Confederate flag will fly along I-95

Mods please move where appropriate.

(Sou rce)

A Confederate heritage group confirmed Tuesday that it plans to fly a 10-by-15-foot Confederate flag along Interstate 95 just south of Richmond.

The flag will fly on a 50-foot pole, and will be visible from the northbound lane, said Susan Hathaway, founder of Virginia Flaggers, the group behind the flag. It’s tentatively scheduled to go up Sept. 28.

Advertisement“Basically, the flag is being erected as a memorial to the memory and the honor of the Confederate soldiers who sacrificed, bled and died to defend Virginia from invasion,” she said.

From the same Source Link above.

The state’s chapter of the NAACP is vocally opposing the move.

“It would be an embarrassment,” said Virginia NAACP Executive Director King Salim Khalfani.

The embarrassment is the fact that the NAACP is NOT recognizing the fact there were many Black Soldiers doing their part in the Civil War.

Below is an example

(Confederate Solider Service Records for Black Confederate (Soldiers)
I am posting the link above because the list is too large to post.

Now I understand that certain people associate the Confederate Flag as an evil, racist display. But what people, especially the NAACP, tend to forget is, it represents a histroical time of both Black and White people and not just a time of slavery and that all people should be recognized for their service during the Civil War.

For them (those who fought) the Confederate Flag represented what they were fighting for and what they were fighting against.

The reasons for the Civial War were not based solely on slavery.

Top Five Cause of the Civil War(Source)

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.

2. States versus federal rights.

Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weaknesses of the Articles caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where pro-slavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence, Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when anti-slavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.

4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.

5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

Now, I'm not trying to present myself as a supportor of any movement organizations, I just want the soldiers that fought during the Civil War, whether on the Conderate or the Union side to have the right to be recognized as the brave soldiers they were (Black or White). It shoudln't matter if it through the display of a flag or a poster of a soldier in uniform, they were all US Citizens fighting for what they believed in, right or wrong in whoevers eyes.

Here is another example of why the NAACP should be proud to stand behind the Confederate Flag.

(Source)

Black Confederates? Why haven’t we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, “I don’t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910” Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a “cover-up” which started back in 1865. He writes, “During my research, I came across instances where Black men stated they were soldiers, but you can plainly see where ‘soldier’ is crossed out and ‘body servant’ inserted, or ‘teamster’ on pension applications.” Another black historian, Roland Young, says he is not surprised that blacks fought. He explains that “…some, if not most, Black southerners would support their country” and that by doing so they were “demonstrating it’s possible to hate the system of slavery and love one’s country.” This is the very same reaction that most African Americans showed during the American Revolution, where they fought for the colonies, even though the British offered them freedom if they fought for them.

It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?” Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that “biracial units” were frequently organized “by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids…”. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.”

As the war came to an end, the Confederacy took progressive measures to build back up it's army. The creation of the Confederate States Colored Troops, copied after the segregated northern colored troops, came too late to be successful. Had the Confederacy been successful, it would have created the world's largest armies (at the time) consisting of black soldiers, even larger than that of the North. This would have given the future of the Confederacy a vastly different appearance than what modern day racist or anti-Confederate liberals conjecture. Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.

reply to post by KnightFire


Far more Black soldiers fought for the Union than the Confederacy. And slavery was still the primary reason for secession in the first place. The NAACP is right to object.

Very well thought out and put together thread.

I agree with you that the history of the Confederate Flag *could* be honored, however, it has become a symbol of slavery and racial segregation over time and I can see why the NAACP might find the display of the flag an 'embarrassment'.

I tend to identify the flag as a symbol of state rights and a important part of our history as a nation, but it isn't really possible for me to see it from he perspective of a minority.

S&F for you.

reply to post by KnightFire


The black men that fought in the civil war fought for their freedom from white slave owners. They didn't want to fight for the south, trust me.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by KnightFire

 

Far more Black soldiers fought for the Union than the Confederacy. And slavery was still the primary reason for secession in the first place. The NAACP is right to object.

The NAACP has the right to object anything. I would expect them offer an alternative method to honor those soldiers instead of an instant objection. Those soldier carried that flag with honor, even if they were just fighting for their freedom.

Originally posted by KnightFire

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by KnightFire

 

Far more Black soldiers fought for the Union than the Confederacy. And slavery was still the primary reason for secession in the first place. The NAACP is right to object.

The NAACP has the right to object anything. I would expect them offer an alternative method to honor those soldiers instead of an instant objection. Those soldier carried that flag with honor, even if they were just fighting for there freedom.

Please tell me why on earth the NAACP would want to honour the flag of the secessionists who wanted to break up the USA in a desperate attempt at protecting as vile an institution as slavery.

Originally posted by Kody27
reply to post by KnightFire

 

The black men that fought in the civil war fought for their freedom from white slave owners. They didn't want to fight for the south, trust me.

I agree with you, they were fighting for their freedom and so were all the other soldiers. They all were fighting for their freedom from an over controlling government.

The point I was trying to make was instead of an instant objection from the NAACP, they should offer an alternative solution to honor all soldiers Black and White because even though they were fighting for their freedom from their slave owners, they were all honorable service men and women and they should be recognized instead of an instant shutdown because of a flag.

That flag has been branded a symbol of racial divide when it's really a symbol of a very improtant historical time for those who fought and lived in those confederate states.

(Source)

As the war came to an end, the Confederacy took progressive measures to build back up it's army. The creation of the Confederate States Colored Troops, copied after the segregated northern colored troops, came too late to be successful. Had the Confederacy been successful, it would have created the world's largest armies (at the time) consisting of black soldiers, even larger than that of the North. This would have given the future of the Confederacy a vastly different appearance than what modern day racist or anti-Confederate liberals conjecture. Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.

I want to call this part out from above:

Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.

I just know when I see this flag, I see it as a histroical time in American History that transformed this country into what it is today and I honor all those men and women, both Black and White, that bravely put their lives on the line for freedom.

I don't view it as a bunch of rednecks starting a war to keep their slaves in the fields. There is too much documented history that tells a different story.

Originally posted by Metallicus
Very well thought out and put together thread.

I agree with you that the history of the Confederate Flag *could* be honored, however, it has become a symbol of slavery and racial segregation over time and I can see why the NAACP might find the display of the flag an 'embarrassment'.

I tend to identify the flag as a symbol of state rights and a important part of our history as a nation, but it isn't really possible for me to see it from he perspective of a minority.

S&F for you.

Thanks Metallicus!

Originally posted by KnightFire
Here is another example of why the NAACP should be proud to stand behind the Confederate Flag.

(Source)

Black Confederates? Why haven’t we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, “I don’t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910” Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a “cover-up” which started back in 1865. He writes, “During my research, I came across instances where Black men stated they were soldiers, but you can plainly see where ‘soldier’ is crossed out and ‘body servant’ inserted, or ‘teamster’ on pension applications.” Another black historian, Roland Young, says he is not surprised that blacks fought. He explains that “…some, if not most, Black southerners would support their country” and that by doing so they were “demonstrating it’s possible to hate the system of slavery and love one’s country.” This is the very same reaction that most African Americans showed during the American Revolution, where they fought for the colonies, even though the British offered them freedom if they fought for them.

It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?” Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that “biracial units” were frequently organized “by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids…”. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.”

As the war came to an end, the Confederacy took progressive measures to build back up it's army. The creation of the Confederate States Colored Troops, copied after the segregated northern colored troops, came too late to be successful. Had the Confederacy been successful, it would have created the world's largest armies (at the time) consisting of black soldiers, even larger than that of the North. This would have given the future of the Confederacy a vastly different appearance than what modern day racist or anti-Confederate liberals conjecture. Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.

I understand your intent, but next to the slaughter of the native americans, the slavery of black people was indeed the most vile act perpetrated on the land of the nation. Honoring the black soldiers that fought for the confederacy is fine, but expecting the NAACP, or anyone period(and that goes for anyone, of any race or ethnicity) to be "proud" to stand behind a symbol of slavery and barbaric behavior is ludicrous.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by KnightFire

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by KnightFire

 

Far more Black soldiers fought for the Union than the Confederacy. And slavery was still the primary reason for secession in the first place. The NAACP is right to object.

The NAACP has the right to object anything. I would expect them offer an alternative method to honor those soldiers instead of an instant objection. Those soldier carried that flag with honor, even if they were just fighting for there freedom.

Please tell me why on earth the NAACP would want to honour the flag of the secessionists who wanted to break up the USA in a desperate attempt at protecting as vile an institution as slavery.

I'm not saying the NAACP should honor the flag. I'm saying they should show support and honor the Black men and women who served. The flag doesn't just represent the secesionists, it represents the soldiers too. Just like our flag represents more than just a named nation, it represents the people behind it. At that point in time, that was their flag, it was what represented them.

Originally posted by KnightFire

Originally posted by Kody27
reply to post by KnightFire

 

The black men that fought in the civil war fought for their freedom from white slave owners. They didn't want to fight for the south, trust me.

I agree with you, they were fighting for their freedom and so were all the other soldiers. They all were fighting for their freedom from an over controlling government.

The point I was trying to make was instead of an instant objection from the NAACP, they should offer an alternative solution to honor all soldiers Black and White because even though they were fighting for their freedom from their slave owners, they were all honorable service men and women and they should be recognized instead of an instant shutdown because of a flag.

That flag has been branded a symbol of racial divide when it's really a symbol of a very improtant historical time for those who fought and lived in those confederate states.

(Source)

As the war came to an end, the Confederacy took progressive measures to build back up it's army. The creation of the Confederate States Colored Troops, copied after the segregated northern colored troops, came too late to be successful. Had the Confederacy been successful, it would have created the world's largest armies (at the time) consisting of black soldiers, even larger than that of the North. This would have given the future of the Confederacy a vastly different appearance than what modern day racist or anti-Confederate liberals conjecture. Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.

I want to call this part out from above:

Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.

I just know when I see this flag, I see it as a histroical time in American History that transformed this country into what it is today and I honor all those men and women, both Black and White, that bravely put their lives on the line for freedom.

I don't view it as a bunch of rednecks starting a war to keep their slaves in the fields. There is too much documented history that tells a different story.

None of that subtle sh*t matters. The fact is, the flag invokes emotions in both white and black people and everyone knows it.

The swastika was a symbol for good luck before the Nazi's used it. Does that mean it's ok to fly a gian swastika flag celebrating good luck? No, because everyone knows what it really means on the surface to everyone else.

The black soldiers were not fighting for the same freedom that the white soldiers were fighting for. The white soldiers at least had the freedom to not slave in the fields for free.

Black soldiers were fighting for freedom within an even greater prison. Case closed.

reply to post by KnightFire

Confederate flag will fly along I-95

God save the Interstate...

It's been a long time since soldiers from the north and south killed each other. It's been just about as long since the war was solved by way of blood.

Why do we still fight it?

In the south, there is a pride... not in slavery, but in challenging the overburdening central government of Washington. There is a history here so much neglected.

The Confederate Army was manned mostly by poor dirt farmers who had never even seen a black person. They were called to defend their homeland from an invader. In truth, slavery was never even a part of the reason for war until after a point where the Union was losing both battles and support at home.

History is pretty clear that almost a third of the southern, slave-holding plantations had base ownership NORTH of the Mason-Dixon. In fact... it was at the behest of these land owners that slavery was never abolished and then, paid the Confederate state governments after secession.

Today, we take the term, 'states rights' and immediately link it to racism... but it is, without question, a part of how this nation was founded... so that a single government in Washington could never assume the power it has under the last two presidents.

Had MLK lived and survived into old age... he would be the elder statesman of this entire country today. From Mississippi to Ohio, from New York to California... we would not be living our lives today based on what happened so long ago. We would all be brothers and sisters... we would not hate, we would not anger because all of that B-S would have passed a long time ago.

The south has a unique culture that doesn't touch race. Of course, by saying that... I may expect to be sniped...

Originally posted by supremecommander
Originally posted by KnightFire
I understand your intent, but next to the slaughter of the native americans, the slavery of black people was indeed the most vile act perpetrated on the land of the nation. Honoring the black soldiers that fought for the confederacy is fine, but expecting the NAACP, or anyone period(and that goes for anyone, of any race or ethnicity) to be "proud" to stand behind a symbol of slavery and barbaric behavior is ludicrous.

Tell me the last time the NAACP promoted the Black Soldiers of the civil war versus objecting to the confederate flag? Where are they promoting Black history of the Civil War?

IMO it's disgraceful for them to oppose a flag without giving merit to those who took part. Why is the wirtten histroy swept under the crapet because a flag was branded a symbol? Why can't they say, yes, we oppose the confederate flag, but we want to ensure we honor our people who fought for their freedom? There wasn't a confederate flag that represented balck people it was one flag that represent all people whether they liked it or not.

At the end of the day, the Black Confederate Soldiers need to be honored just as much as the white soldiers. They both fought the same war, they both spilled the same red blood on the same grass and dirt.

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by KnightFire

 

Confederate flag will fly along I-95

God save the Interstate...

It's been a long time since soldiers from the north and south killed each other. It's been just about as long since the war was solved by way of blood.

Why do we still fight it?

In the south, there is a pride... not in slavery, but in challenging the overburdening central government of Washington. There is a history here so much neglected.

The Confederate Army was manned mostly by poor dirt farmers who had never even seen a black person. They were called to defend their homeland from an invader. In truth, slavery was never even a part of the reason for war until after a point where the Union was losing both battles and support at home.

History is pretty clear that almost a third of the southern, slave-holding plantations had base ownership NORTH of the Mason-Dixon. In fact... it was at the behest of these land owners that slavery was never abolished and then, paid the Confederate state governments after secession.

Today, we take the term, 'states rights' and immediately link it to racism... but it is, without question, a part of how this nation was founded... so that a single government in Washington could never assume the power it has under the last two presidents.

Had MLK lived and survived into old age... he would be the elder statesman of this entire country today. From Mississippi to Ohio, from New York to California... we would not be living our lives today based on what happened so long ago. We would all be brothers and sisters... we would not hate, we would not anger because all of that B-S would have passed a long time ago.

The south has a unique culture that doesn't touch race. Of course, by saying that... I may expect to be sniped...

Very well said.

Originally posted by KnightFire
I'm not saying the NAACP should honor the flag. I'm saying they should show support and honor the Black men and women who served. The flag doesn't just represent the secesionists, it represents the soldiers too. Just like our flag represents more than just a named nation, it represents the people behind it. At that point in time, that was their flag, it was what represented them.

And for the vast majority of the slaves there was a flag that represented them. It was the flag of the Union. I'd also like to point out that only a very small number of blacks were conscripted into the Confederate Army, due to the political ramifications.

it originally stood against centralized tyranny, but the "winner" wrights history
Lincoln even said slavery had nothing to do with it...

and what happened to him?
he printed his own money and got assassinated
which is where the real story is...still

Reply to post by KnightFire

There wasnt a confederate flag that represented black people because black people werent of importance to be represented. Tho only thing a black person was good for was slave labor to keep the confederate states functioning. Also I'm very sure that history can't be swept under a rug. We are reminded that it happened every time we see a black American. Point is, why fly a flag of a treasonous confederacy (that lost the war)?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Danbones
it originally stood against centralized tyranny, but the "winner" wrights history
Lincoln even said slavery had nothing to do with it...

and what happened to him?
he printed his own money and got assassinated
which is where the real story is...still

No. Again, no. To quote Alexander H. Stephens, the Vice President of the CSA:


"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

Reply to post by redoubt

"The south has a unique culture that doesnt touch race"

Please clarify that statement.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com