Confederate Flag

[HereticHick]

One of the participants in this conversation is a lot more open-minded to the other side's views and willing to evaluate them for their merit.

I've evaluated your views, and find them without merit. I choose to live in the 21st Century, in spite of my Confederate ancestors, including ancestors named after Robert E. Lee, without the crutch of Southern white faux victimhood.

I hope you can join us here in the 21st Century.

Until then, I've got no time for you and your your tired arguments. We've been pandering to Confederate whiners for 150 years now.

Surely y'all have cried yourselves out by now.

[Boogalou]

I thought this video on the Confederate flag (and NOT the Confederate flag) was pretty interesting. Enjoy!

[bBvideo 560,340:3iap34yf]www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBCuHIpNgU[/bBvideo]

[RosyDaisy]

CnD, you haven't learned a damn thing. You're still a fundie jackass.

[CloakNDagger]

This very well might be true, but you will need to be specific. If you don't believe that states have the right to leave the Union to form a nation founded around slavery, then make that very clear because with all your posts about "state rights" and the South representing standing up to a tyrannical government, it appears that you think that they were in the right to do that. If you don't want people to think you are on the side of slavery, then stop arguing for the side that enslaved people, stop acting like it is a valid argument that the Confederacy represents state right in any way. No they represent a group of states that wanted to start a country based around tyrannizing another group of people and then expanding their borders to continue tyrannizing more people

I think that states did and should still have the right to disagree and or leave the "Union" for various reasons. I think that their reason in the Civil War stinks and was morally wrong on the merit of MOST of their own arguments in the Declaration of Causes of Secession... I gave quotes in the thread earlier showing that I was aware of them and that they were wrong. If the arguments had been for other sets of reasons, they would have been better. For instance, if it was just about things like this:

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/s ... b1861.html

Then it would seem reasonable for secession to be considered. Other states such as Georgia and Virginia's documents are better-reasoned where they do not discuss slavery.

I'm not sure what you mean by this vague post, but if you mean that we won't accept that you support/still support the Confederacy for non-racist reasons, that is actually true. I have no problems accepting that in the past you were raised with half-truths and lies about the Confederacy/Civil War and that you were raised to value state rights over human lives and that is why you were on the side of the South, because that is glaringly obvious in most of your posts. But now that you know the truth about it, well, if you continue to defend the actions of the South in forming the Confederacy then you are downplaying the horrors of slavery and acting like their lives didn't matter.

Um, that's where you are reading into my stuff and this is more of where we aren't getting stuff figured out. Everything, or nearly so, that I've read leads me to believe that the Civil War was basically two wars wrapped into one. The slavery issue was HUGE, and was morally wrong. The Abolitionists had the right idea and were correct to call out the South on a truly evil practice. The other side of the issue was Constitutional and DID include tariffs and Federal vs. State issues. I get that you think I value the States Rights issue over human suffering. What I was trying to say was that I think that the human suffering issue, while part of the problem, wasn't the government of the North's primary concern. It was definitely the Abolitionist's concern within the party, and rightly so, but the Northerners in control of the Federal Government didn't free the Northern slaves until much later, and continued with racist and genocidal activities long afterwards, so I just don't buy the whole moral crusade portion of the war as fully legitimate - it was used by both sides for wrong reasons. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was done for more political reasons than anything else if you believe some historians. Fundamentally, I still don't believe that the war was actually fought by those in charge of the Federal Government in Washington, D.C. for the primary purpose of ending slavery.

One of the participants in this conversation is a lot more open-minded to the other side's views and willing to evaluate them for their merit.

What is with the vagueness? The only person I can think you are thinking of is Mama Mia and she was saying you were wrong but you seemed to miss that part of her post. Honestly there is no merit to an argument based around lies, a misunderstanding of history and downplaying slavery, which is what your arguments are all amount to. Yes, you might be able to find some letters from the past they say that people fought for the Confederacy because they believed in the right of a state to leave the Union, but do you know what that just tells us? They believe in the right of a state to leave the Union to form a country founded with slavery as the cornerstone. They don't get any moral high ground.

Which lies? There were indeed differing reasons for Secession. Virginia's document - is not listing Slavery as a "cornerstone" or their primary cause for secession, but the treatment of the other states. Georgia's document is certainly pro-slavery, but it also goes into a lengthy discussion of other reasons they believed it necessary. Those documents aren't lies, they are an accurate look at why the States felt justified in leaving the Union.

Misunderstanding of history? I feel like that's more you. If the Northern government had been purely Abolitionist and actually had a solution for the basic problem of racism, I would feel like your positions were really superior. The problem is that they were racist, continued to be so, and did nothing to change the attitude which is still around today even in the Federal Government with regards to black people.

[formergothardite]

CnD, it doesn't matter what reasons the states gave to leave, they left to form a tyrannical country based around slavery and whose constitution said slavery could never end. That is not reasonable. You acting like it is is what I mean about valuing state rights over human rights. They are not on a moral high ground because they chose to value the rights of individual states over human lives. None of the states that went to join the Confederacy represent the idea of standing up to a tyrannical government. They represent choosing state rights over human lives. They represent choosing a tyrannical government. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why?

I have never at any point claimed that the North was not racist and didn't have other interest. Hell, I have never even claimed that the North wouldn't have gone to war if slavery hadn't been an issue. But we aren't talking about the North, we are talking about the Confederacy. So instead of you continually trying to point and say "Well they did bad things toooooo!" why don't you stick with discussing the atrocity that was the Confederacy.

I'm wondering why you don't want to answer my question a page back about Man A and Man B. :shifty-kitty: This all started in this thread because you seemed offended at the idea that the Confederate flag should be put in the same category as flags that only represented horrible crimes against humanity.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

CnD, it doesn't matter what reasons the states gave to leave, they left to form a tyrannical country based around slavery and whose constitution said slavery could never end. That is not reasonable. You acting like it is is what I mean about valuing state rights over human rights. They are not on a moral high ground because they chose to value the rights of individual states over human lives. None of the states that went to join the Confederacy represent the idea of standing up to a tyrannical government. They represent choosing state rights over human lives. They represent choosing a tyrannical government. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why?

I have never at any point claimed that the North was not racist and didn't have other interest. Hell, I have never even claimed that the North wouldn't have gone to war if slavery hadn't been an issue. But we aren't talking about the North, we are talking about the Confederacy. So instead of you continually trying to point and say "Well they did bad things toooooo!" why don't you stick with discussing the atrocity that was the Confederacy.

I'm wondering why you don't want to answer my question a page back about Man A and Man B. :shifty-kitty: This all started in this thread because you seemed offended at the idea that the Confederate flag should be put in the same category as flags that only represented horrible crimes against humanity.

The bolded part is what a most of the apologists are missing. When discussing this with some irl I asked them if a state today wanted to secede because they didn't agree with laws regarding the age of consent and they wanted to create some kind of n a m b l a utopia where children had no protection against sexual assault and exploitation. Oh, and they wanted to fix all the pot holes and had the solution to government waste. Would that be okay? Everyone wants roads with fewer potholes and everyone wants the government to spend money wisely...but no one ever wants that at the expense of sacrificing the human rights and safety of actual living breathing people.

Sadly some people aren't horrified by slavery, but when presented with the exact same choice over something they do find abhorent, current, and happening to a group of people they can't other...no one I've ever spoken with can put the atrocities aside in favor of some ideal for states rights.

Besides, aren't states merely the people who comprise them? So the states "rights" would be the rights of the people who live there. What about the enslaved people in those states? To defend states rights without taking into account that many who resided there had no voice at all in government is one of the most anti-democracy stances one can take. (I know we're not a true democracy...but that's the argument they make for the voice of the people and all that. You can't wrap yourself in the flag under the guise of nobility if you first made damn sure any opposition was fully and legally silenced before you voting in your own best interest.)

Why is this a thing anyway? Is it some kind of group dynamic based on shame of the past, so instead of it being what it is they chose to embrace it? Fwiw I had a great-something grandfather who died as a confederate soldier in a POW camp. He was in border state, ffs, and CHOSE the wrong side with some of his brothers while their other brothers joined the union army. The brother against brother thing was very literal in some families. When someone in my family defected to LDS church and did extensive genealogy they turned up slave holding records of multiple direct lines in our families, one of which goes back to the early 1600s to Barbados where his slave trading activities are still in government records. It was sobering to learn that and hard to comprehend but I don't have to apologize for it or make it okay in my head because I didn't do it. My parents didn't do it, my kids didn't do it...so I don't have to make it okay that people who died generations before us were complicit in horrible crimes.

I also can't figure out what it means to support the confederacy since it's been out of a existence for a while now. Can I register as a member of the Whig party?

[CloakNDagger]

[emoji12] Ok, so I know this is also controversial here, but for the sake of argument here goes. I believe abortion is wrong, racial slavery and kidnapping are death penalty items in the OT and therefore equally bad as the Nazi extermination of the Jews.

So, in my scenario if the Federal government declared abortion to be wrong, and Texas tried to secede to keep it, I would think their reason to secede was wrong. I would believe that other states and the Federal Government should condemn the action. If war was chosen however, it would have to be clearly stated that Texas had the right to secede but was morally wrong for their actions and therefore a declaration of war was just and appropriate. It would also be shaky, shaky ground if the Federal government still allowed abortion in its own borders.

[ShepherdontheRock]

[emoji12] Ok, so I know this is also controversial here, but for the sake of argument here goes. I believe abortion is wrong, racial slavery and kidnapping are death penalty items in the OT and therefore equally bad as the Nazi extermination of the Jews.

So, in my scenario if the Federal government declared abortion to be wrong, and Texas tried to secede to keep it, I would think their reason to secede was wrong. I would believe that other states and the Federal Government should condemn the action. If war was chosen however, it would have to be clearly stated that Texas had the right to secede but was morally wrong for their actions and therefore a declaration of war was just and appropriate. It would also be shaky, shaky ground if the Federal government still allowed abortion in its own borders.

Wow, abortion= holocaust?

Fuck off.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

[emoji12] Ok, so I know this is also controversial here, but for the sake of argument here goes. I believe abortion is wrong, racial slavery and kidnapping are death penalty items in the OT and therefore equally bad as the Nazi extermination of the Jews.

So, in my scenario if the Federal government declared abortion to be wrong, and Texas tried to secede to keep it, I would think their reason to secede was wrong. I would believe that other states and the Federal Government should condemn the action. If war was chosen however, it would have to be clearly stated that Texas had the right to secede but was morally wrong for their actions and therefore a declaration of war was just and appropriate. It would also be shaky, shaky ground if the Federal government still allowed abortion in its own borders.

But in your scenario there are not demographic blocks affected by this change prohibited from voting in Texas*

To even draw comparisons to the issue of slavery you'd have to set this secession over abortion before women got the right to vote. Would you feel they would still have the 'right to secede' based on rights which were decided without any input from the group most affected? Having only men decide on the reproductive rights of women is more analogous to having only white people decide whether black people were fully human or not.

Because that's what this whole thing is about - slavery is only possible if you hold tightly to the belief that the enslaved aren't fully people. Somehow less than human, not like us...so the same rules don't apply.

Look at any genocide and it's the exact same thing where leaders have to make the victims less than human in order to get public buy-in.

Besides, even if you were 100% right and in this scenario Texas would have "the right to secede." Something being legal doesn't mean it's not abhorrent. We have fair housing laws now which prohibit discriminating renting, selling property, etc. based on race. But it's still perfectly legal for someone to sell their house and move because a family of a different race moved in next door. They can legally white flight it right the hell out of there because their choice to not live near them is legal...but they are still bigots. There is a lot of hate that's legal, but if you throw personal support behind it and want to justify it expect people to judge you accordingly.

*with the exception of women under 18, but for the sake of this hypothetical lets say their interested are represented by the voters in their family. Which is an absurd argument, but I don't want to do the math on the Texas population and if there are enough women/girls in this age group to sway the numbers even if all voted independently of their family.

[formergothardite]

[emoji12] Ok, so I know this is also controversial here, but for the sake of argument here goes. I believe abortion is wrong, racial slavery and kidnapping are death penalty items in the OT and therefore equally bad as the Nazi extermination of the Jews.

So, in my scenario if the Federal government declared abortion to be wrong, and Texas tried to secede to keep it, I would think their reason to secede was wrong. I would believe that other states and the Federal Government should condemn the action. If war was chosen however, it would have to be clearly stated that Texas had the right to secede but was morally wrong for their actions and therefore a declaration of war was just and appropriate. It would also be shaky, shaky ground if the Federal government still allowed abortion in its own borders.

So basically you can't answer my question without either looking like a hypocrite or an asshole so you are going to try to redirect? Do I need to quote it for you again to remind you how it all started with you getting in a huff about your precious slave owning Confederate states' war flag being put in the same category as another flag that represented a crime against humanity? Apparently you don't think enslaving people is a crime against humanity, because if you did you would realize that it belongs in that category and is just as offensive as all the other flags.

I'm not even going to get into this post with you because you are trying to move the conversation away from what the Confederate states actually did and stood for. You are trying to avoid addressing how even the ones who originally said they were leaving over state rights, in the end all they did was choose to join a tyrannical government that didn't represent state rights and was ready to fight any state that dared to leave. Actions speak louder than words, their actions show that no matter what, in the end they chose a nation whose cornerstone was slavery.

[VelociRapture]

[emoji12] Ok, so I know this is also controversial here, but for the sake of argument here goes. I believe abortion is wrong, racial slavery and kidnapping are death penalty items in the OT and therefore equally bad as the Nazi extermination of the Jews.

So, in my scenario if the Federal government declared abortion to be wrong, and Texas tried to secede to keep it, I would think their reason to secede was wrong. I would believe that other states and the Federal Government should condemn the action. If war was chosen however, it would have to be clearly stated that Texas had the right to secede but was morally wrong for their actions and therefore a declaration of war was just and appropriate. It would also be shaky, shaky ground if the Federal government still allowed abortion in its own borders.

Nice attempt at a diversion. Not going to work, but it was a solid attempt.

Here is the actual scenario from the Civil War:

1. Southern states are all pissy because the Federal Government wants to tell them what to do when it came to slavery. This was a debate that went on throughout the 1850's and in the years leading up to the war. Allow me to quote:

The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states.

Source: civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/overview.html

2. Newly elected President Lincoln vows to ban slavery in the before mentioned territories. This pisses the southern states off even more.

3. Seven southern states secede and form the Confederacy. Other states eventually join.

4. The North refuses to acknowledge the Confederacy. Confederates fire on Fort Sumter. All Hell breaks lose. The slaves eventually are freed, lots of people die, and the South loses.

Slavery was the biggest issue leading up to the War. Not the only one I'm sure, but it played a massive role in why the War was fought. The states who seceded and joined the Confederacy did so in order to keep the institution of slavery alive because it was the driving force of their economy and they didn't want to be bothered with finding alternative methods to replace it (like, you know, actually paying people to work for them).

And just to clarify, the "states rights" that people love to bandy about: it actually referred to whether or not a slave owner from a slave state had the right to pursue an escaped slave into a free state. This was a problem because the free states had abolished slavery within their borders and felt that they had no obligation to assist in the capture or return of fugitive slaves.

[roddma]

If the Northern government had been purely Abolitionist and actually had a solution for the basic problem of racism, I would feel like your positions were really superior. The problem is that they were racist, continued to be so, and did nothing to change the attitude which is still around today even in the Federal Government with regards to black people

Thank you. They conveniently forget the North has their 'ghettos' and slums that divide people by race and class just like anywhere else.

ANd if we are so against slavery let's stop 1)celebrating Christopher Columbus who was a slave holder, thief, and murderer.

2)celebrating the first 8 presidents

3) buying/selling foreign products from countries or stores(cough cough Walmart) that pay slave wages

We support slavery and racisim in many indirect ways.

[OkToBeTakei]

I was staying out of this discussion because I don't have the patience to engage with faux-intellectual racist shitbags and their "Oh, good for you for at least listening to the other side!" enablers on this board, but here's a post written by a libertarian gun nut who's default is sympathy for conservative racist shitbags. Even she agrees that the flag is about hate and the Civil War was primarily about slavery (though of course she's insistent that those conservatives aren't racists and it's mean to call them so. Libertarians.)

atomicnerds.com/?p=6670

I would hesitate to say I am enjoying this thread but as this is a part of history that is not familiar to me i am soaking up the history lesson and the views.

The bolded though. What on earth is that supposed to mean? Is that a handslappy way of saying that members should not engage with views that do not match their own and that people who do are in some way wrong? That is how it appears to read. It is a refreshing change from the monotony of the duggar boards and an opportunity to actually learn something beyond endless repetitive rehashing of Duggar-life.

I get some do not have the patience to debate or even engage or have time for polarising views .....it adds a bit of variety and interest to what lets face it could just be another TWOP/People magazine forum.

[formergothardite]

Thank you. They conveniently forget the North has their 'ghettos' and slums that divide people by race and class just like anywhere else.

ANd if we are so against slavery let's stop 1)celebrating Christopher Columbus who was a slave holder, thief, and murderer.

2)celebrating the first 8 presidents

3) buying/selling foreign products from countries or stores(cough cough Walmart) that pay slave wages

We support slavery and racisim in many indirect ways.

No one here has forgotten that. Still doesn't take away from the fact that the Confederate flag represents fighting to start a tyrannical country whose cornerstone was slavery. I don't buy it when my daughter does something bad and defends herself by pointing out the bad things others do, and I'm not buying that argument in this case either. Instead of addressing how horrible the Confederacy was, you and CnD want to go "Well they did bad things to!"

1. Why is Christopher Columbus day still a thing? I think we should have dropped him years ago.

2. We need to stop pretending like our founding fathers were perfect. It is a disservice to history. In discussing their lives, we also need to discuss the horrible things they did to.

3. Yes. It is something we have been working on doing in my family. It was here at FJ that I learned about the horrors of child slave labor that goes into harvesting a lot of coffee and chocolate. Someone posted a great documentary about the subject and it really changed how I bought these items.

[VelociRapture]

Thank you. They conveniently forget the North has their 'ghettos' and slums that divide people by race and class just like anywhere else.

ANd if we are so against slavery let's stop 1)celebrating Christopher Columbus who was a slave holder, thief, and murderer.

2)celebrating the first 8 presidents

3) buying/selling foreign products from countries or stores(cough cough Walmart) that pay slave wages

We support slavery and racisim in many indirect ways.

I'm a northerner born and bred... And I am well-aware that the north did horrible things just as the south did. I am under no delusions when it comes to that - the north had racist attitudes of their own in the past and in the present. That doesn't mean the Confederacy gets a free pass though. The north has its issues, but they did not wage a war in order to continue enslaving an entire race of people.

I actually agree about Columbus. That guy is an asshole and I've never been able to understand why we celebrate him - he helped pave the way for the annihilation of the native tribes. I'd rather celebrate someone who deserves it like Sacagawea, Rosa Parks, the Lovings of Virginia, Harvey Milk, or any other American who has made a significant and lasting positive contribution to our nation.

The first 8 Presidents: we need to stop idealizing these men and ignoring that they were, like all humans, flawed. We can still appreciate the work they did and the risks they took without ignoring the very real flaws and problems they embodied. In fact, we need to stop idealizing any historical figure. MLK Jr. had affairs, Lincoln had bad ideas concerning Native American rights, and Washington had a bad temper at times... we can admit these things without detracting from the very real contributions they made.

As for your last point, it's something my fiancé and I are doing our best with. We avoid Walmart like the plague for various reasons, including the fact that a lot of their products are made over seas (and you can't be sure where those products come from.) It is challenging though and despite our efforts we aren't perfect. It would be more helpful to look into legislative options to be honest, but I don't know how viable an option that is.

[CloakNDagger]

I'm a northerner born and bred... And I am well-aware that the north did horrible things just as the south did. I am under no delusions when it comes to that - the north had racist attitudes of their own in the past and in the present. That doesn't mean the Confederacy gets a free pass though. The north has its issues, but they did not wage a war in order to continue enslaving an entire race of people.

The implication is that the South did... it's not like they wanted a war with the North. My problem with the Civil War is that the North decided to wage it as if they were a separate country, while at the same time calling them rebels and at the same time waiting until quite a while after they started invading to realize that the Emancipation Proclamation was a good idea. The Southern States were absolutely wrong about Slavery, but that is NOT why the North invaded them. The invasion was about supremacy and domination of a different kind, not about freeing the slaves at the beginning.

[RosyDaisy]

OH HAIL NAW! You have just confirmed EVERYTHING (and I do mean EVERYTHING) I have thought all along. You are not here to learn, you are here to preach. You are an ignorant, offensive piece of stinking shit. Take your beliefs and controversial arguments and stick 'em up your fundie ass. [emoji 12

[VelociRapture]

The implication is that the South did... it's not like they wanted a war with the North. My problem with the Civil War is that the North decided to wage it as if they were a separate country, while at the same time calling them rebels and at the same time waiting until quite a while after they started invading to realize that the Emancipation Proclamation was a good idea. The Southern States were absolutely wrong about Slavery, but that is NOT why the North invaded them. The invasion was about supremacy and domination of a different kind, not about freeing the slaves at the beginning.

Nowhere did I state they waged war to stop slavery. It turned into that, but the north did not intend to do so in the beginning.

The Confederacy, however, seceded and committed an act of aggression (firing on Sumter) specifically because they wanted to keep their slaves. You can try and twist it into anything you want - the fact remains the Confederacy was created mainly to protect the systematic enslavement of a race of people. The north was far from perfect, but they did not stand for the continued abuse and enslavement of human beings - the Confederacy did.

[formergothardite]

So basically instead of addressing the issue of how the Confederate flag is as offensive as other flags that only stood for crimes against humanity, CnD is still trying to justify how the North was wrong and should not have gone to war to prevent the South from creating a tyrannical government whose cornerstone was slavery? Again, no one is saying that the main reason was to end slavery, I'm just pointing out that the end result was that a tyrannical country built on slaves was stopped.

ETA: Both roddma and CnD have been very carefully avoiding addressing what the original issue in this thread was. The issue was that they both made claims that the Confederate war flag wasn't that offensive. The only way that could be true is if they are downplaying the horrors of slavery. What the North went to war for, the racism in the North, the reasons behind some states seceding, all of that is just diversion and in the end doesn't really matter when it comes to the issue being debated in this thread. Strip all that away and all you have is a flag used in a war to defend creating a tyrannical country that dehumanized and enslaved a group of people and wanted to expand the slave territories. It is just as offensive as any other flag that was only used to dehumanize people and hurt people.

So can either you address that point and that point alone? Are you going to still claim that it doesn't belong in the same category as other flags, like the Nazi one, that only stood for crimes against humanity? If you don't think it belongs in that category, why do you think creating a nation whose cornerstone was slavery isn't a crime against humanity? Don't bring up the North, just stick with the Confederacy and the Confederate flag.

[CloakNDagger]

The Confederate BATTLE flag existed because if the Northern invasion, period. That's why the issue of the war and the Northern intentions is germane. The Confederate national flag should receive more hatred if anything. I HAVE come to the conclusion that it is offensive to fly the flag in people's face, I'd still say the Nazi flag is 20-30% worse.

[formergothardite]

So in your opinion the North should have let the South start a tyrannical government built on slavery without a war? Correct? And then what? Fuck the slaves?

It was a Northern invasion that ended a tyrannical government. And you think that is a bad thing?

[formergothardite]

So it is just offensive to fly it in people's faces and not offensive to just fly it? Why? It represents a battle to defend a tyrannical government built on oppression, dehumanizing people and slavery? Why isn't it always offensive to fly it?

When you say the Nazi flag is slightly worse, does that mean you agree that both flags belong in the same category as flags that only represent crimes against humanity? Therefore it should be offensive just as the Nazi flag is? It is 70-80% as horrible as the Nazi one. And really, that 20-30% is only because they worked the slaves to death instead of killing them immediately, so it is still 100% percent awful.

[CloakNDagger]

So in your opinion the North should have let the South start a tyrannical government built on slavery without a war? Correct? And then what? Fuck the slaves?

It was a Northern invasion that ended a tyrannical government. And you think that is a bad thing?

You still don't understand that the North wasn't "letting the South start" a government built in slavery. Those state governments already existed and in a different form than your current state governments now exist since the war. The States Rights issues were a problem because of the way it was dealt with.

For a clean use of force, the North should have acknowledged their right to secede, removed the troops from Fort Sumter, announced the emancipation proclamation first, then declared war. Then the Constitutional issues could be properly settled, and the South's states rights argument properly addressed and destroyed. I think they wanted to change the nature of the "Union" and that was the driving factor why it was deliberately done differently and that is why Virginia seceded instead of staying aloof from the other slave states.

The freeing of the slaves was a good thing, the means and the aftermath showed it was poorly thought through and badly implemented and the repercussions are still with us.

[formergothardite]

You still don't understand that the North wasn't "letting the South start" a government built in slavery. Those state governments already existed and in a different form than your current state governments now exist since the war. The States Rights issues were a problem because of the way it was dealt with.

For a clean use of force, the North should have acknowledged their right to secede, removed the troops from Fort Sumter, announced the emancipation proclamation first, then declared war. Then the Constitutional issues could be properly settled, and the South's states rights argument properly addressed and destroyed. I think they wanted to change the nature of the "Union" and that was the driving factor why it was deliberately done differently and that is why Virginia seceded instead of staying aloof from the other slave states.

The freeing of the slaves was a good thing, the means and the aftermath showed it was poorly thought through and badly implemented and the repercussions are still with us.

So you are mad because they didn't go through what you view as the proper steps to end a tyrannical government whose cornerstone was slavery?

[CloakNDagger]

So it is just offensive to fly it in people's faces and not offensive to just fly it? Why? It represents a battle to defend a tyrannical government built on oppression, dehumanizing people and slavery? Why isn't it always offensive to fly it?

Why would you fly it if not in someone's face? Same thing except over graves, museums, and reenactments, but I don't think stupidity should be outlawed. If my neighbor wants to fly it, it will tell me to avoid him and question his opinions.

So it is just offensive to fly it in people'When you say the Nazi flag is slightly worse, does that mean you agree that both flags belong in the same category as flags that only represent crimes against humanity? Therefore it should be offensive just as the Nazi flag is? It is 70-80% as horrible as the Nazi one. And really, that 20-30% is only because they worked the slaves to death instead of killing them immediately, so it is still 100% percent awful.

Yeah, same category but I'd put the Confederate national flag as worse than the battle flag because the invasion united communities that might have been willing to free slaves before and brought people together in defensive warfare. It's ironic that the battle flag takes more of the heat, but it is the one flown, so I understand.