Confederate Flag Ban In VA.

[tenfeathers]

When will evertbody stand up and quit letting this shit happen.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/01...flying-limits/

[cerebral aSSassin]

you cant ban a flag can you?

if thats the case, ide start flying some wwwp flags.

isnt that freedom of speech?

[tenfeathers]

Originally Posted by cerebral aSSassin

you cant ban a flag can you?

if thats the case, ide start flying some wwwp flags.

isnt that freedom of speech?

Well apparently they can, won't happen here we have one on I35 highway north of town big one, the blacks have tried evrything to get it down but still there.

[GUDERIANSDOG]

The amazing thing about all of this to me is that the "rebel flag" (otherwise properly known as the Confederate Naval Jack) was not even the main battle flag for the majority of Southern troops in the Civil War. I fly the first tri-color battle flag. But that being said, upwards of 6000 black troops voluntarily served with the South during the war, as did the rebellious Cherokee and other 'Civilized' Indian tribes of the Oklahoma territory. http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/Flags/u...html#battcross

Strangely it was segregationist Southern Democrat politicians like former Governor, and South Carolina Senator Ernst "Fritz" Hollings who in 1959 adopted the Confederate Naval Jack battle flag as a symbol of their rebellion and opposition to Federal racial integration policy.

[tenfeathers]

Just made a note to self, Self never spend a dime in Lexington,Virginia.

[Shadow Walker]

It is amazing how certain people want to re-write history.

The Yankees won, so they got to write the history of the Civil War. Which wasn't called the Civil War at the time. Only years after the war was over was it called the Civil War. They could hardly call it the Southern War for Independence, that name alone would shown the Union as the villian.

Seceding from the Union was (and is) perfectly legal. It took Lincoln to declare it a crime and declare war on the South.

It is certainly true that the South attacked Fort Sumter, but that was after the Union (Lincoln) refused to remove Union soldiers from the legal established country of the Confederacy. The Union troops had to be forcibly removed. This was used as an excuse to say the South started the war.

The Union also stated the Civil War was about slavery, which is untrue. As a matter of factual truth, Lincoln cared nothing about the slaves. At the age of ninteen Lincoln killed two runaway slaves, and injured or killed another. Lincoln was permanent scarred (by knife) for life by one or more of the runaway slaves. This is a matter of historical records which most historians chose to ignore.

During the Civil War, Lincoln freed the slaves in the Southern states, but not the slaves in Yankee state/s which still allowed slavery. Of course, Lincoln had no power to free the slaves in the Southern states, but he was hoping the slaves would revolt and attack their owners, while also disrupting life in the South. It didn't happen. Instead, slaves actually joined the Southern Army in the war.

Virginia, which was the main state involved in the Civil War has now become so overrun with Yankees, it has become a Liberal ass kissing state.

Any government which re-writes its history, is not a government that can be trusted.

[GUDERIANSDOG]

The scars of the civil war run very deep, mostly because the conflict itself did not resolve the real economic and political causes of the war. And in the aftermath of the North's bitter and repressive Reconstruction and occupation policies, the South suffers to some extent till this very day.
It is much simpler for the revisionist modern historians to make the reasons for the conflict all about the abolition of slavery. The ignorant American masses lap up this politically correct dogma with a spoon, but it is a pure fallacy. The underlying reasons for the conflict were complex. There was almost as much opposition to freeing of the Slaves in the North among the working underclass as there was in the South. Hence you have examples like the 1863 New York draft riots which were primarily race riots of the Irish immigrants against freed blacks. After the war there was constant racial turmoil in the Northern cities as the newly freed black workers competed for jobs with the already well established and entrenched underclasses. Lies are simple and convenient; the truth is always complex and troubling.

Oh and this is not all of VA, just the town of Lexington which is unfortunately full of academic leftists. Virginia itself is quite Conservative and doing well, it actually has a budget surplus, and strong protections for citizens second amendment rights. This is just this one small leftist town government who is prohibiting the Confederate Naval Jack from being flown on public flag poles. So in response private citizens should just fly it everywhere else.

[tenfeathers]

Originally Posted by Shadow Walker

It is amazing how certain people want to re-write history.

The Yankees won, so they got to write the history of the Civil War. Which wasn't called the Civil War at the time. Only years after the war was over was it called the Civil War. They could hardly call it the Southern War for Independence, that name alone would shown the Union as the villian.

Seceding from the Union was (and is) perfectly legal. It took Lincoln to declare it a crime and declare war on the South.

It is certainly true that the South attacked Fort Sumter, but that was after the Union (Lincoln) refused to remove Union soldiers from the legal established country of the Confederacy. The Union troops had to be forcibly removed. This was used as an excuse to say the South started the war.

The Union also stated the Civil War was about slavery, which is untrue. As a matter of factual truth, Lincoln cared nothing about the slaves. At the age of ninteen Lincoln killed two runaway slaves, and injured or killed another. Lincoln was permanent scarred (by knife) for life by one or more of the runaway slaves. This is a matter of historical records which most historians chose to ignore.

During the Civil War, Lincoln freed the slaves in the Southern states, but not the slaves in Yankee state/s which still allowed slavery. Of course, Lincoln had no power to free the slaves in the Southern states, but he was hoping the slaves would revolt and attack their owners, while also disrupting life in the South. It didn't happen. Instead, slaves actually joined the Southern Army in the war.

Virginia, which was the main state involved in the Civil War has now become so overrun with Yankees, it has become a Liberal ass kissing state.

Any government which re-writes its history, is not a government that can be trusted.

Dam I love it when someone knows what they are talking about

Thanks +100

[tenfeathers]

Originally Posted by GUDERIANSDOG

The scars of the civil war run very deep, mostly because the conflict itself did not resolve the real economic and political causes of the war. And in the aftermath of the North's bitter and repressive Reconstruction and occupation policies, the South suffers to some extent till this very day.
It is much simpler for the revisionist modern historians to make the reasons for the conflict all about the abolition of slavery. The ignorant American masses lap up this politically correct dogma with a spoon, but it is a pure fallacy. The underlying reasons for the conflict were complex. There was almost as much opposition to freeing of the Slaves in the North among the working underclass as there was in the South. Hence you have examples like the 1863 New York draft riots which were primarily race riots of the Irish immigrants against freed blacks. After the war there was constant racial turmoil in the Northern cities as the newly freed black workers competed for jobs with the already well established and entrenched underclasses. Lies are simple and convenient; the truth is always complex and troubling.

Oh and this is not all of VA, just the town of Lexington which is unfortunately full of academic leftists. Virginia itself is quite Conservative and doing well, it actually has a budget surplus, and strong protections for citizens second amendment rights. This is just this one small leftist town government who is prohibiting the Confederate Naval Jack from being flown on public flag poles. So in response private citizens should just fly it everywhere else.

+100

[GUDERIANSDOG]

Just fly one of these instead and tell them all to go to hell: the First National Battle Flag of the Confederacy.

[Cy4ka]

Got me thinking - how long until they ban the "Don't tread on me" flags? Either that or catagorize people that have them as 'domestic terrorists.'

[Zdeno]

nothing wrong with the confederate flag, never be ashamed of where you come from and what you believe in.

[GUDERIANSDOG]

Too late for me, I be busted!

[Expertowgunner]

Originally Posted by Cy4ka

Got me thinking - how long until they ban the "Don't tread on me" flags? Either that or catagorize people that have them as 'domestic terrorists.'

You are not the only one to think that, ive wondered when the gov would crack down on the use of the Gadsden "Dont Tread On Me" flag. Im truly fed up with this backwards assed approach by the government about historical pieces like the Confederate battle flag of Northern Virginia (stupid assholes dont even know that it is not the real confederate flag and each state and even the central gov in the CSA switched colors all the time). I have long given up hope on the average jack off as they dont even know basic american history, let alone plain common sense.

[Shadow Walker]

FWIW, my Irish great grandfather "owned" eleven slaves. At least that is what he told everyone. Turns out the "owned" slaves were in fact runaway slaves who worked for my great granfather picking cotton for various cotton growers.

My great grandfather came to Charleston, SC with his Irish clan in the early 1800s. The clan split up, and my great grandfather walked to Mississippi because he did not have money to buy a horse. When he arrived in Mississippi he had eleven runaway slaves. Turns out, he had made a deal with each of them ... they would work for him and he would claim them as his slaves.

This was dangerous, but profitable for all concerned, and it worked.

To my knowledge, none of my ancestors fought in the Civil War. By the same token, I am proud to be a Southerner.

[lsmurphy]

Born in the North but lived my entire life in the South. Southern man here.

[bovver]

Mine and my wifes family are rolling in their graves.
Is this not America?
free to express yourself as long as you think like us?
no ban on flying foriegn national flags on American soil?(mexico flags)
But they ban a flag that while it flew no slaves were bought or sold under it?
No indians were murdered and/or threw of their land under it?
wheres the true hate here?

[The AK of Damocles]

Originally Posted by Zdeno

nothing wrong with the confederate flag, never be ashamed of where you come from and what you believe in.

AMEN!!! +1,000,000

[tenfeathers]

Just a little tune

http://youtu.be/aqrH7iD_SWU

[GUDERIANSDOG]

This is just a typical tactic of the rabid left, they always demonize and racialize objects to agitate, scare, and motivate their base. The racial-ization of the Confederate Naval Jack was first done by groups like the Klan and prejudiced pro-segregationist politicians in the South, but it is now being used by the left to alter inconvenient symbols of history and create political ammunition. They will if possible remove all monuments to the heroes of the Southern cause. It is right out of Orwell: "He who controls the past, controls the future."
I see the method to their madness; If they can get the black community excited and politically motivated because of a 150 year old flag, maybe they will forget about 27% unemployment in the black community under the reign of the Kenyan man-child.