I, as do many, have ancestors who fought in the Civil War for the South. My ancestors were from GA who fought, poor, owned no slaves. But fought for the South because they felt it was the right thing to do since it was the North they were fighting. Are they racist since they fought for the South or brave for fighting for their cause and belief?

I, as do many, have ancestors who fought in the Civil War for the South. My ancestors were from GA who fought, poor, owned no slaves. But fought for the South because they felt it was the right thing to do since it was the North they were fighting. Are they racist since they fought for the South or brave for fighting for their cause and belief?

 

I think the answer to the question "are they racist" would depend on whether or not your ancestors believed in slavery or that the white race was superior to others. Being poor and not owning slaves does not exclude someone from believing that slavery is a good thing.

Not condoning it, but they (we) did it for years. I remember it from back when I started going to Cov Cath football games in the mid-80s, and we were still doing it when I was a senior in the late 90s. It has been stopped though.

 

I'll take your word for. I am saying I haven't witnessed it since about 2001.

Quite a few things were addressed once Ms. Karen Samples wrote this article in the fall of 2000.

 

SAMPLES: CovCath

 

Classic article . Both sides commit vandalism. One side gets bashed.

.Published 4 days after South Carolina seceded:

 

[h=2] Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

 

C. G. Memminger[/h]

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

 

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

 

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

 

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

 

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

 

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

 

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

 

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

 

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

 

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

 

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

 

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

 

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

 

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

 

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

 

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

 

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

 

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

 

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

 

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

 

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

 

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

 

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

 

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

 

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

 

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

 

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

 

Adopted December 24, 1860

 

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD=width: 140] [/TD]

[TD=colspan: 2]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

I think the answer to the question "are they racist" would depend on whether or not your ancestors believed in slavery or that the white race was superior to others. Being poor and not owning slaves does not exclude someone from believing that slavery is a good thing.

 

So here is a racist who needs to be taken out of History books since he was a slave owner.

 

George Washington was a slave owner for practically all of his professional life. His will provided for freeing his slaves upon the death of his widow Martha Washington, but she emancipated them about 12 months after his death. Although Washington personally opposed the institution of slavery after the American Revolutionary War, as President, he authorized emergency financial and military relief to French slave owners in Haiti to suppress a slave rebellion that began in 1791.[1]

Washington signed the Northwest Territory Act that banned slavery in the Northwest Territory in 1789, but did not free slaves already in the territory. The 1790 Naturalization Act provided a means to incorporate foreigners as United States citizens, but provided for naturalization only of whites (Caucasians). Washington signed the 1793 Fugitive Slave Law, the first to provide for the right of slaveholders to recapture slaves even in free states that had abolished slavery.

So here is a racist who needs to be taken out of History books since he was a slave owner.

 

George Washington was a slave owner for practically all of his professional life. His will provided for freeing his slaves upon the death of his widow Martha Washington, but she emancipated them about 12 months after his death. Although Washington personally opposed the institution of slavery after the American Revolutionary War, as President, he authorized emergency financial and military relief to French slave owners in Haiti to suppress a slave rebellion that began in 1791.[1]

Washington signed the Northwest Territory Act that banned slavery in the Northwest Territory in 1789, but did not free slaves already in the territory. The 1790 Naturalization Act provided a means to incorporate foreigners as United States citizens, but provided for naturalization only of whites (Caucasians). Washington signed the 1793 Fugitive Slave Law, the first to provide for the right of slaveholders to recapture slaves even in free states that had abolished slavery.

 

I'm well aware that George Washington owned slaves (as did numerous other US founding fathers like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin). And for the record, I was absolutely NOT saying to remove the Confederate flag, or the Confederacy from the history books. I would argue that they should instead be kept IN the history books for the sake of learning from the mistakes.

 

The thing is, Washington and his slave-owning peers were not principally establishing a country for the primary sake of upholding racist ways - but the Confederate States if America WERE established for that reason...and the Confederate flag was the most visible symbol of that racist establishment.

I'm well aware that George Washington owned slaves (as did numerous other US founding fathers like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin). And for the record, I was absolutely NOT saying to remove the Confederate flag, or the Confederacy from the history books. I would argue that they should instead be kept IN the history books for the sake of learning from the mistakes.

 

The thing is, Washington and his slave-owning peers were not principally establishing a country for the primary sake of upholding racist ways - but the Confederate States if America WERE established for that reason...and the Confederate flag was the most visible symbol of that racist establishment.

 

I'm just giving you a hard time, take no offense in what I say. I still feel though the rebel flag has not racist meaning to me, it is just a flag to me that says I'm from the south and proud of it. My boss is Black, and I am a boss of a few Blacks also and get along with them very well, when they play thier R&B or Rap, I tell them I heard commodes flush that sound better and we both laugh and they turn it up more. When you can joke about race, then racism will not exist.

I have mixed feelings about telling the girl what she can and can't wear. But

at the end of the day if there is a reasonable chance that people would have been offended and she was warned two months ahead of time...then the school probably made a good decision.

 

You could really say she got sent home not because of what she was wearing, but because of her complete disrespect for authority.

Bingo we have a winner!!!!

If your goal is to show your Southern pride, then wear a t-shirt that displays the state you are from or create some other emblem of the South. If your goal is to show that you believe in states' rights versus federal 'tyranny,' then wear a shirt with the outline of the state of Texas, and kill two birds with one stone. Even better, wear an American flag, which represents a nation whose genesis was catalyzed by a revolution. When you have those outs, why do people choose to wear/display Confederate memorabilia?

 

This might make me as bad and as judgmental as some people who I truly dislike, but if I see a Confederate flag displayed in a window of a car, two things cross my mind about that person. 1) They are making a statement that they stand for a cause that was against the liberation of an entire race of people. 2) They are too ignorant to know what that flag waved for so many years ago.

If your goal is to show your Southern pride, then wear a t-shirt that displays the state you are from or create some other emblem of the South. If your goal is to show that you believe in states' rights versus federal 'tyranny,' then wear a shirt with the outline of the state of Texas, and kill two birds with one stone. Even better, wear an American flag, which represents a nation whose genesis was catalyzed by a revolution. When you have those outs, why do people choose to wear/display Confederate memorabilia?

 

This might make me as bad and as judgmental as some people who I truly dislike, but if I see a Confederate flag displayed in a window of a car, two things cross my mind about that person. 1) They are making a statement that they stand for a cause that was against the liberation of an entire race of people. 2) They are too ignorant to know what that flag waved for so many years ago.

 

Well put. :thumb:

 

My maternal grandfather came over from Germany in 1933, not long after Hitler came to power. His brother was a Nazi officer. I don't use "heritage" and "pride" as an excuse to fly a flag that meant death, despair, displacement and hatred to so many. That would, you know, be basically rubbing that flag in the face of those who were on the wrong end of what that flag stands for. Still not sure why Stars'n'Bars-wavers don't get this ...

If your goal is to show your Southern pride, then wear a t-shirt that displays the state you are from or create some other emblem of the South. If your goal is to show that you believe in states' rights versus federal 'tyranny,' then wear a shirt with the outline of the state of Texas, and kill two birds with one stone. Even better, wear an American flag, which represents a nation whose genesis was catalyzed by a revolution. When you have those outs, why do people choose to wear/display Confederate memorabilia?

 

This might make me as bad and as judgmental as some people who I truly dislike, but if I see a Confederate flag displayed in a window of a car, two things cross my mind about that person. 1) They are making a statement that they stand for a cause that was against the liberation of an entire race of people. 2) They are too ignorant to know what that flag waved for so many years ago.

 

In my opinion, the bolded does make you look just as bad and you are being just as judgmental. I lived in the South for about 4 years. I got to know a whole lot of Southerns. Some looked at the Stars and Bars exactly as you stated. Some did not. Unfortunately you have stereotyped those that flew the Confederate flag as a show of their pride in their Southern heritage (which is much, much more than just their use of slaves in the past) and their pride in defending State rights, in with those that flew the flag because they were racists or were proud of a govt that supported slavery. Extremely unfair on your part in my opinion.

 

Bottom line on the display of Stars and Bars: it's a freedom of speech/expression issue with me. Unless I actually know the person displaying it and why they are displaying it, I have zero idea of their intent and feelings. As much as it sickened me to see the KKK have rallies on Fountain Square in Cincinnati years ago, I fully supported their right to express their vile feelings.

 

If freedom is worth our young military members giving up their lives, it includes the freedom to express opinions, feelings and beliefs that a majority of us do not agree with. We can condemn them for thinking the way they do, but we should not prevent them from expressing their thoughts. Much like the journalist students mentioned in another thread could have learned by staying in the auditorium and listening to that Strange fellow, the young gal's wearing of the Stars and Bars dress could have been used as a learning experience to those attending the Prom.

 

While I am a law and order type person and believe once the school told her not to wear it, she shouldn't have worn it, I do believe that the school placed its desire not to offend in a position higher than the right of free speech and expression.

 

Some students would surely have been offended. To quote Clyde from the thread involving Strange: "I would hope my high school child had enough confidence in themselves and their beliefs that they would not leave. I would hope they were not that weak mentally. You can't run from every person who challenges your beliefs."

 

That was true in that scenario and should be true in this scenario if someone attending the Prom was offended by the girl wearing the Stars and Bars. Life will be tough. The kids attending the Prom will have to deal with much worse than some girl seeking attention in a certain manner. They will have to develop a thicker skin and learn to deal with this stuff. Maybe they would have used this situation to discuss with her why she wanted to wear the Confederate flag. If it was because she was a racist, then try to convince her why she was wrong. If you can't, chalk it up to the fact there will always be plenty of stupid people on the face of this earth. Maybe her wearing the Stars and Bars had nothing to do with supporting a government that advocated slavery.

 

I don't believe we should intentionally offend others, but I do believe as Americans we have a right to offend if we so choose. The right to offend comes with freedom. And freedom is why my Grandfather, my Father and I all served our country. We did not serve to make sure no American would ever be offended or have their feelings hurt as others expressed their right of free speech and expression.

In my opinion, the bolded does make you look just as bad and you are being just as judgmental. I lived in the South for about 4 years. I got to know a whole lot of Southerns. Some looked at the Stars and Bars exactly as you stated. Some did not. Unfortunately you have stereotyped those that flew the Confederate flag as a show of their pride in their Southern heritage (which is much, much more than just their use of slaves in the past) and their pride in defending State rights, in with those that flew the flag because they were racists or were proud of a govt that supported slavery. Extremely unfair on your part in my opinion.

 

Bottom line on the display of Stars and Bars: it's a freedom of speech/expression issue with me. Unless I actually know the person displaying it and why they are displaying it, I have zero idea of their intent and feelings. As much as it sickened me to see the KKK have rallies on Fountain Square in Cincinnati years ago, I fully supported their right to express their vile feelings.

 

If freedom is worth our young military members giving up their lives, it includes the freedom to express opinions, feelings and beliefs that a majority of us do not agree with. We can condemn them for thinking the way they do, but we should not prevent them from expressing their thoughts. Much like the journalist students mentioned in another thread could have learned by staying in the auditorium and listening to that Strange fellow, the young gal's wearing of the Stars and Bars dress could have been used as a learning experience to those attending the Prom.

 

While I am a law and order type person and believe once the school told her not to wear it, she shouldn't have worn it, I do believe that the school placed its desire not to offend in a position higher than the right of free speech and expression.

 

Some students would surely have been offended. To quote Clyde from the thread involving Strange: "I would hope my high school child had enough confidence in themselves and their beliefs that they would not leave. I would hope they were not that weak mentally. You can't run from every person who challenges your beliefs."

 

That was true in that scenario and should be true in this scenario if someone attending the Prom was offended by the girl wearing the Stars and Bars. Life will be tough. The kids attending the Prom will have to deal with much worse than some girl seeking attention in a certain manner. They will have to develop a thicker skin and learn to deal with this stuff. Maybe they would have used this situation to discuss with her why she wanted to wear the Confederate flag. If it was because she was a racist, then try to convince her why she was wrong. If you can't, chalk it up to the fact there will always be plenty of stupid people on the face of this earth. Maybe her wearing the Stars and Bars had nothing to do with supporting a government that advocated slavery.

 

I don't believe we should intentionally offend others, but I do believe as Americans we have a right to offend if we so choose. The right to offend comes with freedom. And freedom is why my Grandfather, my Father and I all served our country. We did not serve to make sure no American would ever be offended or have their feelings hurt as others expressed their right of free speech and expression.

 

Why don't more German-Americans wear swastikas? Do we not have pride in our heritage?

 

I've always found the whole "states rights" argument to be a weak one, personally, because those states were crying for their rights so they could continue a system of enslaving an entire population of people, unabated.

Why don't more German-Americans wear swastikas? Do we not have pride in our heritage?

 

I've always found the whole "states rights" argument to be a weak one, personally, because those states were crying for their rights so they could continue a system of enslaving an entire population of people, unabated.

 

We'll just agree to disagree on the state rights argument.

 

Why don't more German Americans wear the swastikas? Can't answer that question with certainty, but hopefully it's because most of them feel it stands for the wrong thing. But the issue is: should people be allowed to wear the swastika if they wanted to as opposed to being banned from the wearing of it because it is offensive.

 

Since you've been a strong supporter of the freedom of speech and expression in the past, I'm somewhat surprised at your take on this issue.

 

Don't we have the right to be offensive in this country by expressing opinions that are opposed to the majority thinking?

Why don't more German-Americans wear swastikas? Do we not have pride in our heritage?

 

I've always found the whole "states rights" argument to be a weak one, personally, because those states were crying for their rights so they could continue a system of enslaving an entire population of people, unabated.

 

Wasn't the swasitka a party symbol and not a country's symbol?