Legislator battles for Confederate license plate

[sabra]

Source: Tallahassee Democrat

A Panhandle legislator with a proud disdain for political correctness and no fear of bucking Gov. Charlie Crist or the state Republican Party wants Florida to issue license tags honoring Confederate Heritage — complete with images of Dixie flags and buttons from Rebel uniforms.

"It's a part of our history, whether we like it or not," said Rep. Don Brown, R-DeFuniak Springs. "I appreciate the heritage and the good things that people feel about our past."

Motorists would pay $25 for the tag, if approved, with proceeds going to education programs run by Sons of Confederate Veterans, graveyard location and maintenance, museum exhibits and other cultural activities. The current version of Brown's bill (HB 1007) also provides a specialty tag for the Choctaw tribe, but an aide said the issues will be separated into two stand-alone bills

Bob Hurst, second lieutenant commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans' Florida organization and head of its Tallahassee camp, said the state group paid a $60,000 filing fee and gathered more than 30,000 signatures from drivers ready to buy a Confederate Heritage tag if the Legislature authorizes it.

Read more: http://tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008802260331

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yupster]

3. It's the Sons of Confederate Veterans

which is an organization for the descendents of veterans of the Confederate Army, soit's not so weird that they use the Confederate battle flag.

That's the flag the men saw for th whole life of the Confederacy.

The Confederate Army was different from most armies. Seventy percent of the adult men in the south served in the Confederate armies. The regiments were chosen by county, so when the reiment was mustered pretty much every white man in the county marched off to war together under its elected leader, usually the mayor or preacher.

This system worked well for morale as your fellow soldiers were your relatives and neighbors. It didn't work well when there was a disastrous battle. For instance the 26th North Carolina sufered 71.7 % casualties at Gettysburg. That means a letter would reach the valley sometime in mid July 1863 telling the residents that about 3/4ths ofall the white men of the county wer killed or wounded at one battle.

That's why you still see monuments in many county seats around the south today in some small towns which were wiped out by far off battles.

When Lee was at Gettysburg he had about one out of every seven adult white men in the south with him. No US general ever had that degree of responsibility for his nation.

Before the war there were about 1 million adult white men in the south. During the war 1/4 of them were killed and another more than 1/4 of them were seriously wounded.

It's not that surprising that the flag the veterans honored was the flag they fought under and took greater losses for than any other group of Americans other than Indian tribes.

[Richardo]

6. If they really want to acknowledge their heritage and not race-bait, the national flag is available.

That's what we use as one of the Six Flags* of Texas and no one says boo.


* For those who don't know: the six flags are those of the sovereign nations that have have had jurisdiction over Texas: Spain, Mexico, France, CSA, Republic of Texas, USA.

[Gman]

25. At one time the Confederate Battle Flag was used at Six Flags

in Arlington. I remember it very well. Didn't think anything of it in the 60's.

[Yupster]

48. Or if they really want to be Klanners

they should use the flag the Klan used at its height in the 20's when they organized huge marches in Washington like this one. Note the flag they're carrying.

http://www.capitalcentury.com/1924.html

[Zhade]

49. Their heritage IS racism.

Why anyone would want to claim that mantle is beyond me.

[Thothmes]

18. Very good post.

[damntexdem]

24. Well, they certainly took greater losses than any other group of traitors.

And I include my own forebears in that.

But at least they had the decency to regularly desert and go back home for the harvest, or planting, or whatever the seasonal activity was.

[14thColony]

30. Be careful with the T-word

It seems to have morphed into a word meaning "someone who doesn't like the government when I myself do."

Whether those who sided with the Confederacy can be viewed as traitors is subject to some debate, and depends on some finer points of law. Does "levy war against the United States" apply when Federal forces are launching the attack and the alleged traitors are fighting defensive battles, as was the case up to 1863? It is worth noting that even in the emotionally-charged atmosphere immediately following the end of the Civil War, not one single person from not one single secessionist state was ever tried for treason.

But what it really comes down to is: did you win, or not?

British Colonials of the 13 Colonies in Rebellion, 1775-1783: Winners! therefore Patriots!

Citizens of the 13 Confederate States in Rebellion, 1861-1865: Losers! therefore Traitors!

It can be just as simple as that.

[Aristus]

77. There's no debate on this one; they seized Federal property and fired on Federal forces.

That's treason. They did it to secure the institution of slavery, and for no other reason.

"War Of Northern Aggression", my ass!

I say this as a descendant of Confederate soldiers. It's my "heritage" too, but you don't see me embracing images of slavery and oppression...

[toopers]

93. Slavery did not become an issue of the Civil War . . .

until Lincoln needed something to unify the North. In the beginning the Southern states were fighting for economic equality.

[Yupster]

46. The traitor word is very debatable

To their point of view, they left the USA's Constitutional Union by a formal vote, which was the same way they joined the union.

Texas for instance voted 80 % to 20 % to leave the union.

That vote to just vote to opt out of the USA seems amazing to us, but I submit it wasn't that incredible to Texas voters of 1861.

Texas after all was part of Mexico, The Nation of Texas, The USA and The CSA all within a 25 year period. Changing the national government you lived under is easy to call treason by us. To them it was a not too uncommon event and well within their rights as Texans.

As far as treason goes, their contention was that once they were no longer part of the USA, how could they be declared traitors to the USA?

Right or wrong, that is certainly a reasonable argument.

It was proven wrong on the battlefields of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, so the argument is now very much settled. It certainly wasn't back then.

[izquierdista]

37. Honoring the Nazi flag is illegal in Germany

If they were smart (I know, a very big if, not likely to ever happen), people in the South would outlaw the Stars and Bars as well.

[DemVet]

40. You crack me up...

...wanting to outlaw a flag and you're using a Che avatar. Too funny. :D

[happyslug]

39. 70% of the adult Males served in the Confederate Army???? I don't think so.

38% of the population of the South was Black, very few blacks served in the Southern Army (Some did serve in the New Orleans Militias and some black units but compared to Northern Use of Blacks these were minuscule). Thus there is no way 70% of the male population could have served in the Southern Army, 38% of the population could not, that left only 62% of the male population to serve. Furthermore if you owned more than 20 slaves, your military role was to watch your own slaves, males who owned no slaves or less than 20 were the ones who served in the army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Southern_United_States#Election_of_1860.2C_secession.2C_and_Lincoln.27s_response

Of the Black population, 180,000 African Americans out of the total slave population of the South of 5 million slaves, comprising 163 units served in the Union Army during the war, most raised out of the same South that you want to honor, a South that would KILL such black soldiers AFTER they had surrendered (See Fort Pillow for more Details) if they ever made it alive to Northern lines to enlist (Many Slaves were killed escaping to prevent them from serving in the Union Army).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Pillow

No lets honor the Soldiers who FOUGHT for the UNITED STATES, not enemy soldiers who fought AGAINST the United States.

[DemVet]

41. Actually....

...there were quite a few more black soldiers in the Confederacy than you might think. Use a reliable source for your info other than Crap-opedia.

[happyslug]

43. But no where near the 180,000 who served in the Union Army.

That was the point I was making. By the last two years of the war, 20% of union Losses were its Black Troops. By the time the Southern Congress overruled Jefferson Davis objections to recruiting black soldiers in January 1865, it was to late.

The South had 38% of its population which it could NOT trust. As long as that was the case, the South had to tie up forces to keep them from revolting or escaping. The South was in a dilemma, it could NOT free the slaves, for then the State right they were fighting for no longer would exist i.e no more slaves, but could NOT keep the Blacks as Slaves do to how that situation tied up troops. The South could NOT see that once war started, it had to end slavery to win the war. The reason the slaves had to be free was to give the Slaves something to fight for, their freedom. As soon as the North offered Freedom, 38% of the population of the South BACKED the North and that is to high an opposition to the war for the South to prevail.

My favorite story of the South was Nathan Bedford Forrest when he formed his own Regiment. He ordered Guns from Britain and then went to his teamsters, all of whom were his black slaves, and ask them to be the supply wagons for his regiment. He only offered them one thing, they freedom at the end of the war NO MATTER WHO WON. His slaves took him up on the offer for Forrest was known for one thing, he kept his word. The Story shows even Forrest understood the Black slaves and what they would fight for. The price was freedom, something the South was NOT willing to give the Black Slaves.

.

[Tempest]

56. Forrest then went on to form the KKK

Forrest was the first grand wizard of the KKK.

It appears his largess was short lived.

[happyslug]

59. My point is he knew what the black Slaves WANTED, and that was all.

There is some question as to Forest's racism, he did turn black soldiers who had been slaves over to their masters, and in his last public speech he said he was a supporter of the black race (What ever that means), but was he a true racism or just a man of his time and place? Remember he had been a slave dealer before the war (among other things he bought and sold) and as such was a product of his time and culture (i.e. white were better than blacks), but was he a true racist as that term is used today? i.e. would he go out of his way to harm blacks? At Pillow, the accusation was he did NOTHING to stop his me from killing the black union soldiers, not that he lead his men in the massacre. This tends to show he was more a product of his time and place then a true racist.

When the KKK was first formed it was more a resistance to union occupation (and the pro-black Reconstruction Governments) then anti-black (Through where one begin and the other ends is hard to judge). Even before Grant had Congress pass the 1871 Anti-KKK act, Forest dissolved the KKK as getting out of hand and "no longer needed" for most southern states no longer had reconstruction Governments (This is ignoring the issue that the KKK was originally founded as a way to raise money via the development of something "Southern" along lines of a masons and other fraternal organizations). I do not believe Forest was in on the formation of the KKK, but he clearly was in Charge from an early date. His dissolution of the KKK was effective, you did not hear of it till it was reformed in 1905, but this time as a clearly racist organization. The Original 1866-1870 KKK was racist, but more racist in the sense the whole south was racist, not that it was the leading Racist organization (and this was more so in regards to the Confederate Veterans then the rest of the Country).

This is more an intent to put Forest and his KKK in prospective of History then anything else. Forest never seems to have tried to undo the Civil War (i.e. undo the fact blacks were after 1865 US Citizens). Grant tried to make the SOuth more tolerate of Blacks and to make sure Blacks had equal rights. Forest seems to have accepted this, he opposed blacks being in charge, but he accepted blacks having rights. The post-1905 KKK rejected that situation. People forget that prior to the 1890s, blacks could and did vote in the South. Integration was the rule (Through Churches and other Social organization were divided on racial lines) not the exception. This all changed in the 1890s during the worse depression between the 1870s and the Great Depression of the 1930s. All of this was long after Forest died in 1877 (The same year reconstruction ended in the last five states being reconstructed).

[Yupster]

45. Sorry - my mistake

I was running to work when I made my original post. Note the many typos.

I tried to be clear that I meant "white men" as when I said "Lee had one in seven of the adult ---White--- men" with him at Gettysburg. I should have added "white" to the 70 % figure too. My apologies but I was in a rush.

[happyslug]

57. People tend to forget the Appalachian Mountains OPPOSED Secession

Thus, even today, the Republican heartland in the South was the Foothills and Valleys of the Appalachians Mountains (Harlan County Kentucky was one group, West Virginia was another, The back country of North Carolina was a third, Chattanooga TN was a known GOP Strong Hold in the South During the Civil War and Afterward. The Non-slave-holding areas never embraced Succession and the 30% male population that did NOT join the Southern Army tended to be in these areas.

In fact during Reconstruction, with many southern whites forbidden to vote do to the fact they fought against the Union, the 38% of the population that were black and the 30% of the WHITE population that did not fight, was enough for the Reconstruction Governments to win Election after Election. It is only as ex- Confederate Soldiers were given the Vote (and males to young to have fought in the Civil War came of age to vote) that Reconstruction ended. People forget the last five states to get rid of their Reconstruction Governments was in 1877, 12 years AFTER the end of the war. Even then Blacks were a major player in elections till the 1890s when "modern" segregation came into play. Many blacks were prevented from voting starting in the 1870s as Federal Troops were withdrawn (The Federal Troops had been used to protect Blacks from White who wanted to prevent them from Voting).

Anyway my point is you can not have 38% of your population as an "Internal Security Risk". It is to many, you have to address their needs to keep them loyal especially if you are bring invaded (As the North was doing to the South). What the Blacks wanted was freedom, and what the South was fighting for was to deny them that Freedom.

The First wave of abolition of Slavery started in 1781, as the Revolution was still going on. In th e North Slavery was a minor institution, but still legal in all states in 1781, Massachusetts was the first state to outlaw Slavery in 1781. As late as 1787, when the Constitution was written, Massachusetts was still the only state that had outlawed slavery, but the pressure was mounting. Over 18,000 slaves had opt to fight for the British, mostly in the South, during the Revolution. This showed that Slavery was an Internal Security Risk and had to be abolished if the US was to withstand another invasion. The South Actually lead this movement to abolish slavery, till the Cotton Gin was invented in 1795 and made Cotton (which was tied in with slavery) the Main US Export (Cotton was also highly profitable). The North did not have that restriction so it abolished Slavery, but with most owners required to take care of older ex-slaves who were to old to take care of themselves (This seems to have been the big concern at the time period, Slave owners freeing slaves in the slaves old age so that the cost of keeping them became the state's job, at the time when the main state charity, the state church, was being de-funded by claiming Separation of State and Church, States ended State Churches more to cut off having to pay for widows and orphans then to separate Church from state, through the later was always the rationale for the Separation, but this was the other big movement in the 1790s and delayed freeing the Slaves enough till the Cotton Gin became to popular for the states to free Slaves).

Yes, nothing occurs in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture to get an understanding of what was happening at that time and why people did what they did. When you abolish slavery how do you take care of the old, disabled slaves? The Charity of the time period was the Church (The chief reason states had state Churches), but the States were "Freeing" the churches from the state, more to free the state from paying for Charity/Welfare then any other reason. Poor White people who were disabled or had lost their parent were told to go West and take lands from the Indians. The same line went to free Black families, but what if the freed slave was to weak do to old age? Whites could rely on their families or Friends, freed slaves could not, most such Friends and relatives were either poor like the slave was or still slaves (Remember I am talking of the 1790s, when the first big movement to free the slaves occurred). Thus the cost of such free slaves had to be born by the state, at a time when the states wanted to cut such services to both Whites and Blacks. Thus when Slavery was abolished in Northern States, old and disabled slaves stayed the property of their owners even after Slavery was abolished for all other slaves. The North abolished slavery to end Slavery as an Internal Security Risk, and to minimize costs to the state.

When Slavery was abolished in the South it was the 1860s. Separation of Church and state had become a long standing American Tradition by that time. The primary Charity/Welfare movement had become the Cities themselves (and then only limited, Welfare as we know it today only started in the 1870s and then only to a limited degree, it took the Great Depression to invent the modern Welfare system). People were still encouraged to move West (New York City Dumped Orphans to Western Farmers till the 1930s, when Western States passed law forbidding such dumping). The problem for the Blacks was they knew how to grow Cotton, and the cotton growing areas of the US had already been settled by the 1860s. Furthermore the large Plantations were NOT possible without black slaves. After the Civil War, Blacks took over many plantations and divided the land among themselves. Most lost control of their land in the 1880s as the Boll Weevil moved into the South and became Share-Croppers. This became worse in the 1890s and the 20th Century, but you still have areas of the Rural South where the overwhelming population is black. Thus in the 1860s the ex-slaves took care of themselves and their relatives by taking over land of the previous plantations and other slave owners (Mostly slave owners who owned more than 20 slaves, rare for smaller farms). This provided Safety net for the ex-slaves and their children. These same black areas were GOP strongholds in the South till the 1950s when it became clear that the National Democratic Party had finally embraced Civil Rights, while the National GOP was opposing Civil Rights. These areas are now solid Democratic areas, where as late as the 1930s they were solid GOP areas (Unlike the foothills of the Appalachians Mountains which were and still are GOP).

I am getting off the subject, which is the Civil War and who fought for the South. The above just shows you things are never in isolation and how one problem flows into another. Nothing is in isolation. The South's problem was the South had close to (If not over) 50% of its population willing to support the invading north (I.e. the slaves and the Whites from GOP areas). All the North had to do was to put these groups in control. In addition you always have 10-20% of any population willing to support anyone as long as they can take advantage of the situation, thus you had a solid majority once Northern Arms cleaned out any southern military Resistance. This was the fatal flaw in the South Military Strategy, it could NOT withstand an invasion. The South could not only NOT stop the invasion, it could not resist the invading forces (i.e. Iraq) do to have to large a population willing to support the invading forces. Thus the 70% of white population was NOT enough. The South needed 90% and then needed at least 50% of the Slave population to fight off the North. 70% of the total population would have been enough, but not 70% of the white population which is why I made my comment

[14thColony]

62. And likewise most people have absolutely no idea

that Delaware, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Maryland, while they stayed in the Union, were all Slave States at the beginning of the Civil War. Slavery did not end in Delaware or New Jersey until 1865, and Delaware's legislature even refused to ratify the 13th Amendment; the state only ordered the freedom of slaves in Delaware when the 13th Amendment became part of the Constitution and they therefore had no choice. Likewise there were still 18 people of African descent held as slaves in New Jersey until 1865 (NJ referred to them as "apprentices for life" but the U.S. census of 1860 listed them as 'slaves.')

[happyslug]

67. New Jersey was the last Northern State to outlaw Slavery

States that came into the Union afterward had outlawed Slavery when they were territories (i.e. mostly through the Northwest Ordinance of 1782 which outlawed Slavery North of the Ohio River).

New Jersey outlawed slavery in 1798 but only effective in 1808 (To give owner then years of use to ease the cost t0 the owners of freeing Slaves). There was one big exception, people who were disabled or aged, those stayed slave till they died (More to relieve New Jersey of the Cost of keeping them than anything else). My question is how did these people get they status? Peonage? Peonage was the New Mexico tradition that was much like Medieval Serfdom, people who were free to all other people, but owned a duty to their "master" and were tied to the land. When the Civil War Amendments were passed the term used was designed NOT only to cover slaves by Peonage and any other servitude except tied in with Criminal Punishment.

If these 15 people were subject to servitude based on birth, that was outlawed by the Civil War Amendments, but if they were in servitude do to Criminal sentence than that was permitted (Debt was NOT addressed, but the Court quickly determined that was NOT grounds to hold someone, through such debt "enslavement" was tried, often successfully for the next 50 years. If the family was able to get to Court then the court would find they had the right to move on even if they own people money, but if you could not get to court they were people who lived on plantation (and factories North of the Mason-Dixon Line) who suffered under such servitude for debt. As we became a more mobile and Urban Society these ten to die out, people found out they could NOT be held for debt, but it was a problem for many years after 1865 (and most recent Slavery Cases in the US involve such slaves for Debt).

[14thColony]

68. New Jersey didn't outlaw slavery in 1804

It merely passed a law calling for the gradual phasing-out of slavery over many years by means of attrition of the slave population of the state. An important point of the 1804 law was that those born into slavery before it was enacted were "apprenticed for life," a status that meant they had no rights associated with freemen, were in involuntary bondage to their master at birth or his descendants and heirs, and could not voluntarily leave bondage by any means. Sounds quite similar to slavery. By 1865 only 18 of these people, all black, were left, with the youngest I assume being aged 61 years. Even those born after 1804 had to serve lengthy and involuntary "apprenticeships" to their mothers' owners, a status that also sounds much like slavery, albeit not life-long. Like Delaware, New Jersey also initially refused to ratify the 13th Amendment, only doing so and freeing the last of its slaves in 1866.

So the long answer to your question is that the form of slavery in Delware and New Jersey was the traditional people-of-African-origins-born-into-servitude type as was practiced in all the original American colonies, many of the early Northern states, and all the Southern states until 1865.

Slavery was not a Southern phenomenon. It was a pan-American phenomenon from the earliest colonial days. It merely survived in the South longer than it did in the North, not counting Maryland, West Virginia, New Jersey, and Delaware of course.

[happyslug]

70. That is what I get by going by memory, instead of looking it up.

For more details I did find this site on New Jersey and abolition:
http://49njrvs.tripod.com/id24.html

[Thothmes]

80. West Virginia did not enter the Union until 1863

[14thColony]

83. You are correct, of course.

From 1861 to 1863 it was considered simply the section of Virginia that was not in rebellion, only attaining statehood in 1863. Nonetheless, northwestern Virginia/West Virginia retained slavery until February 1865, but still abolished it nearly a year before New Jersey got around to it, and after it had ended in all formerly Confederate states. One of those interesting little footnotes in history.

[ArfDogMNO]

42. Thank you very much for a rational, detailed post. ntxt

[14thColony]

36. Back when I was at the University of Florida

The school administrators did indeed fly this specific flag in front of the UF museum in a display of all the flags that once flew over Florida. We students didn't mind, since I doubt very few even recognized it. I also note that in historical flag displays in St Augustine, the City administrators there also use this national flag. I have also noted others flying it in front of their homes with no apparent ill-will, back when I lived in Florida.

Please note though this is merely the "First National Flag," and was not used for very long due to its easy confusion on the battlefield with the US National Flag. If you look at the Second and Third National flags, I think you'll see why they're not displayed very often; incidentally cases of "mistaken identity" with the US flag in early battles led to the creation of the Battle Flag you're referring to.

Ironically the X pattern on the battle flag was chosen specifically because it had no overt Christian associations; previous designs featuring a traditional cross shape were rejected so as not to (get ready for this one...) alienate the Jewish officers and soldiers serving in the Confederate Army. This, within months of General U.S. Grant's famous General Order No.11 ordering the expulsion of all Jews within his zone of military control.

I find once you get past the Hollywood version of things, history is amazing in its richness, complexity, and in this case its irony. Ironically the Confederate Army was far more multi-cultural and multi-ethnic than the Union Army ever would be; over 10,000 Jewish Southerners enlisted in the army, and the CS Army boasted more Jewish generals than the Union Army; anti-Semitism was rampant in the Union forces, while the Southern forces went to far as to re-design a battle flag so as not to offend. There's got to be some serious irony in that one. The CS Army allowed Native Americans to be officers, and at least one Native American rose to the rank of brigadier general. Native Americans were not even officially allowed to enlist in the Union Army, and on no account could they ever be officers. So too Hispanics, many of whom commanded CS regiments, with a number also being commissioned as generals and colonels. There are even apochryphal tales of men of recent Chinese origin serving as officers in the multi-ethnic Louisiana regiments from New Orleans.

But before I am set upon by those here with more of a Crusadering "history is all black-and-white" bent, let me state for the record that:

- The institution of slavery was an indefensible and inhuman/inhumane (both) abomination, and the very idea it could have at that time been somehow considered consistant with Christian or any other moral teachings is beyond my ability to comprehend.
- Whatever the alleged injustices visited upon them, the secessionist states (mine included) knowingly chose a course of action that they knew had a high probability of leading to war; in fact many hot-headed Southern leaders of the time relished the idea of war; they got what they asked for, and then some.
- In that the Civil War led to the end of slavery, it must go down in history as the rarest of all creatures: a war that created more justice than it did injustice.
- Lincoln made the right decision to preserve the Union, and I shudder to think what the world would look like today had the Confederacy won its independence.


And on the issue of the license plate: this idea came from DeFuniak Springs - for people from North Florida I think that's all that really needs to be said.

[Yupster]

47. The first Jewish cabinet member

was also a Confederate.

Judah Benjamin served in about three different cabinet posts during the war including the most important ones.

[6th Borough]

53. ...Not to mention Judah P. Benjamin...

A Jewish-American who was arguably the second most powerful man in the CSA government, having served as Secretary of War, Secretary of State (not simultaneously), and closest confidant to Jefferson Davis. He was a US Senator from Louisiana prior to secession.

Any idea if the the "secular" battle flag was instituted under his tenure as Secretary of War?

Switching subjects, you can't compare the effect of the war on North Carolinians with Floridians.

1st, there simply weren't many Floridians back then. Secondly, Florida played a negligible role in the Civil War. The largest battle fought in Florida might have killed several hundred soldiers on both sides combined.

[14thColony]

58. Yes it was

The Battle Flag was adopted in November 1861; Benjamin became acting Secretary of War in September, and was confirmed by the CS Congress in November. But I am not sure if he had any involvement in the design, which was mainly the work of General P.G.T Beauregard and William P. Miles.

On the subject of Florida's role in the Civil War, the state was much more involved than many think, being the third state to secede from the Union, way way before more famous states like Texas and Virginia got off the fence.

Florida's sparse population meant they could only raise 2 cavalry regiments and 11 infantry regiments, but given that the state committed 15 percent of its total available male population to the army, this made Florida proportionally the most-represented state in the CS Army during the entire war.

Florida was considered the "Breadbasket of the Confederacy" in that it supplied all the salt used by the CS Army and by the closing months of the war was virtually the sole remaining source of cattle and grain for the military. The Union launched three campaigns aimed at knocking Florida out of the war for specifically this reason. All failed, and Tallahassee was the only CS state capital not taken by Union forces during the war. The last Union attempt resulted in the Battle of Olustee in 1864; while a pretty small battle by the standards of the day, it was one of the bloodiest ever fought in North America; of 11,000 troops engaged, over 2,700 were killed outright. Most of the CS forces at the battle were Georgia units, since the Florida units were usually with the Army of Northern Virginia. Speaking of which, most of the FL regiments fought together as the Florida Brigade in numerous campaigns, culminating at Gettysburg where they were the only CS brigade to charge the Union lines twice, the second time in support of the more famous Pickett's Charge. Pickett's Division lost 40 percent of its soldiers, but the Florida Brigade lost 65 percent, the highest loss rate of any unit engaged. The surviving battalions of the Florida Brigade were given the task of acting as rear-guards during the CS Army's retreat back into Virginia; most of them were destroyed in the end holding off the Union pursuit, a sacrifice Lee credited with saving the army from annihilation.

So it is true that physically Florida was not nearly as damaged as other CS states, but manpower losses were proportionally among the highest of any state.

[happyslug]

60. General U.S. Grant's famous General Order No.11

The order was revered within two weeks of it being issued (Reversed by Lincoln himself). The historical question is why did Grant issue it? He knew he had jews fighting under his command and by the wording of the Order, all of them had to leave, but they were also under orders to stay with their units. Order # 11 made no sense. People have tried to blame it on Grant's chief aide, General Rawlins, but it is clear Rawlins would NOT have issued this order without Grant having issued it. The order became a big issue during the election of 1868, but Grant went to a meeting of the Jewish War Veterans, and gave a speech, of which we know nothing, and the issue died. Democrats tried to review it, but it had no legs with the Jewish community after Grant visit to the Jewish War Veterans and thus stayed dead.

The best explanation I have read about General Order #11, was that it was never aimed at Jews, but to resolve a problem Grant found himself in in 1862. Grant's father had been a successful businessman for decades, no matter how slimly the deal, if Grant's father thought he could make money on it he was in on the deal. Just before the order was issued Grant's father showed up at Grant's Camp with two Jewish Partners trying to buy up captured Cotton at reduced prices. Grant hated such corrected deals but did NOT want to oppose his father. I can see it now, Grant getting drunk complaining about the Jews and how they were ripping off the country when everyone around him knew the problem was NOT the Jews but Grant's Father (You have not gone through life till you have someone in a deep stage of depression trying to pick himself up with alcohol while everyone else is cold sober and the that person gong on and on about something you know he is just saying to cause a fight).

Anyway, that was the situation when Grant issued General Order #11, his father and his Jewish partners left quickly and the order was reversed within two weeks. Beside Grant's Father's Jewish partners no one is known to have left Grant's area of Command do to this Order. The Jews of the 1868 election seems NOT to have held it against Grant. Grant was known to have Jews at the White House when he was President. General Order #11 is out of Character of Grant, whose efforts to help Blacks and other minorities was the greatest of any President till Lyndon Johnson, but it shows that even one of the most racist free persons of that time period could fall into the trap of Racism when racism is common in the time and place one grows up in.

[14thColony]

61. Interesting

and an entirely plausible explanation for GO 11, which was odd for Grant. And also a very good point that we have to be careful about judging people in the past using moral yardsticks from the present. I imagine it's quite possible that even we here in this enlightened forum might in a hundred years be judged as racist/sexist/who-knows-what-ist for violating some future morality that doesn't even exist yet, and of which we know nothing. Nonetheless I draw the line at condoning slavery, which even in 1860 should have been clear was against the very founding priciples of the United States, and should have ended carte blanche in 1789.

[happyslug]

63. You object to the term "all other people"?????

That is how Slaves were referred to in the Original Constitution. The US was attacked in Britain during the Revolution for having slaves while demanding the "Rights of Man". i.e. The fact Americans were claiming the right to revolt against an oppressor, while we were oppressing slaves. The Constitution made an effort to be non-racial and not-sexist. The term male is avoided, as is the term Man or Men. It is sexual neutral at a time when the laws were NOT. The woman suffrage movement ended up opposing the 14th Amendment in the late 1860s, for it was the first Amendment (and to this day the only Amendment) where the term male was used (And then only to the issue of forbidding the states from preventing any male from voting).

For the 14th Amendment:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

Yes, Slavery was condemned as early as the first centuries of the Christian era, but survives till this day. Chattel Slavery is still widespread in India (i.e. you are a slave do to failure to pay debts, this can extend to slavery for your children and Grand-children). What most people call Slavery is illegal in all countries, but is still practices in parts of Africa and the Mid-East(Saudi-Arabia is alleged to be a big practitioner). While actual slavery is rare in the US (They have been cases even in the 21st Century) the biggest from of slavery tends to be in the Sex Trade. It is unclear how extensive such sex-slavery is for most "slaves" are so afraid of their "masters" that they deny such ownership (But pimps are known to brag about the prostitutes they bought and sold among themselves).

In 1772 Justice Mansfield ruled that Slavery was illegal in England, Freeing a slave who had been brought into England by his master. Thus Slavery was under attack from the 1300s onward along with its cousin Serfdom (A Serf always had more rights than a Slave, for a Slave was property while a Serf was the class you were in, please note this difference is only a European difference and then only from the Dark Ages onward).

[14thColony]

64. I admit you have me confused

Where have I objected to the term "all other people"? I feel like I've woken up in the middle of a debate and don't know how I got here.

[happyslug]

66. No, that is the term used in the Constitution for Slaves

That all I was pointing out, that slavery was already viewed as an evil before the Revolution, and the writers of the Constitution avoided the term (as they did sexist terms). "all other people" is like the Souths use of the term "particular institution" (another term used for slaves) was done by people who admitted slavery was wrong, but they were still protecting it. Just pointing out a term of art from that time period that shows that even then Slavery was viewed as evil.

[14thColony]

69. True

In fact there was a strong surge of abolitionism just about the time of the Revolution, in no small part probably due to the success of the British abolitionist movement (bearing in mind slavery in the U.S. was ultimately a British legacy from the colonial era). Even then, while most Northern states had outlawed the institution by 1783, some did not finally eliminate slavery until much later, notably New York as late as 1827 and of course as we've discussed New Jersey as late as 1866.

I think this adds significant context to the general perception that the slave-free North fought the slave-holding South exclusively over the issue of slavery. If that was the case then I find it hard to explain why Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation specifically excluded and did NOT free any slaves held in any of the Union slave states (NJ, DE, MD, WV, KY, MO, AR), many of whom were in bondage after their brethren in the Southern states had already been freed.

As I've said before this was an incredibly complex issue and anyone who thinks it was cut-and-dried obviously has not studied it in any detail beyond possibly watching a few movies. Needless to say you are not in this category as you clearly have a significant depth of knowledge on the subject.

[happyslug]

73. The reason Lincoln did NOT include areas under Union control was HOW he freed the slave.

As President Lincoln, and almost any Lawyer of his time period, did NOT believe he had the authority to abolish Slavery EXCEPT IN HIS DUTY AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Furthermore that power was restricted to Military actions only. The rationale for the Emancipation Proclamation was it affected Slaves in areas in open rebellion against the US, and that Freeing the Slaves made it easier for the Army to put down the Rebellion. In Lincoln's mind, given that Slavery, in the form of the phase "all other people" were mentioned in the Constitution, only a Constitutional Amendment could end Slavery on the Federal Level (The States could Free Slaves within their borders, but NOT the Federal Government). The sole exception to this exclusive right to the state was if the action was related to putting down a rebellion. Thus Lincoln's wording of the Emancipation Proclamation was that it only applied to areas in open rebellion against the Federal Government. Thus Lincoln did NOT believe he or Congress had the power to end Slavery without a Constitutional Amendment, but Lincoln, as President, had the power to do ANYTHING necessary to put down a rebellion even if that meant Freeing the Slaves.

Lincoln made a comment that his Emancipation Proclamation would NOT be free many slaves, for do to the fact the South had mobilized for the war, it was harder for slaves to get to Northern lines then it ever had been during peace time. The Proclamation was NEVER intended for areas under Union Control (That would have to be reserved to each state). The main thrust of the proclamation was to strengthen Northern support for the war, making it a clear aim of the war. A secondary purpose (and some people the primary purpose) was to affect British and European opinion, showing that the Civil War was a war to END slavery, something England and most of Europe supported, at least on theory.

Thus the wording of the Proclamation, it was to cover Slaves held in areas in open Rebellion against the US, not slaves in general. This was do to the fact the proclamation was a Military document not a Civilian law. The Proclamation formalized the practice that had become common by 1862, that is slaves from areas in rebellion would NOT be returned to those areas. Do to the mass runaway of slaves from areas in Rebellion starting in 1861 Union Officers had to deal with these Escaped Slaves. The Officers came up with calling them "Contraband" and refused to ship them back to their owners. The term was NOT used after January 1, 1863 when the Proclamation came into force.

[14thColony]

79. OK, now that makes sense...

I had never really thought of it as a military order in the context of a rebellion before, but as a civil Executive Order. In that context then it makes perfect sense now why it's worded as it is. I had always assumed it was so as not to alienate or antagonize the pro-Union slave states, some of which (AR, KY, MD) were only tenuously Union to begin with. But at least I knew the diplomatic dimensions of it vis-a-vis France and Britain, whose support for the CSA began to wane soon after the proclamation was issued. The South's final failure was they missed the opportunity to be the side which issued the Emancipation Proclamation, turning the tables on the Union and presenting the conflict to the world as a war over the rights of a people for self-determination and not not over slavery. But then if they had been that farsighted they wouldn't have entered into a state of rebellion to begin with.

[Thothmes]

81. Lincoln did not "believe"

He "knew" he did not have the authority to free slaves in the Union States. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 specifically prohibited the Government of the United states from interfering with Slavery in any State. That is why the emancipation proclamation is limited to those states in rebellion.

[hobbit709]

2. It would identify the yahoos on the road..

[liberal1973]

4. lol

no kidding and I'm a southerner.

[Scurrilous]

7. Yep...

...easier to avoid that way. :thumbsup:

[LibDemAlways]

5. Sounds like another George Macaca Allen, who was

also fond of the "heritage" argument as a cover for his racism.

[monktonman]

8. These guys DECLARED WAR on the US government.

PERIOD!
Should Al Quida get its own plates?
I'm ok with redknecks and hillbillys using that flag if they choose.
good way to get to know the assholes who live in your town, just like the nazi tattoo.
However, the idea that any state, would issue flags that celebrate an army that declared war on our government is just plain crazy.

[leftofcool]

15. I thought they were trying to leave the USA

not delcare war it.

Left of Cool

[damntexdem]

27. Tell that to the U.S. soldiers in Charleston Bay.

[14thColony]

31. ...

One group of soldiers shooting at another may be an Act of War, but only a Parliament/Congress/legislature/head of state can pronounce a Declaration of War. They are not the same thing, no matter how much somebody might want them to be the same thing. The poster said the CSA "declared war" on the USA. No such declaration was ever made, no matter how much some might want it to be true. Not to say that firing on Fort Sumter was not an Act of War, but Lincoln was very very careful not to request a Declaration of War from Congress. Reason: you can only declare war on a SOVERIGN STATE. So if the USA declared war on the CSA, it would be automatic recognition of the sovereignty of the Confederacy, something Lincoln damned well wasn't going to do. And if the CSA declared war on the USA, they would not be able to couch themselves as the victim of a vindictive Federal government unwilling to just leave them alone, a view they needed to foster to coax Great Britain and France into providing support. Result: no declaration of war by either side ever.

[leftofcool]

33. Excellent!

Acts of war on both sides but no declaration inded!

Left of Cool

[leftofcool]

32. Please show me documented history

where any soldier of the Confederate Army or any of it's leaders made any declaration of war against the US?

Left of Cool

[tuckessee]

16. Are you always this ignorant

or is it just a role you play for the amusement of the educated public?

[leftofcool]

34. Please read your history

as well, I would be happy to give you names of several well known Civil War historians from both sides that you can email for clarification on this subject. And if the above does not help, you can get copies of actual documents from the National Archives for a small fee that you can read.

Left of Cool

[14thColony]

17. No they most assuredly did not

No declaration of war was ever issued by either the US Congress or the CS Congress, nor did any of the secessionist states ever issue declarations of war against the United States on their own. And up until that point in US history an act of secession was not considered an automatic casus belli, therefore the secessionist states had no reason in the law as it existed in 1861 to assume they had committed an act of war. Lincoln's decision to put down the rebellion by force of arms resulted in a de facto state of war, but it was never in either side's political interest to declare war on the other, and therefore neither ever did. Obviously no matter how you cut it a long and bloody war was the direct result of the secessionist states' actions, but there was never a declaration of war by either side.

There are plenty of very good tacks to take in denouncing this license plate foolishness, therefore I see no compelling reason to rewrite well-attested and well-documented history.

[Thothmes]

20. Finally some one that understands something of this period of American History.

[damntexdem]

26. Hey, I'll support plates for all of the Indian tribes, whether or not they declared war on the U.S.

Just not the racist, the slave-holding, Confederacy.

[New Dawn]

78. Right-wingers can fly Confederate flags and do business with the Nazis (like Prescott Bush did)

And the corporate media never questions their "patriotism."

[Uncle Joe]

91. No slam against an honorable state but wasn't wasn't Prescott Bush from Connecticut and

to my knowledge he never flew a Confederate Flag, so I fail to see the connection.

[Winterblues]

9. It is a heritage of Treason and torture.

Unless of cours one doesn't consider slavery to be torture...

[ReformedChris]

10. Too Many Specialty Flags in Florida Anyways..

They have talked about limiting the number of these tags and getting back to a reasonable number of them. I remember when the Challenger tag opened the floodgates and everyone found a good (or bad) cause to put on the tag. This is just another example of a good idea gone wrong. BTW, let this Congressman keep it up, he is showing true Rupuke Colors!

[Scurrilous]

12. Yep...

...there's already over a hundred specialty tags in Florida.


It's getting out of hand.

[14thColony]

19. Totally Agree

I was born and raised in Florida, and remember the Challenger tags when they came out, then a few years later the Manatee tags. I thought that was all well and good at the time. I moved away in 1989, and my God did it explode after that. Every year I go back to see family and it's a new and bewildering assortment of special interest tags on the roads. I'm not even sure what the actual FL tag looks like anymore; not sure when I saw the last one.

[happyslug]

65. Only 107 plates, what the problem? Pennsylvania has 179.

List of plates In florida::
http://www3.hsmv.state.fl.us/Intranet/dmv/specialtytags/specialindex.cfm

179 Plates in Pennsylvania:
http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/license_plates/plate-special_org.shtml

[BearSquirrel2]

11. Traitors ...

I'm glad to see southern Republicans showing support for the terrorists who wish to divide us by blazening the flag of secession. Clearly Mr. Brown and DeFuniak are taking heed to Osama Bin Laden's claim to stop support for the United States Government by declaring themselves distinct and independent from the United States.

I'm sure that Osama Bin Laden will be comforted to see the United States tearing itself apart with a secessionist battle emblem!!!

[14thColony]

23. I think it's stupid, divisive, and pointless too

but then I assume you also consider the Hawaii seccessionist movement, the Republic of Alaska movement, most Texans, and an increasingly large part of New England to all be traitors as well because they dream of being independent? This license plate is pretty small potatoes compared to some of these movements, so I presume you've reserved plenty of venom for them as well then, just to be fair. The reality is in most times and most places some minority group (meaning merely "not the majority") wants to break away, declare independence, establish a separate state, etc. etc. This is human nature the world over. Kosovo, Chechnya, Ossetia, Eritrea, the Basque Homeland, Palestine; you name the place and someone there wishes they weren't under the control of someone else. But to label them all traitors and "un-(whatever we the majority are)" is the kind of visceral, emotional overreaction that has led to hundreds of needless wars and the deaths of millions. And for what possible purpose?

[BearSquirrel2]

51. I was being sarcastic ...

I was doing a Faux style smear job on them.

BTW, I don't think much of any other US secessionist movement. We have federal government and their is flexibility in local government.

[14thColony]

52. Ahhh

Gotcha. Sorry.

[9119495]

13. Yet they flip when they see an immigrant march with a mexican flag...

So much for the heritage argument.

[cstanleytech]

14. Just let them have the damn plate.

Its only racist if you choose to see it as that, if they want to fork over the money to pay for it fine the state gets some extra cash and if they dont then thats fine as well.

[damntexdem]

28. And let them resort to lynching, too?

Would it only be racist if we chose to see it that way?

[cstanleytech]

44. Sigh, not even in the same ballpark.

This is a piece of metal with a stupid flag on it which is far different than a lynch mob that is trying to kill someone.
But fine whatever, good luck on taking those first step towards supporting censorship and let us all know how it works out for you.

[struggle4progress]

50. It's advertising for a group dominated by neo-confederates

[cstanleytech]

54. Which group would that be?

The Dukes of Hazzard county maybe?
The Boss Hoggs?
Maybe the Boars Nests?

[struggle4progress]

71. Sons of Confederate Veterans (Sourcewatch)

In recent years, Kirk Lyons, the founder of Southern Legal Resource Center, who has known attachments to .. avowedly racist groups such as the League of the South, and the Council of Conservative Citizens, has attempted to get himself elected as head of the SCV. When he lost to Gilbert Jones, in a 17 vote difference, his supporters voted in the next day Ron G. Wilson, by 47 votes, and begun a purge of all moderate and opposing members ...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sons_of_Confederate_Veterans

[struggle4progress]

72. A list of hate group members in the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SPLC)

The following is a list of current SCV officials at the national, regional (or Army), and state levels who also are (or have been recently) members or representatives of groups listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups.
Membership in these hate groups — the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), the League of the South (LOS), and Free Mississippi (FM) — is determined from the hate groups' publications, their Web sites and media reports.

In the list below, each person’s name is followed by his position in the SCV and, in parentheses, his hate group affiliation.

Not listed are a large number of SCV officials who have spoken at meetings of hate groups or worked alongside their members ...

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=90

[struggle4progress]

74. Here's a nice summary article: The hijacking of the Sons of Confederate Veterans

... since the late 1990s .. almost every Southern heritage group -- and even a few churches -- have been targeted very aggressively for "takeover from within" by the racist neoconfederate group League Of The South ...

... by 2002, no less than ten top officials for the Sons of Confederate Veterans were members of racist groups including League of the South and the SCV leaders had not only undone practically all of the reforms (including bans on membership in racist orgs and promotion of secessionism) but .. the SCV started promoting .. sympathetic histories of the Klan ...

... By 2004, a purge was well underway as 25% of the members left the now-hijacked SCV; this included several US senators and the entire European division of the organisation ...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/27/16812/7136/606/465198

[cstanleytech]

86. So the plates were

going to have on them somewhere the words " Sons of Confederate Veterans" is what you are saying?

[struggle4progress]

88. The hate-flag plates are pushed as a fundraiser for the white supremacist front group:

... proceeds from Brown’s $25 plate would go to the Sons of Confederate Veterans ... http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/floridapolitics/entries/2008/02/26/crist_doesnt_salute_confederat.html

[cstanleytech]

90. Well if thats real and not bogus

I am not sure if I could support the money going to such a group if again as you claim they are a racists group.
Putting the money into a general fund to care for all historic sites from that era instead by say the state might make more sense.

[Sabriel]

21. No more annoying than Indiana's "In God We Trust" plates

Whose brilliant idea was that? And I can't believe how many of them I've seen.

[damntexdem]

22. What, no nooses depicted on the plates?

And what about the KKK plates?

A swastika or two might make a nice fashion-accessory plate, too.

Why not let everyone on the road know just how truly racist the legislator is?

[TommyO]

84. The nooses hang from the rear-view mirror.

[LanternWaste]

29. If the intent is to celebrate a heritage

If the intent is to celebrate southern heritage, simply replace the ever-popular battle-standard with ankle-manacles and a whip...? As the man said, 'it's part of the history whether we like it not..'. :shrug

[jpak]

35. I hope some S FL Dem comes up with a "Y'all Lost - Assholes" plate with a Lincoln silhouette

:rofl:

[14thColony]

38. Dear Moderators

I'm guessing you deleted Post #1 due to the use of the word "cracker." In his defense, the term "Cracker" is considered a perfectly acceptable nickname for those of us from Florida. Since I doubt you'd delete a post just for referring to someone as a Hoosier, a Buckeye, or a Tarheel, you might want to consider re-instating his post on these same grounds. Just because it looks like a pejorative doesn't make it one.

[Robb]

55. A "heritage" that lasted all of four years?

:shrug:

[CRF450]

75. Um people...

Not every self-proclaimed redneck or hillbilly flying the confederate flag is outright racist. Many of them I know are good friends with blacks or mexicans. Where I'm at now, northeastern North Carolina is confederate central. The flags dont bother me. If those people want the confederate flag on their tags and whatnot, fine by me...

[hollowdweller]

76. How about a MEXICAN FLAG one too for the heritage of FL Hispanics

[14thColony]

85. Well....

The majority of Hispanics in Florida are not of Mexican descent for one thing. That would be be kinda like someone saying Americans should be just as happy flying the Union Jack since Britain's an English-speaking country too. The Floridians of Cuban origin that I know (and I used to be married into a Cuban family) take great umbrage at being referred to as Mexicans (as well they should since they're not) or for that matter even as 'Hispanics."

[Orsino]

82. Wanna bet that the idiots proudly display this tag...

...next to "Bush won--get over it" bumper stickers? And that if you point out the irony, you'll get nothing but stupid looks in response?

[ecstatic]

87. And while he's enjoying his past, he can also issue reparations checks

while he's at it. Fair enough.

[baldguy]

89. The Civil War is over. We Won. You Lost.

GET OVER IT!

[jazzjunkysue]

92. You're all missing the point: This is the swiftboating of Obama.

This came up the week Obama tipped the scales. Period. End of discussion. It's all about the timing, and nothing about the history or the details.

Expect all sorts of ugly, pathetic race baiting if Obama holds on. These are the tactics of the smallest minds in the south. This is how hate remains floating on the water like dead roadkill: It's not really a blatant, direct, honest confession of bigotry-If there's one redeeming aspect to the KKK it's that they come right out and say it. No innuendo, no snickering, just blatant, pure, unvarnished hate. At least they own their hate.

This is like a thin watercolor version of the real stuff. So was Cunningham's speech, followed by the perfectly politically correct retraction. Slap his hand, and go right back out and do it again. No one admits that they really meant something by it, but the damage is done, just the same. It prevents backlash. It is the most cowardly form of harassment.

That's how it's always done.

My grandmother saw herself as the perfect calvinist church lady. When she wanted to curse, she'd say "Well, shit. If I must say so."

That way, she said it, but kept her self image as a godly woman intact.