An attempt to desecrate Gettysburg

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by william42

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.

Of course it is simple. In fact, it is too simple. Confederate history and "heritage" has been simplified and sanitized by people who want to celebrate a specific era of history.

Originally Posted by william42

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.

First, the fact that many of these people are not racist is precisely why they work so hard to remove or downplay important elements of Southern history. How does one celebrate a group or individual who lived in and defended a society (or a society which depended upon certain factors) completely repulsive to oneself? By minimizing the relationship of that group to the repulsive elements.


Second, the "fought for their homes" idea is another idea or statement often used without full consideration. What exactly were "their homes"? Do you mean their literal houses and property? For most men in the Confederate ranks, this was not at all the case. And even then, a true defense of "home" would be void of ANY and ALL political affiliation. Thus, a man would resist the destruction of his property by whatever group or army threatened it. Joining the ranks of an army is inherently a political move. In reality, "fought for their homes" incorporated social and political ideologies. The "home" did not simply mean the literal preservation of their house, but the protection of their neighborhood, community, city, state or even region from some perceived threat. These perceptions were shaped by the political and social interests and events of the time. Identifying what political and social interests were involved in the perception of "home" is vital for understanding what these men fought for.

Originally Posted by william42

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?

Southern historian U. B. Phillips identified white supremacy as the central theme of Southern history. No person can study the South and its history without finding this issue to be a central theme, if not THE central theme. What this means, really, is that white supremacy IS part of Southern and Confederate heritage. And, as I said before, some people today wish to celebrate their Southern heritage but do not like this central theme. By trying to sanitize Confederate symbols, figures and issues, some today feel more comfortable celebrating their "heritage."

An important issue here is "celebrating." This is not simply recognizing, researching, or having an interest in one's family or regional history. What we are talking about here is a case of actual celebration and championing of an historic event and group. It is making certain historical figures (or relatives) virtual heroes. The problem is that heroes are not supposed to have a weakness, or at least not a significantly repulsive element about them. Thus, people who wish to actually celebrate Confederate history, rather than simply study it (or even enjoy it), work within the realm of imagery.

This is why some are opposing the Klan's use of the CBF -- because it does not reflect well upon the image of the flag. This has nothing to do with what the flag meant, and everything to do with how they see the flag, and want it to be seen, today.

Originally Posted by william42

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.

Again, it is a matter of imagery. This begs the question from my original post, what makes one person a more legitimate "bearer" of the flag today? If some people wish to celebrate the flag and present a popular and celebratory image of it, what makes them more legitimate or correct than someone who pushes a message of white supremacy? Both are projecting their own perceptions upon the flag.

Overall, you ask what the problem is. Actually, there is no real problem. What I am pointing out is that this is not a matter of actual history or historical study. It is an exercise in imagery. The KKK's use of the flag, just like the celebration of the flag as a matter of "heritage," is the projection of modern ideas and interests on an historical object.

[william42]

First, the fact that many of these people are not racist is precisely why they work so hard to remove or downplay important elements of Southern history.

Or you can say they choose to ignore certain objectionable elements and focus on the positive. I would say they have the right to do that. In fact I think I did say that in my previous post.

Second, the "fought for their homes" idea is another idea or statement often used without full consideration. What exactly were "their homes"? Do you mean their literal houses and property? For most men in the Confederate ranks, this was not at all the case.

Really? I'll define "homes" as both physical structures and a place where one's family lives, which would hold an additional emotional attachment.They were fighting for both their structural and emotional places of residence. Shelby Foote said that a Yankee asked a captured Reb why he was fighting. The Reb replied, "Because you're down here." Many Rebs believed, and in some cases rightfully so, that their homes would be destroyed by the Yankees who came through. It happened. I'll stick with my statement that many believed they were fighting for their homes, with the preservation of slavery, if considered at all, secondary.

The "home" did not simply mean the literal preservation of their house, but the protection of their neighborhood, community, city, state or even region from some perceived threat.

Ok, you said it better than I did.

Joining the ranks of an army is inherently a political move. In reality, "fought for their homes" incorporated social and political ideologies.

Political? In reality, many of those men were scared they were going to lose everything they owned, including loved ones. I see defense of homeland as more of a motivator than politics. I think that's the way many of them looked at it.

What this means, really, is that white supremacy IS part of Southern and Confederate heritage. And, as I said before, some people today wish to celebrate their Southern heritage but do not like this central theme. By trying to sanitize Confederate symbols, figures and issues, some today feel more comfortable celebrating their "heritage."

I think we're saying the same thing. White supremacy "IS" part of Southern heritage, and also part of Northern heritage. For southerners to choose to avoid that part of it, and focus on the positive part, which might include a fondness for the land of their ancestors and their birth, is a pretty natural thing. Are you saying that's a bad thing? When I look at a US flag today I don't see My Lai or massacres of Native Americans. I can look at it and choose to think of the other good parts of American history. Though the "bad" parts are there, I choose not to focus on them.

An important issue here is "celebrating." This is not simply recognizing, researching, or having an interest in one's family or regional history. What we are talking about here is a case of actual celebration and championing of an historic event and group. It is making certain historical figures (or relatives) virtual heroes.

Right.

The problem is that heroes are not supposed to have a weakness, or at least not a significantly repulsive element about them. Thus, people who wish to actually celebrate Confederate history, rather than simply study it (or even enjoy it), work within the realm of imagery.

And that's a bad thing? I disagree.

This is why some are opposing the Klan's use of the CBF -- because it does not reflect well upon the image of the flag. This has nothing to do with what the flag meant, and everything to do with how they see the flag, and want it to be seen, today.

Right.

If some people wish to celebrate the flag and present a popular and celebratory image of it, what makes them more legitimate or correct than someone who pushes a message of white supremacy?

I think the thoughts and feelings of one whose ancestors fought for what they considered to be a worthy cause, including defense of their homes, when celebrating the "image", is a much more "legitimate or correct" celebration, than one who would wave it at a Klan rally to support the concept of white supremacy. The issue goes to the motives in the heart.

What I am pointing out is that this is not a matter of actual history or historical study. It is an exercise in imagery.

I think it does contain an element of actual history because many of the southern people on the board are directly linked to that history by ancestral ties. For those who are not so linked, some are southern by birth and the Civil War is still an historical event. It is an exercise in imagery in that many Southerners choose to "picture" the CBF as a symbol of Southern honor, sacrifice, and thoughts of home. I have no problem with that at all.

Terry

[JerseyBart]

Scots,

I read in your profile that you are a student. And believe me, I don't mean to show any disrespect to your opinion or your posts, because they seem well thought out and that you mean what you say.But be careful of authors. I graduated college 4 years ago with a degree in history (also took predominantly military history courses) and learned an awful lot more from my professors than timelines, battles, generals and tactics. I learned that every author that we read, no matter if the book was tactical, historical etc, told his or her story of the battle or war with a bias. One of our many job as students was to find out the bias/opinion in each of the dozen novels we were assigned to read per class and write weekly reports on what the bias was and why the author wrote his or her book with that bias. For example, we read a book about D-Day written by John Keegan. The book barely touched on the Omaha Beach landing. Why? Keegan was British, got tired of hearing about D-Day through the American point of view and wanted to tell the story of D-Day from a European and Canadian point of view. Also as I advanced in my college experience, I realized that on midterm and finals day, if I spit back my professors notes verbatum, but in my words, in my blue book, I'd get at least a B+. I also learned that to become a college professor, my professors either had to have written historical books in their specified field, be in the process of writing books, or be willing to write books so that the _______ University Press or ________ College Press looked good. We were also cautioned that when purchasing historical books, ONLY to buy books from ________ University or College Presses. And VIOLA!!! I figured it out. My professors were just as biased as the authors we were reading. They taught us through their point of view, what they discovered or what they believed. So I learned that when reading authors or discovering quotes and facts to be careful or what I read versus what I should believe and to read many versions of a topic to get as full a picture as possible. And again, I'm not disrespecting you or saying that you don't do that. It's just something that I learned throughout my school experience.

Glad to have you aboard the board and I can't wait to discuss more topics with you,

Bart

[ole]

ONLY to buy books from ________ University or College Presses.

Actually, Bart, there is a grain of truth in there. You can almost judge the importance of a book by its publisher. For example, UNCP only publishes important work. LSUP may equal or nearly equal UNCP. Stackpole and Savas/Woodbury are right in there. Which is not to say UNeb books are not important, after all, they do Woodworth, but the top publishers of WBTS history can be relied on to publish only important works. There is no defense against bias. Every author has an opinion and opinions, like ....... nevermind.
Ole

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by william42

Or you can say they choose to ignore certain objectionable elements and focus on the positive. I would say they have the right to do that. In fact I think I did say that in my previous post.

Sure they have the right to do that. But such action is, as I said, more an issue of creating an image rather than following any true historical study.

Originally Posted by william42

Really? I'll define "homes" as both physical structures and a place where one's family lives, which would hold an additional emotional attachment.They were fighting for both their structural and emotional places of residence.

How many Confederates, would you estimate, actually fought to protect their literal property?

Originally Posted by william42

Shelby Foote said that a Yankee asked a captured Reb why he was fighting. The Reb replied, "Because you're down here." Many Rebs believed, and in some cases rightfully so, that their homes would be destroyed by the Yankees who came through.

The "because you're down here" comment is also one that carries a lot of assumptions not often considered. In short, there is a lot more to that statement, whether one realizes it or not. For instance, who or what is meant by the reference "you're"? It seems obvious, right? The Confederate soldiers meant the "Yankee" soldiers. Yet, think of the social and political meaning behind this division. In 1859, federal troops stationed in the South was not a problem. Southerners did not object to "them" being "down here" at that time. It was after secession, the outbreak of war and the choosing of political sides that the old bonds of the Union broke and a new perceptions of friends and enemies arose. The unnamed Confederate soldier who said "Because you're down here" was in fact making a social and political statement. He saw Union soldiers as a threat---why? Did these Union soldiers literally destroy his property or neighborhood before his capture? We do not know, but most likely not. Instead, the "here" he refers to is the South or, perhaps more specifically, his state.

Further, the argument of fighting "Because you're down here" was really only a legitimate claim AFTER Union armies had pushed well into the seceding states. The Deep South, did not see much real federal "intrusion" until well after the war had begun and it had fielded numerous regiments.

Originally Posted by william42

I'll stick with my statement that many believed they were fighting for their homes, with the preservation of slavery, if considered at all, secondary.

I did not say that they did not believe they were fighting for their homes. In fact, I completely agree. What I am saying, though, is that the "home" was an entity which inherently included the political and social interests and identities of their society.

Originally Posted by william42

Political? In reality, many of those men were scared they were going to lose everything they owned, including loved ones. I see defense of homeland as more of a motivator than politics. I think that's the way many of them looked at it.

You again overlook a great deal, and assume too much. Let me ask, how were they going to lose everything they owned? Who was the threat? Who were they defending their "homeland" from? These men believed that the federal armies were a threat. Why? Like I pointed out before, up until 1861, these federal armies were not seen as a threat. What changed? The political move of secession changed everything. The belief that the federal government, under the leadership of a Republican figure, was a threat is what changed.

The reason Confederate soldiers believed they were defending their homeland, was because they literally came to see the federal armies and the United States government as a dangerous and external force. That is a political shift in their minds. If they had not supported secession they would NOT see the federal government a threat. In fact, thousands of Southerners did not support secession and DID join the Union cause. Clearly they did not see the Union armies as a legitimate threat to their homes. Instead, they disagreed with the political move of secession and saw that as more dangerous.

The defense of something is based upon a perception of that entity being an outside, external and dangerous force. The United States government and its armies were NOT considered outside, external or dangerous by an overwhelming majority of Southerners in 1860. In 1861, this changed. Why? Because of secession. Secession, built upon increasing sectional tension, literally divided the nation into opposing parties. Southerners were left with choosing a side. Most went with the Confederacy, for they saw it as protecting their interests. They saw it as their home. This perception was very much a political (not simply in the sense of party, but in the sense of governmental or societal---meaning the identification with a body) issue.

Originally Posted by william42

I think we're saying the same thing. White supremacy "IS" part of Southern heritage, and also part of Northern heritage. For southerners to choose to avoid that part of it, and focus on the positive part, which might include a fondness for the land of their ancestors and their birth, is a pretty natural thing. Are you saying that's a bad thing?

It is not always a bad thing. I think the problem develops when this avoidance pushes the line of denial. For instance, I have no problem if a person celebrates the memory of a Confederate ancestor. Such family history is interesting and exciting. But if that person was to begin denying very important elements of the Confederacy, the South and the Civil War, then problems arise. That is why I responded to this thread on the Confederate battle flag. It is something that has often been defended by people trying to minimize its more negative history (or as I say sanitize it). That sanitization falls out of the simple, self celebration of "heritage" and steps into the larger field of history. They are then commenting on what the flag means in a larger context.

Originally Posted by william42

When I look at a US flag today I don't see My Lai or massacres of Native Americans. I can look at it and choose to think of the other good parts of American history. Though the "bad" parts are there, I choose not to focus on them.

Some people do see those parts a little more strongly. However, there is also a significant difference between the CBF and the US flag. The US flag is, for the lack of a better description, a "living" symbol. It represents an existing nation, and a growing, progressing population. Under the US flag, many wrongs of the country have been corrected or at least addressed. The US flag has the benefit of legitimately representing not only the problems in American history, but the progress and success.

The CBF, on the other hand, is a truly historical icon. Its brief career as a "living" symbol ended in 1865. It has, thus, remained somewhat locked into its specific historical context and setting. Now, some may disagree and say that it indeed still "lives" today. In what way? If it lives today, then it is not simply the Confederate battle flag. It must be something else. For one who might argue that it lives today, I again ask who are the legitimate "bearers" of the flag? Since the Confederacy no longer exists, who and what does the Confederate battle flag represent today? It cannot be the South, for it does not serve as a comprehensive symbol, accepted by all in the South. Nor can it be the descendants of Confederates, for they too are not a cohesive and identifiable group who accept the symbol as their icon.

The CBF is an historical symbol. The "heritage" it truly represents is the society, the people, the actions, the interests, and the ideologies of the South of the 1860s.

Originally Posted by william42

I think the thoughts and feelings of one whose ancestors fought for what they considered to be a worthy cause, including defense of their homes, when celebrating the "image", is a much more "legitimate or correct" celebration, than one who would wave it at a Klan rally to support the concept of white supremacy. The issue goes to the motives in the heart.

Doesn't the Klan feel their cause is worthy? My point is that simply because a "cause" is not as sanitized or objective as many people try to make it out. This is also true with "heritage." Both heritage and a cause are steeped in the specific ideologies, interests, and issues of their time. The popular slogan "Heritage not Hate" is really a shallow statement. What is "heritage"? Much of American heritage included, in fact institutionalized, hate! Heritage is not void or apart from issues like hate. It includes them.

Originally Posted by william42

I think it does contain an element of actual history because many of the southern people on the board are directly linked to that history by ancestral ties. For those who are not so linked, some are southern by birth and the Civil War is still an historical event. It is an exercise in imagery in that many Southerners choose to "picture" the CBF as a symbol of Southern honor, sacrifice, and thoughts of home. I have no problem with that at all.

I have no problem with this celebration as long as it is separated from historical study. Truthfully, this type of imagery and celebration is not legitimate history. It may rely upon legitimate history, and may incorporate accurate history. But it is entirely different than the serious study of the Civil War, the South and American history as a whole.

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by JerseyBart

I graduated college 4 years ago with a degree in history (also took predominantly military history courses) and learned an awful lot more from my professors than timelines, battles, generals and tactics. I learned that every author that we read, no matter if the book was tactical, historical etc, told his or her story of the battle or war with a bias.

That is the reality of historical study. While "bias" is a bit strong of a word, as it draws up the image of unjustified subjectivity, each historian is expected to make an argument and present a case based upon their own reading of the available evidence. It is impossible for anyone to write truly objective history. What good historians do, however, is try to write what they see as true and defend their arguments as well as they can. There will always be people to disagree. And, through that disagreement, it is hoped, a better understanding of history will arise for all.

Originally Posted by JerseyBart

One of our many job as students was to find out the bias/opinion in each of the dozen novels we were assigned to read per class and write weekly reports on what the bias was and why the author wrote his or her book with that bias.

You read novels?

The assignment you describe is fairly common, although generally students are asked to explain the author's thesis, and the strengths and weaknesses of the work, rather than "bias." If the author demonstrates a flagrant bias that interferes with the strength of the article or book, it should be noted.

Originally Posted by JerseyBart

For example, we read a book about D-Day written by John Keegan. The book barely touched on the Omaha Beach landing. Why? Keegan was British, got tired of hearing about D-Day through the American point of view and wanted to tell the story of D-Day from a European and Canadian point of view.

This is a good example of why no work of historical writing can be completely objective. One cannot include everything -- whether they want to or not.

But, here is a question. Was Keegan's book not good history? While Americans may object to a lack of discussion on Omaha Beach, does it mean that Keegan's work is not a valid historical study? I say this because there are numerous books on D-Day that barely touch on the British landings. I would not say that they are poor historical works.

Originally Posted by JerseyBart

Also as I advanced in my college experience, I realized that on midterm and finals day, if I spit back my professors notes verbatum, but in my words, in my blue book, I'd get at least a B+.

I'm a little confused at what you are trying to say. Generally a professor will give lectures on material they believe is most important for students to understand the topic. Why would you not use your notes and explain the material in your own words?

Your comment seems to touch on the complaint that some professors grade their students based upon the opinions they have. This does happen, but fortunately not too often among good schools. The best professors grade upon (and we are talking about essays here) a student's ability to answer a question with a reasoned thesis and defend it with evidence. This does not mean that every thesis is correct---I have seen some fellow students argue some wacky, and downright ridiculous (and wrong), theses. But if the student can take a solid position and defend it well, good teachers will give them credit for it.

Originally Posted by JerseyBart

I also learned that to become a college professor, my professors either had to have written historical books in their specified field, be in the process of writing books, or be willing to write books so that the _______ University Press or ________ College Press looked good.

Publication is an inherent part of the historical profession. It is expected (and rightfully so) from those in academia.

Originally Posted by JerseyBart

We were also cautioned that when purchasing historical books, ONLY to buy books from ________ University or College Presses. And VIOLA!!! I figured it out. My professors were just as biased as the authors we were reading. They taught us through their point of view, what they discovered or what they believed. So I learned that when reading authors or discovering quotes and facts to be careful or what I read versus what I should believe and to read many versions of a topic to get as full a picture as possible.

It seems you realized what most students who pursue advanced historical study come to know...that history and historical writing is not about memorizing dates and names, or simply telling stories. It is about taking information and making an argument. Historians may be very confident in their conclusions; but a good historian will know that their work will be disputed and, hopefully, one day improved or even corrected. This type of work is mindblowing to some people. My wife, for instance, is a medical doctor. She, being the math and science type, thrives in a world of absolutes---of black and white answers. While not all medicine is so simple, she like most doctors work with the understanding that there is a "right" answer.

While she was in medical school, she had to take an ethics class one semester. That was the ONLY class she took that I either found interesting or could understand. I found it fascinating, as I went over her required reading and assignments. But she and her fellow med students absolutely hated the class, because they could not find a "right" answer. The questions were designed, of course, to put these students and future doctors into situations where no right answer was easily apparent (or really even existed).

This type of work is what historians work with. Of course much of history is not debateable. Certain facts, events, material and evidence is as solid as any mathematical equation. However, advanced historical study is about interpretation. What does the information mean? Why did something happen? What did the event cause and why? These are just some of the question historians ask, and they are not questions that can be easily or definitively answered.

If history was absolute, like math, it would not be as vast of a field as it is. The first book on a subject would be the last. For what else could another historian add if the first guy got it all right?

This leads me to another question -- did you get into historiography much at all while in school?

Originally Posted by JerseyBart

And again, I'm not disrespecting you or saying that you don't do that. It's just something that I learned throughout my school experience.

What you learned was how historical study works. It can be somewhat disappointing at first, as it really changes the dynamic of one's view of history. However, when one comes ot better understand it, one can then appreciate historical study for its strengths and weaknesses.

Originally Posted by JerseyBart

Glad to have you aboard the board and I can't wait to discuss more topics with you,
Bart

Thank you. I too look forward to more discussions.

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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?

You can distinguish between the sons and daughters of the Confederacy and the descendents of Confederate soldiers? I'd be interested in knowing what you think the difference is.

We can speak of them in general terms. The Southern Cause, which is mostly misunderstood and which takes much ridiculing today, was, in general, what the South fought for.

I have no idea how many legitimate bearers there are, but I’d say if they don’t hold the flag to the standards their Confederate ancestor did, they are not legitimate bearers regardless of their ancestry.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Who can speak for "all of the South"? Do you propose to speak for all of the South?

The collective Southern voices speak for the South and those voices are louder than those of the Klan.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

What we are talking about is modern interpretation of a historic symbol and what it meant then and still means today to Southern people and the 37th‘s attempt to dispel the misinterpretation of that symbol by people that believe the Klan represents the CBF.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

Yes, the CBF did carry specific social and political meaning to its bearers and yes, it was linked to opposition to the U.S. in an attempt to gain independence. The part about slavery is simply a smoke screen that had nothing to do with why the North went to war to keep the South in the Union. But, I'm not sure I get your point since those are all well known facts.

As for the symbolism of the CBF being more direct than that of the US flag regarding Northern slavery and slave ships, you are right, but only because that part of history is generally swept under the rug...out of sight, out of mind, so to speak. Why is the South worse than the North for practicing slavery? Because there were more slaves in the South?

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

That is an old, tired and worn out argument. Blacks fared no better in the North than they did in the South. There were simply more blacks in the South, therefore, more opportunities for sensationalizing racial difficulties. Then there was the problem with Union occupiers pitting blacks against Southern whites in an effort to further demoralize and humiliate the South. The North had their share of race riots and discrimination. Not to mention that the Klan has chapters all over the U.S., including the Northern states and even Canada. I am not arguing that any racial discrimination was ok in the South because it existed in the North, too. My objective is to keep it in perspective.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

What, precisely, has the 37th exaggerated? The Confederate army consisted of Caucasian, Native American, Hispanic, Jewish, Black, Irish and more.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

I realize you don't want to discuss racism in the North. That is plain to all of us "self-styled defenders of the Confederacy", who, BTW, are not self-styled at all, but born with the legacy. However, all of your criticism of the Confederacy can't be put into perspective without comparing it to the rest of the country. So, it's not off topic to point out the political and social issues of the entire country if you are interested in the factual truths of the South and racism.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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."

Not all modern day Southerners are of Confederate ancestry. Of the ones that are, unfortunately, some have been indoctrinated to believe the Northern version of the "truth" about their ancestors. Others of us have taken the time to find out for ourselves just how much of it is true.

Do you think it's odd that Southern people understand other Southern people who share the same history? I respectfully suggest that it is you that is mistaken.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

You are quite mistaken on this point, also. The Confederate image and it’s heroes were never unacceptable, except perhaps to their enemies.

Most modern Confederate bashers don't even understand what the Confederate Cause was. They will tell you it was slavery or some other such foolishness. All too many of them will slander the Southern people and the Confederacy and then tell you, quite innocently, that they aren't "Confederate bashers".

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

Perspective. It all comes down to that. More than 75% of mid-nineteenth century Southerners didn't own slaves and I believe it‘s a gross exaggeration to say they “celebrated” slavery. It's also highly exaggerated that the South went to war primarily for slavery. Slavery wasn't even in danger. The slavery issue was a club weilded by the North to beat the South into submission. The South was losing political power in congress because of it and Southerners believed the Federal government no longer looked after the best interests of the Southern states. The South simply wanted to separate from that Union that was no longer working for her. It was about independence and state sovereignty. Having said that, I would point out that whether it was over slavery or not is moot. Why the South wanted independence isn’t the issue.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

No arguments and no apologies here in spite of the descriptive word “slaveholding“, that you use for effect .

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

Of course, I do. I see it as a flag that symbolizes the independence my ancestor died fighting for. It also symbolizes the honor and integrity of the Confederate soldier. If I had no Confederate ancestors, it would be “just a battle flag” unless I chose to use my imagination to make it into something different.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Further, if it was just a battleflag, is it something that should be celebrated?

Only by those that wish to celebrate it.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

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.

You asked a question and then answered it so I assume you aren’t expecting an answer from me. I will say, those that “push their own interpretations and perceptions on it” are those that despise it, because those that honor it know what it meant to the Confederate soldier and don‘t give a fig about what modern day critics choose to make of it. Those critics can say anything they want, but simply saying it doesn’t make it true.

The South fought for state's rights and the Jeffersonian type of government that they believed their ancestors framed for them. The South lost and
the war has been over for more nearly 150 years, but you won't convince those that honor their Confederate ancestors that it's just "an old flag from a long, lost rebellion" or that it represents slavery.

Regards,
Rose

[matthew mckeon]

Dear Scotsman,

If the American flag is a "living" symbol, then can it be degraded by the actions of Americans flying the flag, now? In your passage about problems being solved or at least addressed(in the US, now), is a very hopeful image.

But what if the US does stupid and cruel things, does the US flag represent those negative actions? And what do we mean by the "US" doing bad things? American citizens(as private citizens)? The federal government?

Does the flag reflects the spectrum of America, bad and good, or does it represent only the ideal?

Of course what are American ideals have changed over the decades, and can never be exactly the same for all Americans.

Another point: the American flag is a global symbol: but a symbol for what? That too changes over time.

Example: the British flag represents oppression to the Irish(let's say), yet when fugitive slaves crossed from American soil to Canada, in the 1850s, the British flag meant freedom. Ten years later, the US flag becomes "the flag that makes you free," while marching through Georgia.

Is the CBF a symbol that means different things to different people(of course, every symbol does), and can those meanings be reconciled?

Are we a bunch of benighted heathens for worshipping cloth?

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

You can distinguish between the sons and daughters of the Confederacy and the descendents of Confederate soldiers? I'd be interested in knowing what you think the difference is.

Who exactly do you refer to when you speak of the "sons and daughters of the Confederacy"? Are referring to organizations? Or are you simply talking about the general ancestors of Confederates?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

We can speak of them in general terms. The Southern Cause, which is mostly misunderstood and which takes much ridiculing today, was, in general, what the South fought for.

What "Southern Cause" are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I have no idea how many legitimate bearers there are, but I’d say if they don’t hold the flag to the standards their Confederate ancestor did, they are not legitimate bearers regardless of their ancestry.

So the "legitimate" bearers are only those people who believe a certain way? And exactly what "standards" did Confederates hold the flag? It was a symbol directly related an opposition to the federal government. Do you mean to say that only people who oppose the federal government are legitimate bearers?

I do not believe that is what you are trying to say, but your explanation above is much too vague.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The collective Southern voices speak for the South and those voices are louder than those of the Klan.

Again, I have to ask for clarification. What are the "collective Southern voices"? And, further, is the modern "collective" voice---if there is one---legitimate when it differs from the historic "collective" voice of the South.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

What we are talking about is modern interpretation of a historic symbol and what it meant then and still means today to Southern people and the 37th‘s attempt to dispel the misinterpretation of that symbol by people that believe the Klan represents the CBF.

So you know what it means for all "Southern people"? That is fairly presumptuous. I know many Southerners who take a different view of the flag than you.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Yes, the CBF did carry specific social and political meaning to its bearers and yes, it was linked to opposition to the U.S. in an attempt to gain independence. The part about slavery is simply a smoke screen that had nothing to do with why the North went to war to keep the South in the Union. But, I'm not sure I get your point since those are all well known facts.

Why are you bringing up why the North went to war, when the CBF is supposed to represent South at war?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

As for the symbolism of the CBF being more direct than that of the US flag regarding Northern slavery and slave ships, you are right, but only because that part of history is generally swept under the rug...out of sight, out of mind, so to speak. Why is the South worse than the North for practicing slavery? Because there were more slaves in the South?

I won't comment on why the South was "worse," because it is not my intention to place blame or to draw one side as "worse" than the other. But, this does not mean that we can ignore the reality of slavery of slavery in the South and how it differed from the rest of the country. The South's practice of slavery reached an extreme level, to the point that it became the basis for the Southern political, social and economic system. In fact, it was what made a conglomeration of southern states into the "South."

Some northern states had had slavery in their borders at one time. Yet, slavery there was voluntarily ended, even if gradually, without force. This was not true with the southern states, who went to war to protect their slaveholding society and interests.

Slavery in the north and the institution in the South were not comparable.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

That is an old, tired and worn out argument. Blacks fared no better in the North than they did in the South.

Other than the fact that in the South they were literally enslaved. The argument that blacks "fared no better" is, frankly, ridiculous. It fails due to its extremist position. One can easily, and accurately, say that blacks in the North did not enjoy a great deal of rights or privileges. But to say that they "fared no better" blacks in the South is laughable.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

There were simply more blacks in the South, therefore, more opportunities for sensationalizing racial difficulties.

And don't forget the fact that slavery was institutionalized in the South, and that around four million blacks were enslaved. We are not talking about the unfair sensationalizing of black oppression, but the very real nature of race relations in the South.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Then there was the problem with Union occupiers pitting blacks against Southern whites in an effort to further demoralize and humiliate the South. The North had their share of race riots and discrimination. Not to mention that the Klan has chapters all over the U.S., including the Northern states and even Canada. I am not arguing that any racial discrimination was ok in the South because it existed in the North, too. My objective is to keep it in perspective.

Your arguments are not even close to keeping things in perspective. Trying to minimize the differences between the non-slaveholding North and the slaveholding South is not keeping perspective. It is, in fact, trying to tip the scales in some sort of defense of the South.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

What, precisely, has the 37th exaggerated? The Confederate army consisted of Caucasian, Native American, Hispanic, Jewish, Black, Irish and more.

The 37th is among those groups that plays up the voluntary role of blacks in Confederate ranks. While some blacks certainly did see some form of service in the "ranks," claims that the number is as high as 65,000 -- with 13,000 going into battle for the CSA -- are dubious. Perhaps they are incorporating manual labor by slaves who had no voice in the matter. If so, they do not explain it as such.

The problem with the 37th is not that they wish to study or even bring out the different contributions by various people to the Confederate cause...it is the reason behind this effort. Like the CBF issue, this is a matter of trying to alter the perception of the Confederacy as a strongly white supremacist body.

Take this statement by the group (emphasis added): "A quota was set for 300,000 black soldiers for the Confederate States Colored Troops. 83% of Richmond's male slave population volunteered for duty. A special ball was held in Richmond to raise money for uniforms for these men. Before Richmond fell, black Confederates in gray uniforms drilled in the streets. Due to the war ending, it is believed only companies or squads of these troops ever saw any action. Many more black soldiers fought for the North, but that difference was simply a difference because the North instituted this progressive policy more sooner than the more conservative South. Black soldiers from both sides received discrimination from whites who opposed the concept."

This paragraph, apart from failing to mention that this measure was a desparation effort in the final weeks of the war (and being poorly worded), plays off the difference between Northern acceptance of legitimate and open black military service and the last ditch scrambling in the South as "simply" a matter of time. It completely ignores and undermines the vast institutional differences between the southern slaveholding states and the non-slaveholding states in the north. In short, it minimizes the reasons WHY the South was "more conservative" in this matter and infers that only a slight degree of conservatism separated the two sides.

While clearly many in the North harbored a prejudice that restricted black Union service, the social and political issues each side faced in the matter of black military service are not so easily comparable.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I realize you don't want to discuss racism in the North.

Why wouldn't I? Do I have anything to hide? Do you assume that I want to defend the North? Do you even know where I'm from, where I've been educated and where I live? Or are you simply making a poor assumption based upon your own sensitivies to the subject?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

That is plain to all of us "self-styled defenders of the Confederacy", who, BTW, are not self-styled at all, but born with the legacy. However, all of your criticism of the Confederacy can't be put into perspective without comparing it to the rest of the country. So, it's not off topic to point out the political and social issues of the entire country if you are interested in the factual truths of the South and racism.

If you would like to put the South into perspective with the rest of the country, that is fine. But dragging in points unrelated to the specific discussion at hand does not count as putting it into perspective.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Not all modern day Southerners are of Confederate ancestry. Of the ones that are, unfortunately, some have been indoctrinated to believe the Northern version of the "truth" about their ancestors. Others of us have taken the time to find out for ourselves just how much of it is true.

Ah yes, the crusade. Are you familiar with the Lost Cause, its history and what it is all about?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Do you think it's odd that Southern people understand other Southern people who share the same history? I respectfully suggest that it is you that is mistaken.

I don't think it is odd at all that people who wish to celebrate the same period in history gravitate towards each other.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

You are quite mistaken on this point, also. The Confederate image and it’s heroes were never unacceptable, except perhaps to their enemies.

Well, Lost Cause advocates have attempted to maintain an acceptable imagery as modern society changes. White supremacy was proudly proclaimed by "true Southerners" during the 19th century and early 20th. Now it is not acceptable. To still celebrate the 19th century South, modern day "bearers" strive to minimize those traditional ideologies.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Most modern Confederate bashers don't even understand what the Confederate Cause was. They will tell you it was slavery or some other such foolishness. All too many of them will slander the Southern people and the Confederacy and then tell you, quite innocently, that they aren't "Confederate bashers".

You are part of the crusade to save Confederate imagery. Of course you will perceive discussions of slavery and white supremacy as an attack, or "bashing" upon your beloved cause.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Perspective. It all comes down to that. More than 75% of mid-nineteenth century Southerners didn't own slaves and I believe it‘s a gross exaggeration to say they “celebrated” slavery.

Perhaps you should enlarge your reading list. Many excellent historians have described the role of slavery in Southern society, particularly among poor whites. Have you read the much from J. Thornton Mills, Eugene Genovese, Lacy Ford, Peter Kolchin, Edmund Morgan, or James Oakes?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

It's also highly exaggerated that the South went to war primarily for slavery. Slavery wasn't even in danger.

Somewhat of a shallow argument. More importantly, though, do you agree that Southerners believed that slavery was in danger?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The slavery issue was a club weilded by the North to beat the South into submission. The South was losing political power in congress because of it and Southerners believed the Federal government no longer looked after the best interests of the Southern states.

Quick question -- what was the "South"? What made it an identifiable entity within the federal government? And what did the loss of power for this "South" mean?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The South simply wanted to separate from that Union that was no longer working for her.

You mean, after a legal election. When the election didn't go the way they wanted, that meant the Union was no longer "working for her." A little arrogant, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

It was about independence and state sovereignty. Having said that, I would point out that whether it was over slavery or not is moot. Why the South wanted independence isn’t the issue.

Nice attempt at dodging the issue. You criticize me for not bringing up race relations across the country in a discussion about the South, but now try to play off WHY the South wanted independence as irrelevant to secession and their "cause." Amazing.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I see it as a flag that symbolizes the independence my ancestor died fighting for.

So you oppose the U.S.?

I don't think you do (although I could be wrong), but you say that you celebrate a symbol of "independence" your ancestors fought for that was in opposition to the United States and would have resulted in a vastly different political situation now.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

It also symbolizes the honor and integrity of the Confederate soldier. If I had no Confederate ancestors, it would be “just a battle flag” unless I chose to use my imagination to make it into something different.

Honor and integrity are subjective issues. They are also based completely on imagery.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The South fou