The Confederate Flag

Kerry Won Ohio said:

Yes, Ft Sumter had nothing to do with the start of the war. Of course. The South seceded over slavery, which most of the Southern states admitted to in their proclamations when they seceded. You can look it up. As usual, you know absolutely nothing.

Obviously, when it comes to discussing the Civil War, I don't take the views of racists and Confederate sympathizers seriously. Go away.

Click to expand...

Robertinfremont said:

You should be ashamed.

Click to expand...

White supremacists are a serious, dangerous and growing threat

White terrorists are nothing new to America. Unfortunately, they surface from time to time to wreak their havoc on vulnerable groups in our country. For decades, the Ku Klux Klan lynched, burned, shot and otherwise brutalized African-Americans. The KKK also terrorized our Jewish population.

The KKK was a power across the country, including in Idaho, in the 1920s. Years later, Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was motivated by white power and hatred of the government to kill 168 people. More recently, Dylann Roof killed nine black worshipers in their Charleston church in 2015.

The current white supremacy movement in the U.S. is now linked with white power enthusiasts across the globe, thanks to social media. Brenton Tarrant, the murderer in New Zealand, was inspired by Anders Breivik, a Norwegian white power terrorist who killed 77 people, mostly kids. Christopher Hasson, the Coast Guard officer who was arrested in Maryland in February before he could fulfill his dream of setting off a race war, also drew inspiration from Breivik.

These people share the perverted grievance that white folk are in danger of being replaced by people they regard as inferior.

Click to expand...

Kerry Won Ohio said:

I have plenty of evidence. There are many historians who agree with me, as I pointed out to you yesterday and you have ignored. After the war, even some Confederate generals agreed that they had a chance to win the war if not for Lee's bad decisions. I pointed that out to you yesterday also.

And you're contradicting yourself about McClellan. If Lee fought a purely defensive strategy, McClellan would NOT have adjusted. He was too reticent, as you yourself stated. Hence, Lee would have prolonged the war and his army would have had fewer casualties. And the North would have had fewer victories. And then potentially Lincoln loses re-election and the South wins the war. It's not nearly as far-fetched as you pretend it to be.

Click to expand...

Kerry Won Ohio said:

Yes, Ft Sumter had nothing to do with the start of the war. Of course. The South seceded over slavery, which most of the Southern states admitted to in their proclamations when they seceded. You can look it up. As usual, you know absolutely nothing.

Obviously, when it comes to discussing the Civil War, I don't take the views of racists and Confederate sympathizers seriously. Go away.

Click to expand...

bongsaway said:

I was born and raised in a large northeastern city where I lived for thirty six years. I now live in florida for over thirty years. Yesterday at a pizza place I spoke to a man with confederate flags on his truck. I asked him what does the confederate flag mean to him? He told me he was born in alabama and it was his heritage, not a racist thing like most people think. He said he was proud of his southern heritage. Unless I'm mistaken birmingham was once called bombingham for a reason and it wasn't for southern hospitality. I wondered to myself how he could he be proud of his heritage when his heritage was lynching and blowing up black folks?

When you see someone flying or displaying a confederate flag, what thoughts come to your mind?

Click to expand...

bluesmoke said:

"not nearly as far-fetched"

I see. So, it is far-fetched, but not as far-fetched, as I make it to be. So just how far-fetched is it? My immediate past two replies already answered this last one of yours.

Click to expand...

Robertinfremont said:

Are you serious that Abe invaded due to slavery?

He said he did not nor would ever.

His excuse was that the lads in S. Carolina shot at a super fort. So strong none were injured due to the shelling. In short, a lot of noise but no harm to the solders in the fort.

Some argue the South could have won. Sure, early in the war.

Click to expand...

Mashmont said:

Well, the rainbow flag we see everywhere is nothing but a symbol of hate, division, and immorality. It is deeply offensive to a large group of people and should be removed from all government buildings.

Click to expand...

bongsaway said:

I was born and raised in a large northeastern city where I lived for thirty six years. I now live in florida for over thirty years. Yesterday at a pizza place I spoke to a man with confederate flags on his truck. I asked him what does the confederate flag mean to him? He told me he was born in alabama and it was his heritage, not a racist thing like most people think. He said he was proud of his southern heritage. Unless I'm mistaken birmingham was once called bombingham for a reason and it wasn't for southern hospitality. I wondered to myself how he could he be proud of his heritage when his heritage was lynching and blowing up black folks?

When you see someone flying or displaying a confederate flag, what thoughts come to your mind?

Click to expand...

OscarLevant said:

The confederate flag, yes, is a piece of history, but it is a piece of history in the sense that the Swastika is a piece of history.

Look at it in a museum, sure, but don't go around and wave the damn thing, lest you be thought of as a racist pig.

Click to expand...

JasperL said:

The responsibility for the segregation and Jim Crow lies with those states that imposed it, and those politicians who voted for those laws, and the voters who put and kept them in office and who obviously supported those laws. That's how it works.

A separate question is whether or not the 'north' should have brought the bigots in the former CSA to heel sooner than they did, and of course they should have, and shame on the country for that. But the "north" does not share in the responsibility of what the SOUTH did for those nearly 100 years. Their states, their votes, their policies, all done with the approval of white voters.

Click to expand...

JasperL said:

You've got a serious failure in logic there, but it's not worth debating.

Click to expand...

Kerry Won Ohio said:

Well, as usual, you ignored my comment about other historians agreeing with me that the South had a good chance of winning the Civil War. Instead, you chose to dishonestly focus on the Confederate generals instead.

The link I gave you provides a long discussion of why I'm right and you are wrong. But, again, you want to disingenuously focus on my comment about the Confederate generals instead. Because that's the only potential counter-point you've got.

Click to expand...

Kerry Won Ohio said:

I see. My claim is "unfounded" because you found one guy who disagrees with Bonekemper. Wow.

And yet you can't refute the several other historians who agree with me, as I mentioned in my previous post.

The fact that you didn't even know this other viewpoint existed (that the South had a good chance of winning the war) shows that you are definitely not an authority on this subject and simply cannot be taken seriously.

Click to expand...

Kerry Won Ohio said:

Nope. More disingenuous nonsense from you. You're the one describing it as far-fetched, that's why I used that language.

Many accomplished historians agree with me, as I previously pointed out to you. You took my comment about the Confederate generals and ran with it, because that's all you could desperately come up with.

The fact that you think the South's loss was inevitable, and the fact that you weren't aware that many historians disagree with you about that, shows how little you know on this topic.

Click to expand...

joko104 said:

In my opinion, Robert E. Lee was not a great general. Rather, he had great soldiers - country boys who knew how to shoot and fight.

He stupidly - or deliberately - decided to risk everything in one battle. In my opinion, he wanted the war to end one way or the other immediately. He gambled everything in suicidal charges over and over - then surrendered. However, he actually had no authority to surrender for the Confederacy, only his army. While declared a Southern hero, actually that was traitorous to the South because his remaining army could have joined up to other Confederate forces deeper in the South.

Robert E. Lee found "honorably" by military standards. A case could be made that is why he - and the South - lost. Has the South early on took a slash and burn everything attitude in an invasion of the North - in an era where almost any well set fire on a windy day would nearly totally burn down any Northern city, it could have forced a surrender of the North. Instead, in desperation, Lincoln ordered slash and burn tactics, taking the war to a war against Southern civilians - and with particular brutal actions. Lincoln himself signed an order that in ordinary English then was an order that Northern troops may rape Southern women who do not voluntarily have sex with Northern Troops:

The language was (best to my memory) "Any Southern woman who does not treat Northern troops with courtesy may be treated like a lady of the night." In the language of the time, that was thumbs up to rape - and across all of human history, the opportunity to commit rape and pillage against enemy civilians was a driving force of an invading army - and a terror factor towards enemies plus forces the men and military to stand and fight - or try to flee with women, children and their elderly - which cripples a military force and jams up road plus consumer resources.

Click to expand...

joko104 said:

There were many causes to the war. Slavery certain part of this, but with a slave state in the Union and allowed to remain a slave state for most of the war, clearly other issues were involved. The wealthiest people in the USA were all Southern plantation slave owners and the federal government (which had no income tax) was trying to tax them as another topic. Prior to the Civil War, it was not accepted that state government is just dirt under the feet and a beggar of the federal government.

The culture of the South had to be literally destroyed. But slavery was not the only issue, just the most well known particularly to history.

Click to expand...

joko104 said:

There were many causes to the war. Slavery certain part of this, but with a slave state in the Union and allowed to remain a slave state for most of the war, clearly other issues were involved. The wealthiest people in the USA were all Southern plantation slave owners and the federal government (which had no income tax) was trying to tax them as another topic. Prior to the Civil War, it was not accepted that state government is just dirt under the feet and a beggar of the federal government.

The culture of the South had to be literally destroyed. But slavery was not the only issue, just the most well known particularly to history.

Click to expand...

americanwoman said:

Why do you let someone you don't even know and proclaim is an "idiot", dictate your life?

If I let idiots dictate my life, I'd be a Trump supporter.

Click to expand...

macbeth said:

BUT, you do let President Donald J. Trump dictate your life. You loathe him so much, he consumes all your thoughts and Time.
You have been a member since 7-21-05. That is 5,555 days. You have Posted 15,823 times. That is an Average of 2.84 POSTS per DAY since 7-21-05. YOU have been CONSUMED by Our GREAT PRESIDENT for such a LONG TIME that your mind has lost any resemblance of being normal. I will say a Prayer for you. Hope you will see the True Light. :bomb:

Click to expand...

Unitedwestand13 said:

You are talking about the Japanese battle flag, the rising sun flag.

Rising Sun Flag - Wikipedia

Which is different from the national flag of japan

Flag of Japan - Wikipedia

If you did not clarify which flag you were talking about, people might get confused.

Click to expand...

bluesmoke said:

“Well, as usual, you ignored my comment about other historians agreeing with me that the South had a good chance of winning the Civil War. Instead, you chose to dishonestly focus on the Confederate generals instead.”

“The link I gave you provides a long discussion of why I'm right and you are wrong. But, again, you want to disingenuously focus on my comment about the Confederate generals instead. Because that's the only potential counter-point you've got.”

YOU quoted the generals. That tells me, and rational-minded people, that YOUR focus is on the Con generals. THAT was your major counter-point. If you wanted focus on the historian, then you should have quoted historian. The disingenuity is your saying "historian" then giving "generals". I picked-up on that to begin with. But, I gave you credit and accepted Con gens as historian. Hilarious. You read all that you do and come up with that Lee was INCOMPETENT and if instead he (or the South. I mean, Lee being incompetent, what could he have done with any superiority?) used a defensive strategy to begin with the South WOULD have won the war. Hilarious.

Remember, the burden of proof is on you, the claim-maker, to prove that the historian community accepts that the South would have won the Civil War given the defensive war strategy you propose.

A further point on disingenuity. “..historians agreeing with me that the South had a ‘good chance’ of winning” is a false statement. Your claim was that the South “WOULD” have won. That’s why I don’t bother reading your spam. Give me quotes of historian that state your claim.

One definition of lying is that you say what you know is false in hopes of convincing others it is true.

Click to expand...

Historian James McPherson put it this way: “The South could ‘win’ the war by not losing.” However, “the North could win only by winning.”

The noted military scholar Russell Weigley compared Lee — unfavorably — to Napoleon in his landmark 1973 book, “The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy.”

Click to expand...

“Like Napoleon himself, with his passion for the strategy of annihilation and the climactic, decisive battle as its expression, he destroyed in the end not the enemy armies, but his own,” Weigley wrote.

Click to expand...

Kerry Won Ohio said:

Actually, the burden of proof is on you. You foolishly claimed that no Civil War historians agree with me, showing how little you actually know. I've shown over and over how wrong you are, so you desperately cling to peripheral, irrelevant nonsense -- like my reasons for quoting of the Confederate generals. It doesn't matter why I quoted them, because I've already won the main debate. It was a supporting point, nothing more.

Here is yet another historian that agrees with me that the South had an excellent chance of winning the Civil War, if it were not for General Lee's horrible decisions:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-robert-e-lee-he-wasnt-very-good-at-his-job/

Click to expand...