Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Rose: Serious error. Silence is most often thought to be agreement. I agree that "they" are beneath SCV interest, but a simple press-release saying something like: "In no way do legitimate bearers of the CBF condone the message of these freaks. We feel so strongly that we choose to ignore them rather than give them any public forum."
Personally, I'd like to see some grey-clad reenactors drive the freaks from the field at the point of bayonets. Now that would change some opinions about the CBF and what it means.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I agree that "they" are beneath SCV interest, but a simple press-release saying something like: "In no way do legitimate bearers of the CBF condone the message of these freaks. We feel so strongly that we choose to ignore them rather than give them any public forum."
Personally, I'd like to see some grey-clad reenactors drive the freaks from the field at the point of bayonets. Now that would change some opinions about the CBF and what it means.
Ole
Exactly who are the "legitimate bearers of the CBF," and what qualifies them as legitimate?
While I do not condone the interests or messages of the Klan, their use of the Confederate battle flag may be just as "legitimate" as anyone else's. The flag's original use, its "true" purpose, was as a military symbol. It is not used in that context today. Everyone who uses the flag today does so with their own modern ideas of what it means. While these ideas may be attached to its original use and the people who carried it, they still have undergone a great deal of social and political revision.
The 37th Texas wishes to pose a counter-demonstration. That is fine. But what makes the 37th's ideas of the flag more legitimate than the Klan's? The flag did represent a fighting force and political movement dedicated to preserving a slaveholding society. While members of the 37th today may not wish to celebrate (or even recognize) the white supremacist ideologies of the Old South and Confederacy (and of the South for decades after the war), the men who created and carried the flag were most definitely part of that culture and many of them supported or were even part of the Klan in later years.
The 37th Texas does work hard to provide an image of a multi-cultural and multi-racial Confederacy. While this message is important, it is also a bit exaggerated. Further, this message is specifically in response to the social changes the United States has undergone as a whole over the past century. Blatant racism is no longer acceptable. Thus, many self-styled "defenders" of the Confederacy have worked to reduce the reality of white supremacy from Confederate history...or at least the Confederate memory. Using terms such as "heritage" seems to be an effective means of sanitizing the history and image of a society built upon human bondage. But such efforts really only serve to create a new and acceptable image of the South in today's actual multi-cultural and multi-racial world.
Thus, the people who will oppose the KKK's use of the Confederate flag are really struggling over what they want the flag to mean today. They are not battling over what the flag "actually" meant.
Well said, Scottsman. Good food for thought. As a non-SCV I can't really comment further. I can only applaud the efforts of those to wrest their flag from the racists. For their motives, I'll have to take their word.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I sometimes think when someone says heritage, they really mean, "the parts of history I agree with, or makes my group look good", and discard the rest. The next step is pretending the people in history agreed with you (mostly). I guess the question is: what should the Stars and Bars mean?
I sometimes think when someone says heritage, they really mean, "the parts of history I agree with, or makes my group look good", and discard the rest. The next step is pretending the people in history agreed with you (mostly). I guess the question is: what should the Stars and Bars mean?
The Stars and Bars was the first national flag of the Confederate States of America. Probably, you are asking what should the Confederate battleflag mean??
I won't go in to what heritage means to those that honor their Southern heritage. No matter what is said it always seems to fall on deaf ears and closed minds. I guess when you get right down to it, it doesn't matter what others think. I know who my ancestors were, why they fought for the South and what kind of people they were. That is enough for me and it's not necessary for me to prove it to anyone. That doesn't mean I'll stop defending them from lies and slander, but when an individual is bent on closing their mind they have a right to their self-inflicted ignorance.
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Exactly who are the "legitimate bearers of the CBF," and what qualifies them as legitimate?
The sons and daughters of the Confederacy are the legitimate bearers of the CBF and the blood of our ancestors makes it legitimate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotsman
While I do not condone the interests or messages of the Klan, their use of the Confederate battle flag may be just as "legitimate" as anyone else's. The flag's original use, its "true" purpose, was as a military symbol. It is not used in that context today. Everyone who uses the flag today does so with their own modern ideas of what it means. While these ideas may be attached to its original use and the people who carried it, they still have undergone a great deal of social and political revision.
There may well be decendents of Confederate soldiers belonging to the Klan, but that doesn't mean they can speak for all of the South when, in fact, most of the South refuse to have anything to do with them.
You have a point about the social and political revision. If the soldiers of the Confederacy were alive today, do you think they would not have evolved socially and politically with the rest of the United States? For instance, we don't have a president today that would stand up and say something like, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been , in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]: that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
I think perhaps had Abe, by some miracle, been able to live till now, he would most likely have lost his racist attitude along with the changes society has made in the last century and a half. So I believe it's just as reasonable to believe the Southern people would also change with the times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotsman
But what makes the 37th's ideas of the flag more legitimate than the Klan's? The flag did represent a fighting force and political movement dedicated to preserving a slaveholding society. While members of the 37th today may not wish to celebrate (or even recognize) the white supremacist ideologies of the Old South and Confederacy (and of the South for decades after the war), the men who created and carried the flag were most definitely part of that culture and many of them supported or were even part of the Klan in later years.
I don't think anyone, North or South, wishes to celebrate our racist past. We do, however, recognize it. Some of us more than others are honest about it. But, it has little to do with today or what the battleflag of the Confederacy meant to Confederate soldiers anymore than the U.S. celebrates the U.S. flag flying over Northern slavery or Northern slave ships.
I don't know how you can say, with certainty, that "many of them supported or were even part of the Klan". I don't believe any kind of membership roster has ever been discovered that would support a statement like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotsman
The 37th Texas does work hard to provide an image of a multi-cultural and multi-racial Confederacy. While this message is important, it is also a bit exaggerated.
The Confederacy was multi-racial and multi-cultural. Why shouldn't the 37th strive to make that known?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotsman
Further, this message is specifically in response to the social changes the United States has undergone as a whole over the past century. Blatant racism is no longer acceptable. Thus, many self-styled "defenders" of the Confederacy have worked to reduce the reality of white supremacy from Confederate history...or at least the Confederate memory. Using terms such as "heritage" seems to be an effective means of sanitizing the history and image of a society built upon human bondage. But such efforts really only serve to create a new and acceptable image of the South in today's actual multi-cultural and multi-racial world.
With all due respect that is bolony. "Blatant racism" was rampant in the nineteenth century all across this country. History can't be erased and Southern people aren't trying to, however, those of Confederate descent are refusing to bear total blame for nineteenth racism. You speak as though slavery and racism never existed anywhere except in the South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotsman
Thus, the people who will oppose the KKK's use of the Confederate flag are really struggling over what they want the flag to mean today. They are not battling over what the flag "actually" meant.
Other than the CBF being a soldiers flag, what do you think it "actually" meant? I believe what the 37th and others like them are battling for is the recognition that it was a battleflag, nothing more...nothing less. They are battling ignorance. I'm sure they realize it's an uphill battle.
Respectfully,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
The sons and daughters of the Confederacy are the legitimate bearers of the CBF and the blood of our ancestors makes it legitimate.
Who are the sons and daughters of the Confederacy? The Confederacy no longer exists. Perhaps you mean the descendants of Confederate soldiers. Even then, can we really speak of them as a cohesive and singular entity? How many millions of legitimate bearers are there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
There may well be decendents of Confederate soldiers belonging to the Klan, but that doesn't mean they can speak for all of the South when, in fact, most of the South refuse to have anything to do with them.
Who can speak for "all of the South"? Do you propose to speak for all of the South?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I think perhaps had Abe, by some miracle, been able to live till now, he would most likely have lost his racist attitude along with the changes society has made in the last century and a half. So I believe it's just as reasonable to believe the Southern people would also change with the times.
Such speculation is not of much merit. American society and its population has changed over time. What we are talking about, however, is modern symbolism of an historic icon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I don't think anyone, North or South, wishes to celebrate our racist past. We do, however, recognize it. Some of us more than others are honest about it. But, it has little to do with today or what the battleflag of the Confederacy meant to Confederate soldiers anymore than the U.S. celebrates the U.S. flag flying over Northern slavery or Northern slave ships.
The Confederate battle flag carried a great deal of specific social and political meaning to its bearers. The flag was specifically linked to opposition to the United States and an attempt to preserve the slaveholding South. This symbolism was much more direct than the relationship between northern slave ships and the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I don't know how you can say, with certainty, that "many of them supported or were even part of the Klan". I don't believe any kind of membership roster has ever been discovered that would support a statement like that.
The widespread resistance to black rights in the South during Reconstruction and after "Redemption" shows evidence of a broad acceptance of white supremacy. In fact, white supremacy was institutionalized in the South for decades by former Confederates as well as their immediate descendants. Specific membership in the Klan is not important, for the message of the Klan today on national battlefields focuses on the issue of white supremacy. White supremacy was a fundamental part of Southern history before, during and for decades after the Civil War---and it was entwined with the cause of the Confederacy and post-Reconstruction Southern society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
The Confederacy was multi-racial and multi-cultural. Why shouldn't the 37th strive to make that known?
Who said they shouldn't "strive" to make it known? I said that much of the multi-cultural elements of the Confederacy which they celebrate are exaggerated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
With all due respect that is bolony. "Blatant racism" was rampant in the nineteenth century all across this country. History can't be erased and Southern people aren't trying to, however, those of Confederate descent are refusing to bear total blame for nineteenth racism. You speak as though slavery and racism never existed anywhere except in the South.
With all due respect, your response does not even come close to disputing my original point. I said:
Further, this message is specifically in response to the social changes the United States has undergone as a whole over the past century. Blatant racism is no longer acceptable. Thus, many self-styled "defenders" of the Confederacy have worked to reduce the reality of white supremacy from Confederate history...or at least the Confederate memory. Using terms such as "heritage" seems to be an effective means of sanitizing the history and image of a society built upon human bondage. But such efforts really only serve to create a new and acceptable image of the South in today's actual multi-cultural and multi-racial world.
No where do I deny that racism was part of most of American society during the nineteenth century. In fact, the effort to bring up the topic of slavery and racism existing in other portions of the country is, unfortunately, fairly common among self-styled defenders of the Confederacy. I did not bring up racism in other parts of the country because we are not talking about other parts of the country. The topic is the Confederate battle flag and what it means today. Seeing as the CBF is a symbol of the Confederacy, and one that is today used by some to celebrate "Southern" heritage, it is entirely appropriate to focus this discussion on the South. It is not a denial of anything...simply a matter of keeping on topic.
Are "Southern people" trying to erase history? For one, I prefer not to lump all modern Southerners into one group. Those who do often belong to the Lost Cause school of thought, and mistakenly perceive their own beliefs and interpretations of history as the legitimate view of the "South" and its "people." To get back to the point, I do certainly believe that Lost Cause advocates are trying (consciously and subconsciously) to sanitize elements of Southern history. Lost Cause ideology was and still is an effort to fit the Confederacy and its heroes into acceptable imagery.
Southerners in the 1850s had no problem celebrating the institution of slavery and defending it as a moral, social and political right. During the war, the preservation of slavery was a recognized issue of the South by everyone. It was only after the Confederacy lost, and slavery was no longer legal, and when slavery was portrayed as a moral evil, was the South's dependence and defense of slavery downplayed. People today cannot deny the existence of slavery, but some do try to limit its importance and role in Southern society and in the political and social move towards secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Other than the CBF being a soldiers flag, what do you think it "actually" meant?
I think it represented the social and political interests of the men and groups involved. Soldiers are not robots, nor are they sheep. The men who served the Confederacy (especially those who volunteered, and were not drafted) consciously chose to support the political and social interests of the Confederacy and the slaveholding South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I believe what the 37th and others like them are battling for is the recognition that it was a battleflag, nothing more...nothing less. They are battling ignorance. I'm sure they realize it's an uphill battle.
It is clearly not a "battleflag, nothing more...nothing less." If that were the case, then its use in any type of context would not draw such opposition. I believe you see it as something more than a battleflag.
Further, if it was just a battleflag, is it something that should be celebrated? The men carrying it were fighting against the United States. If the flag represented armed rebellion against federal authority, federal soldiers and the united country, why would modern Americans who proclaim a loyalty and love for the United States wish to see it anything other than an old flag from a long, lost rebellion? The reason it is such an issue is because people DO see it as something more than simply a military artifact. They do push their own interpretations and perceptions on it, whether they be something positive and celebratory like family relations and "heritage," or something more divisive like white supremacy.
Scotsman, it's a fairly simple point of view to understand. I don't understand your pseudo-psychological, half-baked analysis and nit-picking on this subject. There are many people in the South who are not racist but are proud of their ancestors who fought in the war, many of whom fought for their homes, not for slavery. To them the CBF is part of their heritage, and they don't like it that the Klan has at times claimed it for their own use, associating it obviously with white supremacy. What is so difficult to grasp here? I'm a dyed in the wool Yankee and it's plain as day to me, and I don't begrudge those in the south one single bit, who see the CBF as part of their proud past, and who disassociate it completely with bald Nazi halfwits. They have the right to choose to view the flag in that manner.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
Good job Terry and Rose. Maybe and most likely the men of the 37th just despise the KKK and don't want to see them use the town and battlefields of Gettysburg and the flag to spew their filth.
Bart
__________________ "Thank You....Noooo."
Major Charles Emerson Winchester III M.A.S.H. 4077th
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
