Jump to content

Talk:Flags of the Confederate States of America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DGGenuine (talk | contribs) at 02:25, 26 March 2018 (Respond to Bubba73). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Whitewashing the Flag's Racist History

Since Topcat777 did not take kindly to my correction of an edit he had made in December without explanation, while lecturing me for doing the same, I may as well settle this for the record. All the sources for Beauregard's creating the Stainless Banner in Topcat777's edit originate with a letter where he said, "Why change our battle flag, consecrated by the best blood of our country on so many battle fields? A good design for the national flag would be the present battle flag as a Union Jack, and the rest all white or all blue." Here's the problem. The letter was dated April 24th, 1863.

Meanwhile, William Tappan Thompson published an editorial that said, "Our idea is simply to combine the present battle-flag with a pure white standard sheet; our Southern Cross, blue on a red field, to take the place on the white flag that is occupied by the blue union in the old United States flag, or the St. George’s cross in the British flag. As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause." This editorial was dated April 23rd, 1863. https://books.google.com/books?id=vuRCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA415#v=onepage&q&f=false

So, unless we're suggesting Thompson time-traveled forward, stole Beauregard's idea, and then traveled back to lay claim to the design of the Stainless Banner, I see no reason to suggest Beauregard was the original designer of the Stainless Banner and not Thompson. According to "Our Flag: Origin and Progress of the Flag of the United States of America, with an Introductory Account of the Symbols, Standards, Banners and Flags of Ancient and Modern Nations" by George Henry Preble, Thompson had access to Confederate flag committee meetings and did have an assistant named William Ross Postell make a colored drawing of the flag to demonstrate the design's beauty to the Confederate Congress. On May 4th, Thompson wrote the following tutorial outright calling it his design:

"We are pleased to learn by our dispatch from Richmond that congress has had the good taste to adopt for the flag of the confederacy, the battle flag on a plain white field in lieu of the blue and white bars proposed by the senate. The flag as adopted is precisely the same as that suggested by us a short sime since, and is, in our opinion, much more beautiful and appropriate than either the red and white bars or the white field and blue bar as first adopted by the senate. As a national emblem it is significant of our higher cause the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals." https://books.google.com/books?id=vuRCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA418#v=onepage&q&f=false

EricSpokane (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ES: "All the sources for Beauregard's creating the Stainless Banner in Topcat777's edit originate with a letter....The letter was dated April 24th, 1863."
Yes, the Beauregard letter was to a member of the Confederate Congress. Do you have any communication from Thompson to the Confederate Congress?
ES: "Meanwhile, William Tappan Thompson published an editorial....dated April 23rd, 1863."
What got to Richmond faster? A newspaper published in Savannah or a letter written from Charleston? Or are you claiming that Beauregard got his idea ("white or blue" field) from Thompson ("white field")?
ES: "Thompson had access to Confederate flag committee meetings"
Source? (Wasn't he in Savannah publishing a newspaper?) In Thompson's letter to Preble, he mis-identified the chairman of the flag committee as Hartridge (Our Flag: Origin and Progress of the Flag of the United States-see p. 415). The flag and seal committee was composed of Boteler, Smith and Gray from the House and Semmes, Orr and Preston (later replaced by Wigfall) from the Senate.
Who during the war gave Thompson credit for designing the flag (other than Thompson)?
What modern day historian gives Thompson credit for designing the flag?
John Coski (Museum of the Confederacy) and Robert Bonner (Professor of History, Dartmouth) have written several books and articles on the history of the various Confederate flags. Both are aware of Mr. Thompson, but neither give him credit for designing the Second National flag. Why should Wikipedia?
-Topcat777 18:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, as a library director of the Museum of the Confederacy, I don't imagine John Coski would put that detail in his book. Actually, on Page 18 of Coski's book, when he brings up Thompson's editorial, he writes, "This was a rare, perhaps unique, overt wartime linkage of the flag to white supremacy." Essentially, he skipped around the issue by painting the link between the Confederacy and white supremacy as an anomaly. I don't want to paint an overly broad brush over historians such as Robert Bonner and John Coski that happen to be from the South and accuse them of furthering some Dunning School-esque perspective, but even if not actively trying to paint Confederate history as a clean affair, the omission of certain details does suggest to me a subtle interest in keeping the flag's history clean, much like someone with a username such as Border Ruffian. Speaking of which, who am I speaking to? The response I am replying to initially had BorderRuffian in the signature and that has now been changed to Topcat777 while I was typing up my response. Or are Topcat777 and BorderRuffian one and the same person?
Second of all, it's only 110 miles between Savannah and Charleston. Even in the 1860s, it wasn't a far distance, and there was a | railway between Charleston and Savannah that would have taken a prompt train two hours or up to four hours, at most, to travel. It is absolutely plausible for Thompson's editorial or word of it to have traveled quite far in the course of a few hours, let alone over one whole day by the time Beauregard wrote his letter. I haven't done much looking into rail travel from Savannah to Richmond in the 1860s and Page 415 of Preble's book says Thompson's editorial was "republished with approval by the Richmond papers" but doesn't give exact dates apart from "about the time the vote was taken in the house on the flag, but after the senate had adopted a white flag with a broad blue bar in its centre." On Page 417, Preble says Thompson received a dispatch on the vote - dang, those dispatches travel fast, don't they? - saying the blue stripe was adopted, and he published an editorial on April 28th objecting to this. Now, this is where we get into the realm of conjecture. All this back-and-forth in the course of less than five days. Perhaps Beauregard's suggestion was the one the Confederate Congress attended to. Perhaps the Congress heeded Thompson's criticism of the blue stripe and went with his suggestion anyway. Either way, Thompson was not an insignificant part of the flag-designing process. Add Beauregard in, if you'd like, but not by excluding Thompson.
Third, Thompson wasn't the one who identified Hartridge as the chairman of the flag committee. Read Page 415 again. That was the author of the book, George Henry Preble, making that identification. Do you have a source for the key people in the flag committee as of 1863? Perhaps Preble made an editorial error that never got corrected. I would cite historians who have made the claim that Thompson designed the Confederate flag, but all their sources go directly back to Preble's book, so I fail to see the point you're making with "modern historians." And if you want to get technical, no one during the war got credit for designing the Stainless Banner. Does the Confederate Congress cite either Beauregard or Thompson as the official designers?
EricSpokane (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ES: "Thompson wasn't the one who identified Hartridge as the chairman of the flag committee. Read Page 415 again. That was the author of the book, George Henry Preble, making that identification."
There's a note at the end of that paragraph which refers to Thompson's letter to Preble (see note at bottom of page). That's where he got his information.
Note 1: Letter Wm. T. Thompson to G. H. P.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vuRCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA415#v=onepage&q=%22julian%20hartridge%22&f=false
ES: "Do you have a source for the key people in the flag committee as of 1863?"
Journal of the Confederate Congress. They were appointed in 1862 and still in that position in 1863.
House:
"Committee on Flag and Seal.--Messrs. Boteler, of Virginia; W. R. Smith, of Alabama, and Gray, of Texas."
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcc&fileName=005/llcc005.db&recNum=23&itemLink=D?hlaw:34:./temp/~ammem_KYWQ::%230050024&linkText=1
Senate:
"Mr. Semmes, Mr. Preston, and Mr. Orr"
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcc&fileName=002/llcc002.db&recNum=20&itemLink=D?hlaw:35:./temp/~ammem_KYWQ::%230020021&linkText=1
One change:
"On motion by Mr. Semmes,
Ordered, That the President pro tempore appoint a member to fill the vacancy in the Committee on Flag and Seal occasioned by the death of the Hon. William Ballard Preston; and Mr. Wigfall was appointed."
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcc&fileName=003/llcc003.db&recNum=22&itemLink=D?hlaw:70:./temp/~ammem_KYWQ::%230030023&linkText=1
ES: "Does the Confederate Congress cite either Beauregard or Thompson as the official designers?"
They don't cite anyone as the official designer.
The Richmond correspondent of the Charleston Mercury (edition of May 5, 1863) and William Parker Snow (author of "Southern Generals" published in 1865) give an unofficial credit to Beauregard.
ES: "If you want to get technical, no one during the war got credit for designing the Stainless Banner."
Then why do you insist on Thompson?
-Topcat777 00:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because Thompson published an editorial championing that exact design on April 23rd, over a full day before Beauregard wrote a letter championing a coincidentally similar design idea, and it's not at all implausible that his suggestions made it to Savannah where Beauregard may have liked the idea, or to Richmond where Congress may have liked the idea, or that his opposition to the blue stripe (particularly with his editorials being circulated in Richmond at that time) may have influenced the Congress' decision on the final design.
That being said, since we'll be going in circles around matters of conjecture due to the fact no one was given official credit, I've offered a different edit as a compromise on the matter where credit for either man is offered up as possibilities without conclusion either way.
EricSpokane (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus

I feel like you both are on the wrong tack here. What have historians and/or vexillologists from the 21st century published about the origins of the flag? The position of our article should reflect the relative weight of their opinions. Synthesizing a position from 150 year old primary and secondary sources isn't our job here, and attempting to do so has made that section a god-awful mess. VQuakr (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the approach of utilizing 21st-century historians is that they also use primary sources like Beauregard's letter and Thompson's editorials and will disregard certain primary sources, depending on their biases. James Loewen is an anti-racist historian, so he has a bias toward Thompson being the creator of the Stainless Banner and makes no mention of Beauregard's letter. Likewise, John Coski is a white Southerner and director of the Museum of the Confederacy, so his dancing around the issue of Thompson's editorials in favor of Beauregard's letter also suggests a bias. Since the evidence was inconclusive either way, I figured the best course would be to acknowledge both possibilities. That being said, I will agree that there are simply too many citations for that section. I'd copied an older edit when I restored Thompson's contribution. I also see a couple citations are repeated more than once. I'm working on trimming those down.
EricSpokane (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

www.cadsofttools.com HIJACKING Open-Source Wikipedia images

I have observed multiple occasions where an open-source image on Wikipedia has been replaced i.e. HIJACKED by one created by www.cadsofttools.com, including here on Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America in the Controversy section. When anyone tries to view the image offline, they see a pop-up named "CAD Image DLL" with this text: "CAD Image DLL unregistered version. Please use CS_Manager to adjust drawing settings and register the plugin," along with, "You can download CS_Manager at..." showing the link to their COMMERCIAL website. When they click on the Cancel, they see a smaller version of the image, along with the notice, "Please purchase CAD Image DLL to remove this text www.cadsofttools.com - Evaluation version - "

I find this to be in violation of Wikipedia's policies, and a horrible affront to their ideal goal of Wikipedia as a "free-content encyclopedia project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and based on a model of openly editable content" as clearly stated on Line 1 of Wikipedia's About page.

As I'm not as proficient with Wikipedia as many of you, I respectfully request your help in reporting this abhorrent and anti-Wikipedia practice to the right pages, persons, or entities having authoritative oversight. Also, anywhere you see such things, please replace it with a high-quality, open-source image, instead, as I will be doing in a moment.

Thank you.Clepsydrae (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is serious. I'm going to link to your message where it might do some good. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried, but failed, to reproduce this problem. At a guess, I suspect this might be an issue with the software on User:Clepsydrae's local computer when opening downloaded image files, as opposed to on Wikipedia's servers. @Clepsydrae:, can you please give me an example of a particular image that causes this behavior? -- The Anome (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest in this, Bubba73 and The Anome. I'm using Irfanview, which opens all image files with impunity, except, of course, the growing prevalence of images created by www.cadsofttools.com. Just to be certain, however, I attempted to open it using paint.net, a high-quality replacement for Adobe Photoshop, and paint.net replied with, "The image type is not recognized, and cannot be opened." Therefore, if you use the View history to see and download the previous image and upload it into Irfanview, you should see the error messages.Clepsydrae (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also unable to reproduce. Please give a specific link or code when asked for an example. Are you referring to https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg which is linked at commons:File:Confederate Rebel Flag.svg? If so then the issue is on your own computer. Many image programs cannot handle SVG files. I don't know IrfanView but http://www.irfanview.com/plugins.htm says there is a plugin called CADImage from CADSoftTools to view SVG files. If IrfanView cooperates with CADSoftTools then I'm not surprised that this includes mention of commercial CADSoftTools software. It isn't an issue for Wikipedia. https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg is a 878-byte readable text file and certainly contains no such message. The entire content of the file is below. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia, "The SVG specification is an open standard developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) since 1999." The key word here is "open standard." The CADSoftTools plug-in requires a fee, yet their graphics are popping up all over the place here on Wikipedia, contrary to the entire purpose and intent of Wikipedia.Clepsydrae (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Clepsydrae: As I told you above, the issue is on your own computer with your own software to display svg images. I showed the entire content of https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg below so you could see for yourself that it has no mention of CAD Image DLL, CS_Manager or cadsofttools. Your browser probably has a view source feature if you want to check for yourself that https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg really contains nothing other than the below code. Other users don't see a message about cadsofttools software when they view the file, unless they happen to have the same or similar software as you. There is nothing Wikipedia can do to prevent you from seeing the message when you display svg files. Only you can prevent that by changing your software or changing which of your software is used to open svg files (maybe you have other software which can do it, try right clicking a svg file). You probably see the same message on any svg file no matter where it's from. If you want to complain to somebody then complain to Irfanview. Complaining to Wikipedia is like complaining that your browsers name or logo appears somewhere when you view Wikipedia articles with the browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" width="950" height="600" viewBox="2.5 0 95 60">
<defs>
	<path id="s" transform="scale(3)" fill="#fff" d="M0,-1 L0.58779,0.80902 L-0.95106,-0.30902 L0.95106,-0.30902 L-0.58779,0.80902z"/>
</defs>
<rect fill="#bf0a30" width="100" height="60"/>
<path stroke="#fff" stroke-width="12" d="M0,0L100,60M0,60L100,0"/>
<path stroke="#002868" stroke-width="9" d="M0,0L100,60M0,60L100,0"/>
<g id="s6">
	<use xlink:href="#s" x="10" y="6"/>
	<use xlink:href="#s" x="23.333" y="14"/>
	<use xlink:href="#s" x="36.667" y="22"/>
	<use xlink:href="#s" x="63.333" y="38"/>
	<use xlink:href="#s" x="76.667" y="46"/>
	<use xlink:href="#s" x="90" y="54"/>
</g>
<use xlink:href="#s6" transform="scale(-1,1)" x="-100"/>
<use xlink:href="#s" x="50" y="30"/>
</svg>
PrimeHunter, I'm afraid you're mixing apples and oranges. I clearly stated in my previous post the problem occurs after the image is downloaded, not while being viewed online. Regardless, I went through considerable effort to obtain the publisher's permission to use the photograph of the flag in it's natural environment on Wikimedia Commons, so I respectfully request you leave it as is. Thank you.Clepsydrae (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Clepsydrae: does this resolve the problem you raised above? -- The Anome (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your trouble, but as I'm not a coder, I'm not even sure why PrimeHunter included the above code.Clepsydrae (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The primary issue involves which flag is a better flag. I always prefer a clear picture of a real flag in its natural setting as opposed to a sterile, static, uninteresting representation. That is indeed sometimes needed, but not when you have license to use a photo of the real thing. Since I went through the trouble to obtain that permission and properly sourced it, as well, I am reverting the flag depiction back to the significantly more aesthetic and quite real photograph. Please do not continue to revert to the far less interesting cardboard version without substantial justification of doing so, and no, "Because I posted it first" doesn't count. Wikipedia is edited by the community. It's not "first to post wins."Clepsydrae (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "Because I did more work than you" either. There are probably articles that could use that photo, in context. But as an illustration of a 1:2 flag, it's not clear from that photo what ratio the flag actually is. In fact, it looks like a 2:3 ratio to me. Nevertheless, there's no clear consensus here for using a substandard image, "real" or not, so please don't add it again without such a consensus. - BilCat (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Rectangular Battle Flag

Noticed that the article repeats the "Rectangular Battle Flag isn't historical" myth. Both the square flag and the rectangle flag were approved by the same person, Johnston, correct? More importantly the rectangle flag was still in use by armies on the field after Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia (with the square flag) surrendered, leaving Johnston's rectangle battle flag as the last hope for the South as the war stop-started and sputtered to an end; hence the flag's popularity with the lost-cause folks. Ikmxx (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"First National Flag" vs. "First National Flag of the Confederacy" or "First Unofficial National Flag"

I am concerned that the phrase "First National Flag" confers an air of legitimacy to the Confederate States of America and its secession from the United States of America. Further, I cannot find any external support that the flag was officially called that (see below.) Instead this flag is called either "Stars and Bars" or "First National Flag of the Confederacy". Since there is some contentious history about the secession of the Confederate States of America from the United States of America, and since that contention remains relevant today with racial violence such as the racially motivated murder by Dylann Roof, it seems important to distinguish this flag as limited to the secessionary states and not generally a national flag for the United States of America.

I'm considering replacing references to simply "First National Flag" with "First National Flag of the Confederacy".

DGGenuine (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Dylann Roof. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what "this" means for you? Do you mean "this article", do you mean "the confederate flag", or do you mean "the issue you are raising". (Or perhaps you mean something else?) As far as Dylann Roof having to do with the Confederate flag, it is widely reported that Roof embraced the Confederate flag (and shared destruction of the U.S. flag.) Since Roof is clearly connected with the flag, and this article is about the flag, then I consider a discussion about the modern context of the flag to be relevant to Roof. As far as Roof's relevance to this issue, I was only trying to motivate why considering the historical accuracy of the title of the flag might be worthwhile currently. My point does not depend upon anything to do with Roof, however, and if you personally don't find Roof relevant to my point, then my question for you is if you have any response to the more basic point I did make: that the title of the flag is inaccurately represented by the article currently. If I have missed your point entirely, please do elaborate. DGGenuine (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America&oldid=832448402"