Confederate Flag Not What You May Think


There were numerous Confederate Battle Flags, not just the Stars and Bars

On This Date in History: For the past 30 years or so, during the political season a certain topic seems to come up.  In particular, whenever there is an election in South Carolina, it seems as if the old flag controversy has raises its head again. Thing is, the flag that is in question was not the real flag or at least not the one adopted by the Confederate Congress.  There are various claims regarding the Confederate flag history, with at list one source suggesting the Confederate Congress neglected to officially pass a flag act.  Nevertheless, there is not much dispute that the original flag looked the one above with 7 stars for the first seven Confederate states. But commanders on the battlefield complained that it looked like the Union’s Stars and Stripes and it was difficult to determine friend from foe at distances. They changed it a couple of times by putting what would be a square “stars and bars” shape in the corner of a white field and then the same design only with a red vertical bar on the right end.  It was suggested that commanders in the field adopt their own battle flag.   However, some histories suggest that in fact, there were different flags adoped officially during the days of the Confederacy.  None of them though feature the familiar rectangular flag.  The original flag did not come into existence until March 1861 and on this date in 1861, the state of Louisiana seceded from the union, adding what would be the 6th star to the soon to be adopted flag.

Army of Northern Virginia Flag was square, not rectangular

The Army of Northern Virginia had used the common “stars and bars” for quite some time though it was a square, not rectangular flag. In fact, the proper name of the flag is the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. I suppose since that was the army of Robert E. Lee and is so prominent in remedial history and because it was associated with arguably the South’s best or at least best known general, it became dominant in lore.  If you wanted to find a retangular flag with the stars and bars, you would have to head to the high seas.  See, the Confederate navy had a couple of flags. One was a square blue field with a circle of 7 stars. Then it was a flag similar to the Army of Northern Virginia flag except it featured a different shade of blue and it was rectangular and not the square used by General Lee’s army. The flag over time ended up as what is now thought to be the Confederate flag, or the “stars and bars.”  It has the design and color of the Army of Northern Virginia, but the shape of the second naval flag.  However, by the middle years of the war, the success of Lee’s army became apparent and several armies of the south changed their battle flags to look like that of the Army of Northern Virginia.    But, again, it was supposed to be square.  The Army of Tennessee though ended up with a rectangular flag not by design, but mistake.  A square was ordered but a rectangle was delivered.

1896 Frank Leslie depiction of the capture of a Confederate Flag in 1862; notice it is NOT the Stars and Bars

So, one can only conclude that the flag that is the center of controversy was not really the flag of the Confederacy but instead was the battle flag of Robert E. Lee’s army which over the course of the war was adopted by other armies in some form.   Depending on which battle at which time of a re-enactment,  there are probably many movies out there that are inaccurate regarding the flag, though is not surprising considering how much of history hollywood misrepresents.  In many battles portrayed on film, a completely different flag was really used and the one used that is most similar was  more often a square not a rectangle. The flag has 13 stars but there were really only 11 states in the Confederacy. They added the other two to try and claim Kentucky and Missouri but claims and truth are often at odds because both “border states” remained with the nation as the Kentucky legislature even invited the Union to send troops to fend off invading rebels.  This is how US Grant ends up with early victories in the western part of the state and how the Union Army of the Ohio came to be based in Louisville. And finally, ironically, the Confederate Congress adopted the flag design above specifically because it did resemble the Stars and Stripes which was the exact reason why military leaders found the flag worthless on the battlefield.  That would not be the first time that a Congress and military butted heads.   I suspect that the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia became the de-facto Confederate Flag in popular culture came about due to its use in D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation, which itself was an abhorent obfuscation of history. 

Photo of Fort Sumter After Confederate Occupation; Note the Flag is NOT the Stars and Bars

So, don’t believe the hype. The flag that has become such a controversial symbol, was not in wide use  until after the war.  I think that the number of flags used is more symbolic of disorder in the Confederacy and they had more immediate concerns than a flag.    As for the controversy regarding the display of the flag, it’s really kinda silly.  I mean the Confederacy is gone and was never recognized by the United States or almost anyone else.  Some say its just represents heritage.  Heritage of what?  Secession?  Oh..what a great thing to remember.  Then there are those who say it represents slavery.  It seems a bit far fetched to me but, if that is what some think, then so be it.  I suppose one might say that since it was the battle flag used by the side that supported slavery, then..well..okay.  But, in my mind, the flag has no business any place except maybe a museum.  The reason is that it was a battle flag.  It’s use was intended to aid the members of those in arms against the Union.  To me, it represents armed insurrection against the nation.    That is not a heritage I think should be celebrated.

6 Z GFS calls for 4-6 inches of snow Friday

12Z NAM calls for No Snow

Weather Bottom Line:  Monday night about midnight it was still around 35 degrees.  That meant that all precipitation that fell was melting, leaving wet roads.    As the overnight wore on, by 5 am we dropped below freezing.   We got between a quarter and a half inch of snow on the ground but, more importantly, those wet roads froze making for a difficult morning drive.  If we get above freezing on Tuesday, it won’t be by much.  We will get a break on Wednesday with highs near 40 or maybe a couple of degrees higher. Then comes our storm system.  Right now, the only apparent continuity in the modeling data is that the critical thickness lines will be down to about the southern Tennesee border.  That should be far enough away to limit the potential for ice, though I wouldnt totally rule it out at  this time.   The biggest contradiction comes in the moisture.  The NAM has the low tracking so far south that the precip line is south of Louisville and it calls for no snow at all.  The other models are more bullish to varying degrees. The long range models want to dump a fairly significant amount of snow on our area with the Canadian model even looking suspiciously like some decent ice early on.  I would tend to think that the NAM is wrong in saying no snow at all but beyond that, the data is just too muddled and the the critical thickness lines so close to the area that any minor variation  can cause an enormous difference in the type of precipitation and the degree of that precipitation.  At this point, I would plan on a potential winter storm for the last part of the week that may create some travel issues.  Friday seems to be the day.  Then, look for a cold weekend.  I would not expect temperatures back above freezing until early next week.

21 Responses

  1. Great post. I didn’t know the truth about the “Stars and Bars”. It’s supposed to be square and not rectangular. I definitely didn’t know that.

    So, is Friday’s snow going to be the Big One?

  2. Been wondering where you’ve been. I’ve tried several topics to smoke you out. Little did I know that the old confederate flag controversy would do the trick. It’s really a tough call. You will get less than me. Other than that, I’m not real sure. I’d say possible, not probable for double digits and possible not probable for nothing at all. I’ll guess 3-4 inches maybe around here…1-2 around you. But, that is not a hard core speculation. In fact, I have a bit of fear of an icing situation for awhile at least to start. Again, possible but not probable…in fact…I don’t even think that scenario shows up in any modeling…but I could see it. I do think that, if we get snow, lows Saturday night near zero not too far fetched.. snow on teh ground..no wind, no clouds…that will do it.

  3. We were having a revival at our church last week so that occupied my thoughts and my time last week. I read back to catch up though!

    Seems like the models are starting to trend south now. I guess we’ll see what they’re saying later tomorrow. I sure hope that your icing fears are not realized–I’ve had enough of that to last me a long, long time, thank you!

  4. On the 11pm broadcast, Monday, Jan. 25, WAVE-3 focused on potential snowfall (little to none) and possible falling temps overnight. No attention was directed to what the combination of lower temperatures (forecast: 29F), light snow/precip and wet, untreated roads might produce–namely, ice! Being a transplanted yankee, I had my concerns. They were amply confirmed Tuesday morning not only by me but thousands of others in the metro on our way to work and school.

    Fast forward to Tuesday night, and WAVE-3’s Kevin Harned’s recap of the day’s weather. He reveals that the National Weather Service revisited its forecasts twice in the overnight-at 2AM and 5AM. At 5AM, a winter weather advisory was issued calling for icy roads in light of subfreezing temperatures. Apparently, NWS notified Ky. DOT, Louisville Metro, and Jefferson County Public Schools at this time. Nevertheless, roads remained untreated (except for certain overpasses and bridges) and school was to start at the regular time. Amazing!

    300 motorist collisions, 13 school bus wrecks, and one accident-related death later, school and government officials stood in front of news cameras to publicly defend their decisions. It’s this sort of official indifference toward the welfare of the taxpaying public that drives the average citizen absolutely irate!

    You were sorely missed by those of us watching the network weather forecasts Monday night. We want you back on the air!

  5. That is quite kind of you. I did not know that about when the winter weather advisory was issued…twas snoozing…this next snow chance will be interesting to see how it shakes out. Not an easy forecast.

  6. Indeed. Seems many tv folks are hedging with the 1-4″ forecast. Fortunately, it appears the snow will not hit until the weekend is more or less underway, so if they’re wrong, no one will much care. I myself would also prefer more snow to less, but with all the ice in the Panhadle and Oklahoma, I wonder if we will be visited yet again by the dreaded “wintry mix”.

    Enjoyed your meteorological and hydrological analysis of the 1937 Flood. So devastating, it almost seems surreal.

  7. I got flack for showing the horse hanging in the tree before. I didn’t put it on the top this time but that probably costs me page views since its so attention grabbing. Hey, the 00Z model runs are showing almost nothing as far as snow and it makes sense given what is actually going on. I outlined it somewhat in the next post…the one with the 3 stooges on top. I tend to believe we won’t get much and it will be a weird situation where Louisville has a dusting but Bowling Green gets 6 inches or so.

  8. HELLO! IN REGARDS TO THE CONFEDERATE FLAG ARTICLE. THE SOUTH DID NOT TAKE UP ARM AGAINSED THE UNION OR NORTHERN STATES, THE NORTHERN STATES TOOK UP ARM AGAINSED THE SOUTHERN STATES. THE NORTH INVADED THE SOUTH. YOU SHOULD DO SOME RESEARCH INTO THE WORLD BANKS IN ORDER TO SEE WHY THE SOUTH HAD TO RELUCTANTLY LEAVE THE UNION. EVER HERE OF THE TARIFFS OF 1860?, MOST PEOPLE HAVE NOT BUT IF THEY DID IT WOULD FURTHER THEIR UNDERSTANDING WHY THE THE SOUTH LEFT. PRESIDENT LINCOLN WAS NOT AS STRONGLY AGAINSED SLAVERY AS YOU MAY THINK AND FREED NO SLAVES WITH HIS EMANSIPATION PROCLAMATION, IT WAS A POLITICAL MOVE. THE PROCLAMATION FREED ONLY SLAVES IN THE CONFEDERACY, NOT IN THE UNION STATES OR WHERE UNION TROOPS WERE OCCUPYING SOUTHERN SOIL. OF COURSE FREEING SLAVES IN THE CONFEDERACY MAKES NO SENSE AS IT WAS UNINFORCIBLE. IT IS TOO BAD PRESIDENT HARRY S TRUMAN IS NOT ALIVE TODAY, AS A MEMBER OF THE SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS HE COULD EXPLAIN TO HIS FELLOW AMERICANS THE TRUE MEANING OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAGS. HE WOULD, AND DID, ALSO DEFEND FORCEFULLY GEN. ROBERT E. LEE. GENERAL, AND LATER PRESIDENT EISENHOWER ALWAY HAD A PICTURE OF ROBERT E. LEE IN HIS OFFICE/HEDQUARTERS AND REFUSED TO TAKE IT DOWN. IT SEEM THESE TWO GREAT MEN, VERY MUCH AMERICAN OF COURSE, ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT THE CAUSE OF THE CONFEDERACY WAS REALLY THE CAUSE OF THE NATION AS A WHOLE, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, RESTRAINED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND STATES RIGHTS. YOU DID A GOOD JOB IN EXPLAINING THE HISTORY OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAGS, IT CAN BE CONFUSING SO I AM GLAD YOU HAVE EDUCATED YOUR READERS ON THIS MATTER. I HOPE I HAVE PUT SOME LIGHT ON THIS MATTER. WITH THE 150 YEAR ANNIV. OF THE CONFLICT COMING UP SOON IT IS GOOD WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT. REMEMBER, RACIST GROUPS DO INDEED FLY THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG, BUT THEY ALSO FLY THE AMERICAN FLAG AND DISPLAY THE CHRISTIAN CROSS, THEY HAVE HIJACKED ALL OF THEM. IF YOU WERE TO CONTACT THE SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS YOU WILL FIND THAT THEIR APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP REQUIRES THAT YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF ANY RACIST GROUP SUCH AS THE KKK OR WHAT HAVE YOU. PLEASE CONTACT THE ORGANIZATION AND POSSIBLY MEET WITH ONE OF THE LEADERS FOR A FURTHER UNDERSTANDING OF THE THE ORGANIZATION AND THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES AND WHY IT WAS SO UNNEEDED. HOPE YOU ARE HAVING A GOOD YEAR, THANKS FOR READING MY LETTER. TOM IN MICHIGAN.

  9. Thanx for your comments. I think it’s mainly nonsense and I don’t appreciate your unsubstantiated condescending tone. You provide zero support of your statements. Here is a fact for you: Lincoln tried to supply Fort Sumnter…a Federal fort. South Carolina fired on them. Sorry..no “invasion” as in the first place it was federal property, not that of the state of South Carolina. Later, when Kentucky declared neutrality, it was the armed forces of the Confederacy that invaded the sovereign territory of the neutral state. Please, don’t lecture me. I’ve already stated that, in my view, the Confederate Battle flag is a symbol of armed insurrection against the nation. But, again, I have a policy of publishing most comments and we’ll let others determine the veracity or worth. I never understand the need for Confederate apologists except they seem to get caught up in “Lost Cause” histories.

  10. HELLO! I WAS NOT LECTURING, SIMPLY CONVERSING, NOT TRY ING TO SHOVE ANYTHING DOWN ANYONES THROAT. FORT SUMTER WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF A HARBOR AND WAS THREATENING SOUTHERN SHIPS IF THEY TRIED TO COME IN. ALSO, DID YOU KNOW IT WAS A TAX COLLECTION FORT? THEY ASKED THE UNION MEN TO LEAVE AS THE SOUTH WAS THREATENED BY STATEMENT FROM LINCOLN THAT HE WOULD NOT LET THE SOUTH LEAVE. HAVE YOU READ ”THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT?” THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN THE NORTH WERE PUT IN JAIL FOR SPEAKING AGAINSED THE INVASION OF THEIR COUNTRYMEN. COUNTLESS NEWSPAPERS WERE SHUT DOWN AND THEIR EDITORS JAILED FOR REVEALING THE TRUE CAUSES OF THE WAR READ ”LINCOLNS WRATH” OR ” THE REAL LINCOLN” OR ”THE LINCOLN MYTH” I AM NOT AN APOLIGIST FOR THE SOUTH, I JUST DO NOT THINK THE NORTH SHOULD HAVE ATTACKED THE SOUTH AND ITS PEOPLES MOST OF WHOM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY. READ WHAT LINCOLN SAID IN 1848 ABOUT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO REPLACE THEIR GOVERNMENT IF NEEDED INCLUDINGTHE RIGHT OF ”ANY PORTION OF SUCH PEOPLE” IN THE AREAS THEY INHABIT. GEN. GRANT SAID IF HE THOUGHT THE WAR WAS ABOUT SLAVERY ”HE WOULD TURN IN HIS SWORD” MANY UNION GENERALS ORDERED THEIR MEN TO RETURN SLAVES TO THEIR OWNERS AS UNION FORCES WERE INVADING THE SOUTH. WHEN WE BROKE FROM ENGLAND WE WERE A SLAVE COUNTRY, SHOULD WE HAVE NOT BROKEN AWAY BECAUSE WE WERE NOT WORTHY OF IT? AFTER ALL, OUR PRESIDENT WASHINGTON HAD MANY MANY SLAVES, AS DID A LOT OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS. TOO BAD PRES. HARRY TRUMAN IS NOT ALIVE, AS A MEMBER OF THE SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS AND ONE OF OUR BEST PRESIDENTS I BELIEVE HE COULD SET YOU STRAIGHT ON THE REASONS FOR THE WAR. DID YOU KNOW DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER ALWAYS HAD A PICTURE OF ROBERT E LEE IN HIS OFFICE? BOTH THESE MEN WERE PATRIOTIC AMERICANS BUT UNDERSTOOD THE DANGERS OF TOO POWERFUL OF A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. REMEMBER WHAT EISENHOWER SAID? ”BEWARE OF THE MILIITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX” SORRY TO GO ON SO MUCH. YOU , I BELIEVE, ARE A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN AS I AM BUT WE DISAGREE ON THIS ISSUE. I AM SURE THERE ARE MANY THINGS WE PROBABLY AGREE ON. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME, GOOD LUCK IN THESE TROUBLED TIMES. TOM JANTZ

  11. I respectfully disagree. The American Revolution was a war for independence, not a war so we could own slaves. The South fired the first shots. The Union attacked no one. The Union simply was reprovisioning the forts in South Carolina and the Florida panhandle. No agression. It was federal property and an armed insurrection took place which, in my view is what the Confederate Battle Flag stands for and why it should not be flown. While the flag does not represent slavery, in my opinion, the war was over slavery. If you try to say it was states rights, you have to consider that no one took away any states rights to slavery. But, the southerners thought that it would die so they seceded and attacked the federals. Since they were fighting for their right to own slaves, the war was over slavery. Period. That “states rights” nonsense is part of the “Lost Cause” mythology created by Southern apologists after the war. I have written and read Grant’s memoirs and numerous Grant biographies by reputuable scholars and I do not recall Hiram U. (Ulysses S.) Grant say any such thing.

    I do appreciate your comments.

  12. HELLO AGAIN! WE WILL HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THE CIVIL WAR. I THINK IT IS GOOD TO DEBATE THE CIVIL WAR AND ITS CAUSES. THIS COUNTRY WAS SET UP TO HAVE STATES WITHIN A COUNTRY SO WE WOULD NOT FAIL LIKE SO MANY OTHER COUNTRYS THAT ABUSE THEIR CITIZENS. LET ME BE CLEAR, ENDING SLAVERY WAS VERY IMPORTANT, SCREW ANYONE WHO JUSTIFIES SLAVERY. I DO NOT BELIEVE ,AFTER MUCH STUDY ,THAT AMERICANS IN GENERAL WOULD GO TO WAR TO FREE SLAVES AT THE TIME OF THE CIVIL WAR. IT IS TOO BAD THAT THE NORTH, IN ORDER TO END SLAVERY, JUST SIMPLY REFUSED TO PURCHASE COTTON AND OTHER CROPS FROM THE SOUTH. ANYWAY, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND PLEASE DO NOT THINK I WAS BEING ARGUEMATIVE OR MEAN TO YOU FOR HAVING ANOTHER OPINION, YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY WELL READ AND CARE DEEPLY, AS I DO, ABOUT THIS COUNTRY. SINCERELY, TOMJANTZ, MICH.

  13. The only thing that I would suggest is to be careful regarding supposed quotes and sources. Especially the older sources are relegated to the “Lost Cause” sentiments that were pushed for many years after the war by Southern apologists. The Civil War was interesting in that, typically, the winner gets to write the history but in that case, northerners had better things to do and southerners largely wrote the history to try and explain their position. That is where we come up with the “states rights” nonsense and the elevation of Robert E. Lee to mythical status. By the late 1960’s scholars were re-examining the history and found quite a few flaws and much of what had been accepted has been discredited. From my perspective, I can make a great argument that Grant was a 20th century man living in the 19th century and Lee was an 18th century man living in the 19th century which is why America still utilizes the Grantonian tactics and the Jomini tactics of Lee have been left on the ash heep of history. As I mentioned, I’ve read many biographies and Grant’s Memoirs many times and find nothing such as the sentiment that you noted. In fact, Grant had a slave and freed him well before the Civil War and at a time when he could have used the $1500 the man would have brought in a sale but instead he simply set him free. From the biography by noted historian William S. McFeely attributed to Grant: “In all this I can but see the doom of slavery. The North do not want nor will they wantm to interfere with the institution. But they will refuse for all time to give it protection unless the South shall return to their allegiance…” He also said of Virginia that it should be made “to bear a heavy portion of the burden of the War for her guilt.” Clearly, Ulysses S Grant had no problem fighting a war that he knew was about slavery and would doom slavery. I just caution regarding statements supported by limited substance. I do appreciate your participation though and feel free to chime in on any topic at any time.

  14. Just chiming in, in regards to the debate over Fort Sumter the bottom line is this: When South Carolina seceded she acted on her own, declaring herself Independent, this would make her a SOVERIGN [ please excuse my spelling ] Nation, and therefore Fort Sumter would not be FEDERAL property but rightfully South Carolina property[beings that Fort Sumter is in Charleston horbor] futhermore Major Andersons troops were ASKED to simply LEAVE and they did not. What must be understood is this, once South Carolina seceded Andersons troops Federal or not were viewed as tresspassers on the soil of the Soverign state of the Republic of South Carolina. Andersons men were FOR-IN [please excuse my spelling] troops no longer DUTY bound to Fort Sumter and therefore for, any act of RESISTANCE would be understood as an ACT OF DEFIANCE or taken as an ACT of WAR, and when lincoln attempted to send REPROVISIONS to Andersons this was understood by the Confederate Gov and the South Carolina gov as lincolns first ACT of WAR.[note:the FIRST ACT does not always require the fireing of cannon or rifle to be an ACT of or DECLARATION of WAR] one last thing the flag flying over Fort Sumter IS THE STARS AND BARS. The other flag commonly refered to as the stars and bars is the BATTLEFLAG [square or rectangle] this was the main flag we carried into battle however we did carry all the confederate flags in battle except the 3rd National witch was adopted in march of 65, too late to be made ava for the armies. This is just an FYI message. And remember,” Tyranny like Hell is not easly conquered,the harder the fight the more glorious the triumph”. DEO VINDICE

  15. While I appreciate your submission, I find it full of holes. It was a Federal Fort…Federal property. The position that Lincoln took was that no state could secede; the Union was not something that one could simply walk away from. After the war, you do not hear the US as being referred to as a Union any longer but instead a nation. I believe S. Carolina had made such a threat during Andrew Jackson’s administration and he too was ready to form an army and force the state to remain. Interestingly, the issue was over nullification, which is the idea that a state can simply ignore a Federal Law by unilaterally declaring it unconstitutional or exercising some phantom states rights to ignore whatever they wish under the guise of exercising their sovereignty. Today, some Republicans are trying that same argument with regard to the health care bill. It didn’t work with the Democrats in the early 19th century and it won’t work with Republicans in the early 21st century. A state simply making a declaration does not make it so. As for the battleflag, I’ve outlined the history and you are correct, it was the battleflag and it was the adoption initially of the Army of Northern VA.

  16. There seems to be a different explanation about the “Stars and Bars”:

    “At the time, there was still feelings of allegiance to the original US flag, and popular opinion was lining up in support of a flag that was similar to the familiar United States flag. Such a flag was created and proposed. […] The proposed flag resembled the United States flag, but replaced the “stripes” with 3 “bars”. The flag had 7 stars, one for each state that was part of the confederacy at the time. This flag was dubbed the “Stars and Bars”. The United States flag had been known as the “Stars and Stripes”. This flag had replaced the stripes with bars, so it was logical to call it the “Stars and Bars”. Note that today people often refer to the Confederate battle flag […] as the “Stars and Bars”. Strictly speaking, this is not a correct description of the Confederate battle flag.

    More to read: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Confederate_Flag.htm

  17. Hello from Michigan, Tom Jantz here again. In regards to Fort Sumter and the beginning of the war. The explanation by the North that the American fleet was simply trying to bring supplies to the Union men at the Fort is not true. The men there got food and supplies by puchasing them in Charelston. The Confederates had no desire to starve the Union soldiers. There was a large, approx.34 ships of misc. sizes, that were full of hundreds of troops and cannons and mortors of various caliber. Two large tugs were with the fleet to tow the large troop laden ships ashore for an invasion of Charelston in an attempt to end the war quickly. Storm interupted the invasion and kept most of the ships back as they were on the horizon I believe. I know this is something that goes againsed what most people believe but lets remember that naval incidents have been used before to justify military action such as the Gulf of Tonkin, USS Main, The Lousitania {a disguised military supply ship] and so forth. I would be interested in anyone reading this to get back to me on this specific subject. I hope everyone has seen “The Conspiritor”, it was well done and clearly shows that our constitution was compremised in a big way by trying a civilian in a military court such as what was done during the Civil War to countless northerners who were againsed the war. Thanks Symon for your computer site and letting me get my 2 cents in! Hope all is well with you these days! Tom Jantz

  18. Tom, whare your sources for your claim? Sounds like “lost cause” rhetoric to me. Thx for writing.

  19. Symon. Tom here again, thanks for getting back to me. You asked for my sources regarding the Fort Sumter attack. There is a web site, The Fort Sumter incident scv674.org. This seems to be the best site for this info. The 150 year anniv. of the war has got me even more interested in the war. My wife and I went to visit my sister and her family in Athens, Georgia about an hour east of Atlanta. We went to the Atlanta Civil War museum and cyclorama. Not sure if you live close by but if you get near there You really must go. Look it up on the internet! Also went to Stone Mountan, the site of the Confederate carving on the side of a mountan. We saw “The Conspiritor” down there as I think I told you. Not too many people seem to have seen it. I wish more Americans were like you and I in that they would take an interest in history and study and debate it. The misc. info you post is very interesting, right up my alley! Thanks for letting me post, hope all is well with you in these troubled times. Tom Jantz, Michigan

  20. I appreciate your contributions and well wishes. From an academic standpoint, I can tell you that the internet is a terrible source for information. There is generally no fact checking or editing. Publishers often fill that role and typically, academic journals are best because there is a peer review process (something that the initial IPCC Global Warming report did not have). I have never heard your assertion before. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t hold water, just I’ve never run across it. My cousin is a huge Southern apologist and Lost Cause advocate,though he wouldn’t call it that. In any event, he has never heard of what you suggest either….and I would wager if there was any validiity, then he would at least lend some support. So, I’m afraid I’m still in the the skeptical column. But, thanks again.

  21. Symon. Excellent point about the internet. There is so much bull out there I sometimes find myselfe almost giving up on finding the truth and sound facts. Books themselves are full of mis-information also. I remember in the movie ” Saving Private Ryon” Gen. Marshal read the “Mrs. Bixby letter” I was familiar with this letter and thought it was moving when read in the movie. A couple years later I researched the letter and found there is plenty of evidence that one of Lincolns secretarys wrote it, not Lincoln. Also, Mrs. Bixby hated Lincoln as she was a southern sympothiser and her 5 sons were not all killed. I believe she burned the letter when she recieved it but once again, is that accurate? One was a deserter I believe. “Profiles in Courage” I believe was not written by Pres. Kennedy acording to my research and there is plenty of evidence supporting it. I am by the way, an admirerer of Pres. Kennedy in many but not all ways. I think he was a Founding Father type Conservative, not the fraud conservatives most republicans are today. When Hillary Clinton was asked if she wrote ” It takes a Village” by a TV reporter she was very evasive. I believe she only consulted the auther near I can figure. My point is that I hope you do not believe that I believe everything I read. I really believe very little of what I read or hear. The commandment “Though shalt not bear false witness” seems to have been forgotten by many people as so many people have suffered terrible humiliation and hardship from people who lie about them or pass on lies that they think are the truth. I have had plenty of lies told about me and have suffered because of it so it is a touchy subject for me. Many people today think that Mr. Rogers” [the guy on the kids show] was a US Marine sniper in Vietnam with 150 kills to his credit. This is comepletely false and the rumor started on a talk show as a joke. I would be interested to know what you think of Ron Paul and his son Rand. I am very much in favor of Ron Paul becoming President and perhaps his son Rand Vice President. I know of nobody else I would like to see as President and Vice President. My views mirror both these men very closely. Anyway. thanks again for getting back to me. I think everyone can use a reminder now and then to not believe everything thats printed or said so thank you for that also Symon! Sincerely, Tom Jantz

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: