Mission Of This Blog


The overall mission statement of this blog is to share many unique topics of this blogger's interest; promoting though education the uniquely positive values of Southern history, heritage, and cultural identity. Topics include (but are not limited to):
Southern Cultural History & Confederate Heritage Awareness, Symbols Of Southern-American Identity & Their Moral Defense, Nature & Wildlife Preservation, Science & Science Fiction, Astronomy & Planetary Photography, Literacy & Writing, Travel & Local Places Of Interest, Southern Cuisine, South Carolina Upstate History, Popular Culture & Philosophy, Local History of the South Carolina Upstate ....as well as various other topics explained from the blogger's point of view. The following website contains the UNCENSORED thoughts and opinions of a Southern-born country writer from upstate South Carolina - the living, beating heart of the great American Southland! Please enjoy and feel free to post comments, or contribute to this blog in any meaningful way.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Response From The Opposition! No Really!

Well folks, it finally happened. After over a year online, someone from the Opposition actually decided to some some testicular fortitude and respond to my criticisms of the anti-Confederate mindset. Perhaps y'all remember my post from March 26th? A response to YouTube comments posted by one Mr. Scott Ledridge.

Well, Mr. Ledridge responded to that post with five - count em - five written responses.

Actually, they were just five very long and rambling message posts.

Well folks, rather than let them go to waste in the message board on the post, I decided to post them in their entirety here as a new post. As I did with his YouTube posts, I went through his point and responded in kind. Oh and I did manage to correct all of his spelling and typos, other than that his words are as they were written.

Well here y'all go. Again my responses are in red.

Enjoy.



“tedious Mr. Scott Ledridge" - Me? Tedious? Yeah, I did say that, huh? Have you looked at this post of yours? Uh, I wrote them so yeah. I've been called out on blogs before, but they had the decency to not use my name without my consent. Well, I could have continued to call you an anti-Confederate heritage reactionary, but rather than come off sounding like a Soviet political officer.... At any rate since you responded, I will take that as a go-ahead to continue doing so, Mr. Ledridge. But, I don't feel the need to hide behind a screenname. Although, you must when you're out trolling for blog fodder. Considering that the post was in YouTube and it was the name I have had on the account for several years it was what it was. I mean you don't suppose McJuggernuggets and Angry Grandpa actually go by those names in real life, do you? 

Of course, you don't show the rest of either of our conversations. I did in fact provide a link. I believe in full disclosure here at Southern Fried Common Sense. This is after all an uncensored blog.

(I actually wanted to post the comment links so people could really see the entire threads. But, surprise, surprise, the html isn't accepted.) Uh, see previous response. 

Choosing to leave out the lack of any substance whatsoever in your posts, Like yours was a fountain of useful information - NOT! only immature name calling. Which you started, though I will apologize for my role in it. I should never have lowered myself to the level of a common YouTube poster. Funny that you say I used ad hominem. It is a funny word in a way. Try saying it five times fast and you'll see what I mean, LOL! All I used was the word Neo-Confederate. (Is that a dirty word to you?) No, not a dirty word - more like a nonsensical, irrelevant one since it's meaning seems to change with whatever hothead deems to throw it around. Mostly whenever I hear someone use the word, I apply the following appropriate theme music to go with the term and the intent behind it: 

 

Whereas you were rife with schoolyard insults. Actually if I'd called someone an assclown in the schoolyard I would have gotten in serious trouble back when they were not afraid to punish students. But I digress....and again apologize, and accept what will no doubt be your own apology as well.
–––––––––––––––
Neo-Confederate - I'll admit to using that term without fully understanding your position. You are forgiven, I am not in the habit of holding grudges. Of course, your tactic of refusing to offer up any of your position and only leading me to believe you were simply a staunch defender of Southern Heritage strongly gave that impression. Well, for the record I do not deny being a staunch defender of Southern Heritage as a whole and the service of the Confederate soldier in particular at all. Though that alone is not how the nonsense term "neo-Confederate" is formally defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center. But since the word is effectively useless anyhow....

But, to that point, do you think a return to the Confederate ways would be best? And what exactly would you define as the "Confederate ways" in particular? That is far from specific. I would gladly answer if you were to narrow that down a bit to specifics. General hypotetical questions take waaaaaaay too long to go into, and I do have other uses for my valuable time. And do you think the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment are constitutional? Wow, a Litmus Test on the US Constitution too! The answer to that question is: yes and no. Yes in as much as they were passed by the US Congress and signed into law by the 17th President of the United States of America. As to the no, there is some question as to the legality of the Southern State governments under Reconstruction since said states were under military occupation and the State Legislatures were filled with people who were elected while much of each State's population was disenfranchised illegally (remember that there was a general amnesty given to former Confederate soldiers by the same US President). Overall, if those same Amendments were put to a re-vote today (omitting the parts about disenfranchising former Confederate soldiers) there is little doubt they would be approved  overwhelmingly by everyone - including many of us Confederate heritage defenders and myself.

Also, you mention in your other link that the African Americans are somehow tarnished by being freed by means of the war. Please explain.
I am anti-war. While I have a great deal of respect for battle tactics and strategies used, those lines on the maps represent people getting killed and wounded - many for life physically and mentally - and civilian lives destroyed. I have the highest respect for the men who fight wars, even if I have no love for the carnage and the bullshit people call the "glory of the battlefield". There is no glory. There is only survival where lots of others did not. There is no such thing as a "just cause" (save only in self-defense), no side possessing a monopoly on virtue or abomination. The fact that either side had to go to war meant they threw away the one divine gift that God gave the human race: reason. If that fact alone does not taint anyone, or any cause, that needed to throw that away in favor of humanity's base animal nature to kill - then brother I don't know what else you'd say about it.
Those slaves freed as a result of the 13th Amendment following The War Between The States (American Civil War) were also tainted since they and their supposed freedom were a part of the claimed reasons for the War halfway through it. They may have been legally freed, but spiritually they were still pawns for a very long time. The plight of Black Americans after the War is well documented and I think we can both agree that no section of this country is free from the stain of racial hatred and bigotry.
–––––––––––––––
You used the term "living heritage". - I asked for your explanation on that, but, you didn't give it, because you were more interested in drumming up material for your blog here. Actually the idea to use your belligerence as a living example of anti-Confederate heritage reactionary rhetoric came after that, but again I digress.
In reference to the Dixie Cross (Southern Cross battle flag) as part of a living heritage, I would expand on your "fluid heritage" comments. The flag has a long history that did not end after 1865. Every generation of Southern-born people - especially Confederate descendants - have added their own part to it. The banner has long grown past its role as a battle emblem and become a cultural symbol.
So, allow me to cut to the chase: it is a safe bet that the people living today in 2016 are not the same who lived in 1863, but are none-the-less self-defined as proudly Southern and share the same time-honored values of family, faith, loyalty to community, ect. It is the good that we share in common with our ancestry and those virtues that we choose to honor that connect us through time. This is the beginnings of understanding the idea of a living heritage.
Confederate heritage - as a part of a larger living Southern Heritage - is part of a vast cultural tapestry that makes up Southern identity as a whole. For me to go into greater detail would requite a whole new blog post and you have already given me quite the manifesto to respond to here as is dude.

Several times, I asked you for proof in your disagreement. You never actually stated a position on anything, just that you disagreed with everything I had to say. For one thing you continued to ramble on incoherently, and for another you offered nothing of real substance. Sorry, but that is true.
–––––––––––––––
"I am not a Neo-Confederate. I addressed this point last year on this blog point by point" - Sorry, I was not aware you existed until your trolling expedition here. Well at least I thank the Lord that part has been cleared up - and again I forgive you sir. 

"using exact definition as written on the Southern Poverty Law Center's webpage" - Oh, so now, you're interested in specific definitions. Actually I was offering it for your benefit since you seem interested in specifics when it suits you. I just accommodate whenever I can. The word heritage, though, that's quite fluid. Only to a layman, but stick around long enough and you might eventually get it if you keep an open mind.

"Do you throw the term at me in that regard because you are losing an argument, or just because you actually thought it applied?" - Well, considering you didn't actually refute anything I said, I couldn't have been losing anything. True, you didn't offer much in the way of an argument in the first place, so I suppose cutting it to pieces wasn't a real effort on my part (It truly wasn't) and therefore not a contest in the first place. It wasn't until you ran back to the safety of your blog that you actually opened up about anything. Actually, I don't generally go to YouTube of all places to have a intellectual discussion with people. That way would lead to madness trying to find an intellectual mind in that particular haystack of blissful ignorance. But I do admit you seem slightly sharper than most of your sort, so I gave you an uncensored, one-on-one venue for our continued discussion. Anyone else can drop in - pro or con - and I do not exclude here. Hardly a "safe zone" and this is not an American college campus.
–––––––––––––––
"So why ask the question you askhole?" - I was trying to advance the conversation you were taking no where. There was nowhere to really take it. Your questions were too simple to refute and I didn't want to completely embarrass you. Whatever else you think of me, I do not go out of my way to destroy people verbally. Is giving an opinion wrong? No, but one based on a wrong-thinking premise does deserve a reasoned response. In fact, I was conceding the point that what a heritage and identity is to a people is absolutely fluid over time. Where is that self-righteous wisdom you purport to have? There was nothing derisive in the opinion I gave. You ask a question and then answer it - at least as best as you could. Had you done the reverse, made the statement about heritage and identity being fluid and then asked the question, I probably would have refrained from called you an "askhole". As it stand I do apologize for the term, though at the time it seemed to fit.

But, of course, you weren't interested in a conversation. Uh, we're talking here, aren't we? Kinda blows your little theory away, huh?

"By all means continue, even though you are allegedly the one asking the questions here." - The point that went over your head here is that you can't take a symbol designed by specific people for a specific reason (that never changed; and was even used time and again for the same purpose) and just say that its meaning has changed. Actually sir, I believe something went over YOUR head there. There has been a great deal of history concerning that symbol that goes beyond its original purpose, and not all of it has been negative. I don't have to prove that its meaning has changed, a great deal of American history supports this truth. That symbol is a living symbol and its meaning is still effectively being defined by this generation and the one that comes after it. We do not live at the end of history, we are part of it ourselves.
–––––––––––––––

"you are a Leftists" - You better tell my voting record. The earth you've scorched under my feet because I made an assumption. Yet, here you are... making assumptions. Enlighten me then whenever you get a chance.

"So I am willing to bet you imposed that view based on what others said and applied it to me." - As you baited me into it, yes I did. At least you have the decency to admit it and not grandstand. I applaud you on that one.

"Sorry pal, but that logic does not work in a common sense arena like this blog." - Well, you weren't offering any common sense on that thread. So... Actually I was offering responses to obtuse, pretentious questions. But now that we bring it up, how am I doing so far?
–––––––––––––––
"A Confederate General PGT Beauregard came up with the final design after Miles' original design was rejected as a national flag." - John Coski points out that isn't correct: I happen to be something of a fan of Mr. Coski, even have an autographed copy of his book. Ah I see you're quoting from it. Let's see....
"William Miles’s disappointment with the Stars and Bars [i.e., the “First National” flag of the Confederacy] went beyond his strong ideological objections to the Stars and Stripes. He had hoped that the Confederacy would adopt his own design for a national flag-the pattern that later generations mistakenly and ironically insisted on calling the Stars and Bars. Well said, Mr. Coski! Even many Confederate heritage defenders insist on calling it that, despite the fact they should know better. The design that Miles championed was apparently inspired by one of the flags used at the South Carolina secession convention in December 1860. The Sovereignty Flag, yes. That flag featured a blue St. George’s (or upright) cross on a red field. Emblazoned on the cross were fifteen white stars representing the slaveholding states, and on the red field were two symbols of South Carolina: the palmetto tree and the crescent. Charles Moise, a self-described “southerner of Jewish persuasion,” an honorable and well respected fellow too! wrote Miles and other members of the South Carolina delegation asking that “the symbol of a particular religion” not be made the symbol of the nation. In adapting his flag to take these criticisms into account, Miles removed the palmetto tree and crescent and substituted a diagonal cross for the St. George’s cross. Recalling (and sketching) his proposal a few months later, Miles explained that the diagonal cross was preferable because “it avoided the religious objection about the cross (from the Jews & many Protestant sects), because it did not stand out so conspicuously as if the cross had been placed upright thus.” The diagonal cross was, Miles argued, “more Heraldric [sic] than Ecclesiastical, it being the ‘saltire’ of Heraldry, and significant of strength and progress (from the Latin salto, to leap).” Yes, I suppose I kinda skipped over Mr. Moise's role in the establishment of the design, but I was pressed for time when I wrote my last blog post. Thanks for including it.

"A battle standard used to mark the placement of soldiers in the line of battle and identify them from a distance through smoke." - A battle standard used in the fight to ensure and spread the institution of slavery. So was the US flag in three (count-em) THREE American Wars since 1777 - and for much longer than a mere four years. Also we can strongly debate the individual motives of close to a million Southern-born men who fought under that flag wearing the hallowed gray and butternut of the Confederate army. But since you seem to assign the typical group-think mentality to people such an argument about individual motivation would be pointless and simply lead to another empty discussion. Also, a standard that was so popular it was incorporated into the final 2 designs of the national flag. A standard that was widely recognized then, and since then, to represent the CSA. An undeniable fact - and a pointless one that I really don't see a negative connection to. Though I am certain you will enlighten all of us....or maybe not.

"I think that is open to interpretation from those who carried it into battle." - I don't propose that 100% of Confederate soldiers supported the official reasons for seceding. Ah finally a reasoned response! But, the soldiers didn't design the flag. I believe we established that two soldiers: Generals PGT Beauregard and Joseph E. Johnson did in fact have a hand in the final design of the original silk banners made in November of 1861. Even Coski concedes that point. The flag was a representation of the government. Not solely so, and not to the people who carried it as a reminder of home and family.

We disagree on this. And that's ok. We do and yes. We can have a discussion about it once both sides present their views. I just did. But, when one side is simply chiding and baiting the other, what kind of progress do you expect to make? To be honest none, but then again I started out defending Mr. Edgerton from an internet troll and you jumped in unprepared for me. No wait, let's not argue that. Let's accept the past and move on....that ironically is the overall goal of the Southern heritage movement.
–––––––––––––––

"First of all, Southern Heritage as it is defined by me and others like me has always been about hospitality and inclusion." - I didn't realize you were 170 years old. The years have been kind. LOL aren't you obtuse, but I know you're still catching up mentally, so I will refrain. I note that you did not refute the original point however, so that's another win for yours truly.

"Second, it depends on how you define the term. Southern heritage itself encompasses a great deal of history both before and after the War Between The States" - Who are you? Bill Clinton? No, I actually admit to smoking weed in college and that I inhaled it....this was before I formally adopted the Straight Edge life, mind you. That's why I referred to the hierarchy and paternalism that was so prevalent before the war. How far before the War? I mean Southern Heritage as defined by people like me encompasses history that dates back well before European settlement and even Native American identity. To discuss hierarchy and paternalism that far back requires someone who has greater knowledge of anthropology than a simple librarian from a small Southern town.

"Wow what a supremely ignorant and nonsensical statement." - You make that statement, then proceed to basically agree with me, except that you apply the evolution to the people. Not sure I actually agreed with anything you said there. The statement you made was so ignorant and devoid of actual truth I actually needed a moment to get that you were being serious. Then I just felt a great sense of pity.

I agree the people have changed. And the people are ultimately who matter. But, the CSA never did, as you agreed. And since the CSA ceased to be, and never changed while it existed, the CSA can't stand for anything else. Uh, that goes without saying, though I don't know what that has to do with a living heritage. I mean the Southern States of Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia are no longer British colonies, yet we are still a part of that heritage. It is one of the pieces of the overall tapestry of Southern and American identity. We maintain at least some part of that - the good parts - yet those British colonies as a political entity no longer exist. Again your point comes off a bit strange.

And the symbol of the Southern Cross has been used time and again since the war to hold up the same ideals.

Defense of homeland. Individual liberty. Reminder of home and family. Yep, that does sound about right, though I am shocked you agree. Oh it has been misused to define other things too - unfortunately by other Southern people - but this past generation has been instrumental in taking back what hate has no moral right to. And make no mistake, we WILL overcome.

We, Southerners, are not citizens of the CSA. Duh? We have evolved. Some of us have grown more than others. The CSA did not. Again the CSA and the South, while part of a shared Southern Heritage, is history. We are talking about people, not governments.
Let me repeat so it can sink in - People, not governments.
–––––––––––––––
""You and yours on the other hand don't seem to be about uniting people at all." - That's your perception. As I said, one that has been proven over and over again in the last twenty-five years, or so. Or maybe you can clarify the position of anti-Confederate heritage reactionaries. How is labeling "racist" a group of people who honor recognized American Veterans, who put flags and flowers on graves twice a year, who respect their ancestry and nothing more "advancing" the cause of civil rights? I mean in what universe does that do anything else but create more hatred?

And I can literally site a hundred or more examples that validate that viewpoint, some of them available on this blog." - Do you not also agree that the same can be said from the pro-heritage side? Can you be honest and admit that? Are you asking me to admit that everyone on my side is an angel? A pure warrior of virtue? Come on, you know better. No cause is without its malcontents.

Surely you aren't going to try to say that there aren't mountains of comments on YouTube from "pro-southern heritage" people making racially charged comments about and to people they don't agree with. Making anti- Semitic remarks. Making sexist remarks. The trouble there is proving that all of them are in fact "pro-Southern heritage". Perhaps you are unaware that white supremacists actively work to undermine the Southern heritage movement. Also that people such as certain anonymous activists engage in identity fraud online to try - and often times fail - turning opinion against defenders of Confederate heritage. Can you say for certain that this is not the case? That everyone on your side is not a racist? I can tell you from personal experience that the line between anti-Confederate heritage activists and white supremacist haters is a much thinner one that most get.
–––––––––––––––
"WOW! Talk about assumptions!" - You're right. Based on how you were acting, and your refusal to talk about anything of substance, We agreed that was not true. I assumed you were another of the "southern heritage" crowd that denies history. But, still you are staunch defender of the flag and its romantic view. WOW again talk about assumptions! I don't recall a post where I spout off some bullshit "moonlight and magnolias" ideal about the War. Perhaps you should re-read my responses and opinions about war above? I acknowledge the negative history of the flag, but unlike you I don't see said negative history as an overall defining point about the flag and how it is viewed in a modern context. That seems to be the part where your mental block can't get past.
–––––––––––––––
"People like Mr. HK Edgerton, whom you and people like you mock, insult with ugly hateful stereotypes" - I haven't mocked him. He's wrong. And I question his motives. But, I haven't mocked him. But you admitted that you stand back while others use ugly stereotypes to mock him. To fail to act is to act. If you see an act of hate and you do nothing, you might as well be throwing the slurs yourself.

"then pat yourselves on the back at how "tolerant" you claim to be" - I don't know that I pat myself on the back. I recognize reasons for things. And I do believe that the flag, by its very nature, is divisive and doesn't really have a place in today's context. And of course when someone proves you are wrong to think that way, you suddenly deny they have any relevant point and block out any information that proves you are wrong. The flag is not divisive in the right hands. And because someone is wrongly offended does not make their reasons justified enough to attack others who disagree. You can also rest assured that flag will be around for a very long time to come as more and more people reject the way people like you....and I should say, white supremacists....view it.
–––––––––––––––
"I have seen more ugliness for people like you than I have ever seen from people who are openly members of racial hate groups like the KKK or the New Black Panther Party." - Then you are intentionally blind. Or maybe you are not looking hard enough. The degrees of the hate may be different, but hate is hate. In my worldview there is little difference in falsely accusing someone of racism and burning a cross to promote terror? I also believe that people who do both should be treated the exact same way....but I won't go into the specifics on how. I would site this page and the true story of how I personally dealt with someone who misused that flag.

"At least those assholes admit what they are openly." - The same can be said about the pro-heritage crowd. You make these one sided claims and pretend as though you aren't in the midst of it. We admit to being a multicultural group of modern pro-Southern men and women who honor our ancestry, deeply respect people, and honorably teach others to remember the past - both its good and bad parts. We also admit to being defenders of true civil rights (that is to say without all the bullshit double standards the Establishment imposes) and fight to end ignorance by haters who misuse our symbols wrongly. No I don't deny being in the midst of that at all. I am in fact proud of it and my role in fighting hatred.

I don't call the pro-heritage people of today racist. I recognize that there's a lot of misunderstanding about the history involved. And I don't think it's particularly constructive in today's context. There we disagree, sir.

I do call the secessionists and the CSA racist and white supremacists. But, at that time, most everyone was. They just tried to found a nation based on it. That part of the CS Constitution must have gotten burned up in the fire. And no, don't bother with the cut-and-paste clips of the articles of secession, or the "cornerstone speech". I agree with you that people were certainly more racist then than they are by today's standards, but that was all around. Even the soldiers of the Union and its leaders would be considered violent racists by 21st century standards.
But again this is irrelevant. While the CSA as a government was a part of the flag's origins, it does not in and of itself define the entire history of that flag at all. As long as you remain stuck on that, as long as you continue to fail to take into account all history beyond that - including the noble efforts of Southern heritage advocates over the last quarter century -  I don't think we will progress any further.
–––––––––––––––

"By contrast, I believe that non-white Southerners who honor this heritage rightly as their own are among the bravest people that I know." - Well, in all honesty, it was built on their backs and the sweat of their brow. To quote the dumbass statement you offered earlier: I didn't realize they were 170 years old.
Oh wait! You're doing that whole group-think thing again. Hate to tell you this because I know it will cause you some sleepless nights, but people are free-thinking individuals, not groups of "victims" and stereotypes. Also non-white Southerners are not all Black Southerners. They also include Hispanic, Native American and Jewish Southerners of all ages. Not to mention many people of mixed racial ancestry - both here in America and overseas.

"From YOUR stance, these non-white Southerners who honor that flag as a part of their own living heritage today should likewise what? Get over it? The fact that they don't matter - something you have clearly shown sir - is what is truly exclusionary. And it disgusts me personally." - You must get unintentionally disgusted a lot. Hate and bigotry disguised as "tolerance" will do that. I don't abide hypocrites very well. I believe those people have their reasons. And it is their right to have them and express them. I would never tell them they can't. But, I can also disagree with them, as it's my right. I hope you would at least have the decency to patrol your own and call out people who engage in toxic rhetoric and racial stereotypes to attack these people.

The flag is, by the nature of its creation and its use over the years, exclusionary. In your wrong-thinking opinion, but only because you don't open your heart to other ideas. You aren't honest if you don't admit so. I admit people have misused it wrongly, but I also don't discount or reject the amazing work of those who fight against such acts, nor should you. I understand how you think it's exclusionary to your heritage. Truth is not exclusionary, but what about the whole truth and not just a fraction of it that fits your own agenda. But, you even admit the reason for secession was slavery. I never denied the role it played in it. So, other than your hero-worship, why else fly it?  
Hero-worship? Is that truly all you think it is? Wow you really are a lost Southerner, aren't you? And here I thought I'd had it bad in my youth. I at least managed to learn beyond how I was taught and think for myself. To make my own decisions and see people for who they are based on personal experiences. 
Honoring the soldiers of the Confederate army as American veterans, respecting that courage. Taking pride in having an ancestor who was one of them is no more different for me than honoring an ancestor who served in WW2, or in the American Revolution - on either side. It is about respecting the separate links on the chain of one's ancestry. No more and never less.
I fly that flag and respect it as a gift from my ancestor to the Southern people as a symbol of that courage and that link. That is also a part of the living heritage I mention. I will also defend it against anyone who would wrongly use it today as a tool of hatred, or allow others to do so.
I know you'll act like there are legions of African Americans that are supportive of the flag. You'd be surprised, and not just Black Americans dude, and not just here in the good ole US of A either. But, like black confederates, I haven't really seen much evidence of them. How hard do you try, Daisy? The same ones get trotted out every time. Try looking at this link. So, just as the minuscule few blacks that fought for the Confederacy, the exception does not disprove the rule. Love how you diminish human beings, look down on them because you feel you can. You may not have used the words, but beneath your words, there's some really ugly names trying to scratch to the surface. You know in your heart I am speaking the truth, dude. As it stands it looks like you simply see Black Southerners who disagree with your worldview as "props" from your own words: "the same ones get trotted out every time".
Your words and those left unspoken I feel says a great deal about how you yourself view people of color - including probably those who do share your point of view on this matter. If that is how you feel about other human beings, you are truly a sad little person with a very ugly heart.
I don't go around looking at the color of skin. I look at what is in their hearts and what I have in common with them. Those people in the link are my brothers and sisters of Southern-Confederate blood, no different than anyone else who shares my skin tone. I respect them and love them as fellow Southerners. We share the same love of ancestry, of community, of the great Southland of our birth.
People like you mock them because you fear what all of us together represent to your own failing ideals.
–––––––––––––––
"A state of mind actually shared by white supremacists and not by true defenders of Southern heritage of all colors and faiths ironically. What does that say about you sir? Since you obviously have no idea what those who tolerate the presence of that flag believe - and indeed accept the misuse of it by haters - your opinion is tainted by your own ignorance." - My opposition, as you've clearly missed, is based in the context it was created in; a context that hasn't changed and has been reinforced since. In the opinion of a pure-blind person who never tried to look for anything else. Either out of fear or self-loathing, that part I am still trying to figure out. That's the reason for my opposition. It does represent separation (racially and geographically and ideologically) Plenty of people across racial, ethnic, and geographical lines would strongly disagree with you. and it does represent a failed rebellion that took up arms against this country's army. Or an independent nation of sovereign States that was overrun and conquered, depending on one's POV.

"Then again I suppose every group has it's share of divisive character" - Like characters that, instead of having an open and honest conversation, bait to create traffic for their own blog? Exactly! Hey wait.... LOL! Sorry folks, had to do it!
–––––––––––––––

"Southern nationalists make up barely 5% of Confederate heritage defenders" - Do you have data for that? You could try the SPLC website, though they may not have exact figures and their definition of what constitutes a "Southern Nationalist" may be off the reservation with reality. I only know from experiences and for every one of them there are 20 people like me who only care about ancestry, heritage and preservation of history. That number has not changed significantly.
–––––––––––––––
"Lee and Davis both said that the flag should be put away so it would not become divisive.

Really? I have heard this stated before, but nobody has been able to present me with proof - including letters written by either man - that suggests this to be undeniably true." - Sure. No problem:
Lee to the Gettysburg Identification Meeting in 1865: "I think it wisest not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered." Which says nothing about the Confederate flag, or telling former Confederate soldiers not to honor their fallen comrades from the War. It talks about uniting as a country, which does not mean diminishing the sacrifices of those who died on either side. Nice try.

Davis wrote in the The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government: "My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers; and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used; that it shall be kept as a sacred memento of the past..." Ironic from a man who attended United Confederate Veterans reunions where that flag was prominently displayed along with the US flag. At least you did find something more specific....even if it also proves to be a red herring. Davis could have referred to the Confederate National Colors rather than the battle flags, or to the actual banners that were surrendered, not the copies made since the end of the war. Also, nobody on our side claims the battle flag to be a symbol of another country. Merely a living symbol of heredity and identity no different than the tri-colors of the French people - a sacred momento. So in that regard, Davis' words are well kept.
–––––––––––––––
"I am more than honest about what the war was about." - And yet, your whole mission in the threads was to simply disagree with everything I said, that you apparently agree with. We have philosophical differences, not so much historical. But, that isn't the way you presented yourself. Again, your only mission was to bait me. More like draw you out of your shell and get you to open up. I think I succeeded there, wouldn't you?
–––––––––––––––
"Nor have I made any claim on YouTube on the page this discussion started out on that has anything to do with the reasons for the war. That has been acknowledged but you seem to be unable to move past it." - You never gave me anything to move past. Only childish name-calling. No evidence of anything. I just did right now.
–––––––––––––––
"Finally sir, I do not believe that you have even tried to approach this subject with the intention of having an honest, unifying discussion." - I disagree. Not to sound childish but I disagree with your disagreement. I was the only one being honest. Then I pity you more. Because a "discussion" wasn't being had. You never intended on a discussion. As everyone can see in each thread, I am the one giving all of the evidence. I am the one trying to advance the conversation by asking you for your evidence. Which I gave you but you refused to acknowledge. I also see that someone has erased some of my posts. Very mature.

Even when you tried to claim some sort of victory (as though this were some competition), I asked when that happened. Your response: Oh, it's coming...And it came.
–––––––––––––––
"I believe you came to this discussion with the intention of imposing your view on me, trying - and failing - to find holes in my common sense views, and being an asshole when you ended up getting your own fallacies in logic thrown back at you." - This is incredibly laughable. Yes it was....oh wait, you aren't agreeing with me here. There were no views of yours to find holes in. You didn't provide any views. Only that you disagreed with me in your childish way. Wow so much repetition here, maybe I should have cut some of this out. But no, this is an uncensored blog. If you wish to make yourself look like a Donald Trump wannabe, then go ahead.
–––––––––––––––
"So here is my point-by-point response to the tedious Mr. Scott Ledridge... Well folks, there you have it." - Are you trying to present this as you made these comments on the YouTube thread? For clarity here, you didn't. Your voluminous rambling here is nothing like your troll-baiting on YouTube. I will let those who check out the link make their own minds up on that. That is what this blog is about, individuals making up their own minds and thinking for themselves.
–––––––––––––––
As someone that likes to point the finger, you tried to hold my feet to the fire for the way some people treat Edgerton. What about you? I did everything I could to defend Mr. Edgerton from those who called him hateful names, and was proud to do it. Where are your corrections against the people that want to say taxation/tariffs were the reason for the secession? They are only partly right, but there was nothing essentially wrong with their statements. Had they flat out said slavery had no role rest assured I would have stepped in and pointed out the error. The SCV holds that belief. You are woefully misinformed if you think that sir. So, do you correct your brethren on this blog? Anywhere? You are free to look. It sure wasn't on display in those YouTube threads. Is it just self-righteous indignation? Or are you as consistent as you say? If you stick around me long enough, you may find out for yourself.
–––––––––––––––
It's unfortunate. Had you been honest and mature in your approach, a deeper conversation could have been had. And yet here we are. But, your only purpose was to bait someone. Admittedly, I fell for it. And we did have a deep meaningful conversation. Maybe we can make a series out of this back and forth, though please try and keep future posts smaller. I do have other topics I have to devote my time to. I do hope you stick around a bit, I haven't been this amused, yet challenged to offer more depth to my words in a very long time. Plus I might even get you to start thinking outside the box. Stranger things have happened. 

Well, there you go folks.

My thanks again to Mr. Ledridge for his comments and my opportunity to respond in kind.

I know that some who agree with him might not consider him the best representative of the Opposition's POV, but I feel he is a perfect example of the kind of mentality that those who seek to defend Confederate heritage and promote True Tolerance face.

His words - particularly his attitudes toward Black Americans that fail to agree with him, speaking of them as if they were "props" or "tokens" - should be chilling to anyone who believes in the ideas of individuality and respect. These attitudes are not Southern....hell, they ain't even America. 

Yet, I will give Mr. Ledridge credit for courage. Unlike a number of anti-Confederate heritage reactionaries and alleged "history bloggers" that I have dealt with over the years, this individual did have enough courage in his convictions to come here to this forum and debate me like a man.

For that alone, if nothing else, Mr. Ledridge has earned my respect.

3 comments:

  1. Ledridge is an ignorant fool playing the usual, worn out card "OMG the Confederates were traitors to the US!" Here's his words

    >>... and it does represent a failed rebellion that took up arms against this country's army.<<

    Now let's set the US-Way-Back machine to stun with words from a founding document that starts off with... Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States of...

    Time to add in some Wiki-Wording... >>The Articles of Confederation... Establishes the name of the confederation with these words: "The stile of this confederacy shall be 'The United States of America.'" ... Asserts the sovereignty of each state... "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated."

    Toss in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution and you can get the bigger picture.

    When a War "between the States of..." broke out both teams went back to the original Articles to come up with their War Names... Confederacy and Union 'cuz the US was a Confederacy where each State was a sovereign government and each State retained it's rights to LEAVE the union... a constitutionally protected right.

    Confederates didn't "take up arms against this country's army." It wasn't possible for them to do so. The North had abandoned founding principles and was no longer, in a legal sense, a part of the Confederacy called the 'United States'.

    The South wanted to be left alone, with the original agreements of the US Confederacy and Constitution in tact. The US was and still is a Confederated Constitutional Republic. Confederates never rebelled against the US, they fought for it.

    That's why Confederates are the most pro-US people on the planet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their descendants still are more pro-American and patriotic for the most part as well.

      Delete
    2. I just simplify it all by calling Ancestors and their Descendants the Confederates. There are shared beliefs passed down through the generations, it's all very pro-US...

      but ya gotta go back to the original Founding documents to figure out the undeniable truth.

      Delete