Rejected for confederate tat

[tuoder]

What about Japanese, German, British, Mexican, Spanish, Italian flags, etc.? They were ALL our enemies and their flags are flown all over the U.S.A. by individuals, businesses, etc. Can you justify this practice? Me thinks you need to rethink your statement. No flag other than the American flag should be flown on U.S. soil. RIGHT??? We are ALL AMERICAN citizens, not any other nationality.

If the flag represents a current country, I'd be inclined to think was just a show of pride for their home country Fine. But if, for example, they chose to fly certain defunct flags, such as these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Flag_of_Nazi_Germany_%281933-1945%29.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/War_flag_of_the_Imperial_Japanese_Army.svg

Then the use of flag depicts approval of what was done under these flags at the time they were flown.

 

[signut49]

Flag

If the flag represents a current country, I'd be inclined to think was just a show of pride for their home country Fine. But if, for example, they chose to fly certain defunct flags, such as these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Flag_of_Nazi_Germany_%281933-1945%29.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/War_flag_of_the_Imperial_Japanese_Army.svg

Then the use of flag depicts approval of what was done under these flags at the time they were flown.

What is the difference? Those flags depict approval of what was done under these flags at the time they were flown, to quote you. Don't believe the majority of their flags have changed changed since we were at war with them.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If the flag represents a current country, I'd be inclined to think was just a show of pride for their home country Fine. But if, for example, they chose to fly certain defunct flags, such as these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Flag_of_Nazi_Germany_%281933-1945%29.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/War_flag_of_the_Imperial_Japanese_Army.svg

Then the use of flag depicts approval of what was done under these flags at the time they were flown.

By that logic, Tuoder, you approve of what is being done currently under the flag you use as your avatar, the fact that it has one too few stars notwithstanding.

The Confederate Battle Flag represents to me the rights of the citizens of the several states to enjoy the privileges of that citizenship as their forebears had agreed when the Constitution was ratified. That one of those privileges included the ownership of slaves is to me disgusting, I consider it a shameful travesty, but I also understand that those people were products of their times. To put that in perspective, we currently use animals to do various tasks and as our companions. Some consider these animals their property. If in some future day, it is discovered that these living beings have intelligence and understanding, we could be considered much the same as the men and women of the 1860s. To be clear, I am in no way calling the former slaves or their ancestors or descendants animals, nor am I comparing the two other than to show the relationship of our general and societal understanding.

thats because theres a lot of people that know they dont.

ihateiraq, I'm going to nit-pick just a little bit: It is not that our military men and women do not have rights while they serve(as the myth has been perpetuated); to say otherwise indicates that those rights come from government which can revoke them at will. Those rights come from our Creator and even if the ability to exercise those rights is abridged, the rights are still theirs.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[tuoder]

What is the difference? Those flags depict approval of what was done under these flags at the time they were flown, to quote you. Don't believe the majority of their flags have changed changed since we were at war with them.

They have. That would be my point.

By that logic, Tuoder, you approve of what is being done currently under the flag you use as your avatar, the fact that it has one too few stars notwithstanding.

The Confederate Battle Flag represents to me the rights of the citizens of the several states to enjoy the privileges of that citizenship as their forebears had agreed when the Constitution was ratified. That one of those privileges included the ownership of slaves is to me disgusting, I consider it a shameful travesty, but I also understand that those people were products of their times. To put that in perspective, we currently use animals to do various tasks and as our companions. Some consider these animals their property. If in some future day, it is discovered that these living beings have intelligence and understanding, we could be considered much the same as the men and women of the 1860s. To be clear, I am in no way calling the former slaves or their ancestors or descendants animals, nor am I comparing the two other than to show the relationship of our general and societal understanding.

The flag in my avatar has 35 stars. It became the flag in 1863, I chose it because it is the flag of the nation which destroyed the nation which believed itself to have the right to own humans. I am acutely aware of the injustices suffered under the flag.

It's true that moral progress occurs, and that we may look back at almost any previous generation and find something morally repugnant that was normal practice. I doubt sincerely that we will regard the ownership of pets or pack animals as slavery, but of course the point stands.

But in the case of the various Confederate flags, these flags were created to symbolize a nation which was founded because it was on the losing side of an argument about whether or not it was okay to own people.

 

[rhart]

Sure, confederate flags or tatoos above the neck line should be automatic rejection.

 

[Duncan]

U.S. Marines Boot Recruits With Confederate Tattoos | The FOX Nation
The Confederate flag means and symbolizes different things to different people. It may be used by hate groups and is also a symbol of southern pride and heritage. Should a young man be rejected from enlisting in the Marines because of his confederate flag tattoo?

Well I assume they are all bent out of shape over the Stars and Bars ...
THat flag has different symbology to different people .

To my knowledge at the time it was created it represented a confederation of
states that seceded from the UNION / US government ... and it represented
independence , sovereignty , a Nation formed from free states .

Now some of the soldiers fighting for the South were FREE BLACKS .. hummm ??

What if a descendent of a free black Confederate Solider , and let's say he is " black " in appearance not mulatto , ... in the year 2010 had a Tattoo of a Confederate Flag on his shoulder showing pride for his ancestors ?

Would he be rejected and on what grounds ? Racist - anti black .. maybe a spy for the KKK ?

WW 2 biggest draft in American history ... did they reject on this basis ... hell no ... they needed
everybody .

What happens if we get into a war .. I mean a real war .. not this quasi Viet Nam we got . but an all
out we need 5 mIllion men NOW ! Type of war ... I bet they this tattoo thing would not be looked at for 5 seconds .
Thanks
Duncan

 

[Compatriot G]

Tuoder, I'm glad to see you use the 35-star flag to represent the triumph of the Union over the evil Confederacy. Interestingly enough, that 35th star represents West Virginia. West Virginia was the last slave state admitted to the Union. It along with Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware got to keep their slaves until December of 1865 when the 13th Amendment took effect. Oh, and speaking of the 13th Amendment, have you ever read the original 13th Amendment? This was proposed by Lincoln, which was considered highly unusual for a president to propose an amendment. Basically, it would have allowed slavery forever in the states where it already existed. This was rejected by the South.

So, if the war was solely about the abolition of slavery, why was it allowed in those states that didn't leave the Union? If the South was only fighting for the right to own another person, why did it reject an amendment to the Constitution that would have permitted slavery forever in the Confederate states?

 

[Jack Ryan]

So, if the war was solely about the abolition of slavery, why was it allowed in those states that didn't leave the Union? If the South was only fighting for the right to own another person, why did it reject an amendment to the Constitution that would have permitted slavery forever in the Confederate states?

Because it's not what the war was about.

The winners write the history books and after it was all over this is what they WANTED it to have been about, so it was. Politicians are the same scummy liars now they were then and have been for a thousand years.

 

[ihateiraq]

ihateiraq, I'm going to nit-pick just a little bit: It is not that our military men and women do not have rights while they serve(as the myth has been perpetuated); to say otherwise indicates that those rights come from government which can revoke them at will. Those rights come from our Creator and even if the ability to exercise those rights is abridged, the rights are still theirs.

Blessings,
Bill

realistically, your rights are gone. we can argue semantics and say no one but god can take your rights away, but the fact remains if you exercise your 1st amendment, the odds are good that you will be punished, and harshly at that.

also, just because the founding fathers say our rights come from god doesnt make it true. our rights come from the constitution. that was written by men.


also, i think black people are cool with it now.

 

[JHAWK1980]

As a southerner the flag stands for heritage not hate. Says so on the back of my truck and I still get flak!!!

 

[Redemption]

also, just because the founding fathers say our rights come from god doesnt make it true. our rights come from the constitution. that was written by men.

Not this^^

 

[signut49]

touder, you really need to read up on the causes of the Civil War. The North did not make slavery it's sole issue until September 22, 1862 when the Emancipation Proclaimation was issued by President Lincoln. This was in the third year of the Civlil War. The North did not have a rallying cause until that time. They were losing the war, so they had to come up with slavery as an issue. The North had somewhat condoned slavery up to that point. How long would they have let the South continue to have slaves if the South had not seceeded from the Union? Seriously, do some research before you reply. The North was just as guilty as the South letting slavery continue as long as it did. So, don't blame the South for the sole proliferation of slavery in the United States. Point of information. The North not only had black slaves but also white slaves. Whites were the first slaves in the Colonies. They paid their passage from Europe to the Colonies by being servants for that fee. Seemed like they were never quite able to repay that fee. Hence, servants for life. More research for you.

 

[Rob377]

Georgia's Declaration of Secession

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

....


A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.

Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.
...
The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.
...
These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession

So, the South Carolina Declaration, the Mississippi Declaration, and Georgia Declaration say it's all about slavery. Why should anyone ignore the words that came straight from the horse's mouth, and instead listen to this utter BS that it wasn't about slavery?

 

[signut49]

What I said is not utter BS as you state. It is apparent you slept through American History class if you even took it. And I take extreme offense that if I disagree with you, I am a communist troll that loves Obama. My generation fought against communism so you, "young think you know it all", can express your opinion. This is quite evident of your age group. Address the other issues I stated and refute them!

 

[Rob377]

What I said is not utter BS as you state. It is apparent you slept through American History class if you even took it. And I take extreme offense that if I disagree with you, I am a communist troll that loves Obama. My generation fought against communism so you, "young think you know it all", can express your opinion. This is quite evident of your age group. Address the other issues I stated and refute them!

The sig line should be read tongue-in-cheek, FWIW.

But the questions still stands: Why should I believe your unsupported assertions that it wasn't about slavery over the southern states' own declarations that it was?

They, in their own declarations of secession, have refuted your point quite well. They said it was about slavery, and they were the ones who fought for it. Why should I doubt them?

 

[Jack Ryan]

touder, you really need to read up on the causes of the Civil War. The North did not make slavery it's sole issue until September 22, 1862 when the Emancipation Proclaimation was issued by President Lincoln. This was in the third year of the Civlil War. The North did not have a rallying cause until that time. They were losing the war, so they had to come up with slavery as an issue. The North had somewhat condoned slavery up to that point. How long would they have let the South continue to have slaves if the South had not seceeded from the Union? Seriously, do some research before you reply. The North was just as guilty as the South letting slavery continue as long as it did. So, don't blame the South for the sole proliferation of slavery in the United States. Point of information. The North not only had black slaves but also white slaves. Whites were the first slaves in the Colonies. They paid their passage from Europe to the Colonies by being servants for that fee. Seemed like they were never quite able to repay that fee. Hence, servants for life. More research for you.

I have a couple relatives who came here that way. My great, great, great, what ever grand mother was a white russian jewish slave. So what? If I bump in to any one responsible for that I'll kill 'em or knock over their grave marker more likely.

 

[Jack Ryan]

realistically, your rights are gone. we can argue semantics and say no one but god can take your rights away, but the fact remains if you exercise your 1st amendment, the odds are good that you will be punished, and harshly at that.

also, just because the founding fathers say our rights come from god doesnt make it true. our rights come from the constitution. that was written by men.

Your rights come from the barrel of a gun, the edge or a sword or axe. They come from your fist and your feet. Yours or the person standing next to you or in front of you.

Your rights don't come from a piece of paper in your hand or in Washington. Your rights don't come from God, George Washinton, or Jesse Jackson and they are only as "gone" as YOU or the man next to you will allow them to be.

It's the whole point of the origination of this country that you are voluntarily governed by representatives of your choice. When that isn't true then you have a choice, oppression or freedom and the minute you decide you won't accept it any more then you are from that point on free. Free to do what you can to oppose it or free to join the oppressors and impose your will on those they no longer represent. Honor is the thing lacking in this country and the lack of honor is what has allowed the country to become what it is today.

 

[signut49]

You are still missing the point. Slavery was not the ONLY issue behind the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln delcared war on April 27, 1861 against South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Lousiana, and Texas. NOWHERE does it state in the Declaration of War was it because of slavery. It states that he deems it necessary to repossess the forts, places, and property which has been seized from the Union, and, in every event, the utmost care will be observed. consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference of property, or and disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country; and I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date. Where is the issue of slavery mentioned in this Declaration of War signed by President Lincoln? Is the property of the Union he referring to the slaves? I think not. Ball is in your court.

The sig line should be read tongue-in-cheek, FWIW.

But the questions still stands: Why should I believe your unsupported assertions that it wasn't about slavery over the southern states' own declarations that it was?

They, in their own declarations of secession, have refuted your point quite well. They said it was about slavery, and they were the ones who fought for it. Why should I doubt them?

 

[ATOMonkey]

All the rednecks in my HS used the confederate flag as a symbol of their racism.

Any "southern pride" they had was intended to restore slavery. But mostly just racism.

 

[Compatriot G]

All the rednecks in my HS used the confederate flag as a symbol of their racism.

Any "southern pride" they had was intended to restore slavery. But mostly just racism.

Just because some have chosen to use the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism doesn't mean it is a racist symbol. If you look at photos from Klan rallies, you will see the U.S. flag displayed as well. Does this make the U.S. flag a racist symbol? BTW, what flag flew over the ships engaged in the African slave trade? I guarantee you it wasn't a Confederate Naval Jack.