An attempt to desecrate Gettysburg

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

I still wonder how you interpret "honoring" and "dishonoring" the flag. What some people consider honorable, others may not. For instance, getting back to the Klan, that group sincerely believes that they are an honorable, just and proper organization and they believe the symbols they use are legitimate in that cause. You and I may, and do, disagree with them. Who can decide an objective scale of honor?

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

The Klan uses the CBF for their own agenda, not that of the Confederate soldiers, whom the flag truly belongs to. Subjective or not, how can anyone believe that writing a new meaning for the CBF honors it?

Originally Posted by Scotsman

I am not trying to be antagonistic on this point. I am honestly interested in what you believe the "Southern Cause" is. The term is fairly confusing. Do you mean the cause of secession? The cause for independence? The cause of protecting Southern society? Or is it something more modern and more ideological?

I refer to the original Southern Cause, the one that Southerners rallied to in 1861. At that time when a woman gave up her jewelry for the “Cause” or old men put their assets into Confederate bonds, it was done to support the Cause, what the South was fighting for, namely, independence and freedom from what they perceived as subjugation by the North. I’m not talking about what any modern opinion would interpret it to be.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

That helps clear up matters a bit. You see the Southern cause as something specifically related to the war and secession. Some may say that the Southern cause was more comprehensive than just the war -- that it was the goal to protect Southern "rights" and interests before, during and after the war. In this interpretation, the war was merely a major chapter, rather than the entire cause.

I’m having a little bit of difficulty following you. Independence meant self-government, which would, in turn, mean the protection of the sovereignty of the individual Southern states. Independence to manage their own government was the entire cause. I suspect you want to know “why” they wanted self-government and what they intended to do with their independence. Was it to continue slavery? Of course it was. The South wasn’t prepared to end slavery at that time. Is slavery the only reason? Not by a long shot. If that were the only reason they would have accepted the first thirteenth amendment that would have made slavery perpetual. Free trade or low tariff was another goal. To end the sectional hostility was a large reason. Smaller central government was another reason. There were many reasons why the South wanted independence, but I maintain it doesn’t matter why. The fact that she wanted freedom was reason enough to secede.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

We should not believe that Southerners were objective towards the Constitution. While Southerners certainly believed they were adhering to Constitutional principles, over half of the country disagreed. Were Southerners wrong? I don't necessarily believe so. But I do not believe they were completely right. The Constitution, like the Bible, can be interpreted in many different ways. And those interpretations are most often specifically related to interests of a given community.

Short of arguing the right of secession, I can only say that the Constitution did not forbid secession. There is a thread on this board that argues the Constitutional right to secession so I won‘t go into detail here.

Where the Constitution is specific on a subject I do not believe it is up for “interpretation“ or argument. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That says it all since secession wasn’t a right given up when the colonies became states. To go beyond this simple truth, the Constitution must be “interpreted” to say something that it doesn’t.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

His argument is that the interest of "states' rights" was never a consistent position taken by any person or group in the U.S. People, political parties, etc., interpreted the Constitution according to their direct interests. When the federal government protected or championed a local interest, states' rights were usually pushed aside -- take the Fugitive Slave Law, for instance. When the federal government was either apathetic or even hostile to a local interest (such as slavery), the ideology of "states' rights" was grasped.

It can be argued that the Fugitive Slave Act was in conflict with state’s rights, however, it was specifically outlined in the Constitution (unlike secession). The question for the states opposing the FSA became one of upholding the Constitution or putting state’s rights above it. Again, I refer to the tenth amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Clearly, Article 4, Sec. 2 of the U.S. Constitution forbade the states from harboring fugitive slaves. You cannot cite any such plain, straightforward words from the Constitution against secession.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

S***herners took on the idea ** "states' rights" and state sovereignty because their chief interest (slavery) was local. The federal government, which consisted ** many anti-slavery representatives and figures, could not always be trusted to have the same concern for "S***hern" interests. Thus, an emphasis on local authority could help S***herners protect those rights and privileges they enjoyed.

Southerners adhered to the idea of state sovereignty prior to slavery being an issue, even as far back as when they ascended to statehood. The central government was never to be their main government with it’s limited powers.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Well, even integrity is not a full answer. Really, honor is a matter of public image -- particularly in the South (or at least it was). Bertram Wyatt-Brown has written a number of books and articles on Southern conceptions of honor.

Amazing how old Bert was able to take an issue as subjective as honor and interpret a single definition of it to apply to Southern people. Sorry, I couldn’t resist that. Seriously, everyone wants to be viewed in honorable terms. No one wants the public image that they are corrupt or without integrity. I hate to disagree with Bertram Wyatt-Brown, but I suspect that applies even to Northerners.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

In the Old S***h, public standing was extremely important. An action's status in "honor" had less to do with a person's conscience and more to do with public perception.

Oh, so Southerners, according to Bert, were not honorable, but only concerned with the appearance of being honorable? I don’t think he could have insulted the South anymore if he was really trying, but then maybe he was.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Extra-marital relations in New England were more **ten deemed dishonorable internally--as the husband felt guilt because ** religious convictions, etc. In the S***h, many men engaged in extra-marital affairs---particularly with slaves---and it would be well known among their buddies. But they had to keep it in a certain context. As long as their actions did not pass certain social boundaries, these men felt no sense ** dishonor.

Pardon my saying so but that is c***. First of all, few men in the South had access to a number of slaves. If they owned only one or two, as was the most common, it would usually be men to help with the farm work. I doubt too much hanky-panky went on among the small farmers. Secondly, Southerners were deeply religious and an extra-marital affair would have produced a guilty conscience in a Southern man just as quickly as it would in a Northern man.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

This also explains the prevalance ** dueling, the very public show ** one's "honor," in the S***h and not in New England. Being that honor in the S***h was external, or based on what someone else thought ab*** you rather than what you thought ab*** yourself, dueling was a matter ** potentially sacrificing oneself for the public image. (As a sidenote, much ** the midwest during the nineteenth century also maintained some ** this external perception ** honor.)

An external perception of honor doesn’t necessarily exclude an internal perception of honor.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

There are some people who have adopted the Confederate cause (being direct descendants from the Confederacy or not) due to modern political concerns. I do believe that the Jeffersonian government is still an important part of our nation. It has obviously changed quite a bit, but local governments still control an extremely large portion of every-day life.

A Jeffersonian type of government is only a dream and has been since 1864. Those that cling to that kind of dream should wake up to real life. As for local government, I’m not going there. Local government has their hands tied in all too many issues and that is a can of worms that doesn’t belong in this thread.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

So you mean that what it "still means today" varies? If so, I agree with that.

That is your response to my comment:

Rose: “No, you are mistaken. I did not say there was a modern meaning ** the Confederate battleflag to S***hern people. Read my words, again. I said "what it meant and still means today".”

What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Scotsman

But, when looking at the words of Southerners at the time, we find overwhelming evidence that they believed their institution as a whole was in danger.

They understood that everything they believed in and worked for was in danger. They could easily envision themselves becoming mere serfs to the Northern people. They believed the North was trying to ruin them economically, to the advantage of the North. South Carolina claimed: On the 4th day of March next, this party [Republican] will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The threat from the North was certainly there. But the threat was much deeper than simply the loss of slavery. The total ruination of the Constitution was at stake as well as the economic ruin of the South. The Northern states were setting themselves up to be the moral judges of the country, imposing their morals on all Americans and insulting the South with their self-righteous airs. The South also feared four million slaves being freed in their towns with no job or means to support themselves. The North did not recognize the Southern states as equals and Southern people felt that if they stayed in the Union they would be living under the rule of the North and they couldn’t accept that. Losing slavery was probably not their greatest fear for the future.

I must apologize, again for not finishing this response. I was informed when I went to post this that my response was too long so I've shortened it. Thank you for being patient and I'll try to get back in the morning.

Regards,
Rose

[larry_cockerham]

Rose, if we ever secede again, I nominate you for president. Well written response. In my years of wandering around here in Tennessee, I suspect your version of our heritage is a reasonably common opinion. I just wish more of these 'modern' folks had a clue what they are messing with.

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

I do not question the dedication they had for the flag. Of course, I do not question the dedication many Nazis had for their flag, or Japanese soldiers had for their symbols during World War II. My point is that there are lots of flags, symbols and icons that have generated devotion and dedication even to the death. How does "honor" fit in? Is it dedication regardless of the cause, or the social and political meanings behind it?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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 celebration of the flag removes it from its specific context. It has little to do with the actual conflict, and more to do with it being a symbol some men carried in battle. What specifically places this flag to the Civil War?

The problem arises when comparing it to other controversial symbols. For instance, is it proper to celebrate the Nazi flag solely on the basis that thousands of German soldiers died under, for and with it? Can a symbol which incorporates a great deal of political and social meaning be celebrated according to a strong, but ambiguous, dedication to it?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The Klan uses the CBF for their own agenda, not that of the Confederate soldiers, whom the flag truly belongs to. Subjective or not, how can anyone believe that writing a new meaning for the CBF honors it?

There are no more Confederate soldiers living. Any person who tries to "use" it or project a meaning onto it apart from its place as a purely historical symbol may be doing the same thing as the Klan.

The problem again comes back to "honor." The very essence of honor is imagery, perception and romanticism. When one looks to an object, person or event with an eye towards "honoring" it, they are stepping out of the realm of history and moving into imagery. Honoring an historical matter is projecting modern ideas and perceptions onto it.

As such, how can one say that one way to "honor" the flag is more correct than another way? The Klan believes they are honorable. They have linked their interest in white supremacy to that of the South.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I refer to the original Southern Cause, the one that Southerners rallied to in 1861. At that time when a woman gave up her jewelry for the “Cause” or old men put their assets into Confederate bonds, it was done to support the Cause, what the South was fighting for, namely, independence and freedom from what they perceived as subjugation by the North. I’m not talking about what any modern opinion would interpret it to be.

Okay, so you see the Southern Cause as the literal fight for independence.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I’m having a little bit of difficulty following you. Independence meant self-government, which would, in turn, mean the protection of the sovereignty of the individual Southern states. Independence to manage their own government was the entire cause.

One side note...the southern states that seceded immediately formed another national government, which put similar restrictions on state sovereignty. Secession was not a true fight for state sovereignty; it was more of an effort to create a new nation of slaveholding states, which would better protect their combined interests.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I suspect you want to know “why” they wanted self-government and what they intended to do with their independence. Was it to continue slavery? Of course it was. The South wasn’t prepared to end slavery at that time. Is slavery the only reason? Not by a long shot. If that were the only reason they would have accepted the first thirteenth amendment that would have made slavery perpetual. Free trade or low tariff was another goal. To end the sectional hostility was a large reason. Smaller central government was another reason. There were many reasons why the South wanted independence, but I maintain it doesn’t matter why. The fact that she wanted freedom was reason enough to secede.

The reason for secession was absolutely vital. Take the wording of the Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

The founders of the United States argued that the creation of a new government was not a matter to be taken lightly, or to be attempted for petty causes. Why many Southerners chose secession is matter of significant importance.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Short of arguing the right of secession, I can only say that the Constitution did not forbid secession. There is a thread on this board that argues the Constitutional right to secession so I won‘t go into detail here.

I do not believe that secession was absolutely impossible or illegal. I too do not wish to get into a lengthy debate over the right of secession, but I do believe that unilateral secession--that by a state without vote or consideration by other members of the Union--was against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Where the Constitution is specific on a subject I do not believe it is up for “interpretation“ or argument. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That says it all since secession wasn’t a right given up when the colonies became states. To go beyond this simple truth, the Constitution must be “interpreted” to say something that it doesn’t.

If you are talking about specific parts of the Constitution, do not forget Section 10:

Section. 10.

Clause 1:



No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 2:

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Since secession was an interpreted right, in a very real way, you are defying your own argument above -- saying that the inferred or interpreted right of secession legally (and unquestionably) overcomes the specific limitations of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

It can be argued that the Fugitive Slave Act was in conflict with state’s rights, however, it was specifically outlined in the Constitution (unlike secession). The question for the states opposing the FSA became one of upholding the Constitution or putting state’s rights above it.

Good point. And which states pushed federal authority over the states in this issue? (Which is my point)

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Southerners adhered to the idea of state sovereignty prior to slavery being an issue, even as far back as when they ascended to statehood. The central government was never to be their main government with it’s limited powers.

It was not that simple. Interpretations of federal authority followed political party lines or ideologies, not straightfoward geographical boundaries. Whigs and Democrats in both sections of the country battled over federal power. The only time that political party lines were breached for sectional interests was when slavery became involved.

New England's talk about secession during the War of 1812 (an example of "northern" push for state sovereignty) was soundly criticized by many in the middle and southern states. South Carolina's attempt to nullify federal law was not only opposed by a Southern president (Andrew Jackson), but softly chastised by other Southern states. We cannot try to portray a picture of a political philosophies taking a clean, and consistent, sectional division.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Amazing how old Bert was able to take an issue as subjective as honor and interpret a single definition of it to apply to Southern people. Sorry, I couldn’t resist that. Seriously, everyone wants to be viewed in honorable terms. No one wants the public image that they are corrupt or without integrity. I hate to disagree with Bertram Wyatt-Brown, but I suspect that applies even to Northerners.

I was only paraphrasing his arguments. Have you had a chance to read his work?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Oh, so Southerners, according to Bert, were not honorable, but only concerned with the appearance of being honorable? I don’t think he could have insulted the South anymore if he was really trying, but then maybe he was.

Why are you looking at this matter as a case of insult? Are you taking a historical conclusion personally? Again, read Wyatt-Brown's work and his explanation and see if you agree.

As for the appearance of honor, is that not honor as well? Or, perhaps a more important question is, was that not honor for people of the Old South?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Pardon my saying so but that is c***. First of all, few men in the South had access to a number of slaves. If they owned only one or two, as was the most common, it would usually be men to help with the farm work. I doubt too much hanky-panky went on among the small farmers. Secondly, Southerners were deeply religious and an extra-marital affair would have produced a guilty conscience in a Southern man just as quickly as it would in a Northern man.

Do you have evidence of this? I would be interested to see your specific critique of Wyatt-Brown's work.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

An external perception of honor doesn’t necessarily exclude an internal perception of honor.

Good point. But an external perception of honor would inherently shape any internal perception.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

They understood that everything they believed in and worked for was in danger. They could easily envision themselves becoming mere serfs to the Northern people. They believed the North was trying to ruin them economically, to the advantage of the North.

I would not limit it to economics. They certainly believed that the northern states were a threat, but that threat was socially, politically and economically.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The threat from the North was certainly there. But the threat was much deeper than simply the loss of slavery. The total ruination of the Constitution was at stake as well as the economic ruin of the South.

What economic ruin are you speaking of?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The Northern states were setting themselves up to be the moral judges of the country, imposing their morals on all Americans and insulting the South with their self-righteous airs.

In what way was the North "self-righteous"? On what topic? If the South was the slaveholding states, and the North was the non-slaveholding states (and that was the only difference), over what topic would be the matter of "right" and "righteousness."

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The South also feared four million slaves being freed in their towns with no job or means to support themselves.

Very true.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The North did not recognize the Southern states as equals and Southern people felt that if they stayed in the Union they would be living under the rule of the North and they couldn’t accept that. Losing slavery was probably not their greatest fear for the future.

Again, the "rule of the North" meant the government being held by a majority of nonslaveholding states. What that exactly meant to the South came back to specific differences in slavery. While the actual loss of slavery was probably not their greatest immediate fear, the institution was specifically linked to all of their fears.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I must apologize, again for not finishing this response. I was informed when I went to post this that my response was too long so I've shortened it. Thank you for being patient and I'll try to get back in the morning.

No problem, respond when you can.

[william42]

I'm not answering for Rose, but I would like to address a couple of your points myself, Scotsman.

How does "honor" fit in? Is it dedication regardless of the cause, or the social and political meanings behind it?

Not being a southerner, but having spent quite a bit of time in the South, I'd have to guess here that it would be considered honorable for the Southern men to come to the defense of their homeland; their country, as they saw it. To place themselves in harm's way, and to die for their country. I view that as highly "honorable". The CBF was with them in battle, so I see where the flag would be associated with honor.

This celebration of the flag removes it from its specific context. It has little to do with the actual conflict, and more to do with it being a symbol some men carried in battle. What specifically places this flag to the Civil War?

Are you serious? The flag was in the actual conflict. The conflict we're talking about is the Civil War is it not? What places the flag to the Civil War? Personally I can't look at the CBF and not think of the Civil War.

Can a symbol which incorporates a great deal of political and social meaning be celebrated according to a strong, but ambiguous, dedication to it?

Ask Rose or Larry Cockerham if their view of the CBF is ambiguous. Sure, the flag means different things to different people: To Southerners proud of their past it means honor, sacrifice. If the viewer sees it as ambiguous ,then the viewer makes that choice. It's ambiguous to you, but not to me.

The problem again comes back to "honor." The very essence of honor is imagery, perception and romanticism

Here we are again with the "imagery".

"The very essence of honor is imagery, perception and romanticism."

Here's what I found in the dictionary under "honor".

6 entries found for honor.

hon·or
n.

1. High respect, as that shown for special merit; esteem: the honor shown to a Nobel laureate.
2. 1. Good name; reputation.
   2. A source or cause of credit: was an honor to the profession.
3. 1. Glory or recognition; distinction. <LI type=a>A mark, token, or gesture of respect or distinction: the place of honor at the table. A military decoration.
   2. A title conferred for achievement.
4. High rank.
5. The dignity accorded to position: awed by the honor of his office.
6. Great privilege: I have the honor to present the governor.
7. Honor Used with His, Her, or Your as a title and form of address for certain officials, such as judges and mayors: Her Honor the Mayor.
8. 1. Principled uprightness of character; personal integrity. A code of integrity, dignity, and pride, chiefly among men, that was maintained in some societies, as in feudal Europe, by force of arms.
   2. A woman's chastity or reputation for chastity.
9. honors Social courtesies offered to guests: did the honors at tea

Look at number 8. That sounds a lot like the code under which the armies of the Confederacy fought. The Confederate Battle Flag symbolizes that definition to me, because I think that's fairly close to what it means to Southerners. I doubt very seriously if the Klan, when waving the CBF, can claim the same definition, or if they can even decipher what it means. Their flag means white supremacy, and ignorance, stupidity, and intolerance. Sure, they're the same flag, but people are allowed to view the flag as they wish, (imagery?) are they not? What is so difficult about that concept?

Terry

[JerseyBart]

If I'm stealing someone elses response I apologize.

Maybe another reason that both sides, present and historic Confederate and Union, hold their battle flag in high esteem is not just because of "the cause" they each fought and died for, won and lost around, but also because of who died holding the flags. How many times do you come across in your civil war readings, regimental and battle/campaign histories etc., about the number of times a flagbearer died carrying the flag? Then the guy who picked the flag up falls, and the next brave flagbearer who dropped his rifle, his rifle, to carry the flag for his regiment falls and again? 9, 10, a dozen times? Then finally a lifelong friend and/or respected officer picks up the flag and dies with it rallying the troops or charging a position? I'd be pretty passionate about my battle flag if I saw a dozen of my allies die carrying it and/or picking it up. I'd be pretty passionate about my battle flag if my childhood friend or my trusted leader died carrying it or if that was one of my ancestors.

The flag may have your history behind it, whether it is agreed upon, respected, loved, hated or not. But it may also have your best friends blood on it or your great, great, great grandfather's blood on it too. Just a thought.

Bart

[william42]

That's true, Bart. Flag-bearers were often the first ones shot on the battlefield. To capture the other sides flag was considered a great honor. Much importance was placed on the flags in that war. If I were fighting in the Civil War I would have been fighting in an Indiana regiment, as a yankee, but I do not in the least begrudge the other side for honoring and proudly displaying their flag. To criticize their flag, just because some neanderthal thugs use it to try to advance their racist views, is unfair to those who view it as part of their proud Southern heritage. Boys on both sides died by the thousands fighting for what they saw as an honorable cause. The Civil War is a very major part of American history and symbols relevant to both sides should be respected.

Terry

[JerseyBart]

Amen to that Terry. It would be like criticizing the Union/Union flag because of those troops who enlisted, "just because they liked killing."

Bart

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by william42

Not being a southerner, but having spent quite a bit of time in the South, I'd have to guess here that it would be considered honorable for the Southern men to come to the defense of their homeland; their country, as they saw it. To place themselves in harm's way, and to die for their country. I view that as highly "honorable". The CBF was with them in battle, so I see where the flag would be associated with honor.

One thing your explanation above is work within the context of "honor" in warfare overall. It is quite common for soldiers to appreciate the sacrifice of their comrades, as well as that of their enemy. It is even more common for people to harbor perceptions of honor after the battle or the war is over, when the hatred and anger towards an enemy have cooled. Often these post-war perceptions of honor do not mesh with the feelings and perceptions which were persistent during the war.

Originally Posted by william42

Are you serious? The flag was in the actual conflict. The conflict we're talking about is the Civil War is it not? What places the flag to the Civil War? Personally I can't look at the CBF and not think of the Civil War.

You misunderstood my statement. I originally said:

"This celebration of the flag removes it from its specific context. It has little to do with the actual conflict, and more to do with it being a symbol some men carried in battle. What specifically places this flag to the Civil War?"

I am specifically talking about the celebration of the flag present in quotation provided by Rose, not the flag itself. The second sentence could also read: "The passage (or the celebration of the flag) has little to do with the actual conflict...."

Originally Posted by william42

Ask Rose or Larry Cockerham if their view of the CBF is ambiguous. Sure, the flag means different things to different people: To Southerners proud of their past it means honor, sacrifice. If the viewer sees it as ambiguous ,then the viewer makes that choice. It's ambiguous to you, but not to me.

It may not seem ambiguous to some because they include unspoken or unclarified meanings and assumptions to it. The discussion of honor here focuses on that specific ambiguous description given to the flag. Terms like "heritage," "honor," "integrity," and even "dedication" may appear clear-cut, but they are all dependent upon a whole foundation of assumptions and conclusions not entirely clear or accepted by all.

Originally Posted by william42

Look at number 8. That sounds a lot like the code under which the armies of the Confederacy fought. The Confederate Battle Flag symbolizes that definition to me, because I think that's fairly close to what it means to Southerners.

Number 8 reads: Principled uprightness of character; personal integrity. A code of integrity, dignity, and pride, chiefly among men, that was maintained in some societies, as in feudal Europe, by force of arms

This defintion is still very vague. What determined uprightness? How did people in the Old South demonstrate or perceive personal integrity? I believe the definition, especially that of the "code," touches on extremely important elements of honor here, but it does not answer exactly how honor works specifically with the CBF. For instance, were Southerners who sided with the Union and fought against the CBF showing principled uprightness and personal integrity? How does honor work here when you have people from the same community taking completely opposite sides and killing each other? Were both honorable? Perhaps they were, but how one perceives that depends upon a definition of honor.

Originally Posted by william42

I doubt very seriously if the Klan, when waving the CBF, can claim the same definition, or if they can even decipher what it means.

Why couldn't they? The Klan very much believes in their cause. 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?

Originally Posted by william42

Their flag means white supremacy, and ignorance, stupidity, and intolerance.

Not everyone--and certainly not the majority of men who carried the CBF in battle--equated white supremacy and intolerance towards other races with stupidity or ignorance. Perceiving white supremacist ideology as ignorant is a fairly modern concept in America. It is based upon an assumption now of equality among people regardless of race. The Old South -- the Confederacy -- not only rejected this ideology (as did most of the nation), but struggled to maintain an institution of slavery which firmly held race relations in a hierarchical system.

Originally Posted by william42

Sure, they're the same flag, but people are allowed to view the flag as they wish, (imagery?) are they not? What is so difficult about that concept?

Sure they are allowed to view it as they wish. No one here is saying that they cannot. But, at the same time, you are trying to separate the views of some flag carriers (non-racist, modern Southerners) from others (KKK), arguing that the former somehow represent an "honorable" claim to the flag while the latter does not. Thus, you are not equating each example of modern imagery. My question is by what standard is can one be judged more legitimate or honorable than the other? So far, it appears to be judged by most according to their own personal perceptions of what is acceptable and "good." That is not a legitimate, objective standard.

[william42]

It is even more common for people to harbor perceptions of honor after the battle or the war is over, when the hatred and anger towards an enemy have cooled.

Exactly.

"The passage (or the celebration of the flag) has little to do with the actual conflict...."

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.

The discussion of honor here focuses on that specific ambiguous description given to the flag.

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

Terms like "heritage," "honor," "integrity," and even "dedication" may appear clear-cut, but they are all dependent upon a whole foundation of assumptions and conclusions not entirely clear or accepted by all.

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. Only you know why you continue to do so. Do you know what "sophistry" is?

For instance, were Southerners who sided with the Union and fought against the CBF showing principled uprightness and personal integrity?

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.

Were both honorable? Perhaps they were, but how one perceives that depends upon a definition of honor.

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

They see their cause as just and honorable. Simply because you disagree with them, does that mean they are wrong?

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

If so, then you are in fact trying to establish a very direct meaning of honor which goes beyond perception.

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

The Old South -- the Confederacy -- not only rejected this ideology (as did most of the nation), but struggled to maintain an institution of slavery which firmly held race relations in a hierarchical system.

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.

But, at the same time, you are trying to separate the views of some flag carriers (non-racist, modern Southerners) from others (KKK), arguing that the former somehow represent an "honorable" claim to the flag while the latter does not.

I'm not trying, I am. That's correct. Old territory again.

My question is by what standard is can one be judged more legitimate or honorable than the other?

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.

Terry

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by JerseyBart

If I'm stealing someone elses response I apologize.

Maybe another reason that both sides, present and historic Confederate and Union, hold their battle flag in high esteem is not just because of "the cause" they each fought and died for, won and lost around, but also because of who died holding the flags. How many times do you come across in your civil war readings, regimental and battle/campaign histories etc., about the number of times a flagbearer died carrying the flag? Then the guy who picked the flag up falls, and the next brave flagbearer who dropped his rifle, his rifle, to carry the flag for his regiment falls and again? 9, 10, a dozen times? Then finally a lifelong friend and/or respected officer picks up the flag and dies with it rallying the troops or charging a position? I'd be pretty passionate about my battle flag if I saw a dozen of my allies die carrying it and/or picking it up. I'd be pretty passionate about my battle flag if my childhood friend or my trusted leader died carrying it or if that was one of my ancestors.

The flag may have your history behind it, whether it is agreed upon, respected, loved, hated or not. But it may also have your best friends blood on it or your great, great, great grandfather's blood on it too. Just a thought.

Bart

That was very well put, Bart. The flag represents the soldiers that died for it and that is why it is honorable and IMHO, no one has a right to redefine that meaning.

Rose