The Battle Flag of North Virginia: A symbol of white supremacy?
Designer of the 2nd confederate flag:
William T Thompson,- explains the meaning of the battle flag incorporated into his design:
"As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.[4]… Such a flag…would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as the white mans flag.[5]… As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals.[6][9]"
4:Thompson, William T. (April 23, 1863). "Daily Morning News". Savannah, Georgia. And Here
5: Thompson, William T. (April 28, 1863). "Daily Morning News". Savannah, Georgia.
6. Thompson, William T. (May 4, 1863). "Daily Morning News". Savannah, Georgia.
I have not been able to locate a historical document or contemporary of William T. Thompson who refutes the meaning he assigned when describing the 2nd flag of the confederacy and/or the incorporation of the battle flag of North Virginia into its design.
The confederate Senate in Richmond adopted the flag on May 4th 1863 fully aware of the editorials previous written, no challenge to these were given, no corrections requested.
Designer of the North Virginia Battle Flag:
William Porcher Miles - His only reference to the flag is in a letter to G.T. Beauregard: 8/27/1861- He indicates the flag had NO religious meaning.Richmond, August 27,1861.
Gen. G. T. Beauregard,
Fairfax Court house, Virginia:
Dear General, I received your letter concerning the flag yesterday, and cordially concur in all that you say. Although I was chairman of the 'Flag Committee,' who reported the present flag, it was not my individual choice. I urged upon the committee a flag of this sort. [Design sketched.] This is very rough, the proportions are bad. [Design of Confederate battle-flag as it is.]
The above is better. The ground red, the cross blue (edged with white), stars white.
This was my favorite. The three colors of red, white, and blue were preserved in it. It avoided the religious objection about the cross (from the Jews and many Protestant sects), because it did not stand out so conspicuously as if the cross had been placed upright thus. [Design sketched.]
Besides, in the form I proposed, the cross was more heraldic than ecclesiastical, it being the 'saltire' of heraldry, and significant of strength and progress (from the Latin salto, to leap). The stars ought always to be white, or argent, because they are then blazoned 'proper' (or natural color). Stars, too, show better on an azure field than any other. Blue stars on a white field would not be handsome or appropriate. The 'white edge' (as I term it) to the blue is partly a necessity to prevent what is called 'false blazoning,' or a solecism in heraldry, viz., blazoning color on color, or metal on metal. It would not do to put a blue cross, therefore, on a red field. Hence the white, being metal argent, is put on the red, and the blue put on the white. The introduction of white between the blue and red, adds also much to the brilliancy of the colors, and brings them out in strong relief.
But I am boring you with my pet hobby in the matter of the flag. I wish sincerely that Congress would change the present one. Your reasons are conclusive in my mind. But I fear it is just as hard now as it was at Montgomery to tear people away entirely from the desire to appropriate some reminiscence of the 'old flag.' We are now so close to the end of the session that even if we could command votes (upon a fair hearing), I greatly fear we cannot get' such hearing. Some think the provisional Congress ought to leave the matter to the permanent. This might, then, be but a provisional flag. Yet, as you truly say, after a few more victories, 'association' will come to the aid of the present flag, and then it will be more difficult than ever to effect a change. I fear nothing can be done; but I will try. I will, as soon as I can, urge the matter of the badges. The President is too sick to be seen at present by any one.
Very respectfully yours,
Wm. Porcher Miles.
http://history.furman.edu/benson/civwar/show/MilesFlagLetter.htm
His reason for a new flag:
"There is no propriety in retaining the ensign of a government which, in the opinion of the States composing this Confederacy, had become so oppressive and injurious to their interests as to require their separation from it. It is idle to talk of "keeping" the flag of the United States when we have voluntarily seceded from them."
William T Thompson,- explains the meaning of the battle flag incorporated into his design:
"As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.[4]… Such a flag…would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as the white mans flag.[5]… As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals.[6][9]"
4:Thompson, William T. (April 23, 1863). "Daily Morning News". Savannah, Georgia. And Here
5: Thompson, William T. (April 28, 1863). "Daily Morning News". Savannah, Georgia.
6. Thompson, William T. (May 4, 1863). "Daily Morning News". Savannah, Georgia.
I have not been able to locate a historical document or contemporary of William T. Thompson who refutes the meaning he assigned when describing the 2nd flag of the confederacy and/or the incorporation of the battle flag of North Virginia into its design.
The confederate Senate in Richmond adopted the flag on May 4th 1863 fully aware of the editorials previous written, no challenge to these were given, no corrections requested.
Designer of the North Virginia Battle Flag:
William Porcher Miles - His only reference to the flag is in a letter to G.T. Beauregard: 8/27/1861- He indicates the flag had NO religious meaning.Richmond, August 27,1861.
Gen. G. T. Beauregard,
Fairfax Court house, Virginia:
Dear General, I received your letter concerning the flag yesterday, and cordially concur in all that you say. Although I was chairman of the 'Flag Committee,' who reported the present flag, it was not my individual choice. I urged upon the committee a flag of this sort. [Design sketched.] This is very rough, the proportions are bad. [Design of Confederate battle-flag as it is.]
The above is better. The ground red, the cross blue (edged with white), stars white.
This was my favorite. The three colors of red, white, and blue were preserved in it. It avoided the religious objection about the cross (from the Jews and many Protestant sects), because it did not stand out so conspicuously as if the cross had been placed upright thus. [Design sketched.]
Besides, in the form I proposed, the cross was more heraldic than ecclesiastical, it being the 'saltire' of heraldry, and significant of strength and progress (from the Latin salto, to leap). The stars ought always to be white, or argent, because they are then blazoned 'proper' (or natural color). Stars, too, show better on an azure field than any other. Blue stars on a white field would not be handsome or appropriate. The 'white edge' (as I term it) to the blue is partly a necessity to prevent what is called 'false blazoning,' or a solecism in heraldry, viz., blazoning color on color, or metal on metal. It would not do to put a blue cross, therefore, on a red field. Hence the white, being metal argent, is put on the red, and the blue put on the white. The introduction of white between the blue and red, adds also much to the brilliancy of the colors, and brings them out in strong relief.
But I am boring you with my pet hobby in the matter of the flag. I wish sincerely that Congress would change the present one. Your reasons are conclusive in my mind. But I fear it is just as hard now as it was at Montgomery to tear people away entirely from the desire to appropriate some reminiscence of the 'old flag.' We are now so close to the end of the session that even if we could command votes (upon a fair hearing), I greatly fear we cannot get' such hearing. Some think the provisional Congress ought to leave the matter to the permanent. This might, then, be but a provisional flag. Yet, as you truly say, after a few more victories, 'association' will come to the aid of the present flag, and then it will be more difficult than ever to effect a change. I fear nothing can be done; but I will try. I will, as soon as I can, urge the matter of the badges. The President is too sick to be seen at present by any one.
Very respectfully yours,
Wm. Porcher Miles.
http://history.furman.edu/benson/civwar/show/MilesFlagLetter.htm
His reason for a new flag:
"There is no propriety in retaining the ensign of a government which, in the opinion of the States composing this Confederacy, had become so oppressive and injurious to their interests as to require their separation from it. It is idle to talk of "keeping" the flag of the United States when we have voluntarily seceded from them."
When has it been officially used/flown by the southern states?
Nov 28 1861-1865: during battle
1961 over South Carolina Capitol :"The hoist marked the centennial of the Civil War but also unfurled a threat to the civil rights movement, which was gaining momentum in the early 1960s, with the major push for legislation culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “The governor placed that rectangle asserting, he said, ‘states’ rights,’ ” Mr. Hartvigsen said. “It was really done to try be an anti-civil rights thing.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2015/07/11/CONFED/stories/201507110060
In 1963, the year after the Ole Miss riot,
Alabama Gov. George Wallace raised the flag over the state Capitol in protest against desegregation, as described by the Georgia State Senate Research Office in a 2000 report.
The same report found that the integration of the battle flag into the Georgia state flag in 1956 was racially motivated. When the pattern was incorporated into Georgia's flag, the researchers wrote, the state “was in a desperate situation to preserve segregation.”
They went on to say:
Resisting, avoiding, undermining, and circumventing integration was the 1956 General Assembly’s primary objective. The adoption of the battle flag was an integral, albeit small, part of this resistance.
http://www.senate.ga.gov/sro/Documents/StudyCommRpts/00StateFlag.pdf
More to come... still researching this section...
1961 over South Carolina Capitol :"The hoist marked the centennial of the Civil War but also unfurled a threat to the civil rights movement, which was gaining momentum in the early 1960s, with the major push for legislation culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “The governor placed that rectangle asserting, he said, ‘states’ rights,’ ” Mr. Hartvigsen said. “It was really done to try be an anti-civil rights thing.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2015/07/11/CONFED/stories/201507110060
In 1963, the year after the Ole Miss riot,
Alabama Gov. George Wallace raised the flag over the state Capitol in protest against desegregation, as described by the Georgia State Senate Research Office in a 2000 report.
The same report found that the integration of the battle flag into the Georgia state flag in 1956 was racially motivated. When the pattern was incorporated into Georgia's flag, the researchers wrote, the state “was in a desperate situation to preserve segregation.”
They went on to say:
Resisting, avoiding, undermining, and circumventing integration was the 1956 General Assembly’s primary objective. The adoption of the battle flag was an integral, albeit small, part of this resistance.
http://www.senate.ga.gov/sro/Documents/StudyCommRpts/00StateFlag.pdf
More to come... still researching this section...
FLYING THE Battle FLAG of Va. AN INDIVIDUAL and PROTECTED CHOICE .
" No place in the United states offers as great opportunities for the acquisition of anatomical knowledge. Subjects being obtained from among the colored population in sufficient number for every purpose, and proper dissection carried on without offending any individuals in our commuinty"
- advertisement for the South Carolina Medical College circa 1831..
1831 34yrs before the war ended. How many more slaves were supplied for these purposes before 1865?
The doctrine of White supremacy made this possible.
This flag is just cloth and dye... to the people that carried it into battle it distinguished them on the battlefield at bull run from the enemy, it was chosen to represent the people who fought that day and in future battle.
It represented a way of life they did not want to see denied.
That life style was only possible if they could keep a large and free work force.
To those forced to labor for the benefit of those who fought under this flag it represented bondage, anguish, loss of freedom, family, lives and as seen above loss of dignity, humanity, and for some hope.
This flag represented a cruel and inhumane system of degradation from which they could not escape.
Its meaning was clearly defined by its designers Miles and Thompson.
Displaying it is free speech and that should never be denied. Not displaying it by choice, not by law or decree, is a display of empathy for those who understand all the pain and anguish this symbol stood for on the day it was the banner of the army that fought to keep those cruel, selfish systems in place that dehumanized millions of people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekPlWCIxA_c
- advertisement for the South Carolina Medical College circa 1831..
1831 34yrs before the war ended. How many more slaves were supplied for these purposes before 1865?
The doctrine of White supremacy made this possible.
This flag is just cloth and dye... to the people that carried it into battle it distinguished them on the battlefield at bull run from the enemy, it was chosen to represent the people who fought that day and in future battle.
It represented a way of life they did not want to see denied.
That life style was only possible if they could keep a large and free work force.
To those forced to labor for the benefit of those who fought under this flag it represented bondage, anguish, loss of freedom, family, lives and as seen above loss of dignity, humanity, and for some hope.
This flag represented a cruel and inhumane system of degradation from which they could not escape.
Its meaning was clearly defined by its designers Miles and Thompson.
Displaying it is free speech and that should never be denied. Not displaying it by choice, not by law or decree, is a display of empathy for those who understand all the pain and anguish this symbol stood for on the day it was the banner of the army that fought to keep those cruel, selfish systems in place that dehumanized millions of people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekPlWCIxA_c
5 Myths: About why the south seceded
1. The South seceded over states’ rights.
- not mentioned by the states as they gave their reasons for leaving the Union (Secession) ,
But yes the rights of slaving holding states to own slaves and to admit more slave states into the union.
2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.
NOT TRUE http://civilwarcauses.org/steph2.htm
According to Alexander H. Stephens Vp of confederacy: Tariff no longer an issues in Nov 1860:
"The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself. And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that."
3. Most white Southerners didn’t own slaves, so they wouldn’t secede for slavery.
- A Draft was in effect. Desertion was punishable by execution.
Many were compelled to fight and those who deserted were subject to execution. http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Military_Executions_During_the_Civil_War#start_entry
Some Arkansas soldiers deserted when informed that Indians were on a scalping tour near their homes. Indignant at extortioners and profiteers, soldiers would become disgruntled at the "rich mans war and the poor mans fight." There were occasions when "whole companies, garrisons, and even regiments decamped at a time." In some cases deserters banded together, roamed the country, fortified themselves in the mountains, and made raids upon settlements, stealing cattle and robbing military stores. Some lived in caves. Forces had to he detached from the Confederate armies to run down such groups, whose retreats were inaccessible and whose courage in fighting off attack was formidable. "http://www.civilwarhome.com/desertion.html
-1860 Owners 393,975 and Slaves 3,950,528 (http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html)
-revenue from slavery 3.5 billion dollar industry
-The Confederate Constitution made provisions for expansion:
Article 4 Section 2 (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
It's hard to say what percentage of the southern white population supported secession. In most states the decision to secede was made by legislatures and special conventions which may not have been representative of the general electorate. So the individual had no say, Then as now big money speaks loudest in government .. 3.5 billion is big money.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/12/966022/-The-Truth-About-the-Confederacy
Why non-slave holders fought in the war: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html
4. Lincoln went to war to end slavery
... NO ... To Save the Union
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
5. the south could not have made it long as a slave society
-Slavery was hardly on its last legs in 1860. That year, the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports. Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily.
-The confederate Constitution ensured the expansion of slavery into new territories
-It would not allow freeing of slaves and prohibited any laws that would end slavery.
-Moreover, Confederates eyed territorial expansion into Mexico and Cuba.
Short of war, who would have stopped them — or forced them to abandon slavery?
-The Confederate Constitution made provisions for expansion:
Article 4 Section 3 (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html
A site worth reviewing: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/12/966022/-The-Truth-About-the-Confederacy
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/desertion-during-civil-war
http://www.civilwarhome.com/desertion.html
http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/23934
http://www.civilwarhome.com/desertion2.html
http://www.usflag.org/confederate.stars.and.bars.html
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Military_Executions_During_the_Civil_War#start_entry
This site was created to examine the arguments prevalent on social media.
You now have access to the research, the documents and quotes that demonstrate the prevailing thoughts concerning the cause of the Civil war. No need to argue. Point to the documentation. IF they continue to argue, walk away. Anyone who will argue with the words of the men selected by the south to further their cause have an agenda of their own, and they are not concerned with an accurate account of history.
As I find more relevant info on the Civil war it will be added.
Thank you
Daphne Fowler
absolutely nobody important.