Sons of Confederate Veterans Raise Battle Flag

The Sons of Confederate Veterans raised a confederate battle flag Saturday evening in Bristol, Tenn. The 25-by-15-foot banner was hoisted on a 70-foot pole on a hillside in clear view of Interstate 81 – to serve as a monument and memory to those who fought on behalf of the South.

“The ones that won got to write the book,” Roberts said. “But we know it’s different and that’s what we’ve got to teach our children. God bless Dixie and may this flag ever
wave.”

“The most discriminated against person in America is the Christian Southern white man,” said Edgerton, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and a former president of the NAACP’s Asheville, N.C. branch.

“It’s been hijacked by hate groups,” Roberts said. “We are in no way aligned with anyone who uses the flag our ancestors fought and died for, for purposes of hate or intimidation. These groups have also denigrated the U.S. flag and the Christian flag and make it very hard at times for us to honor our relatives without a negative response from the general public who have no idea about our organization.”

“I represent four and a half million black folks who’ve been beat down and would love to be here, too,” Edgerton said. “If they tell you they wouldn’t be, the first thing you ask is where they’re from. Then you tell them to go on back.”

tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/sons_of_confederate_veterans_raise_battle_flag/25082/

The Confederate battle flag is actually square.

The Confederate Naval Jack is rectangular.

I think large Naval Jack flags like this are flown in Alabama along I-65 and in Tampa on I-75. By the way this Flag was designed by a Catholic based on the St. Andrew’s Cross. St. Andrew Jesus’ first Apostle was the brother of St. Peter. He was crucified in the X pattern and was not nailed but tied like this to prolong his suffering and was thought to have lived for a couple of days in this agonizing death, all the while preaching the gospel to those who would listen.

(Jefferson’s) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. … 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.

Confederate vice president, Alexander Stephens.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

The Georgia Declaration of Causes of Secession.

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

The Texas Declaration of Causes of Secession.

Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.

Alexander Stephens again, his postwar memoirs.

Not sure why you would start this, it is way off the OP’s scope, but since you did remember how prejudice Lincoln was and that the New England States were the ones who brought Slavery to America and made it legal until the machines of the Industrial Revolution made it to expensive to take care of the Northern Slaves.

Abraham Lincoln:

"At the time, Abraham Lincoln himself insisted that Slavery was not the issue which motivated him first to refuse to negotiate with the Confederacy and later to invade the South. In an August 22, 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln writes: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”

Aside from being a lifelong advocate of colonization—an initiative whereby all blacks would have been shipped back to Africa and Haiti—Lincoln was a separatist as well, declaring on July 17, 1858, that what “I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.”

I think it is very applicable because the original post brought it up:

“The ones that won got to write the book,” Roberts said. “But we know it’s different and that’s what we’ve got to teach our children. God bless Dixie and may this flag ever
wave.”

“The most discriminated against person in America is the Christian Southern white man,” said Edgerton, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and a former president of the NAACP’s Asheville, N.C. branch.

If they can say history has been written by the wrong people, then it is extremely in context to rebut the SCV’s position.

The problem recalls the problem with the ‘stars and stripes’ in the sixties. The US flag was used as a symbol of a particular political view on the Vietnam war.

Then we have the SC state government. It raised and flew the ‘stars and bars’ ( which had never been its state flag) at the state capitol, to denote an opposition to civil rights. So are folks surprised when there is opposition to the Confederate battle flag flying?

Folks that use a neutral symbol as a political totem should expect to reap what they sow.

I would not disagree that some can twist things that happened 50-60 or 150 years ago, to fit their own political agenda. The same way Rev Jeremiah Write and many others use Christianity to spread divisiveness and hatred today.:thumbsup: Valid points.

That was not my point at all: **When you use an emblem as a political symbol; be prepared for others to object to the use of that symbol. ** That’s all.

I would ask the SCV to simply fly the first national flag and the Bonnie Blue flag as emblems of our history. I am not so sanguine as to believe that some would find fault with that too. BTW, both flags are usually flown at Louisiana museums and historic sites instead of the battle flag. The Bonnie Blue flag has an even earlier application for Louisiana - It was the flag of the short-lived West Florida Republic.

I have a hard time thinking of the confederate battle flag as a neutral symbol, although I realize some folks probably see it that way. To me it is too closely associated with hatred.

I remember buying a Lousiana flag poster in N’Arlins in '59. To my memory, it had pelicans on it.

I respect your opinion but nothing about that flag indicates hatred. So many groups can have symbols and flags to celebrate their heritage except for the south. The Bonnie Blue and Stars and Bars will always be a symbol of the South, which can not be taken away from her.

Not at all. It is perfectly within the OP’s scope, which tries to make the raising of a flag of slaveholders and traitors into a good thing.

but since you did remember how prejudice Lincoln was

Let the quote wars begin, then.

I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.

That isn’t a good racial attitude for today, but its vastly better than what they had in the South, that the natural condition of the black man is slavery. Lincoln was willing to take a stand there. Jefferson Davis was willing to take a stand to keep the black man in slavery.

Furthermore, in early 1864, President Lincoln’s advisors told him there was a good chance that they might lose the election. If he was willing to back away from emancipation, though, he would cut the legs out from under McClellan and the Democrats. Abe refused.

There is a clear moral difference between a man who fought to end slavery, despite occasionally condescending and paternalistic views, and a country that built, by their own words, the very cornerstone of their society on the institution of slavery.

and that the New England States were the ones who brought Slavery to America and made it legal until the machines of the Industrial Revolution made it to expensive to take care of the Northern Slaves.

Irrelevant. The New England slave traders and slave owners were dead before the people who fought the civil war were born. The last state in the North to officially end slavery was New Jersey, in 1804.

Abraham Lincoln:

"At the time, Abraham Lincoln himself insisted that Slavery was not the issue which motivated him first to refuse to negotiate with the Confederacy and later to invade the South. In an August 22, 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln writes: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”

And at that time, Lincoln had already drafted the Emancipation Proclamation. He was lying to Greeley, because he had already decided that the object of the war was to end slavery, and he was merely waiting for the right time to announce it. That right time would be after a victory, so it would be easy to see it for what it was: a moral decision to change the objective of the war, which had some strategic benefits, rather than a desperate strategic gambit that had some karma points.

Aside from being a lifelong advocate of colonization—an initiative whereby all blacks would have been shipped back to Africa and Haiti—Lincoln was a separatist as well, declaring on July 17, 1858, that what “I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.”

There is no evidence that Lincoln was a lifelong colonization advocate, although there is evidence that he flirted with the idea. By the time of his re-election at the latest, and more likely after his meeting with Frederick Douglass, he had abandoned the idea entirely. In fact, Lincoln was advocating black suffrage when he was shot, and it was a speech he made in early 1865 on the subject of black citizenship that prompted John Wilkes Booth to take the final steps in his assassination plot.

Again, though, this is irrelevant: even if the North wasn’t trying to abolish slavery, it is clear that the South’s highest priority was preserving it. Regardless of whether or not the Union cause was good, the Southern cause was bad.

If Lincoln wanted to he could have resolved this without any bloodshed and bought out everyones contract by printing the money to do so. Just like the government is doing now, print and spend.

It is so sad some people are worried about problems from half a century ago when their are so many with hatred and bigotry in today’s world. The clear evidence shows Lincoln was a believed in segregation and repatriating African’s back to their homeland. By the way a Confederate Flag NEVER flew over a slave ship, only the Union Flag.

If it were not for the New Englanders we would have never had slavery in America, New England owns this shame.

As you mention none of us were alive 150 years ago and most of us were not alive or just youngsters 50-60 years ago, but we all see everyday the hatred of other races and of the USA by people like Rev. Wright, that is what is relevant to our culture and our future. If any one whats to stick their head in the sand of the past remember what you leave exposed and what keeps you from moving forward.

The Confederate Battle Flag was never meant to be a symbol of hate, it was only misused by hate mongers and anyone of enlightenment and education knows this. It is based on the sacrifice and sufferings of St. Andrew’s, Christ first Apostle. As well, the 12 Tribes of Israel and for God.

Please do not be full of hated and scandal, God knows what is in your heart better than you do yourself.

False. The Confederate states didn’t want to sell. Delaware and Maryland rejected Lincoln’s plan to buy out the slaves, which he put forth to them during the beginning of the war. Cassius Clay’s plan for compensated emancipation in Kentucky ended with him and his supporters nearly being run out of the state.

Plus, you have failed to consider that the United States was still on the gold standard until the 1930’s. No, Lincoln couldn’t have printed the money.

So he didn’t have the money to buy, and the slaveholders didn’t want to sell. That claim has zero basis in fact.

It is so sad some people are worried about problems from half a century ago when their are so many with hatred and bigotry in today’s world. The clear evidence shows Lincoln was a believed in segregation and repatriating African’s back to their homeland. By the way a Confederate Flag NEVER flew over a slave ship, only the Union Flag.

  1. Your claim about Lincoln is false. He did not support colonization at any time during 1865, and he probably gave up his support for that well before he became president. Lincoln clearly supported black citizenship, clearly supported black voting rights, and made no move towards colonization any time after 1862. Provide evidence to the contrary, please.

  2. That’s utterly irrelevant. The slave trade had long been closed by the 1860’s, and it was in the economic interest of slaveholders to keep it closed; it kept the price of slaves high.

If it were not for the New Englanders we would have never had slavery in America, New England owns this shame.

That’s utterly false. Virginia adopted slavery in 1619 after the arrival of a Dutch trading ship. Even if Massachusetts had been founded by Quakers, Virginia would have adopted slavery.

As you mention none of us were alive 150 years ago and most of us were not alive or just youngsters 50-60 years ago, but we all see everyday the hatred of other races and of the USA by people like Rev. Wright, that is what is relevant to our culture and our future. If any one whats to stick their head in the sand of the past remember what you leave exposed and what keeps you from moving forward.

That’s a good argument for forever burying the flag of traitors and slaveholders.

The Confederate Battle Flag was never meant to be a symbol of hate, it was only misused by hate mongers and anyone of enlightenment and education knows this. It is based on the sacrifice and sufferings of St. Andrew’s, Christ first Apostle. As well, the 12 Tribes of Israel and for God.

It was not the first choice of the Confederates, who fought at Bull Run under the national flag. Any Christian symbolism is badly overrated. While they use a cross, it has as much to do with the British flag as anything else, and it was a battle flag, not the national flag.

Please do not be full of hated and scandal, God knows what is in your heart better than you do yourself.

Hatred and scandal? How about a love of history? That’s my motivation. A love of accurate history, and frustration when old myths get thrown around as fact.

Your assertions and falsehoods are completely bogus. If you want to live in false and incomplete history go ahead. Being closed minded hardly makes a good historian.

Who are the traders of today of the Constitution and Liberty and Freedom as BO shackles us and our children in today’s slavery? Just stick around you’ll see the slavery unfold before your very eyes.:thumbsup:

I’ve provided evidence and quoted sources. You’ve quoted nothing. I’m not being closed minded, but I can’t argue or concede anything if you won’t bring anything to the table.

Who are the traders of today of the Constitution and Liberty and Freedom as BO shackles us and our children in today’s slavery? Just stick around you’ll see the slavery unfold before your very eyes.:thumbsup:

This is truly irrelevant to a discussion of the Civil War.

I wish you were right. I am sure that many people display that flag with good intent and love in their hearts. But the painful truth is that the bad actions and hatred of some can ruin good things.

The evidence you quoted is not evidence of nothing but others’ opinions that support your own. The majority of the soldiers that fought the battles didn’t give a hoot about slavery, even if many of the the leaders of the South did. At the time before the civil war each person gave thier allegiance to the state for which they lived. A man from Virginia saw Virginia as his country, those from Texas, their allegiance, their hearts went to Texas. You call them triators but to them it would have been treason not to stand with their state.

Myself, I don’t fly a confederate flag for my sensibilities to those that see it as a symbol of hate, or of hate groups, but many like the man in the article see it as a symbol of his heritage and he should be free to do so.

Do you see the flag of Texas as symbol of Hate? It too flew over the same battlefields for the same side during the war between the states. How about the flag of Virigina? It state motto is aimed directly at the over bearing reach of what Virginians saw as tyrany, that is the federal government. People are selective on what the declare as good and bad, but if we were truly a society that believed and promoted diversity of culture it would let all express thier own culture as long as it does no harm to others… Understanding needs to go two ways,

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.