It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Confederate Flag: A Disturbing Trend?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck

(Yes, I know you wrote that as sarcasm. But in your attempt you actually made perfect sense to me.)

edit on 9/17/2011 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)
And that's what is sad to me. You're so wrapped up in the past, that you can't see how a word/symbol can change connotations, and show little to no responsibility for your use or actions towards the present. I guess you would be fine if people wore swastikas or draped swastika flags around, cause they may find it as a symbol of "power, strength, and good luck". There is no way that a swastika could be tied to Nazis. I mean, who in their right mind would think of such a thing?

In other words, I find what you're trying to say to be extremely ignorant. Just because I know that a swastika meant "power, strength, and good luck", and was also used thousands of years before Hitler ever used it, doesn't mean I have the right to go around, and flaunt a swastika on a flag, my belt buckle, and old sweaty shirt with the arms cut off, a bumper sticker, etc. And if I did, I would know the repercussions of such actions, instead of acting all innocent about the "true meaning/origin" of the swastika.

The swastika isn't a bad symbol....but at the same time, it truly is an evil one. The confederate flag isn't a racist flag....but at the same time, it truly is. You're talking about "denying ignorance", well my friend, I feel like you're shining example of the term "ignorant".

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:42 PM
It is at this juncture (and without reading many of the comments I admit) I have to add my canned response to whenever the subject of the Confederacy comes up:

The South lost. Get over it.

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:42 PM

"Executive Mansion
Washington, August 22, 1862

Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir. I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

A. Lincoln"

A letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley giving Lincoln's views on slavery and the Union.

A southern soldier after being captured was asked by his captors "what are you fighting for johnny reb" his reply "i'm fighting cuz you'nz is here"

edit on 17-9-2011 by CynicalWabbit because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:49 PM
What I see is the
See Something Say Something
Propaganda working very well.
This thread started out as
Reports of flag being spotted.
So the sheep obey and
are being taught to be afraid of the past.

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by TravisT

You're so wrapped up in the past, that you can't see how a word/symbol can change connotations, and show little to no responsibility for your use or actions towards the present.

I'm honestly coming to a loss of how to respond to this...

First, the flag in question is claimed to be born of hatred. That claim is refuted, then the excuse that it has 'come to be seen' as a symbol of hatred is used. Then it is claimed that those of us who hold the flag dear are in the wrong for not accepting this change in connotation.

Which is it?

Is the flag inherently racist from its creation, has it wrongly come to be viewed as racist, or it wrong somehow to question societal changes in symbolism? I mean, I have heard the phrase "talking out of both sides of one's mouth", but I never realized hearing that that mouths had three sides.

You call me ignorant; that's fine, as I have been called much worse. I choose to not be offended by that remark. More proof that offense is controlled by the one offended, not by the one offending. I am sure you intended me to be offended at that remark, but I retain the ability to make the final choice as to my state of offense. You cannot change that.

The same principle applies to the flag... my flag. Call it what you will; it flew over the graves of my forefathers whom I honor. I will not dishonor them by dishonoring it, nor by bowing in complicity to those who would.

So if my posts, or my adherence to my cultural heritage offends you... well, too bad. Yours does not offend me. Think about that, while you contemplate the depths of my 'ignorance' and the heights of your 'superiority'.


posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:01 PM
reply to post by Fromabove

Yes he was. Let me explain.

At the turn of the 19th century slavery was dying in the South. Most of the North had already abolished it in their states, but because of cotton it was still holding on in the South. It was unprofitable however and it looked, as the Founding Fathers predicted, to be dying. However when the Cotton Gin was invented it made a huge resurgence in slavery in the South. Over the course of the first half of the 19th century Cotton was farmed so much that the land in the South was becoming infertile.
The Southern States wanted to expand slavery westward so that they could grow more Cotton and keep their economy afloat. The Federal government obviously did not want to see slavery expand, even before Lincoln took office. Eventually a series of compromises were made to keep slavery south of an imaginary line. However a later compromise made it so that the territories could vote on slavery. Since California was a non-slave state already, its influence on Arizona and New Mexico would have assured them to be free states as well.
A major problem emerged in Kansas where the vote was indecisive and the first unofficial battle of the Civil War was fought between slave owners and abolitionists. This event was called Bleeding Kansas. When Abraham Lincoln was running for senate he vehemently announced that he abhorred slavery and would not see it expand. When he ran for and won the presidency and South Carolina (Lincoln did not receive any electoral votes in the South, but because of the 3/5ths compromise the South did not have enough electoral votes to prevent him from winning) seceded he, despite his beliefs, promised that he would not abolish slavery where it already existed, but he would not allow it to expand.
The Southern States knew that if they could not take in new territory and keep foreign trade (Britain was considering boycotting American Cotton because they as a whole hated slavery) their slave-based economy would collapse and the industrial North would gain complete dominance. Most of the South followed South Carolina's lead and seceded. Several slave-holding states remained in the Union, notably Delaware, Maryland, (the newly established) West Virginia, Missouri, and Kentucky.
When the North tried to resupply the starving Union soldiers that were living in a fort on Federal Land, South Carolina fired the first shot and started the Civil War. Of course, as you should know, the North had many generals in the eastern theater that were lazy in their movements and would not seriously attack the South, but in the western theater, US Grant was doing what he did best, kick ass. After Antietam, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which only freed the slaves in the states in rebellion, not the Union slave-holding states. After the disastrous defeat at Gettysburg, it was completely downhill for the South and after numerous major victories, the South finally surrendered to the North. Notably when Lee surrendered to Grant, Grant ordered that the Confederate men be fed and clothed since they were all Americans.
The war was, even before it began, always about the economic and political impact of slavery upon the South and the whole of the United States. Anything else is a complete apologetic bull.

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:10 PM

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by poet1b

he also coined the belief that blacks were 3/5 human which maintained until the early 1970's.

Wow... you couldn't be more wrong. Actually it was ultimately James Madison that coined the 3/5 ratio of the 3/5 compromise. It was actually an idea taken from the Articles of Confederation, the precursor to the Constitution. The purpose of this was to count 3/5 of the ENTIRE POPULATION of slaves for census purposes, not count every slave as 3/5 of a person. Semantics you say? Not quite, because the 3/5 of the population that were counted were counted as whole people. The reason behind this was that Madison, Franklin, and other ABOLITIONISTS knew that by allowing the south to count all slaves in the census would mean that the south would have a massive majority in congress because representation then, as it is now, is determined by state population. The framers of the 3/5 compromise knew that slavery would never end if they allowed the south to count all slaves.

Section 2 of the 14th amendment superseded the 3/5 compromise once slavery was abolished. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 which is just a couple of years before 1970. Go back to whatever progressive indoctrination institution you learned your American "pseudohistory" from and demand a refund immediately.

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by xEphon

As a southerner whose direct ancestors fought against the North,I have to say that this is the stupidest thread I've read.He fought against theYankees because they took their homeland from the tribe.Then they took Georgia from the tribes.Then they took Florida from the tribes.He viewed the Union as a continuation of the threat that was and still is very real against Native Americans.I know because my Granny told me the stories passed down through the family about the War of Northern Aggression.I will not let my children believe the lies perpetrated by false historians.Racism?Heck,I have a black skinned nephew and I drive him in the truck with the rebel flag proudly displayed.Sounds like you watch too much T.V.

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by hanyak69

You have watched "Gone With the Wind" far too many times. The old Slave owning big plantation south wasn't some great paradise, and the north the evil aggressors as you want to pretend.

That people want to cling to such delusions is the reason there is still so much conflict between the South and the North.

However you want to spin it, slavery was the main issue, and the main reason behind the conflict. Slavery was and is wrong, and should be illegal. Stop clinging to the delusion, embrace the truth, and let the healing begin.

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:30 PM
The Confederate flag has been branded raicst but has nothing to do with race or hatred.

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:32 PM
When I see a confederate flag , or "rebel flag". I think of it more as "Southern" Pride, than "White" pride.

But still being a Yankee myself, and proud of it, just thinking if I was born in the south , and I'd be proud of that too, I myself wouldn't display a confederate flag just because alot of people (whether right or wrong) equate it with the KKK and White Pride ect.

But personally it doesn't offend me, and I don't like racism at all. But I can see why it might strike a nerv with some.

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:39 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by tankerpilot

You should also know that the famous Lincoln Douglas debates were about slavery. "Slavery is a stain on our nation".

Are you sure you want to go there?

Lincoln's words from the Lincoln-Douglas Debates:

The 'Great Emancipator' and the Issue of Race

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

He continued:

I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

In a private letter to his friend, Alexander Stephens:

Do the people of the south really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, there is no cause for such fears.

Inaugural Address

" I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Lincoln had no "inclination" to free the slaves, he did not believe they were anywhere equal to whites, and when the War was over he wanted all of the blacks to emigrate to Haiti or Liberia. Truly "The Great Emancipator".


posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:40 PM
hell while were at it lets declare Vking ruins to be racist too because Neo Nazis use them , or even the Celtic cross !

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:41 PM
reply to post by CynicalWabbit

Obviously, from the letter you posted, the civil war conflict was about slavery. There may have been other issues, but the primary reason was slavery.

People need to stop trying to pretend differently.

It ought to be pointed out that slavery as practiced in the U.S. was mild compared to what was done in most of the rest of the planet. Africans who came to the U.S. as slaves wound up becoming a part of the greatest economy on the planet, with far more privileges and opportunity than most people around the planet enjoy.

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:44 PM
The standard American flag has flown over more racism, tyranny and oppression than the Confederate flag could have ever dreamed of.
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." (Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:47 PM
reply to post by The Old American

I am out of time for this subject, so I will leave by saying that I did not state that Lincoln, or the Northern states which opposed slavery, did not have their prejudices. Nowhere did I say the North was perfect.

I pointed out that the civil war was about slavery, and your quotes only serve prove my original point.

And I have to add that the South was no better than the North, nor any less guilty of supposed crimes against humanity. Those who insist differently need to let it go, and start embracing the truth, to allow the healing to begin.
edit on 17-9-2011 by poet1b because: add last statement

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:48 PM
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

Thank you! That deserves a star!

I will correct one assertion, however:

The reason behind this was that Madison, Franklin, and other ABOLITIONISTS knew that by allowing the south to count all slaves in the census would mean that the south would have a massive majority in congress because representation then, as it is now, is determined by state population.

While that thought may have been present in the minds of the framers, it would not have been directed at the South. Slavery did not expand greatly in the southern states until after the Constitution was ratified, as in the early 1800's. Before this time, there were more slaves by percentage of population in New England than in the southern reaches of the colonies.


posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by PassedKarma

Yes racism is being more out and about, and we will pay for it believe me. I feel sorry for the US, I really do. We are so convoluted and can't see why this hatred can lead to violence can lead to ethnic and civil strife.

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:04 PM
Anyone to say the Civil War was about slavery is a propagandist or misinformed, slavery was part of times for both sides. The North only used it against the south to cut off it's economic growth. The war certainly wasn't about slavery, it was about control and States Rights, including slavery, BUT not about slavery. The North feared the South in becoming it's own economic power house.

You just don't go and say, oh lets start a war because we have slaves and they do too.... duh!

It was more like: lets take their slaves and cripple their growth.... it was over fear.

edit on 17-9-2011 by imitator because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:08 PM

Originally posted by tankerpilot
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE. Get over yourself. By playing the race card in every aspect of life you prove only one thing....that you are a rascist!!!!

That's completely correct. However, remember that the Nazi swastika originally had nothing to do with the holocaust. It was simply a sign of "good luck".

But, as things would have it, the evil forces appropriate these good symbols and distort them until they are no longer recognizable for what they once stood for. The symbols became corrupt.

It's not the symbol itself that is the problem. It's who used the symbol, and what they used it for. The last known use is the critical factor.

Can anybody wash these symbols, cleanse them of their vile stains, and make them pure and sacred again, like how they were in the beginning?

How to do it?

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in