HOME | DD
likwidoracle β A flag of the past?
Published: 2005-01-15 04:43:19 +0000 UTC; Views: 18119; Favourites: 183; Downloads: 1005
Redirect to original
Description
So this was one of my first things i've ever submitted on this site and it to no surprise created a lot of criticism. most of my older stuff i have taken down but i wanted to leave this one up just because of how many views it received and comments also. I did remove the comment section just because of how political it got. I did enjoy the discussions it created and i understand if it can upset some people, i am definitely not trying to stir a rumble between people or put anyone down. I hope everyone enjoyed the discussions that went on with this piece and thank you for all the criticism (even the bad stuff). I have definitely grown into a full different style of artwork over the past eight years, but i'm glad i can keep this piece up to show how much my style has changed.Related content
Comments: 146
Great pic keep it up instant fav!!
For one thing that's not the official Flag of the confederacy or at least not all of it [link] shows most of them but there is still one missing which I can't find. Should the flag stand for Freedom? Yes more importantly it stood for a way of life that's why the confederates fought so hard. Many confederates thought them self's just like there four father who built the nation fighting for freedom and so on. I could go on for days about the Civil War but I wont. it really was an interesting time in America and the most depressing. Just know this let them be confederate or union they were still Americans fighting for what they thought was right. it was the most bloody and destructive war America has ever fought and towards the end the confederacy gave it there all throwing the young, old, and the weak to fight. and for some one to do that right there says that it was more then slavery.
π: 0 β©: 0
...Obviously, this is a very controversial subject.
I would like to say that I like the way this piece of art looks without any regard to its subject's history. That's probably a confusing statement but my brain is not currently running at full power.
I would also like to say that I have a great deal of respect for General Lee. That is really neither here nor there, but he was the one who was quoted.
I was going to say more, but I know that giving the history lesson I was taught (whichever side it favored) would be like throwing kerosene (that's not spelled right, I don't think) on a campfire. Not a smart idea, so I'm going to be quiet.
Goodbye.
π: 0 β©: 1
haha, well thanks for the complement, and its alright if you don't wanna jump in on the "campfire" discussion lol... thanks again
π: 0 β©: 0
love this wp. and thx to all speaking the truth against revisionist history.
π: 0 β©: 0
There isn't much else I can add to this, but I whole-heartedly agree. People need to learn to read history books, not just remember garbage that was told to them when they were in school. School textbooks are the most biased pieces of literature this country has ever produced.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hell yes, I highly agree to that. Thanks to a good friend of mine I learned a lot more about the Rebel Flag and that it had to do with other issues other than rascism. I never thought to really find out what is was all about until I saw it hanging in my friend's livingroom haha! Now I have it on my desktop for my computer ^-^
This is a really nice piece, btw. This was the first one I clicked on to take a look at while searching "rebel flag".
π: 0 β©: 0
Ha...someone asked me if (as a Mexican-American) I was okay with the Confederate Flag.
Truthfully I live in Texas and just don't care about it. If a white store/restaurant owner has this flag I would go into the place anyway. There are people who don't like Mexicans or African-Americans and well, I don't like them either so I guess it's even.
The flag is over a few important buildings in Texas but not so much as a symble of racism but more for history. Most of these buildings also have the other flags (Texas flag, USA flag, Mexican flag, Spansh etc...)
I figure if they ban the Confederate flag, next will be the Mexican flag.
And really "Six Flags Over Texas" sounds a lot better than "Five or Four Flags Over Texas"
So if you want to be proud of that flag, it's fine...just know that as a Mexican I never carry the Mexican or American flag and then drive it down other peoples faces.
Know your history but never think it's better than anyone elses. (thats how bigotry starts)
π: 0 β©: 0
Great piece here. As an intelligent American, I know exactly what you're getting at. People today want to get rid of our own history as if it's a bad thing. The Civil War happened. Slavery happened. Its not something you can get rid of. It helped shape the nation we WERE and hopefully America wakes up to realize we can be proud of her once again.
π: 0 β©: 0
Where all human and those who dont get that need to get it beat in to there thick skulls. I can uderstand wanting to fallow tradition. But if I fallowed my families past trations I would be in the middle of no where hunt and tradin pelts and skins for a livin.
π: 0 β©: 0
i see this flag most of the time has it got something to do with the southern parts of america(i dont know as i am british)
π: 0 β©: 1
Correct, this flag was flown by the South during it's war for independence (1861-1865). It is a very controverisal topic in the states but for all the wrong reasons. It is a sign of Southern independence and wanting to follow our way of life, going against oppresive goverment rule and taxation. It is a very important part of our history and people want to forget it. As the quote by General Lee says, we cant forget who we are, for we wont know where to put ourselves in the future.
π: 0 β©: 2
couldn't have said it any better thanks man
π: 0 β©: 1
of course, awsome art btw. Which state ya from, fellow southerner?
π: 0 β©: 1
ha pennsylvania, right near pittsburgh originally, then lived in england for 3 years now in missouri for a while
π: 0 β©: 1
cool cool, southerns stick together right? XD I'm as far south as you can go, from down here in Florida!
π: 0 β©: 0
cool thanks for telling me ^^, i always wondered about that
a very good saying too 
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course, anything to help a fellow artist
π: 0 β©: 0
I love this submission, and the meaning behind it. Just going through some of the comments on the first page, I of course see that there are people who are taking this the wrong way, which is terribly sad but not at all surprising.
What is terribly funny to me though, is that most of the arguments you are receiving is very uneducated, and they push one point into the ground; the slavery. Of course it was terrible, but as you have pointed out, Northerners were just as guilty of slavery.
Good job, both with the deviation and defending your point of view on it, and the meaning behind it! A definite favorite!
π: 0 β©: 0
waw i'm so sorry you're getting crap for this picture.
i happen to love it!
very nice work
π: 0 β©: 0
I hate how so many people effing argue about it and then put you down if you like the confederate flag. Its a symbol of the south adn representing and showing your colors. It doesnt mean that you a racist B*t*h. Your supporting something and it should be seen as that way. And if your against it, keep it to yourselves, we dont want to hear it. You have no ideas how many arguements i get in at my school with everyone else about the confederate flag, representing it and showing my true colors, i live in the south, i support the south, ill never leave the south.
π: 0 β©: 0
the fact of the matter is that the confedarate Army treated there black soliders better than the union army did
"General Order Number 38, issued by Confederate General Braxton Bragg at Tullahoma, Tennessee, in January 1863, stated, "All employees of this army, black as well as white, shall receive the same rations, quarters, and medical treatment." The Confederate Army was providing equal treatment at a time when the U.S. Army was discriminating against black men in the matter of pay (Barrow, et al. 2001). The Confederate government authorized equal pay for musicians, many of whom were black, in contrast to the Federal Army, in which musicians received lower pay. The Confederate Congress passed legislation requiring that black and white military bandsmen receive the same pay. Free black musicians, cooks, soldiers and teamsters earned the same pay as white Confederate privates. This was not the case in the Union army (Barrow, et al., 2001)."
one Southern General who took 45 of his slaves to war writes
"I said to 45 colored fellows on my plantation that I was going into the army; and if they would go with me, if we got whipped they would be free anyhow, and that if we succeeded and slavery was perpetrated, if they would act faithfully with me to the end of the war, I would set them free. Eighteen months before the war closed I was satisfied that we were going to be defeated, and I gave those 45, or 44 of them, their free papers for fear I might be called."
and later in an interview with a reporter he said of them "... these boys stayed with me ... and better Confederates did not live" (Rollins, 1994).
π: 0 β©: 0
It's so nice to see someone with some common sense out there! I'm glad not everyone is spoiled by the idiot redneck views of the confederate flag. Thank you for putting into words what I've wanted to say to many a person for many a year.
The picture is really pretty too! ^^
π: 0 β©: 0
when i see that flag it makes me wanna stomp a cow fucking inbreeding uneducated white trash fascist. fact that why i where boots.
π: 0 β©: 0
Love the wallpaper and the quote. Keep up the good word.
π: 0 β©: 0
you got the Quote wrong... Robert E. Lee said
"
A Nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, Does not know where it is today - robert e. lee
"
π: 0 β©: 0
So gather 'round, gather 'round chillun'
Get down, well just get down chillun'
Get loud, well you can be loud and be proud
Well you can be proud, hear now
Be proud you're a rebel
'Cause the South's gonna do it again and again
π: 0 β©: 1
LOVE CDB. <3
That song is one of their best, hehe.
π: 0 β©: 0
right on, at least there are some some people of intelligence on this site.
First of all, that flag should represent nothing, it was simply a battle flag made after the Battle of Manassas because the official confederate flag looked to much like the American flag and led to friendly fire incidents. this flag was warped into a symbol of tyranny by politicians and people who wanted to villianize the south after it lost the war. In reality it should represent the average confederate soldier that marched into battle against impossible odds to defend his homeland and his culture. I salute them.
To all of you who say that we are stupid hicks who believe what the politicians tell us. You have been told that the confederate battle flag is representative of racism and that the south is wrong and you believe. stop being hypocrites and study history.
on the matter of the cause of the civil war, it was about culture, of which slavery was a part. However, slavery was not the primary factor. It was legislation that made it harder for the south to make money with it's primarily agricultural economy and favored the more industrialized northern economy. On the fact of the north having as many slaves as the south, quite possible. In the south, rich plantation owners made up a very small percentage of the population, the rest of the south were poor or middle class people that worked on personal farms or in the cities. In the north, however, there were many rich aristocrats that owned slaves. Also, the north committed atrocities in the war that were worse than the way the south treated its slaves, think of the occupation of New Orleans and Sherman's march to the sea. In one instance, Major Roberdeaux wheat (future leader of the fames Louisiana Tigers) went on a mercenary expedition to Cuba to help rebels there. He hoped that Cuba would become a state in the union and even out the balance of power with the north. this showed how unequally the south was represented in congress and how far people would go to try and right it.
finally, on the quote, maybe the north should have remembered when they seceded from Britain for almost the same reason as the south seceded from the union.
cheers.
π: 0 β©: 1
The North had no slaves, The Border States did.
Sherman's March to the Sea. That involved seizing property, not lives, which Confederate agents stationed from Canada did when they robbed a bank in in Vermont, killing several. Speaking of which, Confederates set fires in rooms at ten large hotels, an attempt too burn down New York.[link]
The burning of Atlanta was not ordered by him, and did not destroyy most of the city. The burning was suspected to be caused by Confederates burning supplies to prevent their capture. And name your atrocities, Confederates have done as bad or worse.
And the south was [i]over[/i] represented, being able to take have all slaves, of any age, as votes, giving them unfairly overrepresentation in Congress. The also had five out of nine Supreme Court Judges. Southerners repeatedly Invaded Mexico and wanted to again. Southerners have always been the ones calling for war.
1. Punishment must be cruel and unusual to be effective
2. If you don't like the U.S. you can leave, we don't want you anyway.
π: 0 β©: 3
[link] yep definetly no slavery in the north...... (notice the sarcasm)
π: 0 β©: 0
First of all, you just shot yourself in the face with the first line. The notion that the north did not own slaves is simply ignorant and foolish. That was simply where most of the abolitionist were located. In fact General Grant owned slaves, along with many of the northern aristocratic families.
What "officially" happened during Sherman's march and what really happened are very different things. I thinktiger01 has done a pretty good job to explaining this to you so i'll spare you the details.
About being overrepresented, have you ever heard of the 3/5ths compromise. Also, it wasn't as if slaves comprised a large present of the population. Most Whites in the south were simple farmers with only a very small percentage that owned slaves. Also, the last two lines of your explanation make little sense, am a proud American, and I am also proud of my heritage.
π: 0 β©: 0
Firstly, just because you seem to be wanting to have everything specific does not discount what has been said. The Border States are refered to as Northern States because they fought for the Union. All States that fought for the Union are called the North probably for the reason that the CSA had the states of Georgia, Allabama, Florida, etc which were called the Deep South so all states that fought for the CSA are called Southern.
Secondly, I cannot believe that you are defending Sherman! Do you have any idea of the damage he caused to the South?!
As Thomas DiLorenzo put it:
[Early in the war the towns of Randolph, Tennessee, and Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, were burned to the ground by General William Tecumseh Sherman, who declared that to all secessionists, women and children included, "death is mercy." The bombardment of cities was considered beyond the bounds of international law and morality in the 1860s, but Lincoln paid no attention to such restrictions. Sherman, of course, was his second favorite general next to Grant.
During the bombardment of Atlanta Shermanβs chief engineer, Captain O.M. Poe, implored Sherman to stop the bombing of the undefended city because of the grotesque spectacle of the corpses of women and children in the streets. Sherman coldly told him that such scenes were exactly what he wanted. After destroying 90 percent of the city the federal army evicted all the remaining residents from their homes just as winter was settling in.
Shermanβs strategy was to terrorize the civilian population. For example, in 1864 Sherman wrote to a subordinate, General Louis D. Watkins: "Send over about Fairmount and Adairsville [Georgia], burn ten or twelve houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random, and let it be known that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon ...."
After Sherman completed his "March to the Sea" he met with Lincoln and Grant on the James River in Virginia. "Lincoln wanted to know about Shermanβs marches," writes Sherman biographer John F. Marzalek, "particularly enjoying stories about the bummers," as Shermanβs plundering and pillaging soldiers were called.]
How can you defend anybody like that?! It boggles the mind!
And Thirdly, the South was not over represented in Congress. If they were they would not have allowed the protectionist tariff to be brougt in. Loncoln's government restricted the expansion of Southern ideologies into the new states for the very reason that he wanted the South to be in the minority. No single state, regardless of how many voters lived there, was able to overpower another in Congress.
π: 0 β©: 1
Propaganda. Besides it said to terrorize, not kill the civilians, and the Confederates killed Republics, officers of black regiments, and those who opposed secession. Back to Sherman though, which is worse, burning a house, or killing a few dozen men? And how did Lincoln's government prevent Southern 'ideologies' from movie into new states when most seceded BEFORE he took office? And they were over represented in the Supreme Court, or else the Dred Scott Decision would have never been made
And how could they see those corpses from several miles away?
π: 0 β©: 1
Lincoln was a big supporter of centralization of government and economy and spoke out frequently for his own ideas pre-war. His ideas, more often than not, opposed southern ideologies and philosophies because the South believed that the established way of life was fine, meaning that government and economy didn't need to be messed with, where as Lincoln beleived that more power should be given to a centeral government and taken away from the individual states and the economy should be centralized as well. Lincoln also was firmly opposed to the power that the Southern states had in congress and set out to weaken their power in congress by neutralizing any chance of expanding slavery into the new states, which besically meant that the Southerners would not be able to move into them and establish them with their own ideologies, and the new states, normally, sided with the Northern states in congress overpowering the Southern States.
The Dred Scott decision came about through a legal technicallity. Scott was not a citizen of the state that he sued for his freedom in and that state could not Constitutionally atopt him into it therefore Scott did not have the power to sue anyone and the Federal Court lacked the jurisdiction to get involved. It had nothing to do with the Southern States power in Congress.
Again, if the Southern States were over reprensent in Congress why would they allow the protectionist tariffs to be brought in in 1861 before the Southern States seceeded? Tariffs which ensured that the majority of the money that they made would be taken north of the mason-dixon line to be invested in Northern interests and barely any of it would invested in the South.
What is worse burning a few houses or killing a few dozen men? Well if it was only that by which I judge Sherman I would be a pretty poor judge of character however it isn't only that by which my opinion of him has come about. It wasn't only his actions during his 'march to the sea' that givesme a poor opinion of him.
For example in 1862 Sherman was bothered that "the country" was "swarming with dishonest Jews" He got his close friend, General Grant, to expel all Jews from his army. As Micheal Fellman writes, "On December 17, 1862, Grant . . . , like a medieval monarch . . . expelled βThe Jews, as a class,β from his department." Sherman biographer Fellman further writes that to Sherman, the Jews were "like niggers" and "like greasers (Mexicans) or Indians" in that they were "classes or races permanently inferior to his own."
Post Civil War Grant, Sherman and Sheridan were involved in the Indian wars and that again showed Sherman in his truest light. Those three men came up with and enforced the military Indian policy, what Sherman sometimes referred to as "the final solution of the Indian problem," which he defined as killing hostile Indians and segregating their pauperized survivors in remote places . . . . These men applied their shared ruthlessness, born of their Civil War experiences, against a people all three despised, in the name of Civilization and Progress.
Sherman even went so far as to blame the Indians for American expantion. The problem with Indians, Sherman said, was that "they did not make allowance for the rapid growth of the white race" (John F. Marszalek, Sherman Biographer). And, "both races cannot use this country in common" (Fellman).
If Sherman only employed his civilian terror tactics to the Southerners during the Civil War I perhaps wouldn't disslike him as much however Sherman was a particularly horrible man who hated anyone who either wasn't white or dissagreed with him and was fully prepared to use all the means in his power to remove them.
On the Civil War front even pro-Lincolnite and pro-Grant, Pro-Shermen historians agree that had the South somhow managed to turn the tide of the War in the late hour of Shermans march then they would have been fully justified to execute all the Union high command for a number of war crimes agaisnt them. The only reason the Union High Command aren't thought of as war criminals is because they won the Civil War and, as history dictates, the winners write the story of events as they wish it to be seen.
π: 0 β©: 1
Any Northern superiority in Congress was from it's overwhelmingly high population, and was fractured by the Democrats and Repulicans, along with German, Irish, etc. No real solidarity.
I googled General, Sherman, and Jews, and it gave several highly biased opinions. Southeners thought the same way, they just didn't have enough to go after. Judah Benjamin was so highly trusted by Davis, not only for his competence, but also for the fact that he would never be elected President. His wive used his petname Philip on his gravestone instead of Judah.
As for his comment on Natives, they were an excuse used by Southerners at times so they could get into wars. I notice that off all the wars to that point, it was the South that led the country into them.
Who stinketh the most?
π: 0 β©: 1
I would like to point out to you that it was Lincoln who lead America into the American Civil War where the Southern State would have seceeded peacefully otherwise.
He refused to recognise the Southern State Constitutionally given right of secession and raised an army to invade them. When a delegation of southern officials went to him and attempted to buy the land rights for all seceeded state that had joined the CSA Lincoln refused, he also refused the French Emporer Napoleon III's offer to mediate the problems democratically. Lincoln would admit to goading the Southerners into firing the first shot by resupplying Fort Sumter and increasing the naval presence in the area. Lincoln forced Virginias hand when his army invaded Virginia while they were still concidering whether or not to stay neutral, stay with the Union or join the CSA.
For Lincoln the American Civil War was his chance to centralize the American government and economy without the Southern States interferance which would have stopped centralization at every turn. Lincoln believed that the war would only last a few month and by underestimating his opponants and forcing America into a Civil war he cost his country 620,000 lives.
As for your argument about the propaganda against Sherman by southerners so they could join the wars, it doesn't wipe away the fact that Sherman still believed all those thing he said and is responsible for more deaths in American history than anyone esle exept Grant and Lincoln.
π: 0 β©: 1
They fired on Fort Sumter. Resupply a fort is not goading, it is common sense. [i]That[/i] was when he called for volunteers. Napoleon III had been using the Civil War as an opportunity to put Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico, after lieing and cheating the Austrian. Remember Cinco De Mayo? The Mexicans celebrate defeating French Forces.
And as I said before, the South nearly caused New England to secede. The South then destroyed them politically, having already destroyed them financially by preventing them to trade with [i]anyone[/i] due to Jefferson's Embargo Act, Destroying the Northern way of life.
Lincoln's centralization of power was something that came from war, and he had competent people as Department heads, even the ones he did not like, such as former opponents or rivals. The Confederacy was a group of squabbling states that turned into a military dictatorship, in most snses of the matter.
Cost his country 620,000. Everyone thought it would be over immediatly, and besides: He did it for his COUNTRY, and it's not as if he killed them, you yourself say that some didn't want to be in the Union, and therefore were rebels, of forgeiners. But you are wrong about Sherman. I dare say Lee killed a good deal more, and besides, they all killed SOLDIERS.
π: 0 β©: 1
1st. Point:
Fort Sumter was in South Carolinas domain. South Carolina had seceeded with all that was in that state going with it. Fort Sumter was not Union property when Lincoln began to resupply it and increase naval presence in the aera. Furthur more Lincoln resupplied Fort Sumter and sent his navy to South Carolina without the consent of Congress, he did so in blatent dissregard to the Constitution and almost everything he would do during the American Civil War was done in blatent dissregard for the Constitution.
2nd Point:
Lincoln had supported centralization from the 1830's. His hero was Henry Clay who pushed for a centralized economy during his life, a theory Lincoln firmly believed in. There is no doubt that Lincoln attempted to centralize the econmy and subsequently the government the second he got into power. With the American Civil War Lincoln had his opportunity to make a centralized state, with the Southern States not voting at the time and Lincoln dictatorially controling the Northern States there was no doubt that America would have a centralized government and economy. It his main aim for most of his political life, to get a cenralized government. While it is true that without the War Lincoln would not have been able to centralize, centralization didn't happen because of the war it happened because Lincoln forced it to happen.
Point 3rd:
Lincoln is responsible for all 620,000 deaths because the American Civil War was not unavoidable. He forced America into a Civil War where he could have left the Southern States alone and respected their Constitutionally given right of secession. In stead he didn't want to lose the raw materials he would lose if he let south state go and force the American Civil War to happen.
Grant is responsible for hundreds of thousands of lives because of his tendancy to throw hundreds of thousands of men against well constucted defences even if there was no chance of winning with no dissregard for their lives. He also is responsible for the most amount of Confederate soldiers killed by an enemy.
Sherman is responsible for more civilian deaths than any other General of the Civil War. Sherman, with a relish, attacked civilians, attacked businesses, attacked and destroyed undefended cities, destroyed much of Gerogia and South Carolina, had hundreds of indians killed on his orders, women and children included, further more he evictied families that he left alive in destroyed cities as winter was setting in, into a land which his army stipped bare of all food meaning many died in the winter.
Lee is responsible for a good many deaths in the Confederate cause however what sets him, Jackson and Longstreet apart from the Union high command is that they never set out to take the war to the North's civilian population they fought the Union armies and the Union armies alone.
Grant and Lincoln condoned and allowed civilians to be attacked and oppressed during and after the civil war and Sherman not only condoned and allowed those attacks he actively supported them.
π: 0 β©: 0
This annoys me about America, the American people are so quick to judge and to critise but most of the time they dont look up the facts.
Yes the Southern states had slaves but so did Northern State and all this praising of Lincoln just because of the Emancipation Proclimation doesn't actually make any sense to me.
See the Emancipation Proclimation states, quite clearly, that any states still in rebelion as of January 1st 1861 would lose their slaves, it said nothing of the nothern states that had slaves, its sole perpose was to make the Union appear as if it had the higher moral ground to the Confederacy so as to gain the favor of Britain and France.
What people who complain about the Confederate Battle Flag dont understand is that it is not one of the offical national flags of the Confederacy as a country but simply the official Battle flag, mostly associated with the Army of Northern Virginia. The Battle flag does not represent slavery and opression of the Black man it represents the Confederate soldier, the common man of Dixie, the thousands of men who fought, bled and died to protect their home from the invading North, the thousand of men who were not the rich slave holders, who fought simply for their home and their families.
There is no reason to be ashamed of the Battle Flag as it is a simble of a people who fought overwealming numbers in an eventually futile attempt to preserve the way of life that they loved. It is not, and I reitterate, NOT something to be ashamed of.
Also Dixie the song doesn't deserve all the hate it get as it represent again the common man of the confederacy and not the rich slave holders.
As historian we tend to link everything together in one bracket. We tend to lump everybody in the Confederacy as slave holders and racist where as we know that isn't true because Robert .E. Lee was not a racist, the Lee family was not a racist one, Stonewall Jackson and his Family were not racist and there no doubt many who dissagreed with the treatment of slaves.
π: 0 β©: 1
Northern States did not have slaves, Border States did. The Emancipation Proclamtion did not free them because of fear of their secession, amng other things.
Once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, thousands of Confederates deserted, seeing it as "A Rich man's war, and a poor man's fight."
Robert E. Lee freed his slaves, but none of those in charge of the country did.
The man who wrote DIXIE regreted it for the rest of his life, and Southeners had it performed in blackface, having it seem like slaves wished they were back South.
π: 0 β©: 2
once again where are you getting these facts, just out of thin air? if you can post some resources that will back this up i will be more then glad to read some more and discuss it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Kentucky was, originally, a neutral border state I grant you however after the 1st battle of Corinth the Confederates under Braxton Bragg invaded Kentucky, a very big mistake militarilly speaking, and the Union pushed out the Confederates and seised control of Kentucky and began gaining men and supplies from that state. Kentucky became a state of the Union. In fact all of the Border State were under Union control almost for the entire war.
The Emancipation Proclaimation is often stated as the symbol of north and Lincolns desire to remove the evil of slavery from America. If that was so why did he not demand that those states free their slaves after he announced the Emancipation Proclaimation?
Thousand of Confederates may have deserted following the Emancipation Proclaimation however the vast majority, and I do mean VAST majority, still fought against the Union seeing them primarilly as imperialistic invaders and usurpers of power who were trying to force them to remain in a Union that was taxing them into poverty ((this includes the rich slave holders)) simply so that they could remain in control of the raw materials that mainly the South produced. And the issue of the ridiculesly high tariffs that the North States wanted to force the Southerns into paying was the primary catalyst for the southern states secession, not Slavery.
Take Lincolns own words as proof that the American Civil War was not fought over Slavery: "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"
So you cannot tell me that Slavery was the main issue of the War.
As for Dixie being sung by Southerners who painted their face black well, I would be willing to wager that Northerners have performed all manner of songs in the 'Blackface Minstels'. I would be willing to bet that Europeans have done so as well. I doubt it would be hard to find proof of them doing so. It was just the way things were. It wasn't a purely southern thing it happened throughout all of western civilisation.
That is not the reason that Dixie has a poor reputation and if you believe it is then you have no consept of history.
π: 0 β©: 0
this is the first time i got back on in a long time, im in the air force now, i haven't done art for a long time because i work too much but i've read everyones comments and thankyou for all the good ones its nice to see people do know what its all about hopefully soon i have time off the flightline and get back to makin art thanks everyone who supports it
π: 0 β©: 0
this is great art. and you're right the flag does not symbolize slavery, it symbolizes the courage, and bravery of the men who fought for the confederacy. when someone asks which "side would you be on?" 98% of the time people will choose the union side, and when asked why the only explanation they can come up with is "because they won" and if someone were to say the confederacy, they would say "so you support slavery?", when they might say that they want to be on the confederacy for reasons from you're excellent explanation, to simply they might be from the south (i.e. some friends and i). slavery was only one of many factors attributing to the war, and some people want to believe that that was the only factor.
so thank you for this explanation and great art.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, slavery was it. All of your other defenses boils down to slavery.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'd like to here why you think slavery was it..... thats a very blunt statement with no credit backing it... even historians, school teachers etc... will attest that there was more then just slavery behind the civil war, just most of them like to keep slavery as the high point because it makes it more interesting and controversial...
π: 0 β©: 0
The confederate flag does not symbolize the desire for slavery. Just because the flag existed back when slavery did, that doesn't set the theme. The confederate flag simply represents pride of the south, and nothing more. Though I have to agree, some idiot southerners do try to make it look that way, but they are the dishonorable ones.
"If this flag offends you, then you need a history lesson..."
π: 0 β©: 0
this is one of the best explination in a nut shell i have heard so far. Its nice to see someone stand up for this flag and everything it stands for. Great Job, and i agree 100%
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>