Tha General Lee , Ironclads and Figures

GMorrison

.........................and the local bird cage flooring; the SF Chronicle.

Don't watch tv news; it's designed for the 15 second attention span.

You are obviously very smart guys. A sense of humor is a sure sign of intelligence. Read three newspapers online. I read USA Today, the San Jose Mercury and the local bird cage flooring; the SF Chronicle.

Don't watch tv news; it's designed for the 15 second attention span.

You aren't alone, Jetmaker.

I've been having a similar experience.

I also concur with that. I haven't found anything on television that strikes me as what I would consider serious "news reporting". That leaves papers - which have mostly become very tabloid-ish and over-editorialized - and the longform periodicals - which are the same as the papers, just more words - and the internet - which can be great, but there's a ton of slag to sift through to find a few decent nuggets. It's ironic that in the "information age" there seems to be a preponderance of misinformation, disinformation and plain ignorance (not discounting myself from that either). I guess that's why I don't get too wrapped up in the news du jour. It just seems like some kind of Machiavellian marketing game. Diversion and distraction. There's a lot of very, very serious stuff happening that doesn't get discussed, I think, because it's simply not trending, which seems more important to the media sphere than real human concerns. I guess I'm jaded or something

GMorrison

Spruce what you said abt major network news is exactly what I was inferring. But I say listen to it all, use some judgement. In full disclosure though, I don;t listen to either Fox or The Dailey show for anything more than amusement.

Spruce what you said abt major network news is exactly what I was inferring. But I say listen to it all, use some judgement. In full disclosure though, I don;t listen to either Fox or The Dailey show for anything more than amusement.

GMorrison

I'm going to steer this slightly in a different direction if I can, and get directly back to the title of this post.

Probably just as well.

I was beginning to wonder if typing the word " Limbaugh "

too many times triggers some sort of lockdown

I'm going to steer this slightly in a different direction if I can, and get directly back to the title of this post.

It's been discussed here quite a bit that the motivations of the South to fight a war are complex, going beyond slavery. In the minds of the combatants, was preserving slavery front and center important? I don't know, and Dr. Tilley cited a book taken from letters that indicates a wider set of motivations.

Just to take two examples, Lee and Pickett. Both graduated USMA, Lee with the second best set of marks ever. I could look it up, but I think the best went to a guy named Mason, in the same class. My Great Grandfather Morrison graduated in 1903, something like 75th. There was some other guy, MacArthur, in his class. Lee's wife Mary Custis was descended from Martha Washington, her great grand daughter, and Lee himself was a distant cousin of George. He was as American as it gets.

By the way, he did own slaves, as did his wife who had inherited her own, and they worked on the plantation he shared with her. His mother in law had ordered they be freed in 1857, on the condition that their Arlington plantation was fiscally sound, under a sort of five year plan. Lee went to court to argue, and won, that he needed the full five years to do it. (Washington Post, May 6 2011)

Pickett served the Union with distinction against the British in Puget Sound I think in 1859.

Lee was offered command of the entire Union Army by Lincoln. He chose instead to return to Virginia.

GMorrison

No I don't listen to Limbaugh, LOL. But I do my due diligence and I make it a point to read as many points of view as I can. I don't consider Limbaugh to be a reliable source on anything, and outfits like NBC are not far behind in that assessment, but he often has been described as one of the most powerful policy setters in the conservative movement (shudder) so you need to listen.

Transcripts of his broadcasts are available online.

Well, I'm gonna insert a very rare Confederate penny's worth:

I find it difficult to believe the Confederacy could have banned slavery.

I recall reading comments about the inability of President Jefferson Davis to obtain full wartime cooperation by various Confederate State politicians.

No I don't listen to Limbaugh, LOL. But I do my due diligence and I make it a point to read as many points of view as I can. I don't consider Limbaugh to be a reliable source on anything, and outfits like NBC are not far behind in that assessment, but he often has been described as one of the most powerful policy setters in the conservative movement (shudder) so you need to listen.

Transcripts of his broadcasts are available online.

jtilley

I took a look at that "Southern Heritage" site. It's one of the silliest sites I've encountered

Yeah, I wouldn't say it's the silliest site I've seen - the interwebs' got some doozies - but I gotta agree it's pretty goofy. The quotes from slaves is really off-putting. I think I get what they're trying to do, but that's just some really bizarre waxing nostalgic

mustang1989

Sprue-ce Goose

GMorrison

...........I'm fascinated with Limbaugh's take on this. I certainly am way to the left of him, but there's so much room in between there that to hear him see something, anything, in the way I do suggests that it's a pretty widely held opinion. Unless we are both idiots. One or the other I would accept, but we can't both be, can we?

How do you obtain so much information about what Limbaugh says on the air.? 

Do you listen to his program each day while at work? 

Don't laugh, I know a surprising amount of people that do listen to that kind of thing all day long. Don't get me wrong , it aint a slight against GM in any way. I'm just sayin'......

I did not mean my question as a slight.

Just surprised by how much GM knows about what Rush Limbaugh says about topics.

"The Confederate Constitution banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves."

First statement; true if a little twisted- it banned the importation of negroes (slaves) from sources other the the United States. That was ok with them.

Second statement- completely false. That could not be done by law. The only way a Confederate state could "abolish" slavery would be if every single slave holder in that state gave up the practice.

Third statement- also false. If the argument is that the South was not held to the Emancipation Proclamation, or the 13th Amendment because, er, they were no longer a part of the United States, they were.

Fourth Statement- false for the same reasons. And just flat out wrong in the Northern States, Just as an example, Maryland voted on November 1, 1864 by state referendum to abolish slavery.

I'm sorry Jetmaker, but the statement is complete horse droppings, if you will.

Sprue-ce Goose

GMorrison

...........I'm fascinated with Limbaugh's take on this. I certainly am way to the left of him, but there's so much room in between there that to hear him see something, anything, in the way I do suggests that it's a pretty widely held opinion. Unless we are both idiots. One or the other I would accept, but we can't both be, can we?

How do you obtain so much information about what Limbaugh says on the air.? 

Do you listen to his program each day while at work? 

GMorrison

...........I'm fascinated with Limbaugh's take on this. I certainly am way to the left of him, but there's so much room in between there that to hear him see something, anything, in the way I do suggests that it's a pretty widely held opinion. Unless we are both idiots. One or the other I would accept, but we can't both be, can we?

Do you listen to his program each day while at work? 

I took a look at that "Southern Heritage" site. It's one of the silliest sites I've encountered. Unfortunately there's no way to keep junk off the web.

Not really sure what's not true here? Most of what is being said is conjecture. In fact, that's pretty much what all historical analysis is. Data is always incomplete, which is why history continues to unfold. Was the Civil War not about slavery at all? That would be very hard to argue with any kind of seriousness. Was it totally about slavery? That's also hard to argue, though slavery certainly was a big issue at the time, and both physical skirmishes and rising emotions over the issue probably had a lot to do with the outbreak of full on war. It may be a stretch to say the southern states were "abandoning" slavery, but maybe not? I doubt President Davis was going in that direction, but it's arguable that the markets and people might have been - though, if so, what the reasons were is definitely fodder for discussion. I'm not convinced, myself, that the typical footsoldier was primarily motivated, for or against, by the cause of slavery. Of course, I may be wrong about that

GM, I think you meant Southern "Heritage" 411. I looked for the other and that's pretty much all that came up, and it seems to fit what you were saying

I'm reminded of a gem that turned up on my wife's Facebook the other day:

"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never know they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln

People have been trying for the past 150 years to convince themselves that the Civil War wasn't really about slavery. That just doesn't work.

It's certainly probable that slavery would have died out eventually if it had been confined to the South. Lincoln himself said "I have no purpose to interfere with the institution where it exists." (The Emancipation Proclamation was, in many respects, a political document designed to get votes in the election of 1864 - and to keep Great Britain out of the war.) And the issue was more complicated than one side wanting slavery and the other side wanting to stop it.  But I don't think any trained professional historian would argue today that slavery was not the central cause of the war.

Man would I have ever failed a "pop" history quiz...............

It's also mostly untrue.

That's all a lift from a website called Southernheritage411.

The only indication that the South was moving towards abandoning slavery was a proposal made to Jefferson Davis that to do so would make permanent diplomatic relations with England and France, but the proposal was rejected and there certainly was no institutional move to do so. Abandoning and abolishing are also two different things; in their hypothetical country, that would have required a Constitutional Amendment as noted below:

The Constitution of the Confederacy, Article 1, Section 9,(4):

" No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. "

The ban on importation of slaves clearly was to keep the market from being flooded and push down the value of the existing slaves.

Jefferson Davis, the President, owned slaves.

The Emancipation Proclamation was made in 1863, freeing the slaves in the South, which itself hadn't won independence at the time. And the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, the South surrendered on April 12th of that year.

This is an interesting little thing from Listverse:

In 1864, the Confederate States began to abandon slavery. There are some indications that even without a war, the Confederacy would have ended slavery. Most historians believe that the Confederacy only started to abandon slavery once their defeat was imminent. If that were true then we are to believe that the CSA wanted independence more than they wanted to hold on to slavery. The CSA’s highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston were not slave holders and did not believe in slavery. And according to an 1860 census, only 31% of families owned slaves. 75% of families that owned slaves owned less than 10 and often worked beside them in the fields. The Confederate Constitution banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/247171-house-votes-to-ban-confederate-flags-at-federal-cemeteries

Right, and the CAF was founded in Texas so there's a local angle as well. I won't pretend to advance the argument for not issuing the plates with the flag, as the Supremes split 5-4 on the issue so it's almost as political as legal. Plates ARE State property.  I'm sure that the churches would probably have the same obstacle.

And one could paint the entire tailgate of their truck with the flag if they so chose.

History is not a neat and tidy thing.

Mustang we can all sleep safe at night. I write signage codes and ordinances, among other things, for a living. Anything with even a whiff of "flag" to it is excluded from governance so quickly your head would spin. Landlords do have rights of control over what is on their property, however.

I don't know if Tankerbuilder ever figured out the answer to his question about figures, vignettes or ironclads.

It's going to be OK, Tanks.

And frankly I'm quite surprised that his Bismark was turned away at the door. I'm not familiar with the rules at shows, but I suppose its within their rights. That would make life difficult for quite a few of the aircraft displayed, I would think.

I'm fascinated with Limbaugh's take on this. I certainly am way to the left of him, but there's so much room in between there that to hear him see something, anything, in the way I do suggests that it's a pretty widely held opinion. Unless we are both idiots. One or the other I would accept, but we can't both be, can we?

Another gem from him on the issue, to the effect that yes it's the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia, but for all intents and purposes it's the Confederate Flag, so don't keep bringing that point up. Ah, Rush... what comes from reading the newspaper every day.

In other news, the NCAA lifted its fifteen year moratorium on National Championships being held in SC. I believe there are some sports fans in the state.

You make a good point Stik. A comforting as well as hopeful one as well.

Mustang, I don't think that the flag can be "outlawed" here in the USA. That would qualify as a First Amendment violation. After all, if one can burn or fly the US flag upside down with court sanctioned impunity, or purchase and fly the Rising Sun, National Socialist German, Hammer and Sickle, or any other number of standards & banners, the CSA battle flag will get the same considerations and protections. At least as the laws of the land currently exist. I won't say that this is much ado about nothing, because as can be seen there are deep emotions on this symbolic issues on both sides. But at the end of the day, the law of the land still grants one the right to wave it as seen fit. That's the one that I signed up for.

The reason for using the name : "Confederate Air Force" was , per what I was told by a member back in the mid 1980s  ( IIRC ) , intended to be a joke since aircraft did not exist during the 1860s.

Of course, more people understood the joke back then as Americans still knew how to read............books. and did not object to learning.

Try telling somebody in 2015 that the Confederacy had an air force and I would not bet my life that the comment would be disbelieved.

Would any of us prefer to live in a country where elections didn't have consequences?

GM, a problem with Confederate flags on North Carolina license plates is also brewing. The state DMV sells such "vanity plates" to members of quite a number of organizations, such as the Vietnam Veterans Association, World War II veterans, and I'm not sure how many others. One of the approved organizations is the United Sons of Confederate Veterans. Members can order (at additional charge) plates bearing a small Confederate flag with the name of the association lettered around it.

There has indeed been informal discussion in the (highly conservative) state legislature about taking those license plates off the market, on the grounds that the state should not be selling such symbols. There was an interesting op-ed piece in the Raleigh News and Observer a few days ago by the president of the NC chapter of the USCV. He argued that his organization is registered with the IRS as a non-profit, tax-exempt entity, and that its interest is in commemorating historical events and making contributions to charitable causes; that it therefore deserves parity with the other associations that can order license plates.

I honestly am not sure how I feel about that argument. I've known some members of the USCV who made it pretty clear that they knew virtually nothing about Civil War history, and some knew a lot more about it than I do (which isn't saying a great deal). Certainly not all members of the USCV are bigotted fiends - any m ore than all the Daughters of the Confederacy are. But If the Ku Klux Klan were to submit an application for vanity plates, what would the state do? It could be argued, I guess, that if the USCV "vanity plate" is taken off the market all the others should be taken off too. Personally, I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. Maybe these organizations need to advertise themselves with bumper stickers rather than state-issued license plates - and nobody seriously suggests banning bumper stickers. (My all-time favorite: "Help the environment! Kill yourself.")

On a related subject - those of us who've been around awhile can remember the Confederate Air Force. It was an association of historical aircraft enthusiasts who pooled resources and knowledge to restore old airplanes (mainly from World War II), and flew them around to air shows. I saw quite a few of those "Confederate warbirds" in action; they were a welcome fixture of airshows for several decades. I never saw a hint of any political or social agenda in the group; the "Confederate" label seemed to be perceived as a joke. The CAF had an emblem - a cartoon of a comical-looking Confederate officer in uniform, saying "Forget H---!" I never heard of anybody taking that insignia as anything more than a joke. The organization is now called the Commemorative Air Force. I just googled its website, which explained that the name change was done by membership vote in 2002. I think that was a wise, courteous move.

Exactly my point. I don't want to delve off too deep in all that because that gets into a stir but it brings to mind lots of possibilities. We'll see...........

I am afraid ;

       You mention a perfect world . Where ? Kin I go dere ? You know of course I am kidding   . I only wish there was such a thing as a perfect world ,there's a problem though . The world we live in is populated by a big problem - Humans ! !

 My thoughts turned this morning to a question . I wonder when the flag will be outlawed? As ridiculous as it sounds it could be a possibility.  Although not nearly on the scale that Germany has against the swastika, I'm pretty sure we can look for that to happen here especially if there's backlash over all of this. There's always some idiot out there with something to prove after something like this. If everybody would just leave well enough alone it would be a done deal and nothing else would come of it. In a perfect world....................