What does the Confederate Flag mean to you?

[Smash255]

Racism.  It is a flag for heritage, but a heritage that thought slavery & racism was fine

[Emsworth]

Racism.  It is a flag for heritage, but a heritage that thought slavery & racism was fine

To be objective, the U.S. flag would also stand for racism under that logic. After all, the American heritage involves racism, slavery, discrimination against immigrants, and so on; these were not exclusive to the South.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The people to fear are the people that run away from alchohol or refuse to go into a sex shop. you can talk to them but they live in world that resembels the 19th century.

You're so right.  Alcohol and sex didn't exist in the 19th century.  They are both recent inventions.

Christianity only developed into a religion as it allowed people who commited themselves to god to be educated.

Thats why people in the 6th century became monks they had nothing else to do so they just learnt to read. 14 centuries education is available to us all but we still have the brainwashing clinics that twists literature. That was why people were afraid of the reformation in the 16th century becaue anyone can read it and translate it to what they want. we can all get quotes that mean one thing and find another that means the direct opposite.

So, Christianity wasn't a religion until civil education largely disappeared with the collapse of ancient civilization in europe?!?

[Smash255]

Racism.  It is a flag for heritage, but a heritage that thought slavery & racism was fine

To be objective, the U.S. flag would also stand for racism under that logic. After all, the American heritage involves racism, slavery, discrimination against immigrants, and so on; these were not exclusive to the South.

Granted, but the south embraced slavery longer, formed the Confedercy in part due to fears Lincolin would make slavery illegal.  Formed the Jim Crow laws among other things.

[Emsworth]

Racism.  It is a flag for heritage, but a heritage that thought slavery & racism was fine

To be objective, the U.S. flag would also stand for racism under that logic. After all, the American heritage involves racism, slavery, discrimination against immigrants, and so on; these were not exclusive to the South.

Granted, but the south embraced slavery longer, formed the Confedercy in part due to fears Lincolin would make slavery illegal.  Formed the Jim Crow laws among other things.

I would beg to disagree. California had discriminatory laws against Chinese immigrants, and also the Japanese during WWII. There was plenty of de facto discrimination against those of African descent in the North. The U.S. as a whole caused the death or displacement of millions of Indian tribes. So, on the whole, I would say that prejudice is not something that is in any way exclusive to one particular region.

[dazzleman]

Racism.  It is a flag for heritage, but a heritage that thought slavery & racism was fine

To be objective, the U.S. flag would also stand for racism under that logic. After all, the American heritage involves racism, slavery, discrimination against immigrants, and so on; these were not exclusive to the South.

Granted, but the south embraced slavery longer, formed the Confedercy in part due to fears Lincolin would make slavery illegal.  Formed the Jim Crow laws among other things.

I would beg to disagree. California had discriminatory laws against Chinese immigrants, and also the Japanese during WWII. There was plenty of de facto discrimination against those of African descent in the North. The U.S. as a whole caused the death or displacement of millions of Indian tribes. So, on the whole, I would say that prejudice is not something that is in any way exclusive to one particular region.

Yes, you're right.  Northern elitists love to kid themselves into thinking that prejudice, discrimination, etc. has only existed in the south.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It's a psychological game these people are playing to make themselves feel better.  These things existed in the north and other sections of the country, and continue to this day.

[??????????]

Racism.  It is a flag for heritage, but a heritage that thought slavery & racism was fine

To be objective, the U.S. flag would also stand for racism under that logic. After all, the American heritage involves racism, slavery, discrimination against immigrants, and so on; these were not exclusive to the South.

Granted, but the south embraced slavery longer, formed the Confedercy in part due to fears Lincolin would make slavery illegal.  Formed the Jim Crow laws among other things.

I would beg to disagree. California had discriminatory laws against Chinese immigrants, and also the Japanese during WWII. There was plenty of de facto discrimination against those of African descent in the North. The U.S. as a whole caused the death or displacement of millions of Indian tribes. So, on the whole, I would say that prejudice is not something that is in any way exclusive to one particular region.

Yes, you're right.  Northern elitists love to kid themselves into thinking that prejudice, discrimination, etc. has only existed in the south.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It's a psychological game these people are playing to make themselves feel better.  These things existed in the north and other sections of the country, and continue to this day.

Yes, and it was often far worse in the north as it extended beyond one race. Jews & Irish were quite discriminated against as well in northern states and cities. The largest concentration of Jews in the US in 1860 was the South. And the term "Scotch-Irish" came about out of bigotry, you see wealthy northerners of Irish descent who were here before the potato famine considered the recent immigrants trash and didn't want to be associated with them. Therefore they started calling the poor Scotch-Irish to disassociate themselves from what they considered "trash".

http://jrshelby.com/si/

[© tweed]

Option 1, minus the proud.  It's an emblem of southern heritage, but I don't see it as a proud emblem.

What's really a joke, however, is laws against flying confederate flags.

[PBrunsel]

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.

[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.

[PBrunsel]

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.

[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.

[PBrunsel]

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.

[??????????]

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.

Actually I agree that Davis was a huge reason why the south lost but one must make considerations into other reasons why the south lost the war. North Carolina and Georgia were huge thorns in the side of the south through much of the war. For example lets take North Carolina. At the end of the war union troops made a rather shocking discovery in North Carolina. They found a warehouse which contained thousands of tons of food and many many hundreds of pairs of shirts, pants, underdrawers, etc. It has been figured that one of the main reasons why the south lost was due to a shoddy rail infrastructure more then military incapabilites. If these provisions had been known about by the confederate government and distributed late in the war I'm certain the south would have had the ability to continue on with the war for a few more months. Governor Vance however felt that those supplies were only for N.C. troops and refused to share them with the confederate govt as a result of personal dislike for Davis.

Georgia is pretty much the same situation although in this case what was found was vast caches of weapons from rifles, pikes & ammunition for artillery. Albeit, much of it was destroyed by Sherman and his troops upon their exit of Atlanta, much of those supplies had sat in warehouses since 62-63. Governor Brown of North Carolina also had a huge dislike of Davis and actually called him a tyrant. Gov. Brown was a Whig pre war and actually was a US Senator from 1880-1891. He felt that supplies from Georgia should only go to Georgia troops.

Another failure of Davis was that he took personal vendettas into the government. He hated Joe Johnston with a passion and he was perhaps one of the most capable men to command troops. He meddled to much with the military aspect of the war and I really feel he crippled the south. The only suggestion he made that I agree w/was near the end before the battle of Five Forks he suggested to Lee to break up his army into the mountains of Virginia. Lee said he would never do such a thing. Oh well.

[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.

[TX_1824]

The Confederate battle flag, called the "Southern Cross" or the cross of St. Andrew, has been described variously as a proud emblem of Southern heritage and as a shameful reminder of slavery and segregation.

In the past, several Southern states flew the Confederate battle flag along with the U.S. and state flags over their statehouses.

Others incorporated the controversial symbol into the design of their state flags. The Confederate battle flag has also been appropriated by the Ku Klux Klan and other racist hate groups. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, more than 500 extremist groups use the Southern Cross as one of their symbols.

The KKK also carried the American flag, so is the American flag a symbol of racist and extremist groups? Opebo and Killerpolo need not answer.

Also, as soon as Scotland and Great Briton end their use of the the St. Andrew's Cross, the better we will all be for political correctness.

[TX_1824]

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?

[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.

[opebo]

Racism.  It is a flag for heritage, but a heritage that thought slavery & racism was fine

To be objective, the U.S. flag would also stand for racism under that logic. After all, the American heritage involves racism, slavery, discrimination against immigrants, and so on; these were not exclusive to the South.

The U.S. flag does in fact stand for racism, as well as fascism, genocide, imperialism, and subjugation of the poor.  My skin crawls around that one as well, but less so as one sees it so much more often.

Of course to be fair I hate the idea of flags in general.

[Smash255]

Racism.  It is a flag for heritage, but a heritage that thought slavery & racism was fine

To be objective, the U.S. flag would also stand for racism under that logic. After all, the American heritage involves racism, slavery, discrimination against immigrants, and so on; these were not exclusive to the South.

Granted, but the south embraced slavery longer, formed the Confedercy in part due to fears Lincolin would make slavery illegal.  Formed the Jim Crow laws among other things.

I would beg to disagree. California had discriminatory laws against Chinese immigrants, and also the Japanese during WWII. There was plenty of de facto discrimination against those of African descent in the North. The U.S. as a whole caused the death or displacement of millions of Indian tribes. So, on the whole, I would say that prejudice is not something that is in any way exclusive to one particular region.

Yes, you're right.  Northern elitists love to kid themselves into thinking that prejudice, discrimination, etc. has only existed in the south.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It's a psychological game these people are playing to make themselves feel better.  These things existed in the north and other sections of the country, and continue to this day.

I'm not saying it was only in the south, but it was more profound in the south.  Jim Crow laws, lynchings, etc

[??????????]

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.

[Machiavelli]

LOL @ OPTION 1!!!!!!@1 SAVAGES. I wonder why the Iwo Jima soldiers and FDNY 9/11 HEROES raised the UNioN flag intsead of the ANTI-JESUS FLA?

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.

Robert Ewings Lee was no less of a traitor than other prominent Southern trash like THomas Jefferson. When Lincokn offered him the job of military commander of God's Loyal Army, he turned it down knowing that Virginia would join the Atheist states.

Why don't you go burn a cross on your lawn PBrunsel, you are secessionist scum.

[MaC]

this troll is funny

[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.