CBF & Black Southerners (corrected)

[cw1865]

If you feel that the Confederate Battle Flag ought to fly because its a symbol of states rights, perhaps you can explain to me why I don't see the Confederate Battle Flag in connection with modern state's rights issues including: 1. inability of Hazelton, PA to regulate rental housing; 2. with respect to a proposed Federal Amendment to regulate marriage (an institution regulated by the states since forever); and 3. preemption of certain state's vicarious liability laws with respect to ownership of motor vehicles.

[larry_cockerham]

cw1865, you've just stated one of the good reasons for flying the Confederate flags and I'm sure there are many more.

I even fly my 35 star US flag on occasions just to let folks know there are two sides to this story and besides, my ancestors require it. The unfortunate part with the Confederate flag, particularly the battle flags, is that many of the dummies walking this earth get excited because of images that may reside in their dented brains. Television and the movie industry have done this flag no favors. It has been identified with too many not so good elements of our society for which it does not deserve the credit. Merely a means to line the troops up in battle so they could be killed more efficently, little more, except a means for many of us old folks to remember our ancestors.

When I see a young person express offense at that flag, it hurts me as well. Someone, maybe all of us, has missed the boat when explaining our feelings towards history, or perhaps just in repeating history itself. For that I am saddened. Otherwise, let her wave in a strong breeze.

[whitworth]

I think white southerners in their defeat, had to attempt to separate the soldier from the Confederate government.
It had to attempt to bring some honor to the soldiers, that was separate and distinct from the failed and non-existing Confederate government. A goal that the CBF was distinct and separate.

However the CBF was the flag of the army of the Confederate government. A government sworn to defend and uphold the slave clauses of the Confederate Constitution. It was never in reality distinct from the government; it was never just a soldiers' flag.

When one looks at its origins and its "misuse" for anti-segregation uses, the CBF would lose its appeal to certain citizens in the American population.

[samgrant]

I see this thread goes back a ways, and forget if I had mentioned that I had no idea about the CBF, but now I find that the Canadian Bridge Federation seems not to have any racial restrictions as to membership. Apparently, however, one must be Canadian.

-

[larry_cockerham]

There are no racial restrictions with regard to any positive group that associates themselves with the Confederate Battle Flag either.

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by whitworth

I think white southerners in their defeat, had to attempt to separate the soldier from the Confederate government.
It had to attempt to bring some honor to the soldiers, that was separate and distinct from the failed and non-existing Confederate government. A goal that the CBF was distinct and separate.

However the CBF was the flag of the army of the Confederate government. A government sworn to defend and uphold the slave clauses of the Confederate Constitution. It was never in reality distinct from the government; it was never just a soldiers' flag.

When one looks at its origins and its "misuse" for anti-segregation uses, the CBF would lose its appeal to certain citizens in the American population.

Number one. Any Solider/Sailor/Marine has served his nation honorably needs no one, no body or organization to assure his honor even if he is defeated. He has earned his honor. Even if he has fought for a goverment that may have been less than honorable.

It is possible to seperate the solider from the goverment. He makes no policy. He goes and fights where and who he is told. Whether or not he agrees or is aware of the machinations of his leaders. He fights for his reasons and in my expieriance very few of those reasons are of interest to the powers that be.

The CBF was the banner he fought under and his ancestors should be secure in the right to honor his memory by flying it ,if they so choose.

[unionblue]

Borderrufian,

"Number one, Any Soldier/Sailor/Marine has served his his nation honorably needs no one, no body or organization to assure his honor even if he is defeated. He has earned his honor. Even if he has fought for a government that may have been less than honorable."

Please take my question in the manner it is intended. Even those German soldiers who fought for the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler? Even the Japanese soldiers who fought for their Emperor? I'm not talking about the SS or Kempi, I am talking about the front-line troops in the Army, the average 'Joe' who fought the battles.

"It is possible to separate the soldier from the government. He makes no policy. He goes and fights where and who he is told. Whether or not he agrees or is aware of the machinations of his leaders. He fights for his reasons and in my experience very few of those reasons are of interest of the powers that be."

I myself believe it is impossible to separate the soldier from the government. He is the insturment of policy, the pointed end of the spear in that governments will and objectives, the blunt object brought to bear on other human beings flesh and blood. Without him, there is no force that can be projected by governments.

He may not originate policy, but he carries it out as an insturment of that government's policy. He may or may not agree with his leaders, their intentions or objectives, but if he remains, he becomes part of their will. He may fight for friends or comrades or whatever, but while he is in service of his country, he serves its leadership and its goals. He is not an unthinking beast and he may hide behind the idea he has no power in where he goes or whom he fights or for why, but he must come to terms with whatever policy his government employs and finds reasons to use him to enforce or implement that policy. Or he is nothing but a souless machine, a robot, with no more feeling or understanding of that of a rifle or bayonet. He becomes just another insturment of the government that deploys him.

The CBF is a symbol of many things at this period in our country. It is a historical symbol, it is a military symbol and it is a social & political symbol. It cannot be divorced from any of them, but must be learned from.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[larry_cockerham]

Borderruffian wrote:

"Number one. Any Solider/Sailor/Marine has served his nation honorably needs no one, no body or organization to assure his honor even if he is defeated. He has earned his honor. Even if he has fought for a goverment that may have been less than honorable.

It is possible to seperate the solider from the goverment. He makes no policy. He goes and fights where and who he is told. Whether or not he agrees or is aware of the machinations of his leaders. He fights for his reasons and in my expieriance very few of those reasons are of interest to the powers that be.

The CBF was the banner he fought under and his ancestors should be secure in the right to honor his memory by flying it ,if they so choose."

We descendants do and shall so long as the freedom is there.

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Borderrufian,



Please take my question in the manner it is intended. Even those German soldiers who fought for the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler? Even the Japanese soldiers who fought for their Emperor? I'm not talking about the SS or Kempi, I am talking about the front-line troops in the Army, the average 'Joe' who fought the battles.

Yes even them. They served their country and if they did so honorably then why should they be denied that honor, just because I don't happen to agree with the politics of their country in that era.

[ole]

Yes even them. They served their country and if they did so honorably then why should they be denied that honor, just because I don't happen to agree with the politics of their country in that era.

Mostly agree, Ruff. Not entirely certain I can say "amen" to it but, if we can honor those who fought, essentially, a war to preserve slavery, why can't we honor the those who fought, essentially, a war to dominate Europe and incedentally to eliminate inferiors, or those who fought, essentially, to gain domination over sources of sustinence?

Will have to think on that some more.

ole