Southern pride gone wrong!

[princessmom29]

If you want to understand why there is so much pride in the South, you need to study what they went through before and AFTER the Civil War, not just during the war. The Confederate Flag represents a lot more than most people are interested in discussing. Everyone gets hung up on slavery. A lot more happened between the years 1830 and 1920, and it is all relevant.

ITA. If you want to talk about raping, ripping families apart, oppression, and hardship you cannot do that without talking about what happened to southern families during the latter part of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Sherman's march to the sea started a pattern of stripping the South bare and crippling the spirit of the people that continued well into Reconstruction. THIS is why southern pride is so important. It was brutally ripped from people for so many years.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I don't think anyone should be ashamed of the flag. I would personally, however, be ashamed if my ancestors fought a war that, while much more complex than one issue, was at least partially fought to continue to keep slavery legal.

You are guilty of judging the past without the perspective of those living in that time. It is YOUR failure that you do so, not theirs. You are guilty of picking and choosing from the data points of the time. Life isn't that simple.

Almost no one in the South was fighting to maintain slavery. A very tiny percentage who fought and died for the South ever owned slaves, or were interested in owning slaves. But keep feeling that shame.

ETA - The South did not start the War. They fought in self defense. Still ashamed, or would you rather your ancestors have rolled over like the French in WWII?

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

I really just don't get the whole lambasting the white people who owned slaves, but hey, the black people that sold them to the white people, let's be proud of our heritage. It's been the same amount of time people. Let it go or hold EVERYONE accountable.

I see no shame lost because you sold the slaves rather than bought them. Both are reprehensible.

 

[FireDancer]

A misconception. They fought to have a term to phase out slavery, not to keep it for eternity. Had they been allowed to do that, the South would probably have not gone into the deep decline it did. They might have been able to come to agreements with the slaves, who knows. But they did not fight the war to Keep Slavery Forever. They fought to have time to switch their methods and find other ways to do things. Whether or not that was the best idea, don't know. At least get the reason right though. The North didn't like that idea and felt it should cram it's own way down the South's throat.

Such is the way of war.

Yes, I conceded earlier that at some point slavery would have ended even if the south won. That doesn't make it any better though. Going to war to extend slavery for a set period of time is no better than going to war to extend it indefinitely.

Slavery had already gone on way too long, it shouldn't have been extended even one more day let alone week, month, or year.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...Going to war to extend slavery for a set period of time is no better than going to war to extend it indefinitely...

I'll say it again - the South did not go to war. They defended themselves after the Union declared war. The South was only guilty of defending themselves. The war can only be laid at the feet of Lincoln and the Union. Historians do not argue this fact. Not sure why you keep saying it.

The South did not "go to war".

 

[FireDancer]

I'll say it again - the South did not go to war. They defended themselves after the Union declared war. The South was only guilty of defending themselves. The war can only be laid at the feet of Lincoln and the Union. Historians do not argue this fact. Not sure why you keep saying it.

The South did not "go to war".

The first act of The Civil War was secession. I also remember the first shots of the war being at Fort Sumter, not from it.

And before anyone pulls the "they were occupying the Confederate States of America by being there" bull, no they weren't. There were no Confederates States of America. There were rebel states of The United States of America that wanted to leave and they weren't going to be allowed. South Carolina wasn't any more occupied by federal troops at Fort Sumter than Ohio is occupied now by federal troops at WPAFB.

 

[badblackpug]

The majority of people think a lot of things. I could write a list. A whole lot of bigotry on that list. Should we let the majority define us? Are we back there again?

You can argue semantics all you want. The truth of the matter is that this flag offends many people. Fly it if you want, paint it across the front of your house, fly it next to a swastika, but why anyone would want to purposely offend the majority of their community is beyond me.


.... no actually, it's not....

 

[princessmom29]

The first act of The Civil War was secession. I also remember the first shots of the war being at Fort Sumter, not from it.

And before anyone pulls the "they were occupying the Confederate States of America by being there" bull, no they weren't. There were no Confederates States of America. There were rebel states of The United States of America that wanted to leave and they weren't going to be allowed. South Carolina wasn't any more occupied by federal troops at Fort Sumter than Ohio is occupied now by federal troops at WPAFB.

The North believed it to be and act of war, but the Southern states believed they were given the right to succeed peacefully in the constitution. They didn't want to fight anyone, the fight was brought to thier dorr at fort Sumpter. They were forced to defend themselves and did. So yes, they were at that point a foreign occupied state.

 

[princessmom29]

You can argue semantics all you want. The truth of the matter is that this flag offends many people. Fly it if you want, paint it across the front of your house, fly it next to a swastika, but why anyone would want to purposely offend the majority of their community is beyond me.


.... no actually, it's not....

Why does it have to continue to be offensive? Those who have made it so are the ones in the wrong, not those of use who use it for the correct purpose. I think I would rather educate than perpetuate hate and intolerance by simply writing it off as offensive.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

The first act of The Civil War was secession...

Not sure that I can even respond to such a comment. You need to go back to 1830 and look a little deeper. The first shots were fired in Kansas, not at Fort Sumpter. Your knowledge of this subject matter is severly lacking.

 

[punkin]

I have a friend who lives near Monument Ave. in Richmond. He calls it "traitor's row." I tend to agree with him.

 

[princessmom29]

I have a friend who lives near Monument Ave. in Richmond. He calls it "traitor's row." I tend to agree with him.

to each their own I guess, but that is offensive to me.

 

[badblackpug]

Why does it have to continue to be offensive? Those who have made it so are the ones in the wrong, not those of use who use it for the correct purpose. I think I would rather educate than perpetuate hate and intolerance by simply writing it off as offensive.

It is offensive, no matter how you defend the original meaning, or what you take it to believe, it offends people. Yes, the people that made it that way may be in the wrong, but, unfortunately, that boat has sailed, there is no going home again. Sadly to say, whatever you think it to mean to you, to most people it means something much more frightening and sinister.

Would you fly a swastika flag?

 

[punkin]

to each their own I guess, but that is offensive to me.

Oh, the irony.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I have a friend who lives near Monument Ave. in Richmond. He calls it "traitor's row." I tend to agree with him.

I wonder, do you consider our founding fathers to be traitors? I only ask because each and every one of them would have fought for the rights of the Southern states to secede from the Union.

How did we lose our way so quickly - from our great leaders in the late 1700s to our horrible leaders in the mid 1800s? In less than 100 years we abandoned the principles that founded our nation.

 

[luvsJack]

ITA. If you want to talk about raping, ripping families apart, oppression, and hardship you cannot do that without talking about what happened to southern families during the latter part of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Sherman's march to the sea started a pattern of stripping the South bare and crippling the spirit of the people that continued well into Reconstruction. THIS is why southern pride is so important. It was brutally ripped from people for so many years.

 

[princessmom29]

Oh, the irony.

exactly the point I was trying to make. My being offended doesn't make anyone feel less justified in thier opinion or make them feel they should stop saying it. Why should people being offended by the Flag make me change my mind about it??

 

[punkin]

I wonder, do you consider our founding fathers to be traitors? I only ask because each and every one of them would have fought for the rights of the Southern states to secede from the Union.

How did we lose our way so quickly - from our great leaders in the late 1700s to our horrible leaders in the mid 1800s? In less than 100 years we abandoned the principles that founded our nation.

Please, the American Revolution was about MONEY (specifically, taxes). It was a war fought for rich merchants in the North who did not want to pay tariffs and rich plantation owners in the South who did not want to have restricted markets for their products.

You can argue that the Civil War was fought for states' rights, personal freedoms, the right to secede, but at bottom, just like the Revolution it was fought over MONEY (in this case slaves). Had you guys won, we would call Jefferson Davis the "father" of your country. Since we won, he's a traitor.

 

[princessmom29]

It is offensive, no matter how you defend the original meaning, or what you take it to believe, it offends people. Yes, the people that made it that way may be in the wrong, but, unfortunately, that boat has sailed, there is no going home again. Sadly to say, whatever you think it to mean to you, to most people it means something much more frightening and sinister.

Would you fly a swastika flag?

So when something is offensive we should just write off ever educating anyone about it and purge it from our parlance??? At one point seeing women's ankles was offensive, so we should have never been allowed to show them?? Whay about openly gay relationships?? There are lots of people still offended by that as well.
No I owuldn't fly a swastika becuase it has no meaning, good or bad, for me personally. I wouldn't be offended if someone else did however.

 

[Planogirl]

I don't think anyone should be ashamed of the flag. I would personally, however, be ashamed if my ancestors fought a war that, while much more complex than one issue, was at least partially fought to continue to keep slavery legal and I would want to distance myself from that war as much as possible.

As much as saying the Civil War was completely about slavery is incorrect and an over-simplification saying it had nothing to do with continuing slavery, even in the short term, is also incorrect.

I have disagreed with the reasoning behind a few wars but a soldier's duty is to fight for his country/commanders. To many southerners, the South was in a sense their country.

They didn't all fight to keep slavery legal. Most were not slave owners and many didn't think that slavery was right. There are no absolutes so there really is no reason to be ashamed of that fight.