We didn't hang that flag, say fraternity/Greenville, NC

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

It also kills me when I see the Confederate flag on a bumper sticker that says "These colors don't run". Hello...the Confederate flag is...red, white & blue.

I've seen the same bumber sticker with the American flag. It's a play on words: colors can "run" when they get wet, of course, but "colors" is also a military term for a national or military flag, as in "advance the colors" or "color guard."

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

I've seen the same bumber sticker with the American flag. It's a play on words: colors can "run" when they get wet, of course, but "colors" is also a military term for a national or military flag, as in "advance the colors" or "color guard."

I know, I get it, but I still think it's dumb. Or even worse was the one I saw with the Confederate flag and the POW/MIA symbol that said "We never would have left you".

[brobuzzz]

Before you start yelling about how the CSA was fighting for slavery, you should probably read this: (http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html).

An excerpt:

That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free...

...and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

You will notice that the states of Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, Tennesee, and the "slave-eligible" territories of New Mexico, Utah, Nebraska, and Kansas were not mentioned, and the emancipation proclimation did not apply to them.

You must now ask yourself, 1) Why would lincoln not "free" the slaves in those states? and 2) If Lincoln was willing to allow slavery in order to maintain the Union, and the CSA was rebelling to maintain slavery, why would the rebelling nation not simply return right then and there under the stipulation that slavery was allowed?

Lincoln knew that once Britain entered the war, the US Naval blockades of the South would be useless, allowing the Confederacy to easily resuply themselves. He also knew that the British people would never fight for slavery, as they did not beleive in it. He also knew that after his "proclimation" the federal army would be seen as fighting to free the slaves, and the Confederacy would therefor be seen as fighting to maintain slavery (this did happen, and there were mass race riots in New York City because of it, during which hundreds of black men were hung from street lamps. Of course, in the North, people of all colors were "treated equally").
Couple all this with the fact that most textbooks are published in New York, and you get this widespread misconception that not only was the Confederacy founded on the idea of slavery, but also that the confederate battle flag is a symbol for the oppression of anyone.

In reality, the Confederacy was founded to fight the tyrannical oppression of the Northern states on the Southern, less developed states.

[PKPILZ003]

Shiner,
you and I are getting along in this thread so i'll only say this

you're right about how both the CSA and the USA started on an "inequality" concept - the difference is one of the reasons that the CSA was formed was to keep that inequality alive and make it law of the land - that's all

[shinerbock]

Still untrue. The controversy over slavery was merely the most visable strand of a much larger dispute.

[PKPILZ003]

Originally Posted by brobuzzz

You will notice that the states of Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, Tennesee, and the "slave-eligible" territories of New Mexico, Utah, Nebraska, and Kansas were not mentioned, and the emancipation proclimation did not apply to them.

You must now ask yourself, 1) Why would lincoln not "free" the slaves in those states? and 2) If Lincoln was willing to allow slavery in order to maintain the Union, and the CSA was rebelling to maintain slavery, why would the rebelling nation not simply return right then and there under the stipulation that slavery was allowed?

lincoln didn't free the slaves - i know that - the 13th amendment to the Constitution freed the slaves. He did what any good politician would do - he turned the tide of popular opinion in his favor and made the CSA seem to be the slavemongers.

Originally Posted by brobuzzz

Lincoln knew that once Britain entered the war, the US Naval blockades of the South would be useless, allowing the Confederacy to easily resuply themselves. He also knew that the British people would never fight for slavery, as they did not beleive in it. He also knew that after his "proclimation" the federal army would be seen as fighting to free the slaves, and the Confederacy would therefor be seen as fighting to maintain slavery (this did happen, and there were mass race riots in New York City because of it, during which hundreds of black men were hung from street lamps. Of course, in the North, people of all colors were "treated equally")

No one ever said that the North was all about equality - heck, some would argue that the biggest racists in the US are not in the South, where you know where you stand almost instantly, but in the North where they smile in your face and call you names behind your back.

Couple all this with the fact that most textbooks are published in New York, and you get this widespread misconception that not only was the Confederacy founded on the idea of slavery, but also that the confederate battle flag is a symbol for the oppression of anyone.

In reality, the Confederacy was founded to fight the tyrannical oppression of the Northern states on the Southern, less developed states.[/QUOTE]

Lastly, as to your webpage - heck, just as you can find sites that will bolster your arguement - and good for you that you did, so can I.

Let's get off of this and get back to the task at hand - the flying of the Conferedate Battle Flag drives people crazy - I don't care how you slice it, people do it to cause a reaction in others, nothing more. If people were really about Southern heritage and the history of the CSA, then they, like Shinerbock and others, would fly Bonnie Blue.

[PKPILZ003]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Still untrue. The controversy over slavery was merely the most visable strand of a much larger dispute.

you just agreed with me - i didn't say the Only reason, i said one of the reasons - I agree that it was far too complex to only be about slavery

[KillarneyRose]

So, technically it's not against the law to burn the Stars and Stripes, but people get their britches in a twist when someone displays the Confederate battle?

It's either "just a flag" or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

But, at least under the American flag certain ethnic groups were able to acquire equality as stated in the Bill of Rights / Amendments.

This is debatable.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KillarneyRose

So, technically it's not against the law to burn the Stars and Stripes, but people get their britches in a twist when someone displays the Confederate battle?

It's either "just a flag" or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.

Well, people definitely get their britches in a twist when someone burns the Stars and Stripes, too.

But that same pesky First Amendment that protects the flag burner protects the CSA Battle Flag displayer. Both are protected, both will get britches in a twist.

[brobuzzz]

Lastly, as to your webpage - heck, just as you can find sites that will bolster your arguement - and good for you that you did, so can I.

My website was the National Park Service (with a .gov) site with the exact text of the Emacipation Proclimation. This isn't some crazy klan member site.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

This is debatable.

Like I said, I agree with you. But given the ideology of what the CSA was all about. And, yes. Lincoln did not free the slaves because he loved them. I just think that given the circumstances at the time, slaves and other ethnicites stood a better chance of equality in the US over what would have become the CSA. Like you said, it is debatable because we will never really know.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by KLPDaisy

In all fairness, this is their house, and unless it violates some kind of fraternity or neighborhood rules, I don't see why they can't hang a confederate flag if they want. I would not be too happy to see someone hang a Nazi flag from their balcony or window, but it would be their property so they would be entitled to decorate it however they want or hang whatever they want on it.

I don't think anyone is saying that they can't hang the flag if they want. I think what some people, well at least I am, are trying to say is that they have every right to hang the flag. But given the reaction the Confederate flag elicits, just be prepare for a negative reaction by some people.

[PKPILZ003]

Originally Posted by brobuzzz

My website was the National Park Service (with a .gov) site with the exact text of the Emacipation Proclimation. This isn't some crazy klan member site.

No one suggested that it was a crazy Klan site - I was just mentioning that anyone can find supporting documents for their cause - not that they are wrong, just that there are always 2 sides to the story.

for example there is this site
http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/content....roduction.html

which is a book by a guy who goes to state historic and national historic sites and fights the myths and the history there - not saying that he's right - just saying that just because the NPS says it doesn't mean it's holy writ.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by KillarneyRose

So, technically it's not against the law to burn the Stars and Stripes, but people get their britches in a twist when someone displays the Confederate battle?

It's either "just a flag" or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.

It can be both ways. It just depends on who you are talking to. For some, it is 'just a flag', for others, it is a flag that has been used as a representation of an ideology that is considered offensive.