because it's a subject that has always interested me. I will say two things here, first... it is troubling to me how much 'disinformation' has been taught regarding the Civil War, and two... it is despicable how racist supremacist groups hijacked the battle flag of the Confederacy and made it into a symbol of hate. But even more disturbing to me is how uneducated people have bought into the image and view the flag as something offensive.

Regardless of whether some are offended by the flag, it is a part of American history and our past. I've never understood the mindset that seeks to ban the flag or remove it from view in public. Is this supposed to erase something or correct anything? Couldn't we just as easily make the same argument that we should pretend the Civil War never happened and we never had slavery in America? What about images of Dr. King, the police using firehoses in Birmingham, Bull Connor, George Wallace... why not erase them from memory as well?

There are many things in our past to be ashamed of. The fact that our founding fathers weren't compelled to end slavery at the onset of this nation and it's constitution is probably first and foremost to me, but also, the way Italian and Irish immigrants were treated, the way Asian immigrants were treated, the way many Latino immigrants are still being treated. To me, the battle flag of the Confederacy is kind of a trivial thing to get your panties in a wad about. Especially when it comes to the point about banning it and removing it from public view.

Why not instead, use it as a learning tool? Recognizing the significance in both the Southern and Northern viewpoints surrounding the Civil War and why it was fought? Acknowledging that we don't have a right to not be offended by something? Understanding that tolerance is accepting something that may bother you? Finally, realizing that hiding away our symbols of the past in a dark closet is never going to change our history.

I fly the flag here on occasions as it's part of my family heritage. And yes, I'm proud of it. Yes, the North won the war but all the South ask now is to be left the cluck alone.
It's a beautiful flag indeed

-Geaux

Well no, they did not.

They seized US territory, fired on US troops and were fighting to enslave Americans.

They were despicable, treasonous and the lot of them should have been executed.


The only thing the Traitorous southern flag is good for is toilet paper.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rebel-Confederate-Flag-Toilet-Paper/sim/B001B0ZMI8/2]Amazon.com: Rebel Confederate Flag Toilet Paper: Explore similar items[/ame]

Instead we flourished. Instead went on about our way. Stand-by.. The next uprising will make 1861 look like a family get together. And the left had best learn how to defend themselves. Take the time now to prepare and start thinking which side of the picket line you want to be. Then be ready to defend it like the patriots are starting to do all around us. It's just that important

-Geaux

 

[rightwinger]

If the flag of rebellion were anything else but a flag to protect the rights of whites to enslave other human beings, you might have a point

The confederate flag was chosen by the KKK for a reason. It represented that time when blacks were owned and had no rights as humans.

You are expressing a view that is totally ignorant of history. The Civil War was not about whites protecting their rights to enslave other human beings. The Supreme Court and law of the land in the United States was that you could own slaves, and it had been the law for 85 years before the war, since the very inception of the nation. The United States Congress and 15 previous US Presidents had every opportunity to end slavery and they didn't. The war was about Southern states protecting their rights as sovereign states. The North was not fighting to end slavery, by their own accounts, they fought to preserve the Union. It wasn't until late in the war, when public support was fading, Lincoln rallied behind the cause of abolition. Because of that, many ignorant people assume this was what the war was about.

Save it

The Civil War was about slavery wrapped up in "States Rights" rhetoric. A States Right to allow slavery

 

[Geaux4it]

If the flag of rebellion were anything else but a flag to protect the rights of whites to enslave other human beings, you might have a point

The confederate flag was chosen by the KKK for a reason. It represented that time when blacks were owned and had no rights as humans.

You are expressing a view that is totally ignorant of history. The Civil War was not about whites protecting their rights to enslave other human beings. The Supreme Court and law of the land in the United States was that you could own slaves, and it had been the law for 85 years before the war, since the very inception of the nation. The United States Congress and 15 previous US Presidents had every opportunity to end slavery and they didn't. The war was about Southern states protecting their rights as sovereign states. The North was not fighting to end slavery, by their own accounts, they fought to preserve the Union. It wasn't until late in the war, when public support was fading, Lincoln rallied behind the cause of abolition. Because of that, many ignorant people assume this was what the war was about.

Save it

The Civil War was about slavery wrapped up in "States Rights" rhetoric. A States Right to allow slavery

Back then it was legal immigration. Same as the illegal immigration today's POTUS supports. Both results are the same. Cheap votes and labor. The pubs and Dems win!

-Geaux

 

[Sunni Man]

The northern states were hell bent on politically controlling the nation.

They picked slavery as their hot button issue to rally around.

If the issue of slavery hadn't worked the north would have championed another issue. ..