The Red and Black

Josh White is a damned ignorant fool!

Phong Truong:

"......Vietnam's case is different because it's democracy vs communism, instead of slavery vs freedom.'

Sir:

I am a 100% service related disabled Vietnam veteran with the years '67 to '75 in-country except for '71 and '72. I have a Vietnamese wife and five girls, three of whom are named Dixie, Bonnie and Virginia. My two oldest were born in Saigon. I hope you will listen to what I am going to say and search the truth concerning the WBTS.

Think of this......do you believe history books in Vietnam show the VNCH side of the story? Of course not, as they were the losers! The same happened in these United States. The victors always write their version. Probably 90% of everything you were taught about the War in public schools was slanted by the Marxist teachers here, just as those same Marxist teachers in Vietnam state that all VNCH soldiers were traitors. I am guessing your father was in the army there, and if so, what do you think of him being called a traitor? Not much, right? Well, I feel the same when someone slanders/libels my forefathers, and since they are not here to defend themselves, I must take up the gauntlet.

The War was a very complicated affair, and my many ancestors who fought and died '61 to '65, fought for the exact same reasons as did my great, great, great grandfather who fought as an Ensign, and saved the flag, at the Battle of Brandywine in the Revolutionary War.

Brock Townsend

The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."
- Charles Dickens, 1862

"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."
- Karl Marx
(And he loved Lincoln! BT)

My Friend,
Since you are from Vietnam and not completely into understanding our southern history I must tell you...... "you have been brainwashed". Slavery had very little to do with "Lincoln's War on the South" and Lincoln (the Dictator)was admired by the likes of Karl Marx, the orginator of communisum....you figure that out. You say in your case that your war was different because it was all about Communisum vs Demorcacy....well,let me tell you the founders of this country founded an American Republic that was to be governed as a Representive Republic, not a demorcacy. However, the party that won that war has made grave changes in our governments direction untill our states are left with little power to contol their own destiny....In a since we have become a breeding ground for communisum to enter and destroy what many American's have died to preserve.
The Confederate Battle Flag does not represent Slavery any more than your flag represents communisum...Matter a fact our flag represents everything that our country used to be, this is why we hold on to it with all our hearts.The flag of the united States is, and always has been, the official flag of the KKK. The Confederate Battle Flag has never has never been the oficial flag of any hate group. I would not think that either flag would support slavery in todays world. However,140 years ago much of America did as it was NOT just a southern thing it was all over the land. It was supported by the American Constitution and it lasted for many a year as the northern slavers brought millions of slaves out of Africa and into America, only 10% ended up on the shores of America.The people of the south had no part in that venture as many northern cities were built on the selling of human flesh. Our Battle Flag represents what our government and the liberals (Communist) hate,and that is freedom from a demanding government...They do not support a government controlled by "WE the People" of the united States....please note the lower case in united....This gives you a completly different perspective as the states were soverign and this is what our ancestors fought so bravely preserve. They fought to defend their homeland while trying to preserve Liberty in it's purest form, read the Confederate Constitution and see for your self.. Also see the words beginning the Declaration of Independence, which begins "A Declaration for the united States of America" This is what the Confederate Battle Flag represents and stood for and this is what the nothern radicals fought to do away with, everything that the American founders layed out their lives to obtain is being denied to the people of America, even though we are still much better off than many we are a long way from what the founders visioned.....

Originally posted by

Phong Truong

I agree with most of what Billy is saying, myself being a Southern Vietnamese and all. I still take pride in the southern Vietnamese flag, even if we lost. One thing I have not done is driven across the United States (or Vietnam) with that flag hanging out my window, chanting, "The South will rise again!." Then again, Vietnam's case is different because it's democracy vs communism, instead of slavery vs freedom. If America's South rises again, what good could possibly become of a divided country? I completely agree with displaying a flag for honor and pride of your heritage, but not for the sake of being obnoxious with it.

"Mr. Townsend: I am not sure I understand your argument. I understand you are trying to say the North was not as noble as is presented,....."

I was addressing Phong Truong, not the general audience, but I shall answer. I was simply answering his contention that the War was a simple matter of slavery Vs freedom.

"......Vietnam's case is different because it's democracy s communism, instead of slavery vs freedom.'

I wrote in part

"The victors always write their version. Probably 90% of everything you were taught about the War in public schools was slanted by the Marxist teachers here,.....The War was a very complicated affair, and my many ancestors who fought and died '61 to '65, fought for the exact same reasons as did my great, great, great grandfather who fought as an Ensign, and saved the flag, at the Battle of Brandywine in the Revolutionary War."

I also posted two quotes from people who were actually alive then, as to their positions on the Causes of the War. I thought this to be sufficient, and that if he might like further information, then he could contact me.

"......but can't we agree the result was good?" Isn't ending slavery good regardless of how it happened?"

There was more than one result, and I do not think any of them were good at the time. Our republic died in 1865, and we have a monstrosity today that our forefathers would not recognize, and they would be absolutely horrified realizing the utter depths to which their noble experiment has fallen. The ending of slavery for all in December 1865, eight months after Lee's surrender was greeted happily by some, but not all. In so many words, Lee stated that the slaves needed to be trained before they were set free, and he was correct. Lincoln wanted gradual emancipation until the turn of the century. Large scale slavery may well have died out before then, but were the deaths of over 600,000 soldiers, and 50,000 Southern civilians of all races, and the devastation of the South which was still in abject poverty sixty years later worth the end result? Lincoln misjudged badly. See below.

Testimony of Col. John B. Baldwin
(Concerning his conversation with Lincoln. BT)

"Well," said he, "what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?"

Said I, "Sir, how much do you expect to collect in a year?"

Said he, "Fifty or sixty millions."

"Why, sir," said I, "four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary; but I do not believe that it will be necessary, because I believe that you can settle it on the basis I suggest.

He said something or other about feeding the troops at Sumter. I told him that would not do. Said I, "You know perfectly well that the people of Charleston have been feeding them already. They are asserting a right. They will feed the troops, and fight them while they are feeding them. They are after the assertion of a right.

If you do not take this course, if there is a gun fired at Sumter-I do not care on which side it is fired-the thing is gone." "Oh," said he, "sir, that is impossible ." Said I, "Sir, if there is a gun fired at Sumter, as sure as there is a God in heaven the thing is gone. Virginia herself, strong as the Union majority is now, will be out in forty-eight hours." "Oh," said he, "sir, that is impossible.

Mr. Arndt,
You missed my point---had it not been for the African, British and New England slave traders, the "South" would had had no one to oppress. This is what gets lost in conversations like this and it is most important. Further,
the slavery issue that was a cause of the war grew out of the Northeast's refusal to abide by the US Constitution regarding the fugitives from labor that appears in that document.

Rightly seen, if the Northeastern States violated the Constitution at will with their personal liberty laws, then how could they claim the South did something unconstitutional regarding secession? The South had every right to leave the crumbling fraternal union of States, and form another association per the spirit of the Declaration.

Being descended from eastern European Slavs, the original slaves, I hold no grudge for the oppression suffered by my anscestors, and do not seek reparations for the same. The Korean had slaves, the Greeks, Romans, Mayans, Aztecs, Canadians, Portuguese, Spaniards, French, Africans, Moslems, Chinese, etc, etc, etc., had slaves. What about that oppression?

Before we condemn the Klan for their violent activities, let's first condemn the northern Union League, a terrorist subsidiary of the Republican party of the late 1860's, who intimidated white Southerners, kept them from the polls, and fomented the racial discord that exists to this day between white and black Southerners.

We live in an enlightened age, and can see what oppression was caused by the North overthrowing the constitution, and killing one million Americans in the process. If you question Bush II's ability to send American troops to war anywhere in the world, look to Abraham Lincoln as the one who usurped the power of Congress to declare war, and subjugate Americans in the process.

Let's get over the ubiquitous slavery of the past, and on with our lives, and try to get our government back into the chains of the Constitution that the Confederacy desired---that is the true symbolism of that flag.

Originally posted by

Michael Arndt

A few points:
For Mr. Bearden, a touch dramatic? "I pity you, being a lost southerner who has no idea what Southern Heritage is"? Of all the things in life to pity, it seems like a person with a lack of Southern Heritage should be relatively low on the list. Next, you include a list of things for which southerners stand including God, church and the Constitution as the Founding Fathers bequeathed it to us? Wasn't there a stipulation about separation of church and state in the document? I am sure you will argue of the nature of that clause and point to the fact that the document is based on religious principles, but it clearly calls for the separation and you guys (The Southerners who have this heritage you speak of) are apparently ardent defenders of the Constitution, so I think you should tone down the religion in politics. Next, "as the Constitution was bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers" is troublesome because of the changes to the constitution since then. I happen to like at least some of these additions, like women voting and direct election of senators are nice, I think. Also included in your list of principles for which southerners stand is sacrifice. How about sacrificing for blacks (roughly a third of the state's population)? I know they were also not allowed to vote in the original Constitution which you so adamantly defend, but how about a little sacrifice for them? Since everyone is using historical arguments, please go read the minutes of the legislative assembly which prompted the change of the Georgia flag in 1956, which made the flag include the confederate symbol again. (Also recall Brown vs. Board of Education) The proposal and subsequent debate clearly show the flag was changed to include the confederate symbol as a message to the African Americans. Racism is truly the heart of this issue, everything else is superfluous.
Mr Townsend: I am not sure I understand your argument. I understand you are trying to say the North was not as noble as is presented, but can't we agree the result was good? Isn't ending slavery good regardless of how it happened?
Mr. Thuersam: "In fact, the Southern colonies tried several times to stop the British from importing slaves, but to no avail---the King and the New Englanders were making too much money." I don't understand how you can be such an apologist. Yes, the North made money. Yes, African kings aided in this process. Funny you left out the part about what the southerners' did after attempting to end the Brittish Slave trade? Well, they won't stop sending them so I guess we will just become horrible oppressors and hang a few on the tree to keep them in line? I mean, I understand that you are trying to defend the South because you feel they receive too much of the blaim about slavery. Fair enough. I just think your argument that the South was some sort of innocent bystander in the process is ridiculous.
I hate responding to everyone, acting like I know it all, but all the arguments seemed like veiled or rationalized racism to me

Mr. Bearden,
First, I will agree that the constitution does not provide for separation of church and state, but that is how it has been interpreted. My bad. Moving on to your points, about my service towards African Americans, I am applying for a tutor position with AmeriCorps in St. Louis for next year which will serves an over-whelmingly black population. Thank you for the concern, and I'll be sure to keep you updated. Going back to the flag, does the timing strike you as a little odd? I am not sure if it was you or the other gentleman who was bemoaning the lack of common sense of our education, but I'll see if I can exhibit some here. First (and maybe foremost) a group of people swearing under oath doesn't necessarily mean it is true. I'll draw your attention to the tobacco companies, certainly you'll agree ciggarrettes increase the likelihood of cancer? Next, let's look at a few of the people swearing that it had nothing to do with race. A governor, who is known for his "not one" quote which referred to how many blacks he would let into white schools. He also proposed legislation that would cut state funding to any school that integrated, which was quickly overturned when applied. Denmark Groover, in 2001(after the 1994 oath): "I presented the matter to the House, and because of the opposition, I probably used some rhetoric indicating that the new flag was to symbolize our defiance of the action of the federal judiciary on matters of race" Now, I'm sure that you are going to take that probably to mean something different than I am. I am going to take it, gauging the politics of this era, to mean something closer to "absolutely". I am sure you will disagree, but certainly you can grant that these things make your argument less convincing.
As per my homework, was I supposed to find out upon his death the state siezed his land because a jury decided that he was a "negroe and by consequence an alien." Was that what I was supposed to find? Because that kinda bolsters the point that this whole issue revolves around race, which is what you guys are ardently trying to avoid? But I guess you were trying to show me that a black man had slaves? Ok. The reason why this is in any way notable is because it is the exception.
And thank you for the Ugandan President quote! That clears it up. Since a politician in Africa believes that Africans are to blame, white southerners must have been in the right. There can be no other explantion.
At the most basic level, could you please acknowledge that slavery was wrong and its end was a positive step for this country? It seems like you guys won't even grant that point. I could understand if you were saying the North's intentions were not as noble as it is presented or the South's weren't as deplorable, but it almost seems like you are placing no blame on the southerners. Please tell me this is not the case. Again, I forget whether it was you or the other gentleman, but one of you said something about Africans being brought from the jungle and learning from the knee of the master. Then, either he or you, continued to say that I was ignorant because of the notion that slavery was free. The owner provided food, shelter and medicine, so he should therefore be allowed to do whatever he wanted to blacks. That is just ridiculous and disheartening. I really hope everyone acknowledges that slavery was bad at the time, whether they think it still affects society or not today I guess is less important, but there has to be some common ground for this argument to be useful at all.
P.s Pilgrim? Okay, bigot.

You claim blacks were not opressed in SLAVERY? You could not be any more of an apologist if you tried. The whites were working day and night to get rid of slavery? You make it seem like the African Americans slaves are indebted to these slave owners? You are correct that the Constitution didn't actually provide for separation of church and state, but that is how it has been interpreted. I did mispeak in that regard. I really can't wrap my mind around your arguments. It just seems like, at least for a starting point, we can all agree that slavery was a horrid institution that still stains the moral fabric of this country?

[QUOTE id="1b30e0a1-4b94-45bf-849c-bf297ed7a53d"]Mr. White:


"All people from all over the world celebrate bravery and heroic actions in the face of overwhelming odds. I'm sure you spent no time studying history, but perhaps you could research the Battle of Thermopylae. Huge loss, everyone killed yet their ancestors celebrate that battle constantly. "

Some years after the War, Pres. Jefferson Davis gave a speech on the importance of a battle during the War at a little coastal town of Sabine Pass, Texas. Forty-something men in an artillery unit under the command of Lt. Dick Dowling drove off several Union ships and troop transports, sunk at least two and captured quite a few Union soldiers. He did not lose any men. Pres. Davis compared this victory to the Battle of Thermopylae. There is a state park on that site in Sabine Pass; it was remodeled a few years ago and was the site of some re-enactments by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Hurricane Rita tore it up so much that it is still closed.
Anyway, please include the Battle of Sabine Pass in the long list of great victories against overwhelming odds. Thanks!

Originally posted by

Arthur

....April should be even busier because the Confederacy embraced all races and creeds.

Gen. Beauregard's command in Louisiana had so many Frenchmen, blacks, Jews, Indians, whites, Indians, and whatnot that he coined the oath of 'Sacredam!' ;-) Give Mr. Josh time, he'll come around.

And in Labelle, Florida (the 3rd state to secede)
DIEU SAUVER LE PAYS DU SUD (GOD SAVE THE SOUTH COUNTRY-FRENCH)

And the media idiots think we don't know diversity!

What a Crock!

How can we progress as a society if we do not look at things in the past and place judgment? Should we look bad and quickly make decisions without considering context, social norms, etc.. of the period? Of course not, but at some point a soicety we made a horrible mistake and the consequences will be grave for the future of our society. That has to be the first step to acknowledge that mistakes of the past will affect the future (I can already see how this comment will be used to criticize civil rights). If we never question social norms, nothing would ever change. It takes people looking at something and saying this isn't right and shouldn't be a part of our society (Hey maybe 8 year olds shouldn't work in factories? Maybe women should vote? Maybe we should let blacks eat in the same building with whites? etc...)
Next, and I missed when this became the popular defense, why are Africans more to blame than southerners for slavery? I mean, you guys are painting a picture that the poor white southerners were almost forced into the institution of slavery, and are in no way to blame. Multiple posts cite the fact that African kings were offering fellow Africans for the slave trade. First, I don't agree that would somehow make white southerners less to blame, but let's look at it. Whites were waiting on the coast for African kings to bring them slaves, and then they delivered them to the New World. Whites would stir up conflict between conflicting groups so there would be more slaves for the Europeans to take. Often times whites would provide guns for these conflicts. Anyway, that is neither here nor there. Southerners used blacks as slaves. Simple enough, and that is incredibly wrong. I don't think education has overstated it, and I don't think its effects are exaggerated.
Next, just because your family didn't rape or beat slaves does that make it right? People treated human being like property or animals, isn't that bad enough? Shouldn't the statement "My family owned slaves" be bad enough, without even taking into account whether or not they beat them? Again, people in the South had slaves, so I am not singling out your family as particularly bad, but I am disagreeing with the idea that we cannot judge the past.
If blacks were so happy and un-oppressed in slavery, I am curious how the civil rights movement even started. Or if whites were just victims of the prevailing system, and in no way contributing to it, I am curious why their hand had to be forced time and time again for civil rights issues. You guys want to talk about the national government overstepping their boundaries, and state's rights. Honestly, when do you think the southern states would have integrated? I know that is almost impossible to answer but if you had to guess? Do you agree that integration is good? Do you agree the separate but equal thing wasn't really working out too hot for blacks? I just want to know, should the government ever step in? Apparently, you guys argue civil rights was an inappropriate time to step in, but would any event or cause warrant government intervention? Or the state is sovereign regardless? If a state wanted to continue slavery, institute polygamy, deport hispanics, interefere with women voting, and segregate schools, that is fine? You guys continue to bring up obscure quotes and und argue that racism has nothing to do with it. What about Emmett Till? Why wouldn't whites let blacks eat with them in public? Why did they prevent the vote? The people of the South as a whole placed blacks as inferior. I am rambling now, but I would like someone to answer if the national government could ever step in. Is there anything important enough for that?

Originally posted by

Michael Arndt

My apologies to all. You have enlightened me. The North, African kings, and European leaders are to blame or slavery. And slavery wasn't really that bad anyway... I mean, the charitable plantation owners were kindly enough to feed, house, and provide medical care for these savages who were forced into the South. You guys are right, I can't even imagine where the South would be now had the North not overstepped its bounds. The South would probably be even more a leader in education and the "race problem" (yet another creation of Northern liberals) would be vastly better because the negroes would know their place. Because if the South illustrated anything post-Civil War, it is open-minded, non-racist thought. I am not sure why though, because all those other places had slaves, therefore it must be right. And our slavery must have been exactly like theirs, there is no possibility of any difference. Anyway, I am getting off track. Glory to the Confederacy, in all its progressivism, and for everything it stands. Damn the Northern Aggressors who have ruined this country. Oh and also damn: African kings for leaving us with their problems, Europeans, moronic college professors in all their liberal garbage, the media especially CNN for their never-ending bias, any Amendment to the Constitution after the Second (even the first kinda), war protesters, gays, Lincoln and anyone who has ever studied him, JFK and FDR for their socialist garbage, people on welfare. Now could anyone inform the best place to purchase a confederate flag? I want one in my car, in the windows of my house, and I am researching having it tattooed to my forehead just so there is no mistaking what I am about. I don't want to go anywhere and have people be even a little ambiguous of my heritage. Again, thank you guys.
P.S I cannot spend any more time with this post. You guys maintain it is a matter of state's rights and I think it is veiled racism. I certainly do not believe southerners to stand for everything I listed but was trying emphasize the fact that not one person speaking on behalf of the Confederacy even acknowledge that slavery was horrible AND the South is at least part to blame. Instead, the listed myriad of reasons why slavery wasn't bad or other people involved. Wish you guys all the best.

Look around past your own bias - you'll see acknowledgements everywhere - what you won't see is the South taking ALL the blame - www.rebeldame.blogspot.com - also, since you can't seem to get past the "atrocities" committed obviously only in the south, you might want to check into the 1863 Draft Riots - in NY City (thank God THAT'S above the Mason-Dixon). I'll even make it easy for you - http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/317749.html - and I see where you said you "don't have time" to keep up with this anymore - might be a fight you shouldn't have started then!

I don't really understand what you mean in this voliminous response. I don't think that anyone is blaming anyone for the Civil War. That's where all ignorant opinions begin. I'm just wondering if the South did not secede because of the percieved threat Republican rule posed to the insitution of slavery, why then did the South secede in 1861?

Originally posted by

Ryan

I'm from just outside of Atlanta, and have been all my life. (you are very perceptive!) My travels and my experiences with others have caused my "southern pride" (yeah c'mon!) to become tamer than others, such as yourself, in order to accept all walks of life...rather than to make them feel uncomfortable or intimidated (git-r-dun AGAIN!!!). There is a great professor at the University named Donald Rubin. I suggest you audit just 30 minutes of one of his classes, or even just have a five minute chat with him. He, as he has with many others, will teach you to look outwardly and mindfully rather than inwardly and selfishly. That is, if you are even a part of this University (and if you are, the lack of knowledge, grammar skills, general coherency of the subject, and mental acuity dissapoint me to say i am a student in the same university and would also leave the admissions director reeling). Also, i think it is funny you use the word "queers". You have really arrived as a forward thinking member of the 21st century. Your professors must be proud! And of course (capital)I want to call for a change. I think that it is up to the INDIVIDUAL to make his or her own choices. "I" is no a bad word. ("I" have a dream, etc.) I don't think MLK was being very selfish when he used "I". And before you use this as ammo against me, I am not comparing myself to MLK. Sorry.

Keep posting, your proving my point "We like a good laugh too." Cavalierly folk as yourself cruise the internet to belittle other's by looking for poor grammar, spelling and those that think different than you. All your doing is proving yourself, that which you accuse others of being. Your so arrogant, you can't even see your own faults...Sorry, I forgot, that's what arrogance is.

As for Atlanta, we don't even claim it, you people have taken it over!

T. Aaron