The Confederate Flag: A Disturbing Trend?

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by patternfinder

I think that there were indeed some Jewish men who did this, but you can't say it was all Jewish people as though all Jewish people had a vested interest in slavery when during that time the Jewish people were facing pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe.

Like I said in my post, all races were slaves and most races had slaves. I would be very careful to post things in such a manner to make it seem that there is a Jewish conspiracy, because there simply is not. Not all Jews are wealthy like the Rothschilds. Of the Jews that I know personally, and I should say people that are Jewish, they are not wealthy and live just like the rest of us do. The thing that I admire about those who are Jewish is this, even though they are not wealthy, they still desire for their children to be educated in such professions as doctors and lawyers and do what they can to support their children to get through college. Those Jewish people who came here just after the Holocaust were very poor and had the Jewish Immigration League to connect them with family here. My own Sephardic Jewish ancestors were not wealthy at all and never in my family have we ever talked about being part of a conspiracy to control the world.

the jewish people here were facing no such "pogroms" they were busy making money off the "then legal" slave trade....they've had plenty of experience if you look at the scriptures in the bible...but, i'm telling you, this information is from a jewish scholar!!!! not just some joe shmoe.......he said that it was so dominated by the jewish merchants and consumers that the auctions were closed on jewish holidays because there wasn't enough business to keep them open on those days.....

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I read that as well and have also been a student of history for over 40 years. You're right that slavery was not the only reason for the war - but my point is that is was the main one. Yes there were the economic and social and tax based reasons for the south to break away but at the end of the day it was slavery. You sound like an educated person. I just can;t tolerate folks who think the slavery issue was not the reason for the war, As you probably know, the south did want to have their own freedom so badly that they actually freed their own slaves at the end of the war as a last ditch effort to back the Union forces off the battlefield. It was too little too late. So in reality, slavery became a secondary issue at the end of the war -however it was the existence of slavery and its continuation in the border states that led to war.

reply to post by patternfinder


John Newton was not a Jewish person. He was a ship captain on slave ships.Sir John Hawkins is another but not Jewish.

slave-ships.blogspot.com...

We can say that yes there were Jewish men who were slave ship owners, but the majority were Anglos from England, Holland, France and Denmark.

And I understand the writer of that article is actually a rabbi. The book The Secret Relationships Between The Jews and the Blacks was published in 1991 by The Nation of Islam.

en.wikipedia.org...

And while we may say there were Jews who were slave traders, who were selling them and who were buying them?

www.iahushua.com...

I think we are missing the point here that the slave trade involved all races of people. But to specifically call out one group as responsible is dangerous and wrong.

REMINDER!!!

The topic if this thread is

The Confederate Flag: A Disturbing Trend?

Off topic posts will be removed.

I am amazed at the ignorance being displayed in this thread. The rebel flag is not a racist symbol. The fact that some people who fly the rebel flag doesn't make it true. The klan may have flown the flag, but that does not make it a racist flag. The klan also has the cross as one of their main symbols. You may as well say that the christian cross is a racist symbol because the klan used it. The united methodist church even has a burning cross as their symbol. No one is ignorant enough to claim that methodists are a racist denomination because of it. And to claim that no one in northern states has any right to fly the rebel flag is equally idiotic. They may be born in the south, or have family roots in the south. Or, they may choose to fly the flag in support of state's rights. That is their prerogative.

Originally posted by dave0davidson
I am amazed at the ignorance being displayed in this thread. The rebel flag is not a racist symbol. The fact that some people who fly the rebel flag doesn't make it true. The klan may have flown the flag, but that does not make it a racist flag. The klan also has the cross as one of their main symbols. You may as well say that the christian cross is a racist symbol because the klan used it. The united methodist church even has a burning cross as their symbol. No one is ignorant enough to claim that methodists are a racist denomination because of it. And to claim that no one in northern states has any right to fly the rebel flag is equally idiotic. They may be born in the south, or have family roots in the south. Or, they may choose to fly the flag in support of state's rights. That is their prerogative.

I did not know before this that the KKK was Democratic.

en.wikipedia.org...

Nathan Bedford Forrest was the first Klan founder and William J. Simmons, a Methodist minister, was the founder of the second Klan.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Wolfenz

If I may...

While reading your post I remembered something I always thought was strange, and something you may be interested in. I have learned from others that indigenous peoples are discriminated against heavily in some areas. I personally found that fact amazing, since here it is a mark of honor to have native bloodlines in your family.

I am part Cherokee myself (notice the mouth; I am not trying to frown) with a drop or two of Creek. That heritage is something I have always been extremely proud of, although I am somewhat ashamed to say I never learned much about it.

TheRedneck

well where im from there is Hate all around against Native Americans ( Mostly Mohawks )

as I live at the Boarder and The Mohawk Reservation Akwesasne Akwesasne , Kahnawake, and Kanesatake.is right between 2 nations Canada and USA

The Mohawks are hit hard on the Canadian Side Especially in the French Regions of Canada Quebec and Montreal

Type in Oka Crisis and Whiskey trench in You Tube or Google Video

and you will see here

The Quebec'ers would love to see this Flag be taken away !

Warrior Society Flag



a Mohawk & a 6 nation confederate Flag that Some Canadians Hate


The Resistance at Kanehsatake: Looking Back 20 Years After the Barricades
Posted on 19 November 2010 by Enaemaehkiw Túpac Keshena

www.peopleofcolororganize.com...

You know Wolfenz, I have been to many powwows in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Ohio and Manitoulin Island Ontario. Of all the ones I have been to, and my brother-in-law is Lumbee from North Carolina, I have not seen one Confederate flag taken in the grand entrance. I have seen the US flag in the states and the Canadian flag at the one in Canada. But no Confederate flag at all.

Here is something about current racism against Indians here, my niece, the daughter of my sister and aforementioned brother-in-law, considers herself Lumbee. She is only 11 but she is proud of her heritage. She draws pictures of Native Pride all the time. When she was 7, the school she went to was primarily African American in Greensboro, North Carolina, she decided one day in November that she was going to wear one of her dad's hawk feathers in her hair. The principal pulled her out of class to tell her she could not wear it. When my niece asked why, she was told that it was a religious symbol so she could not wear it. My niece was very upset now and said it was part of her heritage. The principal made her remove it and take it home. The following February my niece had to take part in Black History Month events at the school. November is Native American Heritage month. My niece was not allowed in her school to display her heritage in the very month designated for her.

But the principal was an African American woman who did not take into consideration that by denying my niece the right to display her heritage was in fact racism. But no one challenges that racism. Her dad is a full blooded Lumbee/Tuscaroran with a tribal card from a State Recognized tribe.

For those who may think I am racist against blacks, my brother is married to a black woman and they have a son that is just adorable. If anyone says anything against him to me, I would punch them in the face. He considers himself black and our family is supportive of both of my niece and my nephew in their self-identification.

reply to post by WarminIndy



man thats terrible about your niece that crap dos not get that far around here it would be public news !

Well unfortunately i haven't been to Pow Wows in the South just around my area

When i meant the 6 Nation Confederate Flag

Im talking about the Iroquois First Nation Flag
a Flag of the 6 nation (Tribe ) confederacy

((The Iroquois confederacy after it was joined by the Tuscarora in 1722.))
www.thefreedictionary.com...

Iroquois Confederation
faculty.marianopolis.edu...

Iroquois League

The Iroquois League, historically the Iroquois Confederacy, is a group of Native Americans that consists of six nations: the Mohawk, the Oneida, the Onondaga, the Cayuga, the Seneca and the Tuscarora. The Iroquois have a representative government known as the Grand Council. The Grand Council is the oldest governmental institution still maintaining its original form in North America.[11] Each tribe sends chiefs to act as representatives and make decisions for the whole nation.

en.wikipedia.org...

but what is known to represent a Confederate flag of the Civil war is actually a Battle Flag

The Real (( Southern)) CSA Confederate Flag is the Stars & Bars Flag the National Confederate Flag

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by reeferman

 

The confederate states of America was an illegal alliance.

Article 1 section 10 of the constitution states.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

My entire family is from the south. There is a lot of southern pride about the civil war, and in some ways a few of the grievances the southern states had with the north were justified. But in reality they just did not like taxes and wanted to have slaves so profits did not decrease.

We are a union, we are supposed to be a union. States should have more power, but we are not supposed to be nation states.

To the OP. I dont think flag represents racism. But it does represent an old ignorant way of thinking, and that is that states have the right to oppress others. No they dont...No one has the right to subvert anthers rights.

edit on 16-9-2011 by Openeye because: (no reason given)

My god the shear utter ignorance of history and complete lack understanding in your post is just amazing and pitiful. The states were and are sovereign or nation states. No state would have ever signed on to the constitution if there was any inclination that they could not withdraw if they so chose. There was never supposed to be one big country it was a union of the several states for free trade and mutual protection period. The Articles of confederation and subsequent constitution was a restriction on the federal government not the states or the people!

The tenth Amendment illustrates that sovereignty:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

Nowhere is power delegated to force states to stay in the union and no where is it prohibited for states to secede. No state would have ever signed on if there was any such provision! The southern states lawfully seceded from the union compact and formed a new union of thier own. They formed thier confederation AFTER THEY lawfully seceded and Lincoln then waged illegal war on sovereign nations. The constitution has been nothing but a dead symbol ever since!

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
For the sake of argument let's say the Civil War was fought over slavery. Only 25% of Southern, white males (the highest figure I could find) owned slaves. What were the other 75% fighting for?

You're making a generalization that those who support the historical accounts over the issue of slavery believe that every single individual on the confederacy held slaves and supported it. I have not made any such statement, I am yet to see a member in this thread who has.

The German war was fueled by anti-semitism, does this mean that every German fighting was anti-semetic? I don't think so. This can be applied in so many ways to so many events, wars. It is very seldolmly fact (if not ever) that those fighting for their homelands all necessarily sympathize politically with their governments. Soldiers do what they believe is natural, they fight for country, many have no choice. Just because the soldiers are not necessarily fighting for political reasons does not change the agendas of the governments and their political ambitions.

Our educational system glibly assigns blame for the Civil war on slavery and rarely deals with it in any depth.

In depth? There are plenty of historical evidence pointing to slavery as the core issue. Confederate apologists just prefer to deny, deny and deny. If anything, the case that this was about taxes, tarriffs, lacks any substance at all, especially in the face of the fact that:

1. The nullification crises with South Carolina occured in 1828, not 1860, a full 30 year gap.
2. That the South successfully pushed for 5 Democratic presidents prior to the civil war, following the nullifcation crises. Southern delegates dominated federak politics for a considerable period of time.
3. That Southern delegates had successfully written and had celebrated their win over lowering the tariffs in 1857 over the entire nation.
4. That tarriffs were their lowest at the time of 1860 than they were at any time prior to Buchannan

And what do confederate apologists have in arguing that this was at core about taxes? Nothing really, it "just was" according to them and you, and a couple of none-linking events decades prior to the war.

most Southerners were fighting to preserve slavery.

Most Southerners were fighting for their land and states. The state governments were fighting to preserve slavery as an institution in the South, hence the clear messages regarding the institution of slavery in their very own declarations. I could only find one mention of taxes and this was in the South Carolinian declaration, right below the long list of issues concerning slavery. If you refuse to even acknowledge the statement by southern political leaders themselves, then really, how do you expect people to change your mind? You're not interested, clearly.

the North invaded the South.

Southern independence at that time appeared to be only recognized by Southerners themselves, no independent or autonomous state held recognition of the confederacy:
history.state.gov...

Heck, I could have sat with even Mexican recognition of confederate autonomy, but even they paid no recognition... I wonder why.

www.mexica.net...

Ah yes... states rights huh? Only if it involves southern states, obviously.

I will not deny that slavery was an important factor in the Civil war,

It was the core reason to starting this all. You may dress the issue of slavery up as states rights like most confederate apologists creatively do, but it doesn't change the core reason.

I have strong doubts that they teach in schools that not only whites owned slaves but so did many free blacks as well as Native Americans.

I recall the teachings at school regarding Arab slave owners of white Europeans. Folks love to overexaggerate the points against the confederacy at the time, but most historians and many other folks including myself recognize that slavery occured across many cultures and races. It still doesn't change or justify the hypocrisy of the position the confederacy held over slavery,. That and their winging and complaining about their rights and liberties as states and a people.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


If you're going to post a reply to me how about not adding quotes from other people's posts without acknowledging who posted which.

I wasn't replying to your post
-and-
I didn't even mention state's rights. or tariffs. or taxes...?
Dude, you're rambling worse than me.


My post was intended to show that the Confederate flag meant different things to different people.
Some were fighting to preserve slavery but the majority were just trying to save their homes from an invading army.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

My post was intended to show that the Confederate flag meant different things to different people.
Some were fighting to preserve slavery but the majority were just trying to save their homes from an invading army.

And that sums it up.

Even way up here in Canuckistan, the Great Melting Pot up north, I see lots and lots of Confederate flags.

Maybe some like them because they don't like Neil Young.
Maybe some like them because it matches the colours their Harley is painted with.
Maybe some think it represents cutting ties with France and England.
Maybe some think it's just cool, like a Che Guevara T-shirt.
Others might fly it because they enjoy Blue Grass bands.
There might even be some who want the right to own slaves

Truth is... it could be dozens of reasons.

Me? I like it because it's a cool design, being a lefty tree hugging artist and all. I think that flag looks better than 99% of ALL other national flags, but I sure don't need/want slaves. I got enough troubles as it is.

reply to post by masqua


That's funny, I was wondering to myself about whether anyone would actually want to own slaves today.
The idea didn't go far, they wouldn't do squat and would be more trouble than they're worth in reality.
Honestly, does anyone want to own slaves today? I have serious doubts about it.
You're right, it is one truly nice looking flag bearing a striking resemblance to the British Union Jack.
It must be nice to be in Canada and be able to fly a stars and bars without anyone thinking you're trying to insult them.
If I wanted to upset people there are far better methods than flying a flag.
Like putting a giant spider in their face.

Still, I can appreciate the views of those who genuinely are upset by it.
It doesn't mean I have to agree with them or change anything to accommodate their for their eccentricities.
Even it were truly offensive that in itself is not a crime and I wish people would stop trying to make me feel like criminal simply for displaying it. But then there's no law against that either
I smell a counter suit for emotional damages here......

To answer to the OPs question of this becoming a disturbing trend? Well all I can say is that if the person who displays the rebel flag is doing so based soley on how it is viewed in modern terms, then yes, it is a disturbing trend. However, if it is being displayed as a symbol of rebelling against what is increasing loss of liberties and freedoms then.. no. Unless you stop and ask what the motivation behind a person displaying the flag is we will never know the answer to that.

If you would like a good read on the history of the rebel flag and it's meaning, I've found a good reference here: Encyclopedia Virginia

In this reference it states that:

As far back as 1863, when the mostly white Second National Flag was adopted, a newspaper in Savannah, Georgia, praised it as "emblematical" of the Confederacy's fight "to maintain the Heaven ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race." Such a literal reading of that flag's design was rare, and no equivalent reading of the battle flag's design has been made.

Notice it says "Such a literal reading of the flag's design was rare and no equivalent reading of the battle flag's design has been made". It also states that the flag in question was not what we know to day as the rebel flag which was referenced in the OP.

It also goes on later to state with reference to the current confederate flag that:

Despite its implicit connection to white supremacy, the battle flag was rarely used to promote racial violence prior to World War II (1939–1945), a fact the historian John Coski attributes to southerners' treatment of the symbol as "sacred." Beginning late in the 1930s, however, two things happened more or less at the same time: first, the battle flag became a fixture of pop culture, representing the generic Old South of the film Gone with the Wind (1939); and second, it was adopted by the third incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. Previously, the Klan had displayed only the United States flag during its marches, but as the organization was pushed by law enforcement out of such Midwestern redoubts as Indiana and back into the South, it garbed itself in more explicitly southern symbolism

Emphasis in bold, mine.

For those out there that contend that slavery was not a part of the North, even during the Civil War era, let me direct you to this website: Slavery in the North To the left hand side on this site you will see various links some of which will direct you to specific northern state's history on the topic of slavery. As you will see if you decide to browse through them, slavery was indeed alive and well in the north during this time and was viewed in the same way a southern state's slave owner would have viewed it which is summed up in one word: PROFIT.

As you will see if you click on Delaware's link:

Fisher arranged a meeting between Lincoln and Republican Benjamin Burton of Indian River Hundred in Sussex County, who, with 28 slaves, was the leading slaveowner in Delaware. Burton listened to the President's plan, and assured him the state's farmers would go along with it if the price was fair. Fisher then went to Dover, and, with the help of Republican Nathaniel P. Smithers, drew up a bill and presented it to the General Assembly. It would free all slaves over 35 at once, and all others by 1872. The compensation rate was to be set by a local board of assessors, and payments were to average about $500 per slave, which was very generous. It was more than a prime field hand was worth, and was five times the value of a typical slave in the state. Payment was to come from a pool of $900,000 to be provided by Congress, then safely in GOP hands.

Link to above information page: Slavery in the North - Delaware

Notice what it says: "farmers would go along with it if the price was fair", meaning that if the Fed Govt was willing to 'buy' the slaves freedom for enough money to be profitable, then the State would be willing to go along with abolition. Not for any moral reasons mind you, but simply because it would profit the slave owner to do so.

Racism is carried in people's hearts and minds, it's abhorent and ignorant nature displayed in their actions and words. Would racism be abolished in the burning/banning of the Confederate States flag? No, and the ridiculous ideology behind racism should not be heaped upon a piece of our countries history. It is a piece of history who's original meaning and purpose has been warped through time and has nothing what so ever to do with it's modern connotations. Racism is unfortunately alive and well on both sides of the Mason Dixon line.. and it has me wondering, under what banner does the north's racism fly?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Here is the not so politically correct view:

Some Southern politicians did indeed defend slavery, but not as strongly as Abraham Lincoln did in his first inaugural address, where he supported the enshrinement of Southern slavery explicitly in the U.S. Constitution (the "Corwin Amendment") for the first time ever. Coming from the president of the United States, this was the strongest defense of slavery ever made by an American politician.

Some Southern politicians did say that their society was based on white supremacy, but so did Abraham Lincoln and most other Northern politicians. "I as much as any man want the superior position to belong to the white race," Lincoln said in a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858. When Lincoln opposed the extension of slavery into the new territories (but not Southern slavery), he gave the standard Northern white supremacist reason: We want the territories to be reserved "for free white labor," he said. The Lincoln cultists can quote Alexander Stephens’ "cornerstone" speech all they want, but the truth is that Abraham Lincoln, and most of the leaders of the Republican Party, were in total agreement with Stephens. White supremacy was as much (if not more of) a "cornerstone" of Northern society as it was of Southern society in the 1860s....

The abolition societies of the North never claimed more than two percent of the Northern adult population as members. Lincoln was never an abolitionist, distanced himself from them politically, and even boasted in a speech in New York City that "we have abolitionists in Illinois; we shot one the other day." All of this makes it extremely unlikely that anyone who voted for Lincoln in the 1860 election did so because they thought he would end Southern slavery (which of course the Republican Party Platform of 1860 did not promise)....

More importantly, secession in no way necessitates war, regardless of what the reasons for secession are. The reasons for secession, and the reasons why there was a war, are two entirely separate issues. When New Englanders openly and publicly plotted to secede for fourteen years after Thomas Jefferson’s election, culminating in the 1814 secession convention in Hartford, Connecticut, neither President Jefferson nor President Madison (or anyone else) said one word about the appropriate response to a Northern-state secession being "invasion," "force," and "bloodshed." These are the words Lincoln used in his first inaugural address to describe what would happen in any Southern state that seceded...

It is unlikely that anyone even dreamed of invading Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island and bombing and burning Boston, Hartford and Providence into a smoldering ruin while murdering thousands of New Englanders, women and children included, if New England were to secede. Indeed, when Jefferson was asked what would happen if New England seceded, he said in a letter that New Englanders, like all other Americans "would all be our children" and he would wish them all well. More recently, all of the Soviet republics, and all of Eastern and Central Europe peacefully seceded from the Soviet Union. Secession does not necessitate war...

No respectable historian would argue that Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. Even his Emancipation Proclamation was only a "war measure" that would have become defunct if the war ended the next day – and it was written so as to avoid freeing any slaves since it only applied to "rebel territory." Both Lincoln and Congress announced publicly that their purpose was not to disturb slavery but to "save the union," a union that they actually destroyed philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature, as established by the founders. All states, North and South, became wards or appendages of the central government in the post-1865 era...

What Lincoln did say very clearly about war in his first inaugural address was that it was his duty "to collect the duties and imposts," but "beyond that there will no be any invasion of any state . . ." That is, if Southern secession made it impossible for Washington, D.C. to "collect the duties and imposts" (i.e., tariffs on imports, which had just been more than doubled two days earlier), then there will be an invasion. He followed through with this threat, and that is why there was a war that ended up killing 670,000 Americans, including some 50,000 Southern civilians, while maiming for life more than a million...

Secession does not necessitate war; nor was war necessary to end slavery. The rest of the world (including all of the Northern states ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century, as James Powell documents and describes in his outstanding book, Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery... Read the Whole Article Here

reply to post by hawkiye


What was the point of this? Did you read my previous posts? Essentially, from what I'm getting from your posts, Lincoln and many Northerners supported the continued institution of slavery. Where did I argue this? I already clearly stated Lincolns position on slavery to ensure he got support in the South and to maintain the Union. Just because Lincoln held that position, it doesn't change the agenda of southern confederates.

I already made good references to events pointing to southern refusal to trust Lincoln over this issue.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

If you're going to post a reply to me how about not adding quotes from other people's posts without acknowledging who posted which.

Oh ok, so you argued that slavery was not core issue to the civil war, but you certainly didn't imply this was about anything else? It's a shame that you have to back off from your position and make this about something else. The least you can do is make a stand.

My post was intended to show that the Confederate flag meant different things to different people.

Your post wasn't merely about the meaning of the flag, it was also against the historical accounts that slavery was the core of this issue. You spent a considerable time making this about the individual soldiers and their personal accounts of the war. We all know full well that many southerns were fighting for home and state, it doesn't change the issue and institution that started this all.

reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn



Delaware was a border state and had slavery. Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri also had slavery and yet they were mixed in their views to going from one side or the other. Delaware rejected secession immediately.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by WarminIndy

I did not know before this that the KKK was Democratic.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yet we somehow avoid labelling Democrats as racist on strength of that association, as is done to the Confederate Battle Flag. The "Battle Flag" is the square one, the national Flag with the Stars and bars was oblong, as most flags are.

They are also called "the CHRISTIAN Knights of the Ku Klux Klan", yet we seem to be able to avoid labelling all Christians as "racist".

For some reason, it's just a bit of cloth that has to be "racist" - maybe because cloth can't defend itself.

Nathan Bedford Forrest was the first Klan founder and William J. Simmons, a Methodist minister, was the founder of the second Klan.

Forrest originally founded the KKK as a Confederate veteran's club, similar to today's VFW or Amvets. The problems arose when these vets, still fresh off the battlefield and still ON the battlefield, since it was their own home turf, were disenfranchised by the conquerors in their own homeland. "Carpetbaggers" came down from the north (this is the origin of the term - they came bearing their stuff in carpet bags) and in concert with local traitors called "scalawags" set about trying to strip the south of whatever wealth remained.

In the process, and because of post-war animosities that remained, the veterans, who had actually fought for their freedom, were disenfranchised from voting, while at the same time, freed slaves, most of whom couldn't read, write, or sign their names, and had been given their freedom, were enfranchised, and given the vote without a concommitant education. That situation set the stage for the next incarnation of the KKK, which was a violent one, committing violence primarily against whites, the very carpetbaggers and scalawags that the veterans had fought against during the war, who had come down to take their spoils., setting up "Freemen's Bureaus" ostensibly to "help" the freed slaves, but in reality to buy their votes with largesse, since it was primarily only their votes which counted. Oddly, perhaps, there were also some freed slaves who were disenfranchised from the vote, because they too were Confederate veterans. You don't hear very much about the black Confederate veterans, but there were quite a few.

At one time during Reconstruction, almost the entire South Carolina legislature was composed of freed slaves, since there were not enough whites qualified to vote, much less hold office.

It was during this period that the Confederate Battle Flag became associated with the KKK, by the veterans who were willing to wage a guerrilla campaign or "insurgency", under their previous battle flag.

The third incarnation of the KKK started up in the early 20th century, and is the racist version we know today. They maintained the association with the Confederate Battle Flag to foster the impression of a continuance of the older versions of the KKK. They have USURPED the flag, without authorization, and have given it the connotation it bears today among many who don't know any better.