What does the Confederate Flag mean to you?

[12th Doctor]

Well, like all symbols, it means different things to different people.  To me, it is a reminder of my own families heritage.  My Great-Grandmother was from the South in my family, 16 people, in my family died for State's Rights and the cause of having a nation of their own.  When used purely in the context a rememberance, heritage and history, I have no problem with the flag.  

When it is used as a statement in modern politics, as it to often is, it takes on the meaning of rebellion, provincialism and, in many cased racism.  That, I am not okay with.

[12th Doctor]

It reminds me of the brave Confederate soldiers who fought like heroes, but were lead by a President like Davis with an overinflated sence of honor and a Confederate Congress that could only eat peanuts and cry, "Davis is a traitor!"

It is was a shame that a man of capabilty like Robert E. Lee had to go to those guys for assistance in that war.

Davis is the #1 reason why the South lost the war.

[12th Doctor]

It reminds me of the brave Confederate soldiers who fought like heroes, but were lead by a President like Davis with an overinflated sence of honor and a Confederate Congress that could only eat peanuts and cry, "Davis is a traitor!"

It is was a shame that a man of capabilty like Robert E. Lee had to go to those guys for assistance in that war.

Davis is the #1 reason why the South lost the war.

I used to respect him, but now, after enough reading, I can whole heartedly aggree on tnat. Then again, only one man (Robert E. Lee) could have been effective enough to work with all the different personalites (and degrees of pride) in the Southern nation.

Don't forget Joe Johnston was also a very capable individual.  Had Davis not removed him a put in Hood, the Confederates might have been able to hold out long enough to effect the 1864 election.  It was the fall of Atlanta, more than anything else, that convinced the northern public that the war could be won.  But, Davis didn't want Confederate men "retreating" as he called it, and so, he sacked Johnston, and his very well thought out gradual defense plan, and went with Hood... well, I am sure you know the rest.

[12th Doctor]

Don't forget Joe Johnston was also a very capable individual.  Had Davis not removed him a put in Hood, the Confederates might have been able to hold out long enough to effect the 1864 election.  It was the fall of Atlanta, more than anything else, that convinced the northern public that the war could be won.  But, Davis didn't want Confederate men "retreating" as he called it, and so, he sacked Johnston, and his very well thought out gradual defense plan, and went with Hood... well, I am sure you know the rest.

I still can't fathom why he put John bell Hood in that position. Was it simp,y because he felt Johnston was fortifying instead of attacking? I know Davis hated Johnston as much as he hated Bearegaurd, but why one armed Hood? I guess ego makes people do stupid things very easily.

Civil War talk is never as fun if States isn't in the conversation.

Hood was once known for being a very capable, very agressive commander.  Davis did not like the approuch that Johnston was taking out west.  He thought that Johnston should be attacking, not defending and then falling back.  Of course, Johnston was doing just the right thing.  The casulties he was inflicting on Sheman's forces were as staggering as those Lee was inflicting on Grant.  The primary difference was that Grant could always get more reenforcments and could always pull out if he absolutly had too.  Sherman was deep inside of enemy territory, he could not be reenforced or resupplied nearly as easily.

Johnston's plan was to stage a hard fighting-withdrawl to the hills around Atlanta, and once he had Sherman there, hold out and wait for Sherman to drain his man power and supplies at the front, while Confederate raiders were causing trouble behind his lines, then Johnston would strike with a well-coordinated, well-thought-out attack.

Once Hood got into the chair, he ruined the plan by launching a series of poorly timed attacks against Sherman, designed to turn his flank.  All Hood accomplished was the depletion of Confederate man power, which then, in turn allowed Sherman to do what Grant had done to Richmond; march south and threaten the rail lines.  Hood could not defend both a city and his supply routs at the the same time, as Johnston had been able to, so he evacuated the city.  Once he was out, he claimed that he was glad to be free of the millstone of Atlanta and that it had been his plan to do that all along.  The main difference between Atlanta and Richmond was that Richmond acctually was a millstone around Lee's neck, because it restricted his movement, and, other than the Tredger Iron Works, it was not crucial to the war effort.  Atlanta was vital to the Confederate war effort, as it was the Heart of Confederate supply and communications lines, the gateway to the Southeastern interior piedmont, the last defensive location in Georgia and a major a major indistrial center to boot.

Of course, Davis never really appreiciated the value of the war in the West, either.  He considered it secondary to Eastern effort.  In acctuality, the West was the primary front of the war, in that it is were most of the crucial events of the war took place.

The Union (esspecially Grant), by the end of 1863, understood that the goal in the East was merely to fight a holding action while the goal in the West was to fight a mobile war.  In essense, Grant used his left hand in the East, to pin down the Confederates right hand, while he pound the Hell out of them with his right hand in the West.

Had the Confederates understood the importance of the West, had they sent their best men to Tennessee, they would have won the war.  The ideal arangment acctually would have been having Lee and Jackson in the West to fight an agressive war into Kentucky and maybe even Ohio, while leaving Johnston and Beauregard in the East to fight a defensive campaign in Virginia.  Davis's first priority was always Richmond, however and the foolish dream of capturing Washington (which by the end of 1862 would have been nearly impossible for any existing army in the world to accomplish, let alone a Confederate army with only 60,000 men).

P.S.  Richmond was, at no point of the war, vital to the Confederate war effort to the point where losing it would have struck the Confederates a fatal blow.  The Confederate acctually commited suicide by giving it such a high priority as their "need" to defend it allowed Grant to immobalize their armies.

[12th Doctor]

Don't forget Joe Johnston was also a very capable individual.  Had Davis not removed him a put in Hood, the Confederates might have been able to hold out long enough to effect the 1864 election.  It was the fall of Atlanta, more than anything else, that convinced the northern public that the war could be won.  But, Davis didn't want Confederate men "retreating" as he called it, and so, he sacked Johnston, and his very well thought out gradual defense plan, and went with Hood... well, I am sure you know the rest.

I still can't fathom why he put John bell Hood in that position. Was it simp,y because he felt Johnston was fortifying instead of attacking? I know Davis hated Johnston as much as he hated Bearegaurd, but why one armed Hood? I guess ego makes people do stupid things very easily.

Civil War talk is never as fun if States isn't in the conversation.

Imagine if Stonewall Jackson wasn't shot and died shortly after contracting pneumonia during the battle of Chancellorsville. What effect would he have had durring the remainder of the war?

If they had kept him in the East?  Probably not much.  Remember, even if the Confederates had one the Gettysburg on the first day, it would not have been the finishing blow that the Confederates would have needed to force a peace on Lincoln.  Meade had already drafted comprehensive orders for a Union defense at Pipe Creek, MD.  Lee could not have continues to press his attack into PA, because it would have left his communication and supply lines open to Union attack.  He would have had to have followed the the Union Army south.  Had he attacked the Union possition at Pipe Creek, he probably would have lost at least as many men as he did at Gettysburg.

[12th Doctor]

Imagine if Stonewall Jackson wasn't shot and died shortly after contracting pneumonia during the battle of Chancellorsville. What effect would he have had durring the remainder of the war?

If I remember correctly Jackson didn't contract pneumonia until after he was shot but its really neither here or there.

If they had kept him in the East? Probably not much. Remember, even if the Confederates had one the Gettysburg on the first day, it would not have been the finishing blow that the Confederates would have needed to force a peace on Lincoln. Meade had already drafted comprehensive orders for a Union defense at Pipe Creek, MD. Lee could not have continues to press his attack into PA, because it would have left his communication and supply lines open to Union attack. He would have had to have followed the the Union Army south. Had he attacked the Union possition at Pipe Creek, he probably would have lost at least as many men as he did at Gettysburg.

If Jackson had lived Gettysburg would most likely not have ever happened as G-burg was hatched as a result of the death of Jackson. If Jackson hadn't been wounded at C-ville he most likely would have lead his Corps to a crushing defeat of Federal forces on the banks of the Rappahanock.

Tough call, but I doubt it.  Knowing the Union Army was in such bad shape probably would only have hastened Sedwick's response and, thus, the Union Army would have escaped in tact anyway.

[12th Doctor]

The discussion seems to have strayed off-topic...since the Confederacy and its flag always have been held together by slavery and segregation as their main rallying cry, it's hard for me to view the flag as anything different than that.

That is a horrible misrepresentation of the truth.  My family has proudly flown the Confederate flag since the end of Reconstruction and they were never slaveholders or segregationists.  My family was one of the first in the South (and I believe the first in North Carolina) to intermarry.  And, guess what, they still fly the flag.  My family was a part of the underground railroad.  And guess what, they still signed up to fight in the war.  My family paid for hired blacks to work on the their farm.  And guess what, they paid them the same wage they paid the whites.

[12th Doctor]

The discussion seems to have strayed off-topic...since the Confederacy and its flag always have been held together by slavery and segregation as their main rallying cry, it's hard for me to view the flag as anything different than that.

Wow, like the US flag right?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here...is it the old " the strongest KKK nest was in Indiana and a lot of Northerners were racist" stuff?

Acctually, now that you mention it, I would like to just reiterate that it is a fact that the KKK is, and has been for a number of decades, strongest in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and PA and even in some parts of New York, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

The clan is very strong where I come from, and, believe it or not, they protest the Republicans and Democrats, both.  They have no political affiliation, though, supposedly, they do support the occational Constitution Party candidates.  And they are only growing stronger, as more blacks move in from the cities.

Most Northerners are strongly anti-racist in principle but in parctice, they are worse than their Southern counterparts.  Just wait until black people start moving into the neighborhood and see how they react.

[12th Doctor]

The discussion seems to have strayed off-topic...since the Confederacy and its flag always have been held together by slavery and segregation as their main rallying cry, it's hard for me to view the flag as anything different than that.

That is a horrible misrepresentation of the truth.  My family has proudly flown the Confederate flag since the end of Reconstruction and they were never slaveholders or segregationists.  My family was one of the first in the South (and I believe the first in North Carolina) to intermarry.  And, guess what, they still fly the flag.  My family was a part of the underground railroad.  And guess what, they still signed up to fight in the war.  My family paid for hired blacks to work on the their farm.  And guess what, they paid them the same wage they paid the whites.

My view is simply this. The Confederate flag represented teh Confederacy. The Confederacy was founded to save slavery (and most inhabitants there voted for a pro-slavery candidate). Southern political leaders using the confederate flag and States Rights rethoric has clearly been mostly concerned with race issues. See Thurmond and Wallace. Now, I know that the actual Civil War is somewhat different and that state loyalties played a big part there (as it did with Lee, for isntance). My point is not that Soutehrners are racist, but that the confederacy was by and large founded on racism.

This is why foreigners have no business meddling in our affairs. They have no basis of fact in which to degrade our country.

I would not say that.  Often times, the only way you can tell if you are being an idiot is if someone else tells you.  In this instance, I disagree with Gus quite a bit and this is a rare instance where I think that lack of expirience might be the prime cause of his views.  However, 9 times out of 10, I would take Gus' view over that of a natural born citizen of the US.

[12th Doctor]

The discussion seems to have strayed off-topic...since the Confederacy and its flag always have been held together by slavery and segregation as their main rallying cry, it's hard for me to view the flag as anything different than that.

That is a horrible misrepresentation of the truth.  My family has proudly flown the Confederate flag since the end of Reconstruction and they were never slaveholders or segregationists.  My family was one of the first in the South (and I believe the first in North Carolina) to intermarry.  And, guess what, they still fly the flag.  My family was a part of the underground railroad.  And guess what, they still signed up to fight in the war.  My family paid for hired blacks to work on the their farm.  And guess what, they paid them the same wage they paid the whites.

My view is simply this. The Confederate flag represented teh Confederacy. The Confederacy was founded to save slavery (and most inhabitants there voted for a pro-slavery candidate). Southern political leaders using the confederate flag and States Rights rethoric has clearly been mostly concerned with race issues. See Thurmond and Wallace. Now, I know that the actual Civil War is somewhat different and that state loyalties played a big part there (as it did with Lee, for isntance). My point is not that Soutehrners are racist, but that the confederacy was by and large founded on racism.

That simply is not true.  For instance, in the Largest slave owning parts of Georgia and Kentucky, Bell, who was a compromise candidate, won by pretty hefty margins, or at least places a solid second.

Many Generals, on both sides are quoted as having stated some variation of what U.S. Grant himself said:

"If I thought this war were being fought over slavery, I would resign my commision right now and go home".

The war was fought over several issues: difference of economies, difference of life styles, difference of social views, difference of views on government, different philosophies on life.  Slavery was used as a scapegoat issue, on both sides, leading up to the war as a means of expressing each sides distaste for the other. 

The war was not fought over white superemacy.  It is a documented fact that, in rare instances, freed blacks in the South acctually owned slaves of their own.  This was accepted practice and no one ever said that blacks did not have a right to own indians, mallateos or even fellow blacks as slaves.

It is true that Southerns had a very paternalistic attitude towards blacks, but the South was a very paternalistic society as a whole, whether you are talking about blacks or whites and continues to be so to this day.