The Confederate Flag

[Avid]

... Nobody is claiming this. Nobody with a halfway decent grasp of history is buying into this idea. You guys are battling a straw man. The issue at hand here is not "did the north keep slaves" or "Was the north abolitionist". The issue at hand here is "what did the confederacy stand for". And the answer to that is pretty simple: racism. This is not some fringe opinion...

I hear it often. I hear how Lincoln would do ANYTHING to preserve the Union. ANYTHING, (except follow the US Constitution, that is.) Lincoln was their hero, and their champion, and sacrificed everything for the cause. He was more willing that 600,000 Americans die, than that this continue as a blight on civilization. I have offered quotes that showed he did not feel that way or think those things.

The statements made here are a clear indication that just about everyone believes this!!! They are sure the whole North was anti-slavery, and the whole South was bent on hanging on to their "cash cow." The fact is that many "freed" people were treated much worse by the people in the North. Many accounts are written about that. Many Blacks fought on the side of the South for those reasons. Even today, there are many people who pretend to care about these "unfortunate" people, but only work to exploit them for political and monetary purposes.

The whole idea that this flag was the standard for a bunch of wealthy landowners who preferred living with slaves, so they caused a war, and needed to be dragged back, is what I have heard a lot. The fact our OP from across the pond believes that proves the point. Your statements and citations show you tend toward that view of history! I did not grow up with all the lies of the revisionist history account, but still was not aware of the many racist statements in many of Lincoln's speeches. His first inaugural speech has many things that do not support the lofty opinions that are commonly held. His actions put him more in the company of Joseph Stalin than Moses! He is considered a hero, not the racist and political demagogue he was. The things he did were not to preserve the Union, but his own political career.

As long as people all over the world are this mistaken about our history, it proves the revisionist version of what happened needs to be confronted in this manner. On the other hand, there are people halfway around the world who do not buy-in to what they are told by the American News Media outlets. They have known better than what was said by the OP in her posts about this subject. They sought it out, and (certain members here) have told me they knew what I wrote here was true.

Each of us can learn more of what has been hidden or hushed by spending a small amount of time researching. This nation has yet another person in the "driver's seat" that is ready to cause as much of a problem for the nation as did Lincoln. There are many saying things in opposition to the regime as were said 155 years ago. Even now, disagreement with that person, who has the stated goal of fundamentally changing this nation, is considered to be racist. Racists calling people who are NOT racist, RACISTS! People who are so intent on using the people they consider incapable of supporting themselves for their own political ends, are calling people who expect to treat others without malice, RACISTS. They charge that everything about their political opponents, and their heritage, is considered wrong, and worthy to be lied about. However, the racist statements of the people they like (Lincoln, etc.,) are not treated as such, though.

... Read the articles of secession of each of the states and you'll see as a common theme running through each of them that they want to uphold slavery as an institution...

If you have something you think makes your point, post it. I am typically ignoring you, but read what someone else responded to.

 

[The Cadet]

I hear it often. I hear how Lincoln would do ANYTHING to preserve the Union. ANYTHING, (except follow the US Constitution, that is.)

Maybe you should consider finding better news sources. I'm sure I could find people in my vicinity who believe such, just as I'm sure I could find people in my vicinity who think that Jews are from space. (No, really.) I don't tend to talk about history very much with those people. In any case, it has little bearing on the discussion we are having here. It's nothing more than a red herring - an attempt to distract from the real issue at hand with the confederate flag.

(I do, however, concede that you might have a point. The fact that this particular claim is at least to some degree present in the social consciousness showcases that there is a problem; however, I'd posit this is more from biopics like "Lincoln", fantasy movies like "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter", and children's books of old American mythology more in line with Paul Bunyan than any actual history than from any legitimate sources. Certainly I haven't seen enough of that in this thread to make such a diversion worthwhile. What's more, the idea that the secession of the confederacy was not predominately about slavery is far more ingrained into the social consciousness, and has considerably nastier effects on society as a whole.)

The statements made here are a clear indication that just about everyone believes this!!! They are sure the whole North was anti-slavery, and the whole South was bent on hanging on to their "cash cow." The fact is that many "freed" people were treated much worse by the people in the North. Many accounts are written about that. Many Blacks fought on the side of the South for those reasons. Even today, there are many people who pretend to care about these "unfortunate" people, but only work to exploit them for political and monetary purposes.

You do realize that none of this is relevant to the question of what the confederate flag symbolized, right?

The whole idea that this flag was the standard for a bunch of wealthy landowners who preferred living with slaves, so they caused a war, and needed to be dragged back, is what I have heard a lot. The fact our OP from across the pond believes that proves the point. Your statements and citations show you tend toward that view of history!

This is a massive oversimplification of my view of history, and a downright misrepresentation of the OP's. Reading through all of @Paradoxum 's posts in this thread, the only consistent claim about the civil war I can see is the claim that the confederacy was based mostly upon racism. Which, as far as the historical record shows, is pretty much the historical consensus among scholars. None of the rest of it figures into it particularly much, beyond being a shallow misrepresentation.

His first inaugural speech has many things that do not support the lofty opinions that are commonly held. His actions put him more in the company of Joseph Stalin than Moses! He is considered a hero, not the racist and political demagogue he was. The things he did were not to preserve the Union, but his own political career.

And yet, ultimately, he ended slavery. Whether it was for his political career or because he was actually in favor of ending slavery (according to the History Channel, he was, but wasn't sure how to deal with it being in the constitution), this is why he is remembered as a great man. Is this lionization unjustified? Probably. But then again, we still have Andrew Jackson on the $20, so...

...Man, America has some real issues with its iconography. Say what you will about Germany's checkered past, at least nobody here thinks Konrad Adenauer was some super-great guy, just an above-average politician in an enlightened age. Nobody over here is making Otto von Bismarck: Lich Destroyer or anything of that sort.


Look, I'll be freely willing to step back my previous statements if we can just end this distraction. My main point here is that how the north felt about racism or how Lincoln felt about abolition is neither here nor there. It has nothing to do with this discussion. We're talking about the reasons for why the south seceded, and while what the north was doing is indeed relevant, it's not nearly as relevant as some people think, and the erroneous thoughts some people hold about the north are just not particularly useful.

If you have something you think makes your point, post it.

...I did. Numerous times, and numerous different sources.

From Mississippi's declaration:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world.​

From Louisiana's:

The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.​

From Alabama's:

[...]the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war[...]​

...Seriously, just spend some time reading that Atlantic article I keep linking to. It cites dozens of primary sources in context, clearly showing what's really going on here.

Also, if you feel I misrepresented you, I apologize. I don't know how I would have, but I will gladly edit any given posts with more context if you would like me to.

 

[SuperCloud]

More people should be defending the Confederate Flag over the US Flag, since it stands for opposition to totalitarian rule. It was co-opted by racists (carpetbaggers, scalawags) that have hoodwinked the blacks. What it means to many, many Southerners is anything but racism. Any of you ever been to the deep South to see how people get along. Ever check the North, lately when it comes to racism?

“The flags of the Confederate States of America were very important and a matter of great pride to those citizens living in the Confederacy. They are also a matter of great pride for their descendants as part of their heritage and history.”
Winston Churchill

“I loved the old government in 1861. I loved the old Constitution yet. I think it is the best government in the world, if administered as it was before the war. I do not hate it; I am opposing now only the radical revolutionists who are trying to destroy it. I believe that party to be composed, as I know it is in Tennessee, of the worst men on Gods earth – men who would not hesitate at no crime, and who have only one object in view – to enrich themselves.”
Nathan Bedford Forrest, in an interview shortly after the war

If Nathan Forrest could see our government, today!!

Nathan Bedford Forest, while an outstanding combatant and nearly fearless man, is a good reason why ethnic Black-Americans should not give up their right to bear arms. That along with the well armed gangs in black neighborhoods. If ever the US Government and various local governments either collapsed or became overwhelmed by problems then ethnic Black-Americans would have armed black gangs controlling various areas of their towns. Well armed white supremacists would gain control of portions of US territory and firing rounds through the brains of little black children.

But Black-Americans--like Rwandans--believe that fortunately the US government and various local government in the US will never collapse or become overly burdened to the point of lacking the ability to protect its citizens from one another.

 

[Avid]

Is flying the Confederate flag significantly different from flying the Nazi flag?

I'd say it's pretty much the same. The Confederate flag represents racism and slavery, like the Nazi flag represents racism and genocide.

They are somewhat different, but I think they are both similar in ways which are relevant to whether it's wrong to fly the flag.

If you think it's wrong to fly a flag that stands for genocide, you should probably also think it's wrong to fly a flag that stands for slavery.

Of course genocide is worse than slavery, but slavery still isn't a minor evil.

I'd say that the Nazi and Confederate flags more strongly symbolism genocide and slavery (respectively). But perhaps I'm incorrect, and the Soviet flag should be strongly associated with the wrongs done by the Soviet Union.

I suppose it depends on how strongly connected the nations principles were to the wrongs done. Ie: Were the acts done on principle, or something like convenience.

(I don't know much about Che Geuvara).

Here is why it was said, and why it pertains.

The prevailing opinion, that I reference, is something that predates a movie from a few years ago. As a child, I may not have known how Lincoln was more like Stalin than anyone wishes to admit, but I did know that The War Between the States was not fought as a way to end slavery. The war did not do that per se, and that was not a Civil War. It may have had a side effect of bringing slavery to an end, though. An amendment was passed when the Southern States were not voting. (They had difficulty doing that with NO SOUTHERN STATES VOTING.) IF the premise of the OP were TRUE, the Southern States would not have seceded. They would be fine with continuing and slavery would be with us still (even using Obama-math, we don't have 60 States - well, maybe...) The fact that the states seceded because of unconstitutional conduct by the federal government, using tariffs to rob from the Southern States, is documented.

Lincoln's own comments reveal he was against free-trade in his own politics, and he knew that almost 75% of federal revenue was collected at Southern ports in the form of tariffs. Charleston, SC, was a major collection point through Fort Sumter.

“My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank … in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff.”
Abraham Lincoln, Campaign Speech, 1832.

“I was an old Henry-Clay-Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other. I have not since changed my views.”
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Edward Wallace, Oct. 11 1859​

I responded because of things being stated that had made others think they were off topic, or had made what seemed to be irrational statements! I return to ignoring many of these posts that are based in that popular version of revisionist history.

 

[Avid]

I have also recently learned how other people are maligned by this revisionist history:

 

[SuperCloud]

I am from the South. I did grow up in a very racist environment, surrounded by bigoted rednecks, flying that disgusting confederate rag, right alongside their american rag flag, shouting racist slurs at me and treating me like I was something nasty they just scrapped off the bottom of their cowboy boots. These good ol' boys (and girls) seemed to find pleasure in reminding me that the only good Indian, in their opinion, was a dead one and that all of my self worth, as I was repeatedly reminded, could be found at the bottom of a whiskey bottle. So, you'll have to forgive if I strongly disagree with anyone who claims that that confederate rag doesn't represent hate, racism and oppression. As a Native American, who has repeatedly dealt with racist hate and bigots my whole life, I have to strongly disagree with that assessment. And as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what the american rag flag represents as well. So, it will be over my dead NDN body before I ever pledge allegiance to it or to the country it represents.



It proves that America has been racist since its inception and the stories that this nation was founded and built on the ideals of freedom, liberty and justice for all are nothing more bold faced lies and pathetic excuses to place this nation on a moral high ground that it has absolutely no right to be on.

What happened to the indigenous people through the Americas, Asia, Africa, and pacific islands was pretty sinister. The conquest portion.

The Jesuits were ahead of their time in this sense. While their may have been some racist Jesuits within the Jesuit order, overall the Jesuits were remarkable for their practice of adapting to Amerindians (or Chinese or whoever) cultural way of life. So long as those cultural things did not contradict Christian beliefs.

In the North American territories they relied mainly on persuasion--and grace from God. As true conversion can only come from God's grace working on the individual.

Some whites disliked the Jesuits because eventually the Jesuits helped provide for the various Amerindian nations they were among. Helping provide meat and other things. It was not necessarily that some whites hated this so much as their dislike was born out of the fact they viewed the Jesuits as helping provide for the Amerindians more than they did for the white.

Of course, the Amerindians were not dependent of the Jesuits--for meat or otherwise--as they were self sufficient long before the arrival of the Jesuits or Europeans. But I think what is more important is that arrived as good guests and helped provide rather than simply taking. Of course, I'm sure the Amerindians taught things to the Jesuits and helped them survive too.

 

[SuperCloud]

Here is why it was said, and why it pertains.

The prevailing opinion, that I reference, is something that predates a movie from a few years ago. As a child, I may not have known how Lincoln was more like Stalin than anyone wishes to admit, but I did know that The War Between the States was not fought as a way to end slavery.

I find it rather dishonest to constantly try to turn the focus of the Confederate flag and the Confederacy on the issue of why the North fought.

The better question pertaining the history, origins that is, of the Confederate flag and the Confederacy is why the Confederacy fought.

The Confederacy fought not merely to retaining the economic and social institution of slavery but to expand it. And yes, the North did go to war out of an opposition to the expansion of slavery. If for no other reason many of the whites in the North want to be able to compete for those jobs the black slaves would have monopoly on if slavery did expand to more territories in North America.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Nathan Bedford Forest, while an outstanding combatant and nearly fearless man, is a good reason why ethnic Black-Americans should not give up their right to bear arms. That along with the well armed gangs in black neighborhoods. If ever the US Government and various local governments either collapsed or became overwhelmed by problems then ethnic Black-Americans would have armed black gangs controlling various areas of their towns. Well armed white supremacists would gain control of portions of US territory and firing rounds through the brains of little black children.

But Black-Americans--like Rwandans--believe that fortunately the US government and various local government in the US will never collapse or become overly burdened to the point of lacking the ability to protect its citizens from one another.

Nathan Bedford Forrest disbanded the Ku Klux Klan when he saw unsavory, unscrupulous and unlawful men co-opting what was initially a fraternity to cheer up families, and turning it into something it was never intended to be.

 

[SuperCloud]

Nathan Bedford Forrest disbanded the Ku Klux Klan when he saw unsavory, unscrupulous and unlawful men co-opting what was initially a fraternity to cheer up families, and turning it into something it was never intended to be.

LOL.

Even assuming that is true (which I don't), the KKK is not necessarily what I was referring to. I was referring to Nathan Beford Forest as a Civil War combatant.

If I remember correctly he led a very successful outfit of guerrilla fighters for the Confederate nation.

 

[SuperCloud]

Nathan Bedford Forrest disbanded the Ku Klux Klan when he saw unsavory, unscrupulous and unlawful men co-opting what was initially a fraternity to cheer up families, and turning it into something it was never intended to be.

When--some years ago--I read about Nathan Bedford Forest I got the impression of a man that I would think of as something akin to this mafioso New Yorker. You can listen--click on the audio link--to a portion of the description of that mobster here: http://www.amazon.com/Deal-Devil-Secret-Thirty-Year-Relationship/dp/0061455342

Except Nathan Bedford Forest was an onld school Dixie. Not a modern New Yorker.

As it is... I think that "Grim Reaper" mobster is the one that the FBI brought down to the South to beat up, put a pistol in the mouth of, a Southern Klansman involved in the disappearance of some white and black Civil Rights workers during the 1960s. When this happened in the '60s it was the New York mobster that got the hardened Klansman to confess and reveal where the bodies were.

 

[The Cadet]

There is ample evidence that Lincoln provoked the War.

...Does it matter when discussing what the purpose of the confederacy was?

 

[WolfGate]

Is flying the Confederate flag significantly different from flying the Nazi flag?

I'd say it's pretty much the same. The Confederate flag represents racism and slavery, like the Nazi flag represents racism and genocide.

A majority of Americans would say "yes, it is different".
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/politics/confederate-flag-poll-racism-southern-pride/index.html

American public opinion on the Confederate flag remains about where it was 15 years ago, with most describing the flag as a symbol of Southern pride more than one of racism, according to a new CNN/ORC poll. And questions about how far to go to remove references to the Confederacy from public life prompt broad racial divides.

The poll shows that 57% of Americans see the flag more as a symbol of Southern pride than as a symbol of racism, about the same as in 2000 when 59% said they viewed it as a symbol of pride. Opinions of the flag are sharply divided by race, and among whites, views are split by education.

Among African-Americans, 72% see the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism, just 25% of whites agree. In the South, the racial divide is even broader. While 75% of Southern whites describe the flag as a symbol of pride and 18% call it a symbol of racism, those figures are almost exactly reversed among Southern African-Americans, with just 11% seeing it as a sign of pride and 75% viewing it as a symbol of racism.

As I posted elsewhere,
It was when I came to the realization about 15 years ago that African-Americans had such a different view of the flag from me that I changed my stance on its use. As a middle aged white male, I saw the flag as a symbol of southern heritage and regional pride. From my perspective the flag had moved beyond an association with slavery and was now a regional symbol. I knew some hate groups had adopted its use as well, but from my perspective that was such a small minority that people didn't associate the flag with them, but rather the region.

Then I came to realize as a whole the AA community saw it the exact opposite. When they saw someone with the flag in their truck, they had an immediate emotional reaction wondering if the owner was someone who hated them for their race. Was that person just proud to be southern or were they a racist? That is an emotional question I would never feel about the flag.

I realized that flag, for whatever reasons (and they don't really matter), had been irrevocably associated by my AA brothers as a symbol of hate. Nothing in the short term could change that - but it really wasn't a big effort to simply understand that perspective and stop using it.

The other thing, however, that I can conclude from the CNN study is that those who state everyone who displays the flag is a racist or that the flag is only a racist symbol are clearly too simplistic in their understanding as well.

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread has undergone a cleanup due to off topic posts so if your post is gone that is the reason or you quoted someone that did. I will remind everyone that the topic is about the confed flag stick to it please.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Avid]

I find it rather dishonest to constantly try to turn the focus of the Confederate flag and the Confederacy on the issue of why the North fought...

Like I have with others here, I'll give you a chance to avoid being ignored. There is a constant, dishonest focus on this flag (it has been addressed,) and it needs to be confronted. In time, you will not be able to do SOMETHING you presently cherish, because someone else took offense to it.

I do not own a copy of this flag. If ever I did, I would not be able to remember when that was. I DO, however, know that people who hate America are trying to destroy our Constitution, and cause opinions to be counted as more valuable than laws. We had this happen in the last week, as the exact same 5 people use the EXACT OPPOSITE LOGIC and REASONING to arrive at the opposite ruling on similar cases, as compared to 2 years ago. This is POLITICAL, and not according to The Rule of Law. There is no such thing as the constitutionally established Supreme Court of the US. I cannot say what we have now, but it is certainly is not that!

There is a very powerful set of 9 people who will no longer soley use US Law and the US Constitution as their basis for deciding law (regardless of whether or not 2 or 3 of them still do.) Two years ago, these 5 people said that marriage had always been an issue handled by the States, and there was no place for a federal law on how that was to be done, so they struck-down the Defense of Marriage Act. In the last week, this exact same 5 people stated that the Federal Government has the authority to tell ALL the states they are required to recognize SS marriages performed as lawful unions in other states, regardless of how their own State laws handle the matter.

Next time, that may be done by them concerning something you cherish as a right, a liberty, a privilege or a principle. Maybe they will decide no one may display images of Clouds, use any name that references Clouds, nor store any data on a "Cloud." You might care about how something valuable to you is maligned and outlawed then. No, this flag has not been outlawed YET. Yes, that very well may be their next step after they get most of the people here, and across the pond, to HATE it irrationally.

The Confederacy fought not merely to retaining the economic and social institution of slavery but to expand it. And yes, the North did go to war out of an opposition to the expansion of slavery. If for no other reason many of the whites in the North want to be able to compete for those jobs the black slaves would have monopoly on if slavery did expand to more territories in North America.

Watch Dr. Thomas Sowell in the clip from the interview about his book, that I had posted on an earlier page of this thread. He addressed this, and that was SPECIFICALLY what happened. Slavery had nothing to do with it. It is in the following post of mine. Just click the +

In his own words, Abraham Lincoln was not against slavery, nor was he for equality between the races. His thinking was not radical among the people of the North. His motives were not what people say they were...

 

[SuperCloud]

Like I have with others here, I'll give you a chance to avoid being ignored. There is a constant, dishonest focus on this flag (it has been addressed,) and it needs to be confronted. In time, you will not be able to do SOMETHING you presently cherish, because someone else took offense to it.

I do not own a copy of this flag. If ever I did, I would not be able to remember when that was. I DO, however, know that people who hate America are trying to destroy our Constitution, and cause opinions to be counted as more valuable than laws. We had this happen in the last week, as the exact same 5 people use the EXACT OPPOSITE LOGIC and REASONING to arrive at the opposite ruling on similar cases, as compared to 2 years ago.. This is POLITICAL, and not according to The Rule of Law. There is no such thing as the constitutionally established Supreme Court of the US. I cannot say what we have now, but is certainly is not that!

There is a very powerful set of 9 people who will no longer soley use US Law and the US Constitution as their basis for deciding law (regardless of whether or not 2 or 3 of them still do.) Two years ago, these 5 people said that marriage had always been an issue handled by the States, and there was no place for a federal law on how that was to be done, and they struck-down the Defense of Marriage Act. In the last week, this exact same 5 people stated that the Federal Government has the authority to tell ALL the states they are required to recognize SS marriages performed as lawful unions in other states, regardless of how their own State laws handle the matter.

Next time, that may be done by them concerning something you cherish as a right, a liberty, a privilege or a principle. Maybe they will decide no one may display images of Clouds, use any name that references Clouds, nor store any data on a "Cloud." You might care about how something valuable to you is maligned and outlawed then. No, this flag has not been outlawed YET. Yes, that very well may be the next step after they get most of the people here, and across the pond, to HATE it irrationally.

I was speaking about why the Confederacy went to war. Words spoken by Confederates themselves. I was speaking about banning the Confederate battle flag. Eh... I wasn't even accusing every person wearing its image or flying its flag as being racist.

You make a good point about the US Supreme Court contradicting itself in two rulings. I think. Unless there are some aspects to the law I don't understand. But for the moment I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that there was a contradiction in the two rulings. I think in this thread--http://www.christianforums.com/threads/is-stem-mostly-rote-memorization.7895585/-- on STEM programs I remarked that people in general dislike logic and logic is closely related to math. Neither are emotive. So, it would not shock me if the US Supreme Court had contradictory rulings.

 

[Avid]

I was speaking about why the Confederacy went to war. Words spoken by Confederates themselves. I was speaking about banning the Confederate battle flag. Eh... I wasn't even accusing every person wearing its image or flying its flag as being racist...

You don't need to. In the OP, and many other posts here, we see that many people do, and they equate it that way. I don't need to use any personal accusations. The fact is that this type of thing is in the news, and major retail outlets are pulling product lines because of it. That really does two things: It proves my point, and offers me (someone who may have never owned even a small Confederate Battle Flag - a few inches square,) an opportunity to make some, and sell them!!! I certainly see a market gap that may be filled by the right entrepreneur!

... You make a good point about the US Supreme Court contradicting itself in two rulings. I think. Unless there are some aspects to the law I don't understand. But for the moment I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that there was a contradiction in the two rulings. I think in this thread--http://www.christianforums.com/threads/is-stem-mostly-rote-memorization.7895585/-- on STEM programs I remarked that people in general dislike logic and logic is closely related to math. Neither are emotive. So, it would not shock me if the US Supreme Court had contradictory rulings.

A little research into recent SCOTUS history will show this. It would take all of ½ an hour on the internet with news sources. Good response. Thanks for doing that.

 

[Avid]

I was speaking about why the Confederacy went to war. Words spoken by Confederates themselves...

The Confederate States of America went to war when the Union troops refused to leave their strongholds in the South. The words you reference were not so much about that as they were about why they seceded, right?

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."
Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848
​

Some replies to quotes of this sort would remind us that statements by politicians are not law!!! That being recognized as fact does not excuse anyone (even a politician) for LYING. It may be common to lie to constituents during a political campaign, but that does not make it right.

It was commonly accepted as right and allowed for States that voluntarily joined the Union to voluntarily leave. Paying taxes to the government was required, and this was established to be true when President George Washington rode at the head of troops to quell a tax rebellion by those producing liquor in the 1790s.

The South could not simply just refuse to pay tariffs or taxes to the government in charge over them, so it seceded from being under the unfair and unconstitutional government that demanded these payments.

 

[kennywayne99]

The Confederate Flag is completely different than the Nazi Flag. The Confederate Flag is not about slavery and racism. They're were slaves in the north and some blacks actually owned slaves. If you think the Civil War was about slavery, you are wrong. Southerners are proud of their heritage. That doesn't mean we think slavery was right. It's not. We can't help it that it has been tarnished by a few bad people. You can't judge everyone's hearts and minds by evil deeds done by evil people. It's not the flags fault.

 

[The Cadet]

The Confederate Flag is completely different than the Nazi Flag. The Confederate Flag is not about slavery and racism. They're were slaves in the north and some blacks actually owned slaves. If you think the Civil War was about slavery, you are wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech#The_.27Cornerstone.27

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp

From Mississippi's declaration:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world.

From Louisiana's:
The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.

From Alabama's:
[...]the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war[...]

You can read more here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/

It was about slavery.

We can't help it that it has been tarnished by a few bad people. You can't judge everyone's hearts and minds by evil deeds done by evil people. It's not the flags fault.

The problem isn't that the flag has been tarnished by a few bad apples. It's that from its inception, it stood for racism, white supremacy, and hatred. Then, when it was used in the 1900s again, it stood for racism, white supremacy, and hatred. Now is essentially the only time in that flag's history other than directly after the civil war that it stood for anything but racism, white supremacy, and hatred. Now it's claimed to stand for "southern pride". I can't help but feel that that sends a message to the many African-Americans in the south - that the south is quite proud of its disgusting, racist history.

 

[WolfGate]

The problem isn't that the flag has been tarnished by a few bad apples. It's that from its inception, it stood for racism, white supremacy, and hatred. Then, when it was used in the 1900s again, it stood for racism, white supremacy, and hatred. Now is essentially the only time in that flag's history other than directly after the civil war that it stood for anything but racism, white supremacy, and hatred. Now it's claimed to stand for "southern pride".

Too simplistic. I am sure from 52 years of living in the south that the flag has long been viewed by a majority of southern whites as a symbol of regional pride. Some of it does go back to a North vs. South thing, but not centered around the issue of slavery. Much of the irritation southerners felt with the north, particularly during the 60s and 70s, was the perception that the north looked down on the south as a bunch of ignorant redneck racists - while at the same time there were major race riots going on throughout the north. Hypocritical to the core. How most southerners viewed the flag is really a complex topic. Earlier I posted a survey CNN just did that shows a majority of Americans still view the flag as a symbol of southern pride.

However...

I can't help but feel that that sends a message to the many African-Americans in the south - that the south is quite proud of its disgusting, racist history.

The CNN survey also confirmed that a majority of African Americans do interpret the flag this way. And that is reason enough to remove it from non-historical government display. Also something that years ago made me decide not to use it as a symbol.

In no way does a reasonable person think not displaying the flag will lessen the racism that still exists. However, it does send a message to the African American community that we hear them and we understand the deep emotional reaction many of them have to the flag - and we're willing to make changes to help.