Confederate Flag[W:1518,2230, 2241]

Absentglare · Jul 24, 2015

Ryriena said:
Yank is British and makes us an American, and Yankee makes you a Union person or Northerner in the south. In example, a group of old southerners had a friend who was a Yankee born and bred that came down south after the war to help rebuild it and had a coffee pot that he let old confederates use. They said that "He was one of the finest, Yankee's they ever known" for letting them use that old coffee pot... Giggles snorts, I like that bit of history phrases myself.

It was a joke because i have never considered myself a "yankee" and i think that insistence on dividing the nation that way is a southern attitude. Southerners like to tell us that we think we're better than them. I don't really care, live and let live. Though, i'll gladly call out people who romanticize the confederacy in the civil war for their implicit racism.

Risky Thicket · Jul 25, 2015

Absentglare said:
It was a joke because i have never considered myself a "yankee" and i think that insistence on dividing the nation that way is a southern attitude. Southerners like to tell us that we think we're better than them. I don't really care, live and let live. Though, i'll gladly call out people who romanticize the confederacy in the civil war for their implicit racism.

And of racism beyond the South?

JasperL · Jul 25, 2015

Risky Thicket said:
You have documentation that the South would have "enshrined" slavery in the South indefinitely.

Other than the Constitution of the CSA? Or quotes from the seceding states, and some very specific quotes by the VP of the Confederacy? It's my favorite:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth

When you start off denying the absolute enshrinement of slavery in the CSA, you've really given away the game.

Push them and they will push back. Actually that is how the War Between the States began.

So all those seceding states saying in their declarations, paraphrased, "It's all about slavery" weren't accurate. It was because the North pushed them....on slavery. Got it.

In the 60s many people beyond the South pointed fingers and demanded "those backward rednecks" change their ways - WHILE, many, many states up north had not changed and made no attempt to change.

Which states and how hadn't they changed. You'll need to be specific. For some reason, nearly 100% of non-southerner Congressmen and the POTUS supported the CRA and VRA.

Dixie responded by telling everyone else to kiss it. The battle flag came out again. Yes, African-Americans were adversely affected.

You've made my point in a backhanded way because the flag did come back out and it was a symbol of defiance against extending civil rights to blacks. And "adversely affected" is an understatement to put it mildly. This is Lost Cause denial in its purest form.

It was a story that has to this day, repeated itself. For the most part it was not about holding black people back as it was a reaction to finger pointing Yankees who had hardly set an example;

I'm not sure if you even hear the argument you're making. Of course it was about holding black people back. That's the point of segregation - institutionalized second class status in every walk of life for blacks. Inferior schools, unable to register, unable to vote, unable to sit in a jury and therefore unable to be tried by a jury of their peers, unable to run for office and therefore affect government systematically rigged against them. The entire system was DESIGNED to hold black people back. It was the point.

who know very little about their own history and slavery and racism. And don't want to know.

I'm having a hard time avoiding sarcasm here, but it's clear you're in denial of the region's history.

The South never authorized the use of the battle flag by anyone. There is no one to authorize it. No ownership. It can back out because the South was once again being set upon by the north, who didn't have any call to be up on a pedestal finger pointing. Many in the South, as you well know, see even the recent actions as an attack of sorts on the Southland. Some grab the battle flag and say "Forget, hell!"

I'm not sure who "The South" might be, but legislatures, governors, and elected officials up and down the line including the Dixiecrats running a candidate for POTUS authorized the battle flag.

JasperL · Jul 25, 2015

Risky Thicket said:
No, I don't fly the flag and never have and don't have family or friends who ever have. If it is offensive to African-Americans I support the flag not flying on state or federal property. I have no problem at all with that. However, as it began in South Carolina it was South Carolina's decision to make. I did not support and do not support non-South Carolinians attempting to make the decision for the people of South Carolina. Most of the people in the South likely feel the same way.

It just IS offensive to a great many blacks.

And as far as making the decisions, yes, it's SC's to make, but this is America and we get to weigh in on all kinds of things. The point of this place is to debate. No one suggested Obama issue an EO banning the flag from state property everywhere.

Proof?

LOL. This is what kills me about this whole discussion. Some southerners just refuse to accept the most basic of facts. The pictures have been posted many times. If you have any other proof, be my guest. Maybe some black civil rights activists marching with the Rebel flag? Love to see that!

Actually that is incorrect. Show me where racism has never existed in America and show me where it doesn't exist now. The War Between the States was primarily about money, state's rights and lastly about racism.

Mississippi:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

Mississippi put it first, you place it as a side issue. I'll believe Mississippi's explanation, at the time, in their own words!

After the South lost the war, you Lost Cause types try to downplay what was obvious to everyone at the time, especially including the seceding states that if it weren't for differences over slavery, there is no secession and no Civil War.

Did your Confederate ancestor own slaves?

No, but I can't imagine what difference the answer makes.

Perhaps you missed my earlier post concerning racism outside the South as it exists today.

Racism is nationwide. It is very much as national problem and a national disgrace. It must be ended nationally.

Fine, and we can do our part here in the South by not flying flags that we KNOW offend a great many blacks.

And almost as important to me, we can do our part for our image by not flying flags the rest of the WORLD associate with racism, slavery, Jim Crow, etc. I've said many times the South has mostly left that past long behind - the only remaining racists are dead ender types, losers. People defending that offensive symbol IMO do this region a great disservice.

Maurice Bessinger (BBQ fame) was a proud segregationist and flew the Rebel flag over his restaurants until his death. That's not an accident. His sons took over and the flags came down. That's what the rest of the South should do....

The battle flag did not kill those 8 church going people in Charleston. Racism did.

Correct.

Excon · Jul 25, 2015

Paperview said:
For anyone to go on calling Confederate veterans = U.S. Veterans is just trolling at this point.

You got that wrong, as it only holds true for the opposite.

Paperview said:
was ... specific to *just that purpose*

Thank you for again clarifying that you do not understand what you are quoting.
"Just that purpose" is not the same as "For the purpose of this section". :doh
Which Means their status does not apply to other benefits in the other sections. Anybody who ignores that it just trolling.

That wording has no effect on the status conferred upon them.

All you again have shown is that you fail to understand that has no effect on the status as a US Civil War veteran.
Just as "Other Than Honorable" discharged veterans also have limited benefits. The fact that their benefits are limited does not mean they are not veterans.
The benefit a Statute applies to, in no way effects the status as a veteran as conferred upon them by the US. Only to the benefit applied to their designation.

Paperview said:
Strangely, a few conservatives seem to be proud of that moocher status.

What is truly sad, is that you do not understand that a Veteran benefit is an earned benefit. Not sucking off the teat.

HorseLoverGirl · Jul 25, 2015

Re: Confederate Flag

Absentglare said:
THIS is completely wrong horselovergirl!! Come on.

I can't very well order a solid black license plate where the numbers/letters are unreadable, can i ?

Did you know that you can't just redesign your taillights or headlights in any random way you want IF you want to drive on public roads?

This free speech defense is clearly bogus. I don't know how that case made it to SCOTUS.

Yeah I don't know why the case made it to SCOTUS either but they could have had the courage to put the smackdown on Texas and tell them to allow WE THE PEOPLE to have the plate we CHOOSE!

HorseLoverGirl · Jul 25, 2015

Paperview said:
More appropriately named: "The Southern War of Aggression in Defense of Owning Black People as Slaves."

More like War for Southern Independence, or the War of Northern Aggression.

Paperview · Jul 25, 2015

I'll repeat it as often as need be:

Re: the 1958 legislation - "[A]ll it did was make Confederate veterans eligible for the same VA benefits as Union soldiers were. (and no Confederate veteran ever received the benefit)
It did not make them U.S. veterans, make any other official change in their status, or extend any particular protections to graves or monuments.

It's really amusing how the same heritage folks who, generally speaking, have nothing but disdain and mockery for the federal government, cling desperately to this particular bit of legislation as an endorsement of their ancestors' integrity. Is your faith in them and their cause genuinely so weak that you have to have the official imprimatur of the U.S. government to justify their cause? Apparently so." - Andy Hall

Excon · Jul 25, 2015

And I will continue to dispel the bs you provide as you certainly lack understanding of what you are presenting, just as the other person you are trying to use as an authority argument (A logical fallacy) is wrong as well.

They were US citizens, and in-general, veterans of the US Civil War. Period
The US recognized that when they conferred upon them the status of Civil War veteran for Government purposes, a pension. That is a recognition of their status as a US Civil War veteran. And yet, here you are trying to make an absurd argument that they are not when it is clearly in US Code. That is lame.
Nor does it matter one bit if no one actually collected the benefit or the reason for it being conferred, as it was for purposes of a US veteran benefit. The status was conferred and recognized by the act.

What is even more lame is that you do not understand that the phrase you keep pointing to only means their status does not apply to the benefits in the other chapter/sections. That is all. They still have that US status regardless of the limited benefit.
You simply cant change that.

JasperL · Jul 25, 2015

Excon said:
What is truly sad, is that you do not understand that a Veteran benefit is an earned benefit. Not sucking off the teat.

No, the CSA soldiers didn't "earn" pension benefits from the United States, their enemy during that war. Is the U.S. paying pensions to old German widows of WWII?

Risky Thicket · Jul 25, 2015

In response to my question to about your Confederate ancestor and whether he owned slaves, you said:

JasperL said:
No, but I can't imagine what difference the answer makes.

So then tell me what in the hell was he fighting for?

JasperL · Jul 25, 2015

Risky Thicket said:
In response to my question to about your Confederate ancestor and whether he owned slaves, you said:

So then tell me what in the hell was he fighting for?

No one asks some grunt in any army if they're looking for the reason a country went to war. The leaders declare war, so it's their motivation that matters, and we have all kinds of quotes from CSA leadership, seceding states, that told us the reason - slavery.

Risky Thicket · Jul 25, 2015

JasperL said:
No one asks some grunt in any army if they're looking for the reason a country went to war. The leaders declare war, so it's their motivation that matters, and we have all kinds of quotes from CSA leadership, seceding states, that told us the reason - slavery.

Right. Once you find yourself in a war you find that all that "God, Mom and Apple pie" is bull****. At that point it is really about your mates. The bond begins and it becomes different and greater in some ways than any other relationship you can or will have ever with any person or group of people. I suspect your relative didn't go to war to defend slavery. Like most Southern men he went to war for many reasons:

If you are Southern (greatly influenced by Scots-Irish heritage) going to war is what you do. That tradition (good or bad) continues to this day in the Southland and is supported by enlistment and other data.

It was about honor. Which as you know remains a very important Southern cultural trait.

It was about being loyal to the South, your neighbors and your people.

It was because the South was bound by culture. It was an is to this day a culture unique in the United States. You know that whenever you travel outside the South.

It would be extremely difficult to prove that most Confederate soldiers fought expressly or primarily to keep their slaves. Most didn't have slaves.

"Marse Robert" certainly didn't fight the war over slavery. He said as much. He resigned his commission in the U.S. military to defend his state, Virginia. He put that in writing.

Certainly as you find some CSA leaders who stated that they fought expressly to continue the practice of slavery you will find as many or perhaps more who did not say that. Indeed I dare saw that there is no documentation that proves most Southern soldiers fought primarily to prolong slavery. At the same time there are northern soldiers who owned slaves and/or supported the continuation of slavery. As we know slavery continued in the north during the war. Guilt was heavy on BOTH sides of the Mason-Dixon. Some people don't know much about northern history or would prefer to ignore it.

Yes, some seceding states gave slavery as a cause and yes, in a way it was. But that is only part of it. Often the assumption is made that the South held on to slavery so that the South could continue to practice racism. As such racism would be the reason the South wanted to continue the practice of slavery - so that the South could continue to practice racism. The South went to war so that they could be racists? That is simply not true. It isn't.

Slavery was a means (certainly a bad one) to continue industry. As you well know the success of northern economy and of many northern cities, New York is a prime example though far from being the only one, came about primarily due to tariffs which the South paid and because of cotton. Cotton, slave labor, made many, many northern fortunes and built and expanded many northern cities, while the South in essence foot the bill. In this manner yes, slavery was an issue, but for the most part neither side cared that much about the plight of slaves. Both sides benefited from slavery. The South was most heavily and directly invested in it while the north benefitted from commerce due directly to slavery. The north was not hell bent to end slavery. Your man Abraham Lincoln, among others, said so.

Ryriena · Jul 25, 2015

Risky Thicket said:
In response to my question to about your Confederate ancestor and whether he owned slaves, you said:

So then tell me what in the hell was he fighting for?

My confederate ancestor never owned slaves according to our records we have from the past.....

He fought because he loved the south like General Robert E Lee.

Caine · Jul 25, 2015

30.81% of the people who voted in this poll have no respect for the 1st Amendment.

Risky Thicket · Jul 25, 2015

Re: Confederate Flag

Risky Thicket said:
Let's get this straight:

1. No one was or is talking about Forrest's descendants except you.

2. Nathan Bedford Forrest II was General Nathan Bedford Forrest's grandson - not his son, as you and your "source" erroneously claim.

3. I'm not playing "gotcha" with you. Find someone else. I won't participate in the further diversion of the thread away from the subject of racism.

Paperview said:
:lamo

:lamo

:lamo

We'll be waiting, Risky. On tetherhooks.

lol

In post #955 you said:

That's a long ways off. That NBF's son was a grand Wizard of the KKK is not in dispute.

It's literally *alllll* over the place in his biography and records.

General Forrest did not have a son named after him. His son was named William Montgomery Bedford Forrest. His son was never the Grand Dragon of the KKK.

Post #956, where I showed you the first time that you AND your source were wrong after you insisted that Nathan Bedford Forrest and his son were Grand Dragons of the KKK.

I initially asked you for documentation that General Nathan Bedford Forrest was the first Grand Dragon of the KKK. There is no documentation of Gen. Forrest being the first Grand Dragon, though it appears he was. You obviously didn't know that there is no documentation. In fact you responded by asking me which documentation did I want, that of General Forrest being the Grand Dragon or his son being a Grand Dragon. There is no documentation for either.

Following you posted a newspaper article, from The Macon Telegraph, declaring the son of General Nathan Bedford Forrest being appointed as the Grand Dragon of the KKK. You and your "documentation" are wrong. I told you that at the time. I'm telling you again.

Finding crap on the internet is not at all difficult. Interpretation and application of crap on the internet is something all together different.

Absentglare · Jul 25, 2015

Caine said:
30.81% of the people who voted in this poll have no respect for the 1st Amendment.

Just because i think it should be expelled from society doesn't mean i think the government should force expulsion.

It helps us identify the bigots and denialists. I think there shouldn't be bigots and denialists- i also think i should floss twice a day.

Paperview · Jul 25, 2015

Re: Confederate Flag

Risky Thicket said:
In post #955 you said:

General Forrest did not have a son named after him. His son was named William Montgomery Bedford Forrest. His son was never the Grand Dragon of the KKK.

Post #956, where I showed you the first time that you AND your source were wrong after you insisted that Nathan Bedford Forrest and his son were Grand Dragons of the KKK.

I initially asked you for documentation that General Nathan Bedford Forrest was the first Grand Dragon of the KKK. There is no documentation of Gen. Forrest being the first Grand Dragon, though it appears he was. You obviously didn't know that there is no documentation. In fact you responded by asking me which documentation did I want, that of General Forrest being the Grand Dragon or his son being a Grand Dragon. There is no documentation for either.

Oh wow. Devastating. You've really got yourself a prize there. lol

I got a name wrong, and called what not one, but two 1920's newspaper called him - "son."

I posted the newspaper article -

forrest-macon-telegraph-9-july-1922-p-8-jpg.19619

&

They claimed Son in the title in the above one - but noted it was his grandson in the article.

"Nathan Bedford Forrest II was the grandson of Confederate Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest (through his son William Montgomery Forrest), a pioneering leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and father of Brigadier General Nathan Bedford Forrest III.

Forrest is perhaps best known for his tenure as the General Secretary of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and as a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.

Forrest served as Secretary and Business Manager at Lanier University, a college that was sold to the Klan in 1921. Forrest announced that the institution would teach "100% pure Americanism", and that the curriculum would include two mandatory courses for all students: one on the study of the US Constitution and another on Biblical literature."

Nathan Bedford Forrest II

The grandson was there at the dedication of Stone Mountain: History - stonemountain.com: Stone Mountain Park

Hooded and burning a cross there, and the grandson even administered the oath there.

Following you posted a newspaper article, from The Macon Telegraph, declaring the son of General Nathan Bedford Forrest being appointed as the Grand Dragon of the KKK. You and your "documentation" are wrong. I told you that at the time. I'm telling you again.

The grandson was indeed Grand Dragon of the KKK.

You're wrong.

And it's bull crap I "insisted" it was his son.

This was my reply when you pointed it out: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...230-2241-a-post1064782030.html#post1064782030

for all to see.

You can claim victory! I called the grandson, son, son. Wicked

You must be so proud of yourself!

Ryriena · Jul 25, 2015

The KKK was originally meant to fight against carpetbaggers and white trash men, it was not racist at all and Nathan Beford Forest helped disban the old KKK when he left stop with your cherry picking of historical evidence. Nathan Beford Forest had freed his slaves and they fought freely for the south and became a civil rights activist. He
Nathan Bedford Forrest

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#First_KKK

Reverend Semons in 1915 started the second KKK that and later became the racist order that it is know for today. The first KKK is what Nathan Forest was apart of and helped get it disbanded once he found out it was getting in too lawless behaviors such as attacking women and families of freed slaves.

“We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black
persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict.”

General Nathan Bedford Forest

Risky Thicket · Jul 25, 2015

Re: Confederate Flag

Risky Thicket said:
Let's get this straight:

1. No one was or is talking about Forrest's descendants except you.

2. Nathan Bedford Forrest II was General Nathan Bedford Forrest's grandson - not his son, as you and your "source" erroneously claim.

3. I'm not playing "gotcha" with you. Find someone else. I won't participate in the further diversion of the thread away from the subject of racism.

Paperview said:
Oh wow. Devastating. You've really got yourself a prize there. lol

I got a name wrong, and called what not one, but two 1920's newspaper called him - "son."

I posted the newspaper article -

&

They claimed Son in the title in the above one - but noted it was his grandson in the article.

"Nathan Bedford Forrest II was the grandson of Confederate Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest (through his son William Montgomery Forrest), a pioneering leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and father of Brigadier General Nathan Bedford Forrest III.

Forrest is perhaps best known for his tenure as the General Secretary of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and as a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.

Forrest served as Secretary and Business Manager at Lanier University, a college that was sold to the Klan in 1921. Forrest announced that the institution would teach "100% pure Americanism", and that the curriculum would include two mandatory courses for all students: one on the study of the US Constitution and another on Biblical literature."

Nathan Bedford Forrest II

The grandson was there at the dedication of Stone Mountain: History - stonemountain.com: Stone Mountain Park

Hooded and burning a cross there, and the grandson even administered the oath there.

The grandson was indeed Grand Dragon of the KKK.

You're wrong.

And it's bull crap I "insisted" it was his son.

This was my reply when you pointed it out: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...230-2241-a-post1064782030.html#post1064782030

for all to see.

You can claim victory! I called the grandson, son, son. Wicked

You must be so proud of yourself!

My initial point was and remains that many people who throw around garbage, half-truths and lies about the South and its history don't know a lot of what they are talking about. I said that at some point prior to your adamant historical documentation. Subsequently you came along and proved my point.

It has been my experience that many people hell bent to show how bad the South was and how evil and rotten Southerns are for remaining true to their culture and heritage often read "history" that supports or reinforces what they have always believed and what they have always been told. Much is repeated AND OMITTED so often that lies, half-truths and omissions are all that people know.

In essence they believe incomplete history about one half of a two sided war. Most people don't know and don't seem interested in learning as much about the northern half of the conflict as it relates to slavery, racism and discrimination. I can understand that people don't want to know shameful things about their own ancestry, city, state and region. Frankly, people who get it wrong or don't know much at all shouldn't be pointing fingers at anyone.

Ryriena · Jul 25, 2015

Also here is Forrest's speech to the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association or also better known as NNAPC July 5, 1875.

Ladies and Gentlemen I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God's earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. ( Immense applause and laughter.) I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don't propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I'll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand. (Prolonged applause.)

Paperview · Jul 25, 2015

Re: Confederate Flag

Risky Thicket said:
My initial point was and remains that many people who throw around garbage, half-truths and lies about the South and its history don't know a lot of what they are talking about. I said that at some point prior to your adamant historical documentation. Subsequently you came along and proved my point.
...

Your Yooooooge "gotcha" was that I referred to Nathan Bedford Forest II as NBF's *son.*

If that's something you think is crow-worthy, then suck it up for all its worth.

Most people recognize that as a teeny, tiny, insignificant error, corrected immediately.

If that's the best you've got, then, son, you got a road to hoe.

Also: You - just now, rewrote history when you said I *insisted* it was his son, after it was pointed out.

Your revisionism on the war is part of your record, and abundant. It is drenched in Lost Cause pablum.

As far as the North, which abolished slavery in most states before we even ratified the Constitution - (Yes, a few grandfathered in remained. A Decimal point percentage) -- it does not have entirely clean hands, and I don't see anyone making that case.

It is a natural fact though, the South enshrined human bondage in its culture, and was ready to fight a brutal, bloody war to preserve, protect and expand it.

If you don't think that's not exponentially worse, I don't know what to tell you.

Paperview · Jul 25, 2015

Ryriena said:
Also here is Forrest's speech to the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association or also better known as NNAPC July 5, 1875.
...

Yeah, that Speech really pissed off a lot of Confederate veterans.

EX-CONFEDERATES —– Meeting of Cavalry Survivor’s Association. —– A called meeting of the Cavalry Survivor’s Association was held at the Irish Volunteers’ Hall last evening. The amended constitution as reported by the committee, was unanimously adopted. [snip] And now to mar all the lustre attached to his name, his brain is turned by the civilities of a mulatto wench who presented him with a bouquet of roses. We would rather have sent him a car filled with the rarest exotics plucked from the dizziest peaks of the Himalayas or the perilous fastness of the Andes than he should have thus befouled the fair home of one of the Confederacy’s most daring general officers. What can his object be? Ah! General Forrest!
[snip]

Wherefore be it
Resolved, that we, the Survivor’s Association of the Cavalry of the Confederate States, in meeting assembled at Augusta, Ga., do hereby express our unmitigated disapproval of any such sentiments as those expressed by Gen. N. B. Forrest at a meeting of the Pole Bearers Society of Memphis, Tennessee,

and that we allow no man to advocate, or even hint to the world, before any public assemblage, that he dare associate our mother’s, wives’ daughters’ or sisters’ names in the same category that he classes the females of the negro [sic.] race, without, at least, expressing out disapprobation.The resolution was unanimously adopted and ordered spread on the minutes.

Geez. Sounds like they were mad, huh?

Ryriena · Jul 25, 2015

Paperview said:
Yeah, that Speech really pissed off a lot of Confederate veterans.

EX-CONFEDERATES —– Meeting of Cavalry Survivor’s Association. —– A called meeting of the Cavalry Survivor’s Association was held at the Irish Volunteers’ Hall last evening. The amended constitution as reported by the committee, was unanimously adopted. [snip] And now to mar all the lustre attached to his name, his brain is turned by the civilities of a mulatto wench who presented him with a bouquet of roses. We would rather have sent him a car filled with the rarest exotics plucked from the dizziest peaks of the Himalayas or the perilous fastness of the Andes than he should have thus befouled the fair home of one of the Confederacy’s most daring general officers. What can his object be? Ah! General Forrest!
[snip] Wherefore be it
Resolved, that we, the Survivor’s Association of the Cavalry of the Confederate States, in meeting assembled at Augusta, Ga., do hereby express our unmitigated disapproval of any such sentiments as those expressed by Gen. N. B. Forrest at a meeting of the Pole Bearers Society of Memphis, Tennessee, and that we allow no man to advocate, or even hint to the world, before any public assemblage, that he dare associate our mother’s, wives’ daughters’ or sisters’ names in the same category that he classes the females of the negro [sic.] race, without, at least, expressing out disapprobation.The resolution was unanimously adopted and ordered spread on the minutes.

Geez. Sounds like they were mad, huh?

Link I can find things off the internet too instead of a png.

Paperview · Jul 25, 2015

Ryriena said:
Link I can find things off the internet too instead of a png.

There is a link there, honey. Did you bother to click?

Need me to hand it to you on a platter?

Augusta, Georgia Chronicle, July 31, 1875, p. 4:

Why would that even surprise you? I mean, seriously.

Confederate Flag[W:1518,2230, 2241]

Should the Confederate Flag be abolished?

Yes

No

More options

Absentglare

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

JasperL

JasperL

Excon

HorseLoverGirl

Well-known member

HorseLoverGirl

Well-known member

Paperview

Excon

JasperL

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

JasperL

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

Ryriena

Caine

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

Absentglare

Paperview

Ryriena

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

Ryriena

Paperview

Paperview

Ryriena

Paperview