An attempt to desecrate Gettysburg

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by william42

I still disagree. I think celebration of the flag is quite intertwined with the fighting done by the south in the Civil War. Ask a southern reenactor.

I did not argue that every celebration of the CBF was apart from the Civil War. Again, my statement was in the specific context of Rose's statement. Here is the paragraph I was responding to:

"I’ll try to explain, again. Our Confederate soldier ancestors held their battle flag in high esteem. It represented what they were fighting for and I have to believe that they sincerely believed in what they were fighting for or else they wouldn’t have stuck it out when they reached the point of hunger and lack of shoes and warm clothing. The deprivations were great, yet they continued following that flag. A very sentimental quote by a Confederate soldier goes:
"I must not forget our old flag — though torn & tattered & faded.In the
three days of fighting, although about 18 inches was torn off the end & lost there is fifteen bullet holes through the flag & three through the staff & besides this a large rent made by a piece of a bomb. Three color bearers were shot down & the fourth now carries it. If I should live through the war I would want no brighter monument than this faded flag to decorate my parlor walls — provided I ever have a parlor." James C. Bates CSA"

This description talks about dedication, struggle, and sacrifice -- but it does not explain the specific context or meanings behind those ideas. The quotation she provides, also, produces vivid, and passionate, imagery, but an image that may not be specific to the Civil War.

Originally Posted by william42

Nope. Your discussion of honor here focuses on your "specific ambiguous" (?) description of the flag.

So far the best definition of "honor" you can give is a generic (and fairly broad) cut-and-paste from a dictionary. That definition covers the most basic elements of the term honor, and further demonstrates the many meanings it can have even at that basic level.

Originally Posted by william42

Those words are quite clear to me. You seem intent on complicating their meaning so that you can keep posting your silly, convoluted, erroneous premises.

If you wish to maintain a shallow approach to history, go right ahead. I'm not sure it will do you any good. Any person who denies (or plays off as "silly") elements of historical study which are often discussed, debated, and analyzed by actual historians only demonstrates their own unfamiliarity in the field, as well as their own inability to deal with complex and comprehensive ideas and matters.

Originally Posted by william42

Only you know why you continue to do so.

Not exactly. The types of questions I am asking, and the points that I am discussing, are very common among the work of professional historians. If you do not know why I am focusing on these issues, you might want to broaden your reading list.

Originally Posted by william42

Do you know what "sophistry" is?

Do you know how serious historical study is carried out?

Originally Posted by william42

Yes, if they were fighting for what they believed in their hearts, just the same as Northerners who fought for the south showed the same integrity.

That is one way to look at it. However, would you say that every Southern during the war believed that?

Originally Posted by william42

I already defined honor for you. Please see my previous post.

You provided a cut-and-paste definition from a modern dictionary that said nothing about "honor" and the South before, during or after the war. Unfortunately, that type of answer is not a good analysis of the topic. If you would like to specifically explain how Southerners at a given time perceived honor -- even within the context of the dictionary definition you provided -- we could probably find something of substance.

For instance, part of your definition mentioned a "code." Exactly what was the Southern code of honor? How did it work? What was acceptable? What was unacceptable? Did it change? How does modern Southern ideas of honor compare to those from the Old South? These are the kinds of questions historians ask. So, if you want to play all of these questions off as silly, convoluted sophistry, then please stay away from serious historical discussions.

Originally Posted by william42

Yes. The Klan and white supremacists are not "just and honorable" people.

So, you admit that your standard for "honor" is based upon your own attitudes and ideas.

But wait, were slaveholding Southerners "just and honorable"? How about most white Southerners during the nineteenth century, and much of the white Southern population for the first half of the twentieth century? White supremacy was a fundamental ideology among this group of people. Were they "just and honorable"?

Do you mean to say that only modern, non-racist people are "just and honorable"?

Perhaps you see something here...your simplistic answer of honor seems to have a lot of holes.

Originally Posted by william42

Not so. The honor I've described in the definition posted above is very perceptible.

I think you missed the point again. I said:

"They see their cause as just and honorable. Simply because you disagree with them, does that mean they are wrong? If so, then you are in fact trying to establish a very direct meaning of honor which goes beyond perception. It means that you believe honor can be measured according to objective rules or standards. What are these standards?"

This does not mean that the meaning is not perceptible, but that you are arguing that the meaning is not based on perception.

I notice you did not explain what standards you are using to measure honor.

Originally Posted by william42

Some in the Old South did. As I stated before, most of the men were fighting for their homes, and loved ones. Again, as Shelby Foote puts it, they were fighting "because you're down here." We're going over old territory now.

The struggle to maintain white supremacy was not limited to secession or the Civil War. It predated the conflict and it lasted at an official level in many areas until the 1960s. If you have any evidence that a person or group of people in the Old South, particularly in the 1850s, did not support a racial hierarchy, please provide it. Otherwise, your "Some in the Old South" comment is an insufficient characterization -- [u]most[/i] (if not all) in the Old South wanted to maintain white supremacy.

Originally Posted by william42

As I stated earlier, the issue goes to the motives in the heart of the flag-bearer. Is it pride, honor, respect, heritage? Or hate-mongering. Again, we've been over this.

Do perceptions of pride, honor, respect and heritage inherently exclude "hate-mongering"? Or, to word it differently, is pride always separate from hate? Does honor find no room for intolerance or prejudice? What about respect, does it never have anything to do with bigotry? And finally, that term "heritage" -- does it only cover that history which is acceptable to modern sentiments?

[JerseyBart]

Thanks Rose!!!

Bart

[ami]

not sure what the problem is, don't really care right now, I will look at this in the morning, till then, leave the subject alone.

thanks