For all those looking for a new flag to honor those...

[kalm]

And BTW the United States Flag obviously does not honor those on the Confederate side that died in the civil war. The overwhelming majority of those guys weren't rich slave owners or anything like that. Yes, I'm sure they were racists but so were the overwhelming majority of the guys fighting on the other side. That was the way it was then. Even white people who wanted to abolish slavery, for the most part, still believed that Whites were superior to Blacks.

What the overwhelming majority of the guys fighting on the Confederate side were doing is fighting to defend their homeland from an invading army. And that invading army marched under the flag of the United States. So there's no way you honor their effort to defend their homes with the flag of the country that was attacking them.

I thought you were either "Fer 'Merica or again 'Merica"

Honestly John I don't really have an opinion on this - I'm just trolling like as ass...
its an easy troll bait thread - but this is for the states involved and their citizens to deal with

Other states opinions on this one are meaningless

Ummm...I believe it's spelled and prounounced "agin"

[ASUG8]

You were asking a simple question after days of other stuff on the issue so it probably piled up a little bit?

This flag, right now isn't part of the overall thing because it's about the people it affects and what they are deciding to do because a critical mass of jerk offs taking what their flag meant to them and using as some other statement.

This is about the people it affects trying to come to grips with what they want to do and outsiders telling them what they ought to be doing because of how they peel their political banana. That's what is ridiculous to me.

Other PC bullshit, I'm with ya all the way. This ain't that.

Yep. I've said it in other threads (and even earlier in this thread) but it bears repeating: This is another step down a very slippery slope where "things", whether those things are flags, statues, memorials, naming conventions, certain books, certain words, etc., etc., are changed/cleansed/eliminated to appease a vocal minority...precedent continues to be set, and it's not a good precedent.

Agreed. I'm not sure I've ever witnessed such an immediate kneejerk reaction to a single event by so many people and organizations. I don't own and never have possessed any battle flags so it really doesn't impact me directly except it concerns me about how quickly this is moving and where it will end.

I'd rather someone come out and say what they feel versus hiding behind carefully crafted words and political correctness, but that's just me.

[Skjellyfetti]

I think they should go with this one.

[JohnStOnge]

Agreed. I'm not sure I've ever witnessed such an immediate kneejerk reaction to a single event by so many people and organizations. I don't own and never have possessed any battle flags so it really doesn't impact me directly except it concerns me about how quickly this is moving and where it will end.

It's absolutely ridiculous. We've got a serious problem in this country with this kind of crap.

Today I saw on the news where TV Land canceled re-runs of "The Dukes of Hazard" because of the Confederate Battle Flag on top of their iconic car. It's just gotten to the point of being really, really absurd. All because we've got a group making up 13% of the population that can't get over itself.

This Country is over. It's just a matter of time and I don't think it's that much of it.

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't get it, JSO.

So, private companies should be able to do what they want. Not serving gays is a fundamental part of a free market economy.

But, removing confederate flags from their products is crossing the line. Private companies should not do that.

Since the Dukes of Hazard will no longer be on TV Land, this country is over. Also, I condemn kneejerk reactions.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't get it, JSO.

So, private companies should be able to do what they want. Not serving gays is a fundamental part of a free market economy.

But, removing confederate flags from their products is crossing the line. Private companies should not do that.

Since the Dukes of Hazard will no longer be on TV Land, this country is over. Also, I condemn kneejerk reactions.

I don't question the right of private companies to do what they want. But what is happening in this case is still ridiculous.

Do they have the right to do it? Yes. But is it a good thing? No.

And as I'm sure you know it's not just the specific thing about the Dukes of Hazard show. The Dukes of Hazard show thing is just an example of how ridiculous it's gotten.

[AZGrizFan]

George Orwell would be proud. The continued revisionist history that goes on in this country is truly frightening.

[Skjellyfetti]

The continued revisionist history that goes on in this country is truly frightening.

Yeah, seriously. It's about time we weeded out the Lost Cause revisionist history.

[AZGrizFan]

The continued revisionist history that goes on in this country is truly frightening.

Yeah, seriously. It's about time we weeded out the Lost Cause revisionist history.

It's called "history" for a reason, dipshit. You can't change it, erase it, or eliminate it just because you don't LIKE it. At least you shouldn't be able to...but that's what we do. Right down to changing the history books. Hell, two generations from now won't have any idea the magnitude of the Civil War.

[Chizzang]

Yeah, seriously. It's about time we weeded out the Lost Cause revisionist history.

It's called "history" for a reason, dipshit. You can't change it, erase it, or eliminate it just because you don't LIKE it. At least you shouldn't be able to...but that's what we do. Right down to changing the history books. Hell, two generations from now won't have any idea the magnitude of the Civil War.

[Skjellyfetti]

Sorry, but I disagree.

Holocaust deniers and Lost Cause histories may still be "history" but, that doesn't mean that we have to take it seriously as history.

Just because expandspanos has a perspective on a current event doesn't mean we have to take it seriously or give it any kind of thought.

Lost Cause revisionism tries to polish the turd of THE darkest period in our nation's history. I'd much rather just call it a turd. Not forget about it, not erase it, but always remember what a turd it was.

[AZGrizFan]

Sorry, but I disagree.

Holocaust deniers and Lost Cause histories may still be "history" but, that doesn't mean that we have to take it seriously as history.

Just because expandspanos has a perspective on a current event doesn't mean we have to take it seriously or give it any kind of thought.

Lost Cause revisionism tries to polish the turd of THE darkest period in our nation's history. I'd much rather just call it a turd. Not forget about it, not erase it, but always remember what a turd it was.

Except that's not what we're doing.

[Skjellyfetti]

How so? Removing the Naval Jack from a monument isn't erasing any sort of history. Certainly TV Land deciding to stop playing Dukes of Hazard reruns isn't erasing any history.

The only revisionism on this topic, to me, are the people that try to whitewash southern history..... by arguing that slavery wasn't really that bad, that the states didn't secede because of slavery, etc. Just google "Lost Cause myths" for more info. It's rampant.

[Ibanez]

The continued revisionist history that goes on in this country is truly frightening.

Yeah, seriously. It's about time we weeded out the Lost Cause revisionist history.

The only revisionist history are those that just don't know, mostly hicks and anyone that didn't study history in depth OR studied enough to pass high school.

History is the collection of our struggles and triumphs. We shouldn't whitewash it like the Nazi's did. We shouldn't dilute our History just because, 200 years ago, our nation allowed and prospered off of the enslavement of others. America uses people, that's our culture. We used the slaves, the Irish, really any immigrant class. We use and abuse. We shouldn't forget, ignore or destroy it.

[Ibanez]

How so? Removing the Naval Jack from a monument isn't erasing any sort of history. Certainly TV Land deciding to stop playing Dukes of Hazard reruns isn't erasing any history.

The only revisionism on this topic, to me, are the people that try to whitewash southern history..... by arguing that slavery wasn't really that bad, that the states didn't secede because of slavery, etc. Just google "Lost Cause myths" for more info. It's rampant.

There are of lot of things that are rampant online. Everyone has their idea of what the cause was. The fact is is that the war started over a States Right to have slavery. Slavery and State's Rights are the same thing. People that say it was State's Right and not slavery are those people that I've said time and time again are ignorant of the entire story.

You're a historian of sorts, so I'm sure I don't have to explain the concept to you. Also, I shouldn't have to explain to you that the people fighting the war, on both sides, weren't fighting for slaves. The Union boys were fighting b/c they were told to (or the Immigrants were tricked into enlisting.) The Southern troops, the actually fighting men, were fighting for their homeland b/c that was the rally call. They weren't fighting for slaves they never owned and never met. They were fighting because in 1861, loyalty was first to your State and then your Country. The Government was fighting for slavery, but those boys dying at Gettysburg didn't give a rats ass about slaves. Troof.

[Ibanez]

Sorry, but I disagree.

Holocaust deniers and Lost Cause histories may still be "history" but, that doesn't mean that we have to take it seriously as history.

Just because expandspanos has a perspective on a current event doesn't mean we have to take it seriously or give it any kind of thought.

Lost Cause revisionism tries to polish the turd of THE darkest period in our nation's history. I'd much rather just call it a turd. Not forget about it, not erase it, but always remember what a turd it was.

I honestly don't know any Lost Cause theories b/c i'm sure they are based on biased if not inaccurate facts.

[Ibanez]

Some of the main tenets of the Lost Cause movement were that:

1) Confederate generals such as Lee, Albert Sidney Johnston, and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson represented the virtues of Southern nobility and fought bravely and fairly. On the other hand, most Northern generals were characterized as possessing low moral standards, because they subjected the Southern civilian population to indignities like Sherman's March to the Sea and Philip Sheridan's burning of the Shenandoah Valley in the Valley Campaigns of 1864. Union General Ulysses S. Grant is often portrayed as an alcoholic.

2)Losses on the battlefield were inevitable due to Northern superiority in resources and manpower.

3)Battlefield losses were also the result of betrayal and incompetence on the part of certain subordinates of General Lee, such as General James Longstreet, who was reviled for doubting Lee at Gettysburg, and George Pickett, who led the disastrous Pickett's Charge that broke the South's back (the Lost Cause focused mainly on Lee and the eastern theater of operations, and often cited Gettysburg as the main turning point of the war).

3)Defense of states' rights, rather than preservation of chattel slavery, was the primary cause that led eleven Southern states to secede from the Union, thus precipitating the war.

4) Secession was a justifiable constitutional response to Northern cultural and economic aggression against the Southern way of life.

5)Slavery was a benign institution, and the slaves were loyal and faithful to their benevolent masters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Caus ... onfederacy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So I did a quick look into the history behind the Lost Cause ideology. It's interesting. It really helps you understand the civic religion mentality that is so prevalent in the south today. Let's take these one by one.

1) Classic misdirection. There were honorable, chivalrous men on both sides of the line. There were despicable, cruel men, also, on both sides of the line. This is just stupid, biased thinking.

2) This is just a fact. The South had the best generals. But we just didn't have the human,material or economic resources to defeat the Union. We were making gun powder from the nitrates out our urine! We was broke!!!!

3) That's just ridiculous. Longstreet KNEW we were outmatched. He was a smart man. They are just bitter.

4) Semantics. See my post above. Slavery was the State's Right issue which led to secession. If you're going to call it State's Right, have the courage to realize that there was a particular right that was the issue.

5) I don't know about justifiable. The government sure wasn't helping to ease the animosity. Buchanan should have done more. Congress is as much to blame as those in Charleston on December 20 1860.

6) That's just stupid. Sure, there were some slaves that probably lived well and liked their masters. (In fact, we know this to be true). But they were the exception and they WEREN'T on plantations picking cotton, tobacco or whatever crop was there.


What a deluded concept.

[CID1990]

Some of the main tenets of the Lost Cause movement were that:

1) Confederate generals such as Lee, Albert Sidney Johnston, and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson represented the virtues of Southern nobility and fought bravely and fairly. On the other hand, most Northern generals were characterized as possessing low moral standards, because they subjected the Southern civilian population to indignities like Sherman's March to the Sea and Philip Sheridan's burning of the Shenandoah Valley in the Valley Campaigns of 1864. Union General Ulysses S. Grant is often portrayed as an alcoholic.

2)Losses on the battlefield were inevitable due to Northern superiority in resources and manpower.

3)Battlefield losses were also the result of betrayal and incompetence on the part of certain subordinates of General Lee, such as General James Longstreet, who was reviled for doubting Lee at Gettysburg, and George Pickett, who led the disastrous Pickett's Charge that broke the South's back (the Lost Cause focused mainly on Lee and the eastern theater of operations, and often cited Gettysburg as the main turning point of the war).

3)Defense of states' rights, rather than preservation of chattel slavery, was the primary cause that led eleven Southern states to secede from the Union, thus precipitating the war.

4) Secession was a justifiable constitutional response to Northern cultural and economic aggression against the Southern way of life.

5)Slavery was a benign institution, and the slaves were loyal and faithful to their benevolent masters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Caus ... onfederacy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So I did a quick look into the history behind the Lost Cause ideology. It's interesting. It really helps you understand the civic religion mentality that is so prevalent in the south today. Let's take these one by one.

1) Classic misdirection. There were honorable, chivalrous men on both sides of the line. There were despicable, cruel men, also, on both sides of the line. This is just stupid, biased thinking.

2) This is just a fact. The South had the best generals. But we just didn't have the human,material or economic resources to defeat the Union. We were making gun powder from the nitrates out our urine! We was broke!!!!

3) That's just ridiculous. Longstreet KNEW we were outmatched. He was a smart man. They are just bitter.

4) Semantics. See my post above. Slavery was the State's Right issue which led to secession. If you're going to call it State's Right, have the courage to realize that there was a particular right that was the issue.

5) I don't know about justifiable. The government sure wasn't helping to ease the animosity. Buchanan should have done more. Congress is as much to blame as those in Charleston on December 20 1860.

6) That's just stupid. Sure, there were some slaves that probably lived well and liked their masters. (In fact, we know this to be true). But they were the exception and they WEREN'T on plantations picking cotton, tobacco or whatever crop was there.


What a deluded concept.

Many aspects of those "tenets" have long since been debunked by many sympathetic historians, including Bruce Catton and Shelby Foote.

I especially like the old one where Longstreet became vilified after the war- it had absolutely nothing to do with his actions at Gettysburg. He committed two cardinal sins - he criticized Lee and he became a Republican after the war. He was even the Republican appointed US Ambassador to Turkey at one point

Longstreet's detractors were all hardcore Confederates - Lee and Longstreet had nothing but affection for each other up to their deaths

[Wedgebuster]

I think they should go with this one.

[Skjellyfetti]

George Orwell would be proud. The continued revisionist history that goes on in this country is truly frightening.

And, just to reemphasize where the revisionist history has come from.

Here are excerpts from a 1970s Alabama history textbook used in public schools for 9th graders.

"Most of the slave trading ships were owned and operated by Northerners. While the Negro was badly treated as a rule in the foreign slave trade, he was generally very well treated by Alabama farmers."

The master supervised both the driver and the overseer. Occasionally, a master had a pair of binoculars and watched distant workers from the upper story of his plantation house. Thus the stage was set for some lazy field hand who went to sleep beside his job to get the surprise of his life from the master who had been watching him with the field glasses!

With all the drawbacks of slavery, it should be noted that slavery was the earliest form of social security in the United States. It was the legal responsibility of the master to take care of aged workers.
[...]
It is true that the average ages to which slaves lived were less than those of the whites. But the difference was not great, and a similar difference exists between the races today.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/unclaimed ... 123504813/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





Here's anotherone for 4th graders:

"No plantation had a model group of slaves, for planters had to buy whatever slaves they could get. Some slaves were good workers and very obedient. Many took pride in what they did, and loved their cabins and the plantation as much as if they actually owned them. Others were lazy, disobedient, and sometimes vicious."

On the Klan:

"The loyal white men of Alabama saw they could not depend on the laws or the state government to protect their families. They knew they had to do something to bring back law and order, to get the government back in the hands of honest men who knew how to run it.

"They (the Klan) held their courts in the dark forests at night; they passed sentence on the criminals and they carried out the sentence. Sometimes the sentence would be to leave the state.

"After a while the Klan struck fear in the hearts of the "carpetbaggers" and other lawless men who had taken control of the state.... The Negroes who had been fooled by the false promises of the "carpetbaggers" decided to get themselves jobs and settle down to make an honest living."

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... ildre.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AZGrizFan]

Yep, analjelly. That surely makes THIS cleansing 100% ok.

[JohnStOnge]

The broader issue was that some States were violating the compact represented by the Constitution. The narrower issue with respect to which the compact was being violated was slavery. States on the receiving end of the violation seceded and had every right to do so. South Carolina made a mistake in firing upon Fort Sumter, thereby giving the Union an excuse to invade at that point. But I think there is little doubt that the invasion would have taken place regardless. While slavery was the narrow issue serving as catalyst for the Southern States to secede, ending slavery was not the proximate reason for the Northern attack upon the South. The proximate reason for the Northern invasion was the Northern government's desire to force the Southern States back into the Union.

That is reflected in the famous Lincoln quote I'm sure you've all seen:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,

The North was wrong. I'm not saying I would go back and change anything if I could go back in a time machine and do it. I wouldn't. Had things not happened just as they did, I would not exist and I like existing. But the North was the aggressor in that war and was wrong. The United States violated its own founding principles in opting to use armed force to compel Southern States to remain in the Union.

[houndawg]

Yeah, seriously. It's about time we weeded out the Lost Cause revisionist history.

It's called "history" for a reason, dipshit. You can't change it, erase it, or eliminate it just because you don't LIKE it. At least you shouldn't be able to...but that's what we do. Right down to changing the history books. Hell, two generations from now won't have any idea the magnitude of the Civil War.

Otherwise known as the winner's side of the story.

[Chizzang]

The North was wrong. I'm not saying I would go back and change anything if I could go back in a time machine and do it. I wouldn't. Had things not happened just as they did, I would not exist and I like existing. But the North was the aggressor in that war and was wrong. The United States violated its own founding principles in opting to use armed force to compel Southern States to remain in the Union.

This just in Johnny,
We, as a country, are still behaving identically as described ^ above...



Try to think of The War of Northern Aggression as more of a practice run - for the future

[CID1990]

The North was wrong. I'm not saying I would go back and change anything if I could go back in a time machine and do it. I wouldn't. Had things not happened just as they did, I would not exist and I like existing. But the North was the aggressor in that war and was wrong. The United States violated its own founding principles in opting to use armed force to compel Southern States to remain in the Union.

This just in Johnny,
We, as a country, are still behaving identically as described ^ above...



Try to think of The War of Northern Aggression as more of a practice run - for the future

this is true

the war was about many things - slavery included (read Bruce Catton - he gives the best description of cause - that slavery was the one cause that in its absence the war doesnt happen)

but one thing that made the two sides so ready to fight - particularly Confederates - to give each other the bayonet - was the animosity. The same denigration of the backwards Southerners that was going on back then still occurs today