NationStates Jolt Archive

This is one issue i have always wanted to discuss here in the forums. Why do people find the Confederacy offensive? I mean when it existed 1861-1865 times and the way people thought were much different. Many people offended by the confederate flag don't know the first thing about it. and what really gets to me is that so many blacks find it offensive saying that the south faught to own blacks but there were many black confederate soldiers fighting side by side with whites in the Civil War. The confederate flag has been abused by the KKK and Neo Nazis but that shouldn't make people think the flag is bad. And if you can remember the American flag stood for slavery up until the Civil War and Union general Ullysses S Grant owned slaves through out the war while Virginian Robert E. Lee freed the he had inherited before the War started. I live in Culpeper Virginia about an hour away from Richmond Virginia the capital of the Confederacy. My family faught for the south and i am very proud of that but because being southern is better tan being from any where else!

That reads a lot like, "I don't know why you don't like the southern flag. I'm southern, and we're better than you. I don't know why you don't like my flag and what it stands for."

Personally, I couldn't care less, any national or basically equivalent flag has an offensive element, so far as I'm concerned, but I'll deal with it.

I hate history books that teach the war was over slavery, which is the biggest load of wank ive ever heard.

The union thoughout the war imported slaves from africa DURING the war, dosnt sound like they were trying to free slaves to me.

I have a confederate flag on my wall, im not racist , but i love the south of america, the south is really where americas culture is (cowboys etc)

Its a shame the flags been distorted, and that most people think that war was over slavery, (only 6% of southerners owned slaves!) but, i suppose its the victors who write history.

The same with the swastika, its a buddhist symbol of peace , and has been for thousends of years, now THATS irony

EDIT: you should of put this in the general forum btw

The same with the swastika, its a buddhist symbol of peace , and has been for thousends of years, now THATS irony

Incorrect:

http://history1900s.about.com/library/graphics/swastikart2.gif...http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/graphics/05graphs/mongara.jpg
SwastikaBuddhist Symbol
You will note that they are mirror versions of each other, not identical to one another.

I hate history books that teach the war was over slavery, which is the biggest load of wank ive ever heard.

The union thoughout the war imported slaves from africa DURING the war, dosnt sound like they were trying to free slaves to me.

I have a confederate flag on my wall, im not racist , but i love the south of america, the south is really where americas culture is (cowboys etc)

Its a shame the flags been distorted, and that most people think that war was over slavery, (only 6% of southerners owned slaves!) but, i suppose its the victors who write history.

The same with the swastika, its a buddhist symbol of peace , and has been for thousends of years, now THATS irony

EDIT: you should of put this in the general forum btw
I did that, watch out for Cat Tribe.

Oh yeah, and I'm from manassas, home of the starting point of that unfortunate unpleasantness.

Incorrect:

http://history1900s.about.com/library/graphics/swastikart2.gif...http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/graphics/05graphs/mongara.jpg
SwastikaBuddhist Symbol
You will note that they are mirror versions of each other, not identical to one another.

Still ironic, still a perversion of a peaceful symbol.

I find the Confederate flag offensive because it represents a time where America should be truly ashamed. People who wave that flag proudly are representing the terrible time and it's way of life.

Wait a minute, isn't this type of dicussion banned? Or was that just the Swastika-related discussion?

The union thoughout the war imported slaves from africa DURING the war, dosnt sound like they were trying to free slaves to me.



IIRC, this is incorrect as well. Importation had been stopped for years before.

Can you source this?

I'm from the south. But the Confederate flag is almost always used as a symbol of racism. It came into style during the 1950s civil rights movement. The Civil War was about slavery no matter how much you want to revise the history of our country and no matter how many slaves US Grant owned or didn't own.

If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side. --- General Ulysses S. Grant (USA)

I'm from the North, and my ancestory fought for the North, which I am proud of as well. Though many talk about whether the South was right, its of no importance. My ancestor fought for his state the same as those in the South did. Therefore I am in no way offended by the flags of the Confederacy, I am only offended by those who abuse its meaning or the flag itself. Especially considering that the Naval Jack of the CSA is what is viewed by many to be the flag of the CSA, which is in itself false.

If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side. --- General Ulysses S. Grant (USA)


From the Northern perspective, the war was fought to put down the rebellion. The rebellion occurred because the South was afraid, and with good reason, that the election of Lincoln would mean the end of slavery.

I hate history books that teach the war was over slavery, which is the biggest load of wank ive ever heard.
Right just ask the southerners of the time why they seceded (primary sources). Not only over slavery mind, but a fear of the loss of the way of life that would come if slavery was lost.
Slavery had been expanding up until Lincoln's election, but Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery, and the southerners were worried that he would pass bills which chipped away at slavery.
As I said, the South was absolutely dependent on slavery, both economically and psychologically, and that was why they seceded.

Not the whole reason, of course, but the main part of southern secession.

It is, however true that whatever Lincoln's personal beliefs, the north as a whole did not fight to abolish slavery but rather to preserve the union, out of simple nationalism.


The union thoughout the war imported slaves from africa DURING the war, dosnt sound like they were trying to free slaves to me.

Yeah? Do you mean government importation, legal importation, or smuggling? When you consider that the importation of slaves from Africa was banned under Jefferson, I'd like to see a source for this. A reliable source.

I have a confederate flag on my wall, im not racist , but i love the south of america, the south is really where americas culture is (cowboys etc)

Its a shame the flags been distorted, and that most people think that war was over slavery, (only 6% of southerners owned slaves!) but, i suppose its the victors who write history.
True usually.
Not so true here when the losers became part of the victors again. The history books that I'm familiar with try to de-emphasize slavery and emphasize other factories, as well as possible blame on the north.

As for southerner's being the real America, I'd say that the real America is, if anything New England, Upstate New York and the northern Midwest, but I'm not gonna get into an argument about that.

At any rate, my saying this won't convince you of anything, I'm sure, and I'm in a hurry now to pack for Rhode Island. I'll be back in a day or two and if anybody rebuts with anything worth responding to I'll reply when I get back.

Oh, and to answer the question of this thread:
No I don't get offended by Confederate flags. I know that I should, but I don't.

It doesn't offend me, but I can see how it could offend black people. A person considerate of other's feelings shouldn't fly the confederate flag.

I don't find the flag offensive. In fact, I thought it was stupid when they made us change our school flag from the confederate flag (I went to Robert E. Lee HS). One of my distant cousins is even named Robert E. Lee _____. Though I'm not white, or racist, I think that it is a part of our history, and one should always be respectful of one's history and ancestors.

Civil war was fought over where soverneighty lay, with the States, or with the Federal government. Slavery was the issue that brough the argument of soverneight to it's boiling point. The States which became the Confederacy felt that they knew how to govern themselves best (local argument), while the Union felt that there must be a government that does what is 'best' for everyone.
Unfortunately, the Civil War marked an era when people rebelled against thier government, citing the Declaration of Independence as thier inspiration (When in the course of humans events....), and thus commenced a war that was the bloodiest that America has ever seen, with really awful things being committed by both sides.
I am suprised that the Federal government allowed a symbol of open rebellion to remain in existence. I guess it was neccessary to heal the division (I don't know if that will ever happen), but it is a symbol of sedition, and perhaps even treason to many.
I was going to write about how the Stars and Bars shouldn't be flown because of what it representED, but then I realized that those things weren't so bad. So thinking made me change my mind. Interesting... Unfortunately, as others have said, it has been corrupted by the Klan, other assorted racists and those fat, dirty, obnoxious Oklahoma rednecks that live down the street from me and run thier dirtbikes at 1AM on weeknights. I hate those assholes.

Actually, the "Confederate" flag that draws the most flak is/was their "naval ensign." The "Battle flag" was square, not rectangular, and their official national flag for most of the war was the "Stars and Bars," a flag derived from the U.S. flag.

At any rate, its only interest nowadays is historical. I suppose the same can be said of the Nazi swastika flag. Both are historical, representing countries/governments that no longer exist, yet both conjure up certain feelings, both positive and negative, amongst certain individuals and various groups of people. Both those who cherish these flags and those who despise them need to "get into the 'now.'" The flags should neither be offensive nor conjure up nostalgia for a past that is best forgotten. At heart, they are colorful bits of cloth, nothing more.

Civil war was fought over where soverneighty lay, with the States, or with the Federal government. Slavery was the issue that brough the argument of soverneight to it's boiling point. The States which became the Confederacy felt that they knew how to govern themselves best (local argument), while the Union felt that there must be a government that does what is 'best' for everyone.
Unfortunately, the Civil War marked an era when people rebelled against thier government, citing the Declaration of Independence as thier inspiration (When in the course of humans events....), and thus commenced a war that was the bloodiest that America has ever seen, with really awful things being committed by both sides.
I am suprised that the Federal government allowed a symbol of open rebellion to remain in existence. I guess it was neccessary to heal the division (I don't know if that will ever happen), but it is a symbol of sedition, and perhaps even treason to many.
I was going to write about how the Stars and Bars shouldn't be flown because of what it representED, but then I realized that those things weren't so bad. So thinking made me change my mind. Interesting... Unfortunately, as others have said, it has been corrupted by the Klan, other assorted racists and those fat, dirty, obnoxious Oklahoma rednecks that live down the street from me and run thier dirtbikes at 1AM on weeknights. I hate those assholes.

These are good points, to an extent. Except "state's rights" was ALWAYS about slavery. From the beginning. All of the "state's rights" debates were centered around that issue.

And in any case, people flying the confederate flag aren't giving their opinion on the state's rights debates of the 1800's.

I'm offended by people who define themselves with symbols.

"The flag symbolizes slavery, so I don't like it," or "The flag is part of my history, so I'll use it."

How about "It's a gaudy flag, and any significance that it had 150 years ago is so lost that to rely on its symbolic value is to hold on to something just for the reaction that it's supposed to elicit."

This is one issue i have always wanted to discuss here in the forums. Why do people find the Confederacy offensive?

Everyone will find something offensive. And while I would never display one, I have no problem with people doing it. However I do have a problem with states having them in thier flags, it is a symbol of a rebellion against the legitimate government of the United States, and therefore should not be part of any State Flag.

and what really gets to me is that so many blacks find it offensive saying that the south faught to own blacks but there were many black confederate soldiers fighting side by side with whites in the Civil War.

The Confederates didn't arm blacks until the very end of the war, and a lot of them were drafted. Many more blacks fought for and supported the Union side.

And if you can remember the American flag stood for slavery up until the Civil War

However the Civil War ended that.

and Union general Ullysses S Grant owned slaves through out the war

No he didn't, he never owned slaves in his life.

while Virginian Robert E. Lee freed the he had inherited before the War started.

"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."

Sounds like he was really against slavery to me.

I live in Culpeper Virginia about an hour away from Richmond Virginia the capital of the Confederacy. My family faught for the south and i am very proud of that but because being southern is better tan being from any where else!

Except every other region in the United States, with particular emphases on New England.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."--Abraham Lincoln. March 4, 1861 Inaugural address

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." --Abraham Lincoln

"People separated from their history are easily persuaded." --Karl Marx

"The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination -- that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue . The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves." --H.L. Mencken

I don't find the flag offensive. In fact, I thought it was stupid when they made us change our school flag from the confederate flag (I went to Robert E. Lee HS). One of my distant cousins is even named Robert E. Lee _____. Though I'm not white, or racist, I think that it is a part of our history, and one should always be respectful of one's history and ancestors.I'm German. It would be extremely disrespectful to have a Nazi flag hanging in a "von Stauffenberg" Gymnasium...

I don't find the confederate flag offensive. But it makes me question someones patriotism for the US if they're still romancing the defeated enemies of the US.

These are good points, to an extent. Except "state's rights" was ALWAYS about slavery. From the beginning. All of the "state's rights" debates were centered around that issue.

And in any case, people flying the confederate flag aren't giving their opinion on the state's rights debates of the 1800's.

Like I said, it was the issue that brought soverneighty debate to war. Did the Federal government have the right to limit a new states right to choose to be slave or free? I am in Kansas, where most of that crap was centered.
And no, they certainly are not. What it used to symbolize and what people now say it symbolizes are two different things. It seems that most are like my neighbors, more interested in it standing for dirty barefeet, missing teeth, and overalls filthy with pigsty shit. The whole appeal of pretending to be a dirt-poor sharecropper (where Redneck has it's origins) is beyond me.

I would like to suggest that everyone here read "The Politically Incorect Guide to American History." It is well written, and has sources to back up every statement made within it.

Sidenote: Three states included secession clauses when they joined the union in the beginning, NY, VA, and, IIRC, Massachusetts.

"The South" rose and fell one hundred and forty years ago. It is NOT going to "rise again." Why are people still talking about it as if it happened yesterday? I was born, raised and continue to live in the south and am a person of European descent. I am, however, offended by the confederate flags. They say it is only displaying their heritage, but it is more than that. Look at the symbolism. This was the flag of a state that supported slavery, which was without a doubt one of the its defining institutions. If it were not, then why was is such a big issue with everyone? This state had seceeded from the union over a variety of issues, many of them very understandable and some even noble, but these are forgotten today, and are certainly unknown to the people who use the flag today. Or at most they know of them, but have no personal meaning, but are simply taken out when they come under fire to justify their flag. The flag is generally displayed only by those who call themselves "southern" and who still don't like "them yankees." With all this in mind, the flag becomes a symbol of racism. Without even taking into consideration that the better part of the people who display this flag are racist, whether openly, or a little more quietly; and you can't tell me this isn't true, I am from the south, and I'm not stupid. It also becomes a symbol of elitism and seperatism. Since by nature the flag is with few exceptions exclusive to southern whites, it shows animosity and condescension toward others of different regions and races; this is another reason why it is perceived as racist. When the flag is seen, by symbolism alone, it suggests that the person has the belief that the south should again secede; that people from the north suck; that the American South should go back to the way it was in the 1850's, and people should be forced to live in such a society of intolerance and racism as existed then. Also, what is all this talk about the "culture of America?" ALL of America, every person, makes up the culture of America, not just the cowboys or the people from New England. Why about what makes up "the real America" when we all live there? And what's more, why go on about "the real America" when you've just finished talking about how great the Confederacy is. I think that's a bit ironic. "We're the real America, we're so American, that we seceded from America, because they weren't American enough!" No sense at all. Also, you don't see many Germans flying the Nazi flag, even if it is part of their heritage. So if you were to see it, would you think that maybe a German were simply flying their flag that their nation used more than 60 years ago? Or would you think that it was some racist jerk, who not only didn't like black people, but Jews as well? What do you think?

Like I said, it was the issue that brought soverneighty debate to war. Did the Federal government have the right to limit a new states right to choose to be slave or free? I am in Kansas, where most of that crap was centered.
And no, they certainly are not. What it used to symbolize and what people now say it symbolizes are two different things. It seems that most are like my neighbors, more interested in it standing for dirty barefeet, missing teeth, and overalls filthy with pigsty shit. The whole appeal of pretending to be a dirt-poor sharecropper (where Redneck has it's origins) is beyond me.

As a SOUTHERNER(not a Redneck) I am offended by the common assertion that all "rednecks" or southerners are ignorant, bigoted, hateful, and dirty, I am personally well informed, friendly with quite a few black people, and am always well groomed.

I maybe a northerner but the Confederate Flag does not offend me. Why? Because the flag belonged to a turbulent time in our history. History needs to be honored and preserved.

By declaring this flag offensive, you are negating a very important time in our history. A part that truly does need to be remembered since it put brother against brother, father against son. A nation that was truly divided and that the fate of the world laid in the balance.

My family faught for the south and i am very proud of that but because being southern is better tan being from any where else!
And to think I was leaning toward voting 'no' until this last.

I don't really care about the confederate flag one way or the other. Grant didn't own slaves. His father in law did and his wife may have, but he was opposed to it and never owned any.

Offensive? No, not really.

However, it has no place on any state building. It belongs in a history museum.

"The South" rose and fell one hundred and forty years ago. It is NOT going to "rise again." Why are people still talking about it as if it happened yesterday? I was born, raised and continue to live in the south and am a person of European descent. I am, however, offended by the confederate flags. They say it is only displaying their heritage, but it is more than that. Look at the symbolism. This was the flag of a state that supported slavery, which was without a doubt one of the its institutions. If it were not, then why was is such a big issue with everyone? This state had seceeded from the union over a variety of issues, many of them very understandable and some even noble, but these are forgotten today, and are certainly unknown to the people who use the flag today. Or at most they know of them, but have no personal meaning, but are simply taken out when they come under fire to justify their flag. The flag is generally displayed only by those who call themselves "southern" and who still don't like "them yankees." With all this in mind, the flag becomes a symbol of racism. Without even taking into consideration that the better part of the people who display this flag are racist, whether openly, or a little more quietly; and you can't tell me this isn't true, I am from the south, and I'm not stupid. It also becomes a symbol of elitism and seperatism. Since by nature the flag is with few exceptions exclusive to southern whites, it shows animosity and condescension toward others of different regions and races; this is another reason why it is perceived as racist. When the flag is seen, by symbolism alone, it suggests that the person has the belief that the south should again secede; that people from the north suck; that the American South should go back to the way it was in the 1850's, and people should be forced to live in such a society of intolerance and racism as existed then. Also, what is all this talk about the "culture of America?" ALL of America, every person, makes up the culture of America, not just the cowboys or the people from New England. Why about what makes up "the real America" when we all live there? And what's more, why go on about "the real America" when you've just finished talking about how great the Confederacy is. I think that's a bit ironic. "We're the real America, we're so American, that we seceded from America, because they weren't American enough!" No sense at all.

*coughcoughreactionaryliberalcoughcough*

A nation that was truly divided and that the fate of the world laid in the balance.
That would be the 'world' of the United States? Or the world of the American slave, maybe I'm thinking?

That would be the 'world' of the United States? Or the world of the American slave, maybe I'm thinking?

Well, as you should well know by now, the United States *is* the world.

It's pretty simple.

Flags are symbols. To some, it symbolizes a spirit of non-conformity. To others, it symbolizes the path of a culture's history. But to some, it symbolizes oppression.

People are never going to agree on this. I think that the best thing is for all sides to recognize that everyone's feelings about the flag are valid.

That would be the 'world' of the United States? Or the world of the American slave, maybe I'm thinking?

Are you incapable of thinking outside the box?

Think about it? What if the Confederates DID win seperation? How would the world have turn out?

The fate of world history laid in the balance based on this Civil War. Besides that, many techniques used in World War I were used in the Civil War. Many of today's modern ships derived from the Ironclads of the USN (the first TRUE ironclad the USS Monitor)

Remember that Britain and France were thinking about coming in on the side of the Confederate States. What if they did? How would the proceeding wars that followed turn out?

Yes the fate of the world did hang on the balance of what happened in 1861-1865.

<snip>I could kiss you! :p

This is one issue i have always wanted to discuss here in the forums. Why do people find the Confederacy offensive? I mean when it existed 1861-1865 times and the way people thought were much different. Many people offended by the confederate flag don't know the first thing about it. and what really gets to me is that so many blacks find it offensive saying that the south faught to own blacks but there were many black confederate soldiers fighting side by side with whites in the Civil War. The confederate flag has been abused by the KKK and Neo Nazis but that shouldn't make people think the flag is bad. And if you can remember the American flag stood for slavery up until the Civil War and Union general Ullysses S Grant owned slaves through out the war while Virginian Robert E. Lee freed the he had inherited before the War started. I live in Culpeper Virginia about an hour away from Richmond Virginia the capital of the Confederacy. My family faught for the south and i am very proud of that but because being southern is better tan being from any where else!
Bullshit. You can fool a Yankee, son, but having grown up in the South (and still living here) I can tell you with 100% accuracy that the confederate flag on someone's property means one thing alone: Keep away niggers, fags and kykes.

I have never, ever been proven wrong on this assumption in 28 years. :rolleyes:

I maybe a northerner but the Confederate Flag does not offend me. Why? Because the flag belonged to a turbulent time in our history. History needs to be honored and preserved.Theres a difference between preserving history and publicly flying a flag. That's what we've got museums for.

By declaring this flag offensive, you are negating a very important time in our history. A part that truly does need to be remembered since it put brother against brother, father against son. A nation that was truly divided and that the fate of the world laid in the balance.It doesn't need to be struck from the history books. Nazi emblems are worse than "offensive" in Germany, they are "unconstitutional". This does not mean that they are struck from history books, museums, or anything other that has an acceptable historical context.
Declaring something offensive doesn't mean that you're trying to forget it and erase it. It means that you'll treat it properly and deny idiots the legal rights to abuse symbols.

This is one issue i have always wanted to discuss here in the forums. Why do people find the Confederacy offensive? I mean when it existed 1861-1865 times and the way people thought were much different. Many people offended by the confederate flag don't know the first thing about it. and what really gets to me is that so many blacks find it offensive saying that the south faught to own blacks but there were many black confederate soldiers fighting side by side with whites in the Civil War. The confederate flag has been abused by the KKK and Neo Nazis but that shouldn't make people think the flag is bad. And if you can remember the American flag stood for slavery up until the Civil War and Union general Ullysses S Grant owned slaves through out the war while Virginian Robert E. Lee freed the he had inherited before the War started. I live in Culpeper Virginia about an hour away from Richmond Virginia the capital of the Confederacy. My family faught for the south and i am very proud of that but because being southern is better tan being from any where else!
It offends me for two reasons. First, as a Southerner, it offends me because it's a flag of treason. Spare me all the arguments for secession--they didn't fly then and they don't fly now.

Secondly, no matter what it stood for during the Civil War, post-reconstruction, it was taken up as a symbol of hatred by groups like the Knights of the White Camellia and the KKK. Just as the swastika was once a symbol of the sun god to pagans and has forever been tainted by its association with Nazi Germany, the Confederate flag, even if weren't a symbol of treason, has been co-opted by racists. Put it in a museum as a lesson to future generations--it doesn't belong anywhere in a place of honor.

Think about it? What if the Confederates DID win seperation? How would the world have turn out?Ooh... I'd get in trouble for threadjacking if I tried to answer THAT question :D

These are good points, to an extent. Except "state's rights" was ALWAYS about slavery. From the beginning. All of the "state's rights" debates were centered around that issue.

And in any case, people flying the confederate flag aren't giving their opinion on the state's rights debates of the 1800's.

States rights were not always about slavery they were about we can treat a person however we want. The South again used the ideas of "state's rights" to try to stop the civil rights movement. States rights are a load b.s. and if this has not happened yet can somebody show the difference between the Confederate naval ensign and the official Confederate flag or whatever they say the difference is.

Also just for the record I don't think its offensive it is just a part of our a bad part of our history but a part of our history as Americans that we should think about when we talk about where we all today.

Are you incapable of thinking outside the box?

Think about it? What if the Confederates DID win seperation? How would the world have turn out?

The fate of world history laid in the balance based on this Civil War. Besides that, many techniques used in World War I were used in the Civil War. Many of today's modern ships derived from the Ironclads of the USN (the first TRUE ironclad the USS Monitor)

Remember that Britain and France were thinking about coming in on the side of the Confederate States. What if they did? How would the proceeding wars that followed turn out?

Yes the fate of the world did hang on the balance of what happened in 1861-1865.
Oh give me a break, things didn't turn out that way, so it's all moot. You make everything sound like Science Fiction.

I think the south believes they're still fighting the war. In the north you don't usually see the flag. Whereas in the south it's everywhere. The south seems to have something they need to prove.

The fate of world history laid in the balance based on this Civil War. Besides that, many techniques used in World War I were used in the Civil War. Many of today's modern ships derived from the Ironclads of the USN (the first TRUE ironclad the USS Monitor)

.Little historical nitpick. The USS Monitor was not an "Ironclad", she was an Iron-hulled. Effectively full metal. The CSS Virginia (Ex-Merrimack) was an Iron-Clad, A traditional wood hull superimposed by an iron shell.

While I don't find the Conferdate Flag offensive, I do think that the continued pride in the flag and the symbol is idiotic.

The Confederate Flag represents, not oppression or slavery or bigotry, but the failed attempt of the southern states to form their own nation. When the Union won the civil war, any hope for a conferate nation died.

I also find the waving of the conferdate flag to be one of the most anti-American sentiments. You're waving and honoring the symbol of a time when the south not only was, but wanted to be un-American -- they wanted to be conferdate. So, why is it that lots of southerners who wave the flag are also quite militantly pro-America? The conferdate isn't the US, nor will it ever be. The conferdate isn't really anything but a vaporized idea and dream.

The continued conferdate pride and flag-waving is absurd and even though it's your American right to continue to wave that flag with pride, it doesn't make you look any less moronic when you do.

Bullshit. You can fool a Yankee, son, but having grown up in the South (and still living here) I can tell you with 100% accuracy that the confederate flag on someone's property means one thing alone: Keep away niggers, fags and kykes.

I have never, ever been proven wrong on this assumption in 28 years. :rolleyes:

It's even more true in Ohio. We've got them here as well, throughout the southern parts of the state. (Confederates in Ohio; it's a little ridiculous seeing as how Confederate raiders burned and looted towns in the same places where people put up the flags)

Incorrect:

http://history1900s.about.com/library/graphics/swastikart2.gif...http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/graphics/05graphs/mongara.jpg
SwastikaBuddhist Symbol
You will note that they are mirror versions of each other, not identical to one another.

Sorry, as a Buddhist I can authoritatively tell you that you are absolutely wrong and Rougu is, more or less, correct.

It is a widely held myth that the swastika of Hiduism and Buddhism is only the "lefthand" swastika and that the "righthand" swastika is exclusively a Nazi symbol.

Debunking the Nazi "Backwards Swastika" Myth (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/The_Backwards_Swastika.htm)

Hindu Swastikas:
Most authorities designate the right-hand swastika as a solar emblem, capturing the sun's path from east to west, a clockwise motion. One theory says it represents the outward dispersion of the universe. One of its finest meanings is that transcendent reality is not attained directly through the logic of the mind, but indirectly and mysteriously through the intuitive, cosmic mind. Though Hindus use the swastika straight up and down, other cultures rotated it at various angles.

The left-hand swastika appears in many cultures, including Hindu. It often is used interchangeably with the right-hand version, though the majority of Hindus employ the right-facing form. (bolding mine)
source (http://www.gurudeva.org/resources/books/lg/lg_ch-07.html)
Righthand Hindu swastika:
http://www.gurudeva.org/resources/books/lg/images/131_swas_right___.jpg

Righthand Buddhist Swastikas
http://www.chan1.org/images/chanmag/figure_0.JPG

Both types of Buddhist swastikas:
http://www.aisf.or.jp/~jaanus/deta/data_image/image_s/sayagata.gif




Eichen: You are also absolutely incorrect, and I cannot find words strong enough to emphasise that. I don't know what part of the south you lived in, but having grown up there myself I can tell you you are absolutely wrong. And if you want evidence, just look back over my arguments regarding race, homosexuality, and religion. Then look at the Navy Jack on my wall.

I am white, and I am a Southerner. That being said, I do not find the Confederate flag offensive. For those who does, you need to get over yourself and get a life. If your scared or offended by a cloth, then you might as well be scared or offended by a Barney espsiode.

I dont find the Confederate Flag offensive at all.
It just displays white southern culture...It the same thing when people display British flag...its all part of american culture.

About the best region in America its New York. It is the melting handle on the Melting pot. New York is the center of America and most major events are somehow related.....(Even the war on terrorism)
I'm not offended by the swasika either, being a dutch american. They opressed the netherlands but germans now are nice and shouldn't be judged like that.
I see how Blacks could be offened by the Confederate Flag but most blacks who are offended are "uneducated street-trash gangsters" who kill rednecks stupid enough to enter the ghetto.
Grant did own slaves and Northerns were MORE racist than southerns. Most blacks dont know that now, they sterotypical that the confederate flag means slavery and to opress them.
If everyone had a decent education no one would be offeneed by the confederate flag or any symbol because they are historical or cultural had have no signifact modern value...

Whoever says the South shall rise again is an idiot.
We are one country, one nation, one people. United we stand, Divided we fall.
Fogot about racism in america and focus on the future. :rolleyes:

The Problem is terrorism, Arab militants and Muslim extermists. :mp5:
We must defeat them and not fight amongst each other.

Long Live America!
Down with all those who oppose us!

Bush/Cheney '04 :cool:
:mp5: Lets kill some terroists :mp5:

Back on topic....comnfedearte flag = ok with me

I am white, and I am a Southerner. That being said, I do not find the Confederate flag offensive. For those who does, you need to get over yourself and get a life. If your scared or offended by a cloth, then you might as well be scared or offended by a Barney espsiode.
I'd be scared of Barney if the people who were ardent viewers of Barney were also keen on things like forming lynchmobs, periodically wearing white sheets together in large groups, and murdering civil rights workers.

But maybe that's just me.

Incorrect:

http://history1900s.about.com/library/graphics/swastikart2.gif...http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/graphics/05graphs/mongara.jpg
SwastikaBuddhist Symbol
You will note that they are mirror versions of each other, not identical to one another.


no... all swastikas are right facing.
The suawastika is the left facing form, and is used mainly in Hinduism, and is generally regarded as the "evil" form of the two

Furture more, the Buddhist actually have no real bias one way or the other as far as orientation.

"The swastikas (in either orientation) appear on the chest of some statues of Gautama Buddha and is often incised on the soles of the feet of the Buddha in statuary. Because of the association with the right facing swastika with Nazism, Buddhist swastikas (outside India only) after the mid-20th century are almost universally left-facing." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

But any ways, my point is, the NAZIs did infact use the "good" Swastika, not the "evil" one

It just pisses me off when some one tries to argue with me about the swastika, and they dont know what they are talking about.

Links--
Wiki- Swastika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika)
Wiki- Suawastika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauwastika)
Wiki- Hindu
Swastika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Hinduism)
Wiki- Buddhist Swastika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Buddhism)
Wiki- NAZI swastika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Nazi_Germany)

I am white, and I am a Southerner. That being said, I do not find the Confederate flag offensive. For those who does, you need to get over yourself and get a life. If your scared or offended by a cloth, then you might as well be scared or offended by a Barney espsiode.I hate Barney, actually.

I'd be scared of Barney if the people who were ardent viewers of Barney were also keen on things like forming lynchmobs, periodically wearing white sheets together in large groups, and murdering civil rights workers.

That's why the Confederate flag is offensive; it's being used for the purpose of justifying and symbolizing racial hatred. The original meaning of the flag no longer exists because of its interpretation today.

It's the same with flags from Imperial Germany; they aren't supportive of Nazism in themselves, but the people who use them are Nazis and have ruined what it once stood for.

As a SOUTHERNER(not a Redneck) I am offended by the common assertion that all "rednecks" or southerners are ignorant, bigoted, hateful, and dirty, I am personally well informed, friendly with quite a few black people, and am always well groomed.

Read my previous post before you get pissed off. I never asserted that all rednecks are Southerners, nor vice versa. A well-informed person, as you claim to be, may have wanted to look into that before spouting off as you did.
Here, I made it easy for you, and added italics to the important part:
Civil war was fought over where soverneighty lay, with the States, or with the Federal government. Slavery was the issue that brough the argument of soverneight to it's boiling point. The States which became the Confederacy felt that they knew how to govern themselves best (local argument), while the Union felt that there must be a government that does what is 'best' for everyone.
Unfortunately, the Civil War marked an era when people rebelled against thier government, citing the Declaration of Independence as thier inspiration (When in the course of humans events....), and thus commenced a war that was the bloodiest that America has ever seen, with really awful things being committed by both sides.
I am suprised that the Federal government allowed a symbol of open rebellion to remain in existence. I guess it was neccessary to heal the division (I don't know if that will ever happen), but it is a symbol of sedition, and perhaps even treason to many.
I was going to write about how the Stars and Bars shouldn't be flown because of what it representED, but then I realized that those things weren't so bad. So thinking made me change my mind. Interesting... Unfortunately, as others have said, it has been corrupted by the Klan, other assorted racists and those fat, dirty, obnoxious Oklahoma rednecks that live down the street from me and run thier dirtbikes at 1AM on weeknights. I hate those assholes.

I hate Barney, actually.

The one where he warned kids about being molested and then proceeded to pull down the kid's pants and touch his "special place" did it for me.

It was a long time ago when the south in the civil war had that flag its not that offsensive but the people in the south like the city of Atlanta might think it as a different way.

It was a long time ago when the south in the civil war had that flag its not that offsensive but the people in the south like the city of Atlanta might think it as a different way.

I suppose you are talking about Dukes of Hazzed... :rolleyes:
That was a good movie, they touched up on the confederate flag and racism but pulled out before anything happenend....

That's why the Confederate flag is offensive; it's being used for the purpose of justifying and symbolizing racial hatred. The original meaning of the flag no longer exists because of its interpretation today.

It's the same with flags from Imperial Germany; they aren't supportive of Nazism in themselves, but the people who use them are Nazis and have ruined what it once stood for.Actually, it's perfectly legal to wave around or display an imperial flag (only Nazis do it in public, but I've made some for a box to a game that plays in the time period). It's just usually Nazis that do it. The 2nd Reich was no more racist than the British Empire...

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."--Abraham Lincoln. March 4, 1861 Inaugural address


"Read my lips, no new taxes"

"I did not have sex with that woman"

And anyway, Lincoln didn't start the war, southernors who thought that Lincoln would abolish slavery started it.

The one where he warned kids about being molested and then proceeded to pull down the kid's pants and touch his "special place" did it for me.I've never seen it. A Bathtime-Barney towel is what did it for me. :D

I dont find the Confederate Flag offensive at all.
It just displays white southern culture...It the same thing when people display British flag...its all part of american culture.

About the best region in America its New York. It is the melting handle on the Melting pot. New York is the center of America and most major events are somehow related.....(Even the war on terrorism)
I'm not offended by the swasika either, being a dutch american. They opressed the netherlands but germans now are nice and shouldn't be judged like that.
I see how Blacks could be offened by the Confederate Flag but most blacks who are offended are "uneducated street-trash gangsters" who kill rednecks stupid enough to enter the ghetto.
Grant did own slaves and Northerns were MORE racist than southerns. Most blacks dont know that now, they sterotypical that the confederate flag means slavery and to opress them.
If everyone had a decent education no one would be offeneed by the confederate flag or any symbol because they are historical or cultural had have no signifact modern value...

Whoever says the South shall rise again is an idiot.
We are one country, one nation, one people. United we stand, Divided we fall.
Fogot about racism in america and focus on the future. :rolleyes:

The Problem is terrorism, Arab militants and Muslim extermists. :mp5:
We must defeat them and not fight amongst each other.

Long Live America!
Down with all those who oppose us!

Ha! Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!! You're ignorance speaks for itself.

One, those African-Americans who are offended by the Conferdate flag are all ghetto trash, eh? Sadly, that's not the dumbest thing I've ever heard/read, but it's still up there. You're lack of any real achorage in reality is blatant.

Second, forget about racism? How can we be united if we are divided on a racial level?

Edited because I was too mean, and I don't want to be mean. Not really...

This is one issue i have always wanted to discuss here in the forums. Why do people find the Confederacy offensive? I mean when it existed 1861-1865 times and the way people thought were much different. Many people offended by the confederate flag don't know the first thing about it. and what really gets to me is that so many blacks find it offensive saying that the south faught to own blacks but there were many black confederate soldiers fighting side by side with whites in the Civil War. The confederate flag has been abused by the KKK and Neo Nazis but that shouldn't make people think the flag is bad. And if you can remember the American flag stood for slavery up until the Civil War and Union general Ullysses S Grant owned slaves through out the war while Virginian Robert E. Lee freed the he had inherited before the War started. I live in Culpeper Virginia about an hour away from Richmond Virginia the capital of the Confederacy. My family faught for the south and i am very proud of that but because being southern is better tan being from any where else!

I totally agree with u, plus the Confederate States had letters stating why they separated and only in one of those statements was slavery even meantioned, plus that was Mississippi which probably had a lot of large cotton plantations at the time.

Also, many of the slaves that were "freed" from the South either stayed where they were, or went up North and were exploited by industrialists. So either way, African Americans weren't treated entirely fair by both sides.

However, conditions on the plantations weren't always bad. Only on large plantations might the conditions have been bad. On smaller ones however, slaves or simply hired hands would have been very import and rather costly to replace so they would have been treated much better.

So, both the Union and the Confederates had their pro's and con's and the American Civil War was not entirely about slavery in the first place.

Hence, there is no reason whatsoever why the Confederate flag should be in anyway offensive. That is about as offensive as an American living in Canada flying the American flag (reasoning being that America invaded Canada in the War of 1812 and during the Fenian Raids in 1866-67 :) ).

While I don't find the Conferdate Flag offensive, I do think that the continued pride in the flag and the symbol is idiotic.

The Confederate Flag represents, not oppression or slavery or bigotry, but the failed attempt of the southern states to form their own nation. When the Union won the civil war, any hope for a conferate nation died.

I also find the waving of the conferdate flag to be one of the most anti-American sentiments. You're waving and honoring the symbol of a time when the south not only was, but wanted to be un-American -- they wanted to be conferdate. So, why is it that lots of southerners who wave the flag are also quite militantly pro-America? The conferdate isn't the US, nor will it ever be. The conferdate isn't really anything but a vaporized idea and dream.

The continued conferdate pride and flag-waving is absurd and even though it's your American right to continue to wave that flag with pride, it doesn't make you look any less moronic when you do.

One thing, the Confederate States didn't want to be their own country, they wanted the federal government to give them some breathing space seeing as that there were a number or taxes on goods from the south.

That's why the Confederate flag is offensive; it's being used for the purpose of justifying and symbolizing racial hatred. The original meaning of the flag no longer exists because of its interpretation today.

It's the same with flags from Imperial Germany; they aren't supportive of Nazism in themselves, but the people who use them are Nazis and have ruined what it once stood for.

I'm sry but I'm missing how it's being used to progress racial hatred.

It was simply something that the former-Confederate States want to keep as part of their history.

Also, on a side note, slavery might not have been abolished as soon as it had had the American Civil War happened.

"Read my lips, no new taxes"

"I did not have sex with that woman"

And anyway, Lincoln didn't start the war, southernors who thought that Lincoln would abolish slavery started it.

Wrong, as previously stated only one Confederate State had in it's reasons for seperation slavery and that was Mississippi. Otherwise, most of the reasons were too many taxes and probably limits.

The South was trying to secede from the Union. They made their own nation. They had their own president, Jefferson Davis. They had their own Declaration of Independance.

That's the makings of a new nation right there, my friend.

I'm sry but I'm missing how it's being used to progress racial hatred.
It was simply something that the former-Confederate States want to keep as part of their history.
Also, on a side note, slavery might not have been abolished as soon as it had had the American Civil War happened.

That's the point; the flag originally meant nothing more than a reminder of the South's fight for independence. Both sides were racist during the Civil War, and so its connotation wasn't racist; by that logic the American flag would have also been racist. However, racists took it during the KKK era and intentionally warped it from this honorary purpose to one of encouraging racial hatred and segregation, and that is how it obtained its negative connotation today.

Slavery would have been abolished eventually because there was growing pressure from England, although the actual time of its abolition could have been 10 or 20 years later.

The South was trying to secede from the Union. They made their own nation. They had their own president, Jefferson Davis. They had their own Declaration of Independance.

That's the makings of a new nation right there, my friend.

Yes, true. But their reasoning was more control of their industries, not because "we don't wannna be a part of u".

That's the point; the flag originally meant nothing more than a reminder of the South's fight for independence. Both sides were racist during the Civil War, and so its connotation wasn't racist; by that logic the American flag would have also been racist. However, racists took it during the KKK era and intentionally warped it from this honorary purpose to one of encouraging racial hatred and segregation, and that is how it obtained its negative connotation today.

Slavery would have been abolished eventually because there was growing pressure from England, although the actual time of its abolition could have been 10 or 20 years later.

Thank you.

However, just because it has been warped by others to be bad doesn't mean it can't be given it's original purpose again. A historical reminder.

Bullshit. You can fool a Yankee, son, but having grown up in the South (and still living here) I can tell you with 100% accuracy that the confederate flag on someone's property means one thing alone: Keep away niggers, fags and kykes.

I have never, ever been proven wrong on this assumption in 28 years. :rolleyes:

Spot on! This has been my experience as well.

I don't find the flag offensive per se. I do view those displaying it as rather sad and pathetic though. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Wrong, as previously stated only one Confederate State had in it's reasons for seperation slavery and that was Mississippi. Otherwise, most of the reasons were too many taxes and probably limits.
Look, I don't know what everyone at the time said, but politicians of all stripes lie.

If you look at the history of the US in the 1800s, secession didn't just spring up over night. There were a half dozen compromises that were in response to southern states threatening to secede. All of them were about slavery. None of them were about taxes. The Republican party was dedicated to keep from adding any more slave states to the union, which would have put the slave states at an increasing disadvantage politically, and to an eventual end to slavery. The election of Lincoln was the reason for the secession.

Ooh... I'd get in trouble for threadjacking if I tried to answer THAT question :D

Actually in a thread like this, it probably wouldn't be considered threadjacking. However, I have a whole series of Alternate History books that spell out a very clear possibility of what would happen if that occured.

As for the flag, I don't see it as offensive nor as a flag of treason. Now the question is, which Confed flag are we talking about here? The actually Confederate Battle Flag or the Flag of the Confederacy that was adopted prior to the fall of Richmond?

Oh give me a break, things didn't turn out that way, so it's all moot. You make everything sound like Science Fiction.

No but your question really was a stupid one. Especially to those of us that actually study history.

Nice job of dodging though. Goes to show that you don't have an answer. Of course, you never really do answer my questions except with comeback lines like that quoted above.

Little historical nitpick. The USS Monitor was not an "Ironclad", she was an Iron-hulled. Effectively full metal. The CSS Virginia (Ex-Merrimack) was an Iron-Clad, A traditional wood hull superimposed by an iron shell.

You know what I ment. It was technically called an ironclad but your point is true.

States rights were not always about slavery they were about we can treat a person however we want. The South again used the ideas of "state's rights" to try to stop the civil rights movement.

And now they are dredging up "states rights" yet again to deny gay Americans their civil rights. Seems the only time this issue comes up is when the federal government trys to drag to south into modern world kicking and screaming. Southern states use it primarily to justify their outdated and bigoted practices. Sometimes I wish the federal government would say "Oops, we made a mistake. You CAN split from the union. Off you go now. Feel free to take KS, OK, NM, CO, AZ, and UT as compensation" This would save the rest of the nation a lot of trouble.

Also, from the South Carolina declaration

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. "

Georgia

"The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia."

Texas

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. "

Alabama

"And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,"

I could go on.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

One thing, the Confederate States didn't want to be their own country, they wanted the federal government to give them some breathing space seeing as that there were a number or taxes on goods from the south.

Then why did they:

1) Raise an Army
2) Declare independence
3) Approved of a constitution
4) Waged a war of Secession

These points don't add up to breathing space Teckor.

Then why did they:

1) Raise an Army
2) Declare independence
3) Approved of a constitution
4) Waged a war of Secession

These points don't add up to breathing space Teckor.
Don't forget fired first on federal land!

Don't forget fired first on federal land!

That is covered in point 4.

I wouldn't say it offends me, but that certainly isn't to say that I like everything it has stood for.

We do get the odd person here who flies it. Go figure. :rolleyes:

I totally agree with u, plus the Confederate States had letters stating why they separated and only in one of those statements was slavery even meantioned, plus that was Mississippi which probably had a lot of large cotton plantations at the time.


wrong. Four of them had them, and all four mentioned slavery as the main issue. See my last post.

The Confederates didn't arm blacks until the very end of the war, and a lot of them were drafted. Many more blacks fought for and supported the Union side.

The Confederate Government (as a whole) didn't.... However the ANV (Army of Northern Virginia) had been taking in black soldiers since just after Fredericksburg... The Confederate Armies were allied state Armies under the provision of their own govenors. Not quite the same as the Union Army (and present US order)... The "Confederate" government had little power, individual state govenors wielded supreme power over the armed forces of their states. The "Confederate" national government didn't authorize the use of blacks as soldiers till near the end; though some states had already HAD black soldiers in their ranks PRIOR to that time.



No he didn't, he never owned slaves in his life.


In effect he did, since his wife did. Much Like Lee, Grant's slaves came by marriage.... Though Lee freed slaves he had gained early in the 1850's; Grant did not free his till Abolition was declared. So through the war he was in fact "owner" of slaves, through his wife.


Except every other region in the United States, with particular emphases on New England.

I've been most everywhere else in the United States.... Virginia is the best state IMHO.

It offends me because people are flying it, instead of an american flag. It just seems anti-american to me, flying a flag of traitors, rather than the flag of your nation.

can somebody show the difference between the Confederate naval ensign and the official Confederate flag or whatever they say the difference is.

Here's a link showing the various confederate flags.

http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/southflg.html

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-csa7.gif
First Confederate National Flag

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-csa3.gif
Third Confederate National Flag
(The second was just the Third minus the red field on the right.)

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-csanj.gif
Naval Jack (also Army of Tennessee)

I don't personally find any of these offensive; they're just symbols of a lost, defeated cause.

Bullshit. You can fool a Yankee, son, but having grown up in the South (and still living here) I can tell you with 100% accuracy that the confederate flag on someone's property means one thing alone: Keep away niggers, fags and kykes.

I have never, ever been proven wrong on this assumption in 28 years. :rolleyes:

Hmm, you must not get around much...

Actually in a thread like this, it probably wouldn't be considered threadjacking. However, I have a whole series of Alternate History books that spell out a very clear possibility of what would happen if that occured.

As for the flag, I don't see it as offensive nor as a flag of treason. Now the question is, which Confed flag are we talking about here? The actually Confederate Battle Flag or the Flag of the Confederacy that was adopted prior to the fall of Richmond?You do? I've got my own little scenario (what could, not would have happened, mind you) to get an interesting WW2 scenario going.

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-csa7.gif
First Confederate National Flag

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-csa3.gif
Third Confederate National Flag
(The second was just the Third minus the red field on the right.)

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-csanj.gif
Naval Jack (also Army of Tennessee)

I don't personally find any of these offensive; they're just symbols of a lost, defeated cause.
That'd be a bit like flying the nazi flag over the Reichstag...


Before all hell breaks loose, let me explain.


We are americans. Citizens of the United States. The Confederacy was a creation of traitors, who killed more American Citizens then any other group of people combined. The confederate flag should be publically burned, spit upon, and trampled, not ideolized.

I don't personally find any of these offensive; they're just symbols of a lost, defeated cause.Nazism is a defeated cause and I find it's symbols offensive...

You do? I've got my own little scenario (what could, not would have happened, mind you) to get an interesting WW2 scenario going.

If the Confeds existed and lost the Great War and had a treaty like that of the one that ended WWI, and a hitler like idiot got to the presidency of the Confederate States of America, Operation barbarossa like attack more than likely!

Hell....I'm on that series right now and the war isn't going well for the US at the moment.

If the Confeds existed and lost the Great War and had a treaty like that of the one that ended WWI, and a hitler like idiot got to the presidency of the Confederate States of America, Operation barbarossa like attack more than likely!

Hell....I'm on that series right now and the war isn't going well for the US at the moment.
Yeah, but it's a bit obvious what's going to happen. Stalingrad's coming up, isn't it?

It offends me for two reasons. First, as a Southerner, it offends me because it's a flag of treason. Spare me all the arguments for secession--they didn't fly then and they don't fly now.

Secondly, no matter what it stood for during the Civil War, post-reconstruction, it was taken up as a symbol of hatred by groups like the Knights of the White Camellia and the KKK. Just as the swastika was once a symbol of the sun god to pagans and has forever been tainted by its association with Nazi Germany, the Confederate flag, even if weren't a symbol of treason, has been co-opted by racists. Put it in a museum as a lesson to future generations--it doesn't belong anywhere in a place of honor.

By the courts own admission the Civil War was not "Treason"... And no one was sucessfully prosecuted for "Treason" amongst the several state governments... The war was an action taken between the properly constituted powers of the United States Federal Government; and that of the properly constituted micro-republics which; through their individual legislatures, seceeded from the earlier union.

While you may lay claim to "treason"; your claim is based on absolutely no truth; as it is not inline with either the courts during or after the war; nor inline with the definition of "treason" as limited by the Constitution of the United States.

Yeah, but it's a bit obvious what's going to happen. Stalingrad's coming up, isn't it?

At Pittsburgh! LOL (Great. Better keep my head down!)

Anyway, I have the Confed National and Battle Flags in a coffee cup up here in my room that is right next to the flags of the United States of America. You know what? I consider them a part of history and nothing offensive at all. They should be flown at Battle fields because that was who fought there. That is what pisses me off more that they are removing these types of flags from HISTORICAL sites because a few blacks found them offensive.

By the courts own admission the Civil War was not "Treason"... And no one was sucessfully prosecuted for "Treason" amongst the several state governments... The war was an action taken between the properly constituted powers of the United States Federal Government; and that of the properly constituted micro-republics which; through their individual legislatures, seceeded from the earlier union.

While you may lay claim to "treason"; your claim is based on absolutely no truth; as it is not inline with either the courts during or after the war; nor inline with the definition of "treason" as limited by the Constitution of the United States.
Mind a citation, please.

At Pittsburgh! LOL (Great. Better keep my head down!)

Anyway, I have the Confed National and Battle Flags in a coffee cup up here in my room that is right next to the flags of the United States of America. You know what? I consider them a part of history and nothing offensive at all. They should be flown at Battle fields because that was who fought there. That is what pisses me off more that they are removing these types of flags from HISTORICAL sites because a few blacks found them offensive.
I've got a wee bit more of a problem with flying them over state capitals. That said, the only reason why I've ever had a confederate flag was for burning it at a fourth of july celebration, in front of a bunch of, ah, southeners. One of the funnier things I've ever done.

nor inline with the definition of "treason" as limited by the Constitution of the United States.
"Section 3
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Sounds like treason to me, no matter what the courts said.

Eichen: You are also absolutely incorrect, and I cannot find words strong enough to emphasise that. I don't know what part of the south you lived in, but having grown up there myself I can tell you you are absolutely wrong. And if you want evidence, just look back over my arguments regarding race, homosexuality, and religion. Then look at the Navy Jack on my wall.
You are right about the Buddhist use of the swastika.

The only part I may have been wrong about is the percentage. I'll now reduce the figure to 99% accuracy.

So what? You have a symbol on your wall.You're one person, and sounds to me you may be a collector of some kind, and you probably have lots of memorabilia (Buddhist and other kinds), correct? I have a friend who's interested in WW II memorabilia, and he's hardly an antisemite, but 9 times out of ten, if you see a swastika on someone's wall, you can safely assume they're a skinhead. It's just common sense.

Let me tell you that most rednecks brandishing a confederate flag on their truck's mudflaps are not interested in their unique historical context. :rolleyes:
I mean, there are a few rare exceptions out there (you're probably among them), but the overwhelming majority of confederate flag wavers are racist, slck-jawed yokels. You can tell me who you are and what you believe, but that doesn't mean much compared to my personal, real-world experience on the matter.

As you stated, you too can go back and look up my posts on similar topics, and you'll find that although I find it offensive (that was the question), I wouldn't take away anyone's right to brandish whatever lame symbol they choose to. I'm open-minded, but hardly naive.
Your free to wave whater flag you'd like, and I'm free to assume you're an ignorant racist/homophobe until I'm proven otherwise.
God, I love my country! :D

"Section 3
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Sounds like treason to me, no matter what the courts said.

I see a flaw in your logic. They weren't part of the US when the war started so you really can't hang'em on treason for that! (yes pun intended)

The confederate flag is no more offensive than the british Union Jack because 1) it's history 2) I can put the past behind me. The only advantage the Union Jack has , it's still the state symbol of an existing nation. The Union Jack could just as easily stand for the imperialism that HG Wells criticized when he wrote War of The Worlds (it had nothing to do with the war in Iraq), but the Union Jack also stands for 58 million people of whom I can assume the majority would live happily near me.

I see a flaw in your logic. They weren't part of the US when the war started so you really can't hang'em on treason for that! (yes pun intended)
That would first require you to establish that they had the legal right to secede.

If the Confeds existed and lost the Great War and had a treaty like that of the one that ended WWI, and a hitler like idiot got to the presidency of the Confederate States of America, Operation barbarossa like attack more than likely!

Hell....I'm on that series right now and the war isn't going well for the US at the moment.In mine, the Rebs don't get involved in the Great war, the sting of Britain getting alternate sources of cotton still hurting.
When Hitler refuses to shake Jesse Owen's hand in the Olympics, the popularity swings in favor of the Nazis. Come war in Europe, the South invades the North (with a little help from the Germans and the Japanese, though I'm still working on how that works out)
The South is a lot bigger than it was originally, since I anticipated a couple wars with Mexico and Spain (Cuba, Dominica and parts of Mexico becoming Confederate States)

I see a flaw in your logic. They weren't part of the US when the war started so you really can't hang'em on treason for that! (yes pun intended)
Texas v. White established that they never left the United States.

I see a flaw in your logic. They weren't part of the US when the war started so you really can't hang'em on treason for that! (yes pun intended)
Ah, but the rebels were shot at. And Jefferson Davis WAS arrested on treason at the end of the war. I've seen plenty of hangings of confederate spies as well.
The federals never acknowledged their declarations of ceceding, so they were viewed as US citizens in rebellion.

That would first require you to establish that they had the legal right to secede.

That is the crux of the matter but since the war started after all those states seceded from the Union, its no longer treason. Its that fine line thing. Also, the CSA was a recognized country. One nation did recognize it and it wasn't Britain nor France.

That is the crux of the matter but since the war started after all those states seceded from the Union, its no longer treason. Its that fine line thing. Also, the CSA was a recognized country. One nation did recognize it and it wasn't Britain nor France.
Irrelevent. There is no right to secede in the Constitution. If you'd like, I can dredge up relevent case law.



'Course, strictly on the side, if they'd managed to pull this off there would be no debate. The rules are made by the winner, you have to remember that.

Ah, but the rebels were shot at. And Jefferson Davis WAS arrested on treason at the end of the war. I've seen plenty of hangings of confederate spies as well.

Spies being hanged is legal no matter what style of war your fighting.

The federals never acknowledged their declarations of ceceding, so they were viewed as US citizens in rebellion.

From their perspective yes from the Southern perspective, no. The South was fighting for their homes and lively hood. Much like what we were fighting for in 1776.

From their perspective yes from the Southern perspective, no. The South was fighting for their homes and lively hood. Much like what we were fighting for in 1776.
Their perspective doesn't matter. They lost.

Irrelevent. There is no right to secede in the Constitution. If you'd like, I can dredge up relevent case law.



'Course, strictly on the side, if they'd managed to pull this off there would be no debate. The rules are made by the winner, you have to remember that.

History is written by the winners. That is why you don't want to be on the losing side of a war.

That is the crux of the matter but since the war started after all those states seceded from the Union, its no longer treason. Its that fine line thing. Also, the CSA was a recognized country. One nation did recognize it and it wasn't Britain nor France.
I don't believe the United States recognized them, and that is what mattered. They didn't believe they were fighting a foreign military, but a rebellion in their own nation.

Their perspective doesn't matter. They lost.

True they did but that doesn't mean you can't look at things from their perspective. As an Historian, I am obligated to look at their side of the story as well as that of the Union.

I don't believe the United States recognized them, and that is what mattered. They didn't believe they were fighting a foreign military, but a rebellion in their own nation.

From the Union Perspective you are correct. That is precisely how we saw it. I have never disputed that.

I see how Blacks could be offened by the Confederate Flag but most blacks who are offended are "uneducated street-trash gangsters" who kill rednecks stupid enough to enter the ghetto.

Ah. Obviously, any educated black person wouldn't be offended by a flag frequently used by neo-Nazis and KKK members! Oh, and also used by those extremely educated and discerning folks in the trailer parks and beat-up houses around here who still call black people "darkies." No reason for any sensible person to be offended by them! Especially since so many black people are just uneducated murderous thugs anyway! Ha ha! :rolleyes:

Honestly, I think the problem is less with the original use of the flag than it is with its use in the past century. You want to make your Confederate flag stop being offensive? Go tear it off the houses of the people who fly it to celebrate racism. As long as lots of people still use it as a symbol for "stay away ******," those of you who use it as a symbol for "I am proud to live in Alabama" or "I am interested in American history" are going to be viewed with some measure of justifiable suspicion - just like if I decided to use the swastika as a good luck symbol.

And, honestly, I think it's sort of a stupid symbol of one's pride, anyway, since it's sort of like saying "Wooooo! The south! We lost the war! Woooooo!" but if that's what you choose to be proud of, I suppose that's your decision. But if you really want to show you're proud of where you live, why not just fly your state flag? Doesn't that accomplish the same effect without the unfortunate racist overtones?

In mine, the Rebs don't get involved in the Great war, the sting of Britain getting alternate sources of cotton still hurting.
When Hitler refuses to shake Jesse Owen's hand in the Olympics, the popularity swings in favor of the Nazis. Come war in Europe, the South invades the North (with a little help from the Germans and the Japanese, though I'm still working on how that works out)
The South is a lot bigger than it was originally, since I anticipated a couple wars with Mexico and Spain (Cuba, Dominica and parts of Mexico becoming Confederate States)

What if Austria-Hungary, Germany, and the US (maybe the Ottoman Empire too) are allies against the Brits, Japs, Confeds, and French in World War I?

Now you have an altered balance of power with the Brits, French, Confeds being beatin by the Germans, Austria-Hungry, and US forces.

Losers write history too, that's why we have nazi apologists.

Spies are hanged 1) because they are not EPW's and not subjet to protection. 2) they are considered citizens in rebellion against the government.

Thank you Jan Booth for posting sufficient legal information at the same time I was struggling to respond. I like your arguments better.

And guess what, the confederate flag still is NOT offensive.

Ah. Obviously, any educated black person wouldn't be offended by a flag frequently used by neo-Nazis and KKK members! Oh, and also used by those extremely educated and discerning folks in the trailer parks and beat-up houses around here who still call black people "darkies." No reason for any sensible person to be offended by them! Especially since so many black people are just uneducated murderous thugs anyway! Ha ha! :rolleyes:

Honestly, I think the problem is less with the original use of the flag than it is with its use in the past century. You want to make your Confederate flag stop being offensive? Go tear it off the houses of the people who fly it to celebrate racism. As long as lots of people still use it as a symbol for "stay away ******," those of you who use it as a symbol for "I am proud to live in Alabama" or "I am interested in American history" are going to be viewed with some measure of justifiable suspicion - just like if I decided to use the swastika as a good luck symbol.

And, honestly, I think it's sort of a stupid symbol of one's pride, anyway, since it's sort of like saying "Wooooo! The south! We lost the war! Woooooo!" but if that's what you choose to be proud of, I suppose that's your decision. But if you really want to show you're proud of where you live, why not just fly your state flag? Doesn't that accomplish the same effect without the unfortunate racist overtones?


It is the same thing as an ad hominem attack in debate , which I believe you've crossed into with this post, BTW. Just because some dude down the street shouts and black people is no reason for you to make the same accusation against me.

NS has already had an old ruling about nazi symbols on this website, but if I wish to display WW2 uniforms at a re-enactment, I will forbid you from shouting insults at me for doing so. That's just the ignorant behavior which leads some people to walk up to a man in SS combat fatigues and ask "are you national guard?" (American reserve National Guard, for those of you outside the US)

What if Austria-Hungary, Germany, and the US (maybe the Ottoman Empire too) are allies against the Brits, Japs, Confeds, and French in World War I?

Now you have an altered balance of power with the Brits, French, Confeds being beatin by the Germans, Austria-Hungry, and US forces.It's interesting, but I was going for something that could and not would have happened...
It's a design for the first game in a series of Counterfactual strategy games.
It would have been pretty hard to get the confeds on the side of the Germans after that kind of outcome in WWI, plus, you wouldn't have the Japanese marching through San Francisco or the Germans landing in New York under those conditions, would you?

And guess what, the confederate flag still is NOT offensive.Not to you maybe, but then again, that's not for you to decide for others, is it?

It's interesting, but I was going for something that could and not would have happened...

Funny that's precisely what I did.What I said could very well have happened.

It's a design for the first game in a series of Counterfactual strategy games.

Title please? I'll look into it :)

It would have been pretty hard to get the confeds on the side of the Germans after that kind of outcome in WWI, plus, you wouldn't have the Japanese marching through San Francisco or the Germans landing in New York under those conditions, would you?

The US/Germa/Austria-Hungary alliance verses A British/French/Confederation/Japanese Alliance. Where did you get that I said that the Germans were on the side of the Confeds?

Mind a citation, please.

Not one single government official operating any of the seceeding states; including that of the constituted Confederate Government were sucessfully prosecuted for treason. Someone is not a "traitor" unless convicted as such. Were the civil officers comprising any of the seceeding states every sucessfully prosecuted for treason? No.... Were some tried for it? Yes... Did those trials render a guilty verdict? No...

The secession was handled by duly constituted governments, and by vote handled by public refferendum of the people of those states.

So, your claim can only rely on violating any one of particular Constitutional points.

If you deny they were duly constituted; then you violate Article IV Section 4.
If you continue to declare their status as "traitors" you violate Amedment V, and VI..
And since, in no part, was the southern states considered anything other than as "part of the United States" by the US Federal Government; a violation of Article III Section 3's specific definition of "treason".

So now, you can show me where Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, William Smith, John Letcher or any number of constituted officers were ever found guilty of "treason".... And untill that time, you can keep your mouth shut...

Not to you maybe, but then again, that's not for you to decide for others, is it?

oh, but it's ok for you to attack me for saying my own opinion. You have no right. Back off. :mp5:

AND THE CONFEDERATE FLAG IS NOT OFFENSIVE TO ANYONE. DEAL WITH IT.

Not one single government official operating any of the seceeding states; including that of the constituted Confederate Government were sucessfully prosecuted for treason. Someone is not a "traitor" unless convicted as such. Were the civil officers comprising any of the seceeding states every sucessfully prosecuted for treason? No.... Were some tried for it? Yes... Did those trials render a guilty verdict? No...

The secession was handled by duly constituted governments, and by vote handled by public refferendum of the people of those states.

So, your claim can only rely on violating any one of particular Constitutional points.

If you deny they were duly constituted; then you violate Article IV Section 4.
If you continue to declare their status as "traitors" you violate Amedment V, and VI..
And since, in no part, was the southern states considered anything other than as "part of the United States" by the US Federal Government; a violation of Article III Section 3's specific definition of "treason".

So now, you can show me where Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, William Smith, John Letcher or any number of constituted officers were ever found guilty of "treason".... And untill that time, you can keep your mouth shut...

Being a traitor doesn't require one to be found guilty of treason, more than being a murderer requires you to be found guilty of murder.

There was a decision not to have any trials for treason because the US wanted to bring the Confederate States back into the union with a minimum of bad feeling. And anyway, what were they going to do, hang the entire Confederate army.

So now, you can show me where Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, William Smith, John Letcher or any number of constituted officers were ever found guilty of "treason".... And untill that time, you can keep your mouth shut...

This was already handled by federal courts of the USA, using that same constitution and they were declared slaves. Robert E Lee had his home and land confiscated which became Arlington Cemetary.

and don't tell anyone to keep their mouth shut. ;)

Funny that's precisely what I did.What I said could very well have happened.Don't get me wrong. What you're talking about is what would most likely have happened. My alternate scenario isn't the most likely outcome, which is why I said "could, not would" when referring to mine.

Title please? I'll look into it :)
I don't think I clarified it properly ;) It's a design I made. It hasn't gotten any further than drawings and a background for the history and ideas for what kind of units would be available.
Sides would be the Axis with the Japanese, CSA, and 3rd Reich; Allies with GB, France, USA, and Mexico (the Mexicans would be itching to get back at the CSA) and the Neutrals with Russia.
As for the title, I was thinking of calling it Alternate History 1939, since it would be a series. Other titles would have different dates. The acronym AH 1939 would be rather insensitive though...;)

The US/Germa/Austria-Hungary alliance verses A British/French/Confederation/Japanese Alliance. Where did you get that I said that the Germans were on the side of the Confeds?
The Japanese marching into SF and the Germans in NY was part of my idea for the opening scene for the game, not an interpretation of the book you're reading. I was hinting at that it would be unlikely for the Germans and the Confeds to cooperate in WWII if they fought eachother in WWI.

oh, but it's ok for you to attack me for saying my own opinion. You have no right. Back off. :mp5: I'm criticising you, not attacking you, chill...

AND THE CONFEDERATE FLAG IS NOT OFFENSIVE TO ANYONE. DEAL WITH IT.I said that's not for you to decide. It's not illegal to display it, but it sure as hell is offensive to me, and you have no influence on that. Deal with that.

It is the same thing as an ad hominem attack in debate , which I believe you've crossed into with this post, BTW. Just because some dude down the street shouts and black people is no reason for you to make the same accusation against me.

NS has already had an old ruling about nazi symbols on this website, but if I wish to display WW2 uniforms at a re-enactment, I will forbid you from shouting insults at me for doing so. That's just the ignorant behavior which leads some people to walk up to a man in SS combat fatigues and ask "are you national guard?" (American reserve National Guard, for those of you outside the US)

Whoa, there. Actually read my post, please. "You will be viewed with justifiable suspicion" in no way means "you are a racist." Look at it this way - if you knew from experience that, say, 85% of people who wear red shirts like to kick babies, wouldn't you guard your baby a little more closely around someone wearing a red shirt? That doesn't mean you'll walk up to the red-shirted person and yell at them, or that you'll assume they WILL kick your baby. It just means that you'll guard your baby.

I acknowledge completely that some people flying the Confederatte flag do so simply because they like their region, as you will notice I already said, if you read my post. But where I live wasn't part of the Confederacy, and the people who fly the flag around here seem to do so for very nearly exclusively one reason.

I'm not sure which part of my post you're categorizing as an ad hominem attack, since the closest I came to "attacking" an individual was to point out that saying "only uneducated street-trash blacks would be offended" was a foolish statement. Oddly enough, that would seem to be addressing an argument, not a person - which, definitionally, is not an ad hominem attack.

Don't get me wrong. What you're talking about is what would most likely have happened. My alternate scenario isn't the most likely outcome, which is why I said "could, not would" when referring to mine.

My apologies :)

I don't think I clarified it properly ;) It's a design I made. It hasn't gotten any further than drawings and a background for the history and ideas for what kind of units would be available.
Sides would be the Axis with the Japanese, CSA, and 3rd Reich; Allies with GB, France, USA, and Mexico (the Mexicans would be itching to get back at the CSA) and the Neutrals with Russia.
As for the title, I was thinking of calling it Alternate History 1939, since it would be a series. Other titles would have different dates. The acronym AH 1939 would be rather insensitive though...;)

Not bad! I like that title too. If you need help, let me know :)

The Japanese marching into SF and the Germans in NY was part of my idea for the opening scene for the game, not an interpretation of the book you're reading. I was hinting at that it would be unlikely for the Germans and the Confeds to cooperate in WWII if they fought eachother in WWI.

I gotcha now :)

oh, but it's ok for you to attack me for saying my own opinion. You have no right. Back off. :mp5:

AND THE CONFEDERATE FLAG IS NOT OFFENSIVE TO ANYONE. DEAL WITH IT.
It's offensive to me. I find it highly offensive that some people idealize a flag my ancestors died to destroy. I find it offensive that some people think it's proper that treason and traitors should be held upon a pedestal

AND THE CONFEDERATE FLAG IS NOT OFFENSIVE TO ANYONE. DEAL WITH IT.

Huh? Look at the poll results. It's demonstrably offensive to at least 30 people reading this thread. Presumably they would constitute someone.

Not one single government official operating any of the seceeding states; including that of the constituted Confederate Government were sucessfully prosecuted for treason. Someone is not a "traitor" unless convicted as such. Were the civil officers comprising any of the seceeding states every sucessfully prosecuted for treason? No.... Were some tried for it? Yes... Did those trials render a guilty verdict? No...

The secession was handled by duly constituted governments, and by vote handled by public refferendum of the people of those states.

So, your claim can only rely on violating any one of particular Constitutional points.

If you deny they were duly constituted; then you violate Article IV Section 4.
If you continue to declare their status as "traitors" you violate Amedment V, and VI..
And since, in no part, was the southern states considered anything other than as "part of the United States" by the US Federal Government; a violation of Article III Section 3's specific definition of "treason".

So now, you can show me where Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, William Smith, John Letcher or any number of constituted officers were ever found guilty of "treason".... And untill that time, you can keep your mouth shut...

A citation, please. Texas v. White throws out your "not part of the united states claim", as one of the respondant White's arguments was that Texas, as a state, had no grounds to sue as at the time that the issue at hand happened, they were not part of the nation. Texas argued that they had never left the nation, as there is no provision for leaving the nation in the Constitution, as the union is insoluable by any action of government or state, and therefor did have standing to sue. Texas' arguments were found to be correct, at least in this regard.

I don't think that the flag should be put up in schools, but private use is fine.

A "declaration of independence" is meaningless unless independence is granted. The members of the confederacy weren't tried because the political fallout was not worth it.

My apologies :)Accepted :D

Not bad! I like that title too. If you need help, let me know :)
I liked the title a lot, but AH 1939 isn't acceptable since AH stands for a certain Austrian prick. Especially when it's in conjunction with the year 1939. Can't really use it :(

Also, perhaps you would care to explain to me how this:

"Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. "

makes the Confederate government legitimate as a matter of constitutional law.

Also, perhaps you would care to explain to me how this:

"Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. "

makes the Confederate government legitimate as a matter of constitutional law.

That just blows up the treason case with that last line! LOL!

Nazism is a defeated cause and I find it's symbols offensive...

And you're welcome to. I don't find it offensive... I find it (or anyone whom follows a lost cause), to be sad.

That just blows up the treason case with that last line! LOL!
You're parsing the sentance wrong. He's asking how "insert constitutional quote here" makes secession legal.

That'd be a bit like flying the nazi flag over the Reichstag...


Before all hell breaks loose, let me explain.


We are americans. Citizens of the United States. The Confederacy was a creation of traitors, who killed more American Citizens then any other group of people combined. The confederate flag should be publically burned, spit upon, and trampled, not ideolized.

Ayep. I don't like it, but I'm not offended by it. Nazis, Klansmen, Communists... these are consigned to history's scrap heap. Let them take their icons with them and be forgotten.

But by burning/spitting/etc on a symbol, it comes alive. There's no good reason why there are skinheads in Russia today. But there are, because it's an ideology that has become taboo.

As a reenactor of the American Civil War (Federal, 79th New York Volunteer Infantry) I am not really offended by the Confederate Battle Flag, National Flag, etc. as long as it is flown in a historical context. However, using it as a rascist symbol is, and should be offensive to everyone.

That just blows up the treason case with that last line! LOL!
Can you explain that? Because I don't get it.

You're parsing the sentance wrong. He's asking how "insert constitutional quote here" makes secession legal.
Oh, never mind. Yeah, this is what I meant. Probably not formatted very well. :(

As a reenactor of the American Civil War (Federal, 79th New York Volunteer Infantry) I am not really offended by the Confederate Battle Flag, National Flag, etc. as long as it is flown in a historical context. However, using it as a rascist symbol is, and should be offensive to everyone.
No one but a total fanatic would find the use of the Confederate battle flag in a historical reenaction to be offensive.

As a reenactor of the American Civil War (Federal, 79th New York Volunteer Infantry) I am not really offended by the Confederate Battle Flag, National Flag, etc. as long as it is flown in a historical context. However, using it as a rascist symbol is, and should be offensive to everyone.I can live with that.
I have a serious problem with flying Nazi symbols though, even in historical reenactments (museums are ok). The Confederacy wasn't based on similarly racist ideals as the Third Reich was, so the Stars and Bars aren't as offensive as the Hakenkreuz.

No one but a total fanatic would find the use of the Confederate battle flag in a historical reenaction to be offensive.Or someone whose ancestor was hung for being a black in a union uniform...

Or someone whose ancestor was hung for being a black in a union uniform...
What? That is completely oversensitive. Does your hypothetical person flip out when he sees movies about the Civil War?

I can live with that.
I have a serious problem with flying Nazi symbols though, even in historical reenactments (museums are ok). The Confederacy wasn't based on similarly racist ideals as the Third Reich was, so the Stars and Bars aren't as offensive as the Hakenkreuz.

I can see why you would be. Do you have a problem with reenactors portray SS units or even Werhmacht units?

What? That is completely oversensitive. Does your hypothetical person flip out when he sees movies about the Civil War?A movie about the Civil War is a bit different from a large group of people getting together and pretending to be soldiers from a time long past under the banner of something they might find offensive, isn't it?
I had more of a problem with the fact that someone would be a fanatic because he felt offended by people pretending to be the people that would hang any blacks they caught in a union uniform. I don't feel like that but I wouldn't consider anyone with a dark complexion that would get offended by this a fanatic.

I can see why you would be. Do you have a problem with reenactors portray SS units or even Werhmacht units?If they sported Nazi symbols I would, to be honest.

A movie about the Civil War is a bit different from a large group of people getting together and pretending to be soldiers from a time long past under the banner of something they might find offensive, isn't it?
I had more of a problem with the fact that someone would be a fanatic because he felt offended by people pretending to be the people that would hang any blacks they caught in a union uniform. I don't feel like that but I wouldn't consider anyone with a dark complexion that would get offended by this a fanatic.
well, if they were reenacting the hanging of a black guy, then offend away. But they are recreating a battle. It's a bunch of old nerds who are into history, and it's damn silly and fanatical to get offended over something like that. People spend to much time being offended over things that are meaningless.

well, if they were reenacting the hanging of a black guy, then offend away. But they are recreating a battle. It's a bunch of old nerds who are into history, and it's damn silly and fanatical to get offended over something like that. People spend to much time being offended over things that are meaningless.

Actually some aren't old nerds. Some of them are actualy younger than me who love history.

If they sported Nazi symbols I would, to be honest.

Totally understandable. I don't get why people do SS stuff anyway. Regular Werhmacht I understand. But not SS. Me, I plan on Soviet. :D

...It's a bunch of old nerds who are into history...

Nerd I may be, but I am NOT old! :p I'm only 17 :D

well, if they were reenacting the hanging of a black guy, then offend away. But they are recreating a battle. It's a bunch of old nerds who are into history, and it's damn silly and fanatical to get offended over something like that. People spend to much time being offended over things that are meaningless.I wouldn't be offended. I have a problem with the statement that anyone who gets offended by that would automatically be a fanatic.

Incorrect:

http://history1900s.about.com/library/graphics/swastikart2.gif...http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/graphics/05graphs/mongara.jpg
SwastikaBuddhist Symbol
You will note that they are mirror versions of each other, not identical to one another.

I have done research on this. The swastika is a Hindu symbol no matter which direction it is facing that represents benevolence. When facing opposing directions, it also represents male and female coming together.

The Nazi's just abused it because they thought their cause was for the greater good and therefore the swastika's message was prevalent.

I wouldn't be offended. I have a problem with the statement that anyone who gets offended by that would automatically be a fanatic.
Well, I guess you will just have to have a problem with it. Sorry.

Totally understandable. I don't get why people do SS stuff anyway. Regular Werhmacht I understand. But not SS. Me, I plan on Soviet. :D There isn't much of a difference between the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht when it comes to atrocities, so I don't really differentiate. Removing any symbols that are unconstitutional in Germany (Swastika or SS runes) would show responsibility when dealing with a touchy issue. You can't really cut the Germans out of a historical reenactment, now can you ;)



Nerd I may be, but I am NOT old! :p I'm only 17 :DHey, that's just 3 years short of old by my definition :D

There isn't much of a difference between the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht when it comes to atrocities, so I don't really differentiate. Removing any symbols that are unconstitutional in Germany (Swastika or SS runes) would show responsibility when dealing with a touchy issue. You can't really cut the Germans out of a historical reenactment, now can you ;)
Yes, yes there is. The Waffen SS did most of the dirty work, not the wehrmacht as a whole.

There isn't much of a difference between the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht when it comes to atrocities, so I don't really differentiate. Removing any symbols that are unconstitutional in Germany (Swastika or SS runes) would show responsibility when dealing with a touchy issue. You can't really cut the Germans out of a historical reenactment, now can you ;)
YOu really can't. I mean, who would I have to shoot at? :mp5: :D


Hey, that's just 3 years short of old by my definition :D

Be that as it may, I'm still not old! :cool:

its offensive because of what it represents in peoples minds rather then what it actually is.

for example the British flag is offensive to some welsh people as we have no representation on it which really pisses us off. (its made up of the flags of the other countries in the united kingdom)

so while I don't find the flag offensive in and of itself I find the ideals represented by it offensive

I mean I find the spanish flag mildly offensive as it is the flag of the facisest rebels who massarcered the supporters of the elected government rather then the flag itself which is quite nice with bold colours (not as nice as the preceding one in my opinon but thats just me)

Yes, yes there is. The Waffen SS did most of the dirty work, not the wehrmacht as a whole.You'd be surprised how much rapin' and pillagin' the common soldier did volontarily or was ordered to do. There's been a big exhibition on crimes comitted by the Wehrmacht that the Neo-Nazis got all riled up about a short while back over here, sporting signs saying "Grandpa wasn't a criminal" (I seriously doubt that in their case...:rolleyes: ) The main difference was that it was SS Deathshead battalions that ran the concentration camps and SS tended to be volonteers, while the Wehrmacht consisted of a lot of draftees.

the waffen SS and the whermacht both commited attrocities the only difference was that the ss was set up origianly to commit them.

so relly the army's role was worse as they are since trying to pretend they didn't

but you must remember more germans were killed in the war by the nazis then british or americans

I mean I find the spanish flag mildly offensive as it is the flag of the facisest rebels who massarcered the supporters of the elected government rather then the flag itself which is quite nice with bold colours (not as nice as the preceding one in my opinon but thats just me)The basic design of the flag's been around longer than the fascists...

You'd be surprised how much rapin' and pillagin' the common soldier did volontarily or was ordered to do. There's been a big exhibition on crimes comitted by the Wehrmacht that the Neo-Nazis got all riled up about a short while back over here, sporting signs saying "Grandpa wasn't a criminal" (I seriously doubt that in their case...:rolleyes:) The main difference was that it was SS Deathshead battalions that ran the concentration camps and SS tended to be volonteers, while the Wehrmacht consisted of a lot of draftees.
There's a big difference between 'regular' war crimes and the shit the SS pulled off.

I personally do not find it offensive but I have trouble finding words and symbols offensive. I feel that it should not be on publically funded buildings. However, if a person wants to fly it at their house or a business wants to put it on their company, then they have that right.

There's a big difference between 'regular' war crimes and the shit the SS pulled off.Hanging civilians because you were ordered to (and most didn't mind doing it) and being in the Wehrmacht isn't much different from shooting women and children when they're lined up next to a ditch. There wasn't that much of a difference.

I'm offended by people who define themselves with symbols.

"The flag symbolizes slavery, so I don't like it," or "The flag is part of my history, so I'll use it."

How about "It's a gaudy flag, and any significance that it had 150 years ago is so lost that to rely on its symbolic value is to hold on to something just for the reaction that it's supposed to elicit."

As a American (not very patriotic of late), I find the Confederate flag very offensive, for historical reasons and because - for some reason - it has become the symbol of one side of an unfortunate bipolarisation of American culture.

As an historical emblem, it is seen as representing one of the many tragic chapters in this nation's development - the brutalisation of a whole people (both those of African and those of European descent) in an institution called slavery, an institution whose malevolence reverberates to the present. Of course, the Civil War was not only about slavery. In US history, the paraphrase 'Cherchez le dollar' always applies. So it is not surprising that a minority of southerners owned slaves; it was of course the rich and powerful that owned most of the slaves in the USA at that time. And they are the ones who incited the rest of the south to rebellion. Also, in behalf of the south, one must not forget that the industrial north had an economic stranglehold on the south and that too was a cause of the war. But the bottomline is that to many people, that flag is a symbol of a national nightmare - a war of attrition with all the horrors that such a thing implies, from battlefield slaughter to the wanton destruction of large parts of the south, from the likes of Andersonville to a scandalous post-war reconstruction period, etc.

Of late, it has become to some the symbol of an idyllic American south, full of gallant 'gentlemen' and simpering southern belles, all of whom lived in neo-classical mansions on extensive plantations. It has become the symbol of a virtuous, Christian, southern American life style - slow, cultured with mint juleps on the veranda. The reality was far different for the majority of those of European descent and obviously, for those of African descent, that idyllic south never existed. The American south today is a far different place, despite the Civil War reenactments (who knows, perhaps they may yet win the war!). It is time for Americans to cease the cultural divisions that have plagued them and adopt a more humane attitude toward their compatriots. And if African-Americans or Euro-Americans find that flag to be an offense, then it would be better to fly the national flag as a symbol of what unites us.

One more point: Virgina is a pretty state, as are most of them. But certainly, Massachusetts - 'the cradle of American democracy' - is every bit as pretty. ;) There's nothing wrong with local pride in a beautiful landscape, in wonderful farm produce, first rate medical and educational institutions, etc. as long as one doesn't put down others states.

i love the south of america, the south is really where americas culture is (cowboys etc)

:mad: Oh dear... if the south is where American culture can be found, I should really just kill myself now. I live in the 'Redneck Riverra'...the only culture here is the lack of culture.

I wouldn't be proud of the flag. They lost, didn't they? That's why I don't have any Canadian soccer team or basketball team memorabilia.

IIRC, this is incorrect as well. Importation had been stopped for years before.

Can you source this?


I can and will. the black historian , W.E.B Dubois, writes about a ship called the nightingale, which was built in Maine, it was used in the chinese tea trade , but then baought by a salam, massuchewsetts, and fitted as a slaver. Under the protection of the US flag it braought slaves to the US after the war had begun, it was eventually baught by the US goverment and used against the CSA. There is photographic evidence, at the peabody musuem, salem, massachusetts. and, the camera dosnt lie, well, , back then it didnt.

Hanging civilians because you were ordered to (and most didn't mind doing it) and being in the Wehrmacht isn't much different from shooting women and children when they're lined up next to a ditch. There wasn't that much of a difference.
And how often did the rank and file Wehrmacht do that? Most of them were conscripts (may I remind you of the penalties for disobeying a direct order), and they primarily fought. Did war crimes happen? Of course. Meanwhile, the SS and its Einsatzgruppen were running around killing off how many people? Comparing the SS to the Wehrmacht is the equivalent of comparing a pea to the empire state building.

sure this has probably been touched on, and seeing as it's 11 pages long you're squabbling about religion or something to that effect, as is want to happen in the General forum, I see why people would be offended, and why they shouldn't. The Civil War was started over a push to abolish slavery. The Southern economy relied heavily on slave owning plantations. The South declared they would sucede from the Union if they passed an anti-slavery law. (Though there were many things that happened from point A above and Point B) The South suceded from the North. The North couldn't let the South sucede otherwise states might have the idea that they can leave the Union if a law is passed that they don't like. So the Civil War was started. People are offended by the Confedearte flag for A the northern propaganda that it stands for slavery (it supports slavery yes, but it isn't what it stands for) And of course perversion by those who believe the propaganda. However I see it the way many people see it, primarily Southerners, as representing State Soverignty. The Union stood for National Soverignty over the states. And the Confederacy stood for State Soverignty over the nation. Later on the Union took the abolition movement as a way to justify the war over fear of states. And so the public learned that the South was bad and wanted slaves, and the north was good and didn't. The war was fought over slavery. Sorry but the truth is it was fueled by slavery, not caused by it.

I was hinting at that it would be unlikely for the Germans and the Confeds to cooperate in WWII if they fought eachother in WWI.[/QUOTE]

It would be very unlikely for Germans to side with the Confederacy since slavery had been outlawed by Imperial Decree in the year 1000 in the territories comprising what would later be called the Holy Roman Empire. I am not saying that the German peasant had an easy time through the subsequent centuries; the term 'Leibeigner / Leibeigne' might indicate that the role of the peasant in German society was not enviable.

And how often did the rank and file Wehrmacht do that? Most of them were conscripts (may I remind you of the penalties for disobeying a direct order), and they primarily fought. Did war crimes happen? Of course. Meanwhile, the SS and its Einsatzgruppen were running around killing off how many people? Comparing the SS to the Wehrmacht is the equivalent of comparing a pea to the empire state building.


To be hinest, if i was faced with, kill this prisoner or die, id do it. Most of the SS were simply bakers or watch makers, there minds twisted by YEARS of properganda before the war, i would of done it, a lot of other people would of too, an interesting fact 55% of the SS wasnt german, ironic that it was meant to be "pure" soldiers.

And how often did the rank and file Wehrmacht do that? Most of them were conscripts (may I remind you of the penalties for disobeying a direct order), and they primarily fought. Did war crimes happen? Of course. Meanwhile, the SS and its Einsatzgruppen were running around killing off how many people? Comparing the SS to the Wehrmacht is the equivalent of comparing a pea to the empire state building.The Waffen SS were doing a lot of fighting too. Please don't get them confused with the regular SS. That was Hitler's private party army, they weren't frontline troops at all.
As for my comparison, I think that there was a good reason why the Wehrmacht was running to the Western Front in the last stages of the war to get captured by the Americans, and it wasn't because only the Waffen SS and the Einsatzgruppen were committing atrocities. There were enough Germans that willingly participated in atrocities. Humans tend to abuse the powers given to them.
As German soldiers in the East told their families: "Pray to God the Russians don't do a tenth of what we've been doing to them."

Ive got one i think its cool.

The Waffen SS were doing a lot of fighting too. Please don't get them confused with the regular SS. That was Hitler's private party army, they weren't frontline troops at all.
As for my comparison, I think that there was a good reason why the Wehrmacht was running to the Western Front in the last stages of the war to get captured by the Americans, and it wasn't because only the Waffen SS and the Einsatzgruppen were committing atrocities. There were enough Germans that willingly participated in atrocities. Humans tend to abuse the powers given to them.
As German soldiers in the East told their families: "Pray to God the Russians don't do a tenth of what we've been doing to them."


Have you read "the forgetten soldier" by guy sajer? he was a german soldier, fighting on the eastern front, he didnt learn of d-day till after the war was allmost over! he was transferred to the west, and surrendered straight away, recommended readin ,the russians were worse to the germans then the other way around.

The Waffen SS were doing a lot of fighting too."

The SS also pushed forward our understanding of medical science,, bad as this is, they expreimented, and we *the waest* took the data, in japan, where they were worse, we let the japanese off in exchange for the medical data.

And SS soldiers, like michael wittman, (who held off two divions of allied army alone) pushed forward our understanding of tank warfare, there wenrt all bad. but, im NOT defending the SS, no way.

It would be very unlikely for Germans to side with the Confederacy since slavery had been outlawed by Imperial Decree in the year 1000 in the territories comprising what would later be called the Holy Roman Empire. I am not saying that the German peasant had an easy time through the subsequent centuries; the term 'Leibeigner / Leibeigne' might indicate that the role of the peasant in German society was not enviable.I haven't given my whole account of the tale. The British stop buying Confederate cotton when they obtain new sources for it (Egypt, India) on the account of the South still practicing slavery (something outlawed in Great Britain before the War of Independence, btw, and yet that didn't keep the british from siding with the Confederates in the Civil War). The South bans slavery to get the trade agreements back, but the British decline. South hates Britain now. South hates the North anyway, and they don't care about the Kaiser, so they stay neutral during WWI... In WWII, they join the racist Nazis...
Leibeigener doesn't mean peasant, btw. It means serf. (Freier) Bauer means peasant.

Have you read "the forgetten soldier" by guy sajer? he was a german soldier, fighting on the eastern front, he didnt learn of d-day till after the war was allmost over! he was transferred to the west, and surrendered straight away, recommended readin ,the russians were worse to the germans then the other way around.Speaking as someone whose greatgrandfather served on the eastern front and as someone whose grandfather's birth city is now Kaliningrad, the Germans fucked the Russians MUCH worse than the Russians fucked the Germans. The Russians raped murdered and pillaged, but some of them did there best to prevent it. Little of the sort was true for German soldiers, if only for the "orders" excuse.
After the war was over, every German "just followed orders" just as everyone had "hidden Jews in their basement". They hid them so well in fact, that many of them haven't been found to this day...

Have you read "the forgetten soldier" by guy sajer? he was a german soldier, fighting on the eastern front, he didnt learn of d-day till after the war was allmost over! he was transferred to the west, and surrendered straight away, recommended readin ,the russians were worse to the germans then the other way around.


An excellent book! I own a copy.

The SS also pushed forward our understanding of medical science,, bad as this is, they expreimented, and we *the waest* took the data, in japan, where they were worse, we let the japanese off in exchange for the medical data.

And SS soldiers, like michael wittman, (who held off two divions of allied army alone) pushed forward our understanding of tank warfare, there wenrt all bad. but, im NOT defending the SS, no way.
Wittman is great.

Speaking as someone whose greatgrandfather served on the eastern front and as someone whose grandfather's birth city is now Kaliningrad, the Germans fucked the Russians MUCH worse than the Russians fucked the Germans. The Russians raped murdered and pillaged, but some of them did there best to prevent it. Little of the sort was true for German soldiers, if only for the "orders" excuse.
After the war was over, every German "just followed orders" just as everyone had "hidden Jews in their basement". They hid them so well in fact, that many of them haven't been found to this day...


I don't disagree with the basic sentiment, but I've got to say that the Germans and the Russians were brutal to each other. Both sides shot the wounded, raped, murdered, pillaged and generally were bad to each other. The war in the East was much more brutal than in the West.

Speaking as someone whose greatgrandfather served on the eastern front and as someone whose grandfather's birth city is now Kaliningrad, the Germans fucked the Russians MUCH worse than the Russians fucked the Germans. The Russians raped murdered and pillaged, but some of them did there best to prevent it. Little of the sort was true for German soldiers, if only for the "orders" excuse.
After the war was over, every German "just followed orders" just as everyone had "hidden Jews in their basement". They hid them so well in fact, that many of them haven't been found to this day...

I know, but, its primary history, the best form of history.


Yes, i admire wittman, he was excellent :)

I don't disagree with the basic sentiment, but I've got to say that the Germans and the Russians were brutal to each other. Both sides shot the wounded, raped, murdered, pillaged and generally were bad to each other. The war in the East was much more brutal than in the West.Yeah, the Germans didn't consider the Westerners "sub-human" and so they didn't treat them as badly. The Russians came close to returning the favors, but unlike the Germans, they'd usually take prisoners...
The Germans tended to be worse. There's a whole generation of young Russians that got annihilated (and when I say generation, I mean GENERATION). That was not the case with Germany.

Oh, if u want a REALLY accurate game, and wanna know historcle alternatives, buy victoria, an empire under the sun. The graphics are crap, and its hard to learn to play but trust me, its excellent. (as the CSA, i won, provided i hande mansanas and promised to abolish slavery within 10 years and hand over half of tennesee)

I then colonialsed a part of south africa and all of madagascar, cos the wonderful brits gave me a small but powerful navy.

Yeah, the Germans didn't consider the Westerners "sub-human" and so they didn't treat them as badly. The Russians came close to returning the favors, but unlike the Germans, they'd usually take prisoners...



And then put them in camps severe as auchswitz, in siberia. Yeah the germans were bad, but the russians were JUST AS bad.

One Hungarian was held for 40+ years.

To be hinest, if i was faced with, kill this prisoner or die, id do it.

well that's damn cowardly of you. Me I'd open fire on my unit, take as many of the bastards with me as I could..

And then put them in camps severe as auchswitz, in siberia. Yeah the germans were bad, but the russians were JUST AS bad.The Germans got treated a lot better in those camps than Russians in concentration camps, if they weren't shot outright. The Russians didn't work people to death like the Nazis did and they provided better meals. Conditions were harsh, but not "quite" as bad as those in the German camps...

well that's damn cowardly of you. Me I'd open fire on my unit, take as many of the bastards with me as I could..
Id Know what you were going to do and id shoot you first then string you up.
Then id use you as a Dummy to divert attention from us. as we flank those bastards.

Doesn't sound to me like Rougu knows a lot about the South. Lol! Cowboys are usually found out West dude. :D

well that's damn cowardly of you. Me I'd open fire on my unit, take as many of the bastards with me as I could..Not everyone can be as brave as you...

I wouldn't be proud of the flag. They lost, didn't they? That's why I don't have any Canadian soccer team or basketball team memorabilia.

Its called being proud of your heritage.. and who ever said they lost? They really just gave up the will to fight after the North had a Total War and started killing women and children. Wouldn't you give up a fight to save your wife and kids?

The Germans got treated a lot better in those camps than Russians in concentration camps, if they weren't shot outright. The Russians didn't work people to death like the Nazis did and they provided better meals. Conditions were harsh, but not "quite" as bad as those in the German camps...


erm, yeah they were. If u want me to recommend u books, i can. We have to read a lot of them to goet degrees.

The Germans got treated a lot better in those camps than Russians in concentration camps, if they weren't shot outright. The Russians didn't work people to death like the Nazis did and they provided better meals. Conditions were harsh, but not "quite" as bad as those in the German camps...
You assume that Germany had enough food to feed everyone forever.

erm, yeah they were. If u want me to recommend u books, i can. We have to read a lot of them to goet degrees.I recommend watching the documentaries they have on the German public channels. They've got plenty of footage and "Zeitzeugen" (time-witnesses).

You assume that Germany had enough food to feed everyone forever.No I don't. Not like Russia had enough food to feed everyone forever...

Nobody has enough food to feed everybody together. There you go!

Its called being proud of your heritage.. and who ever said they lost? They really just gave up the will to fight after the North had a Total War and started killing women and children. Wouldn't you give up a fight to save your wife and kids?
Want another go? You and your militia against the US army, just like last time.

Want another go? You and your militia against the US army, just like last time.
Maryland... weren't they a borderstate?

I would like to suggest that everyone here read "The Politically Incorect Guide to American History." It is well written, and has sources to back up every statement made within it.

Sidenote: Three states included secession clauses when they joined the union in the beginning, NY, VA, and, IIRC, Massachusetts.
Just in case anyone was actually thinking of reading this:

"Soon enough, however, the guide starts to slip from conventional history into a Bizarro world where every state has the right to disregard any piece of federal legislation it doesn't like or even to secede. "There is, obviously, no provision in the Constitution that explicitly authorizes nullification," the author concedes, but Woods nevertheless is convinced that this right exists. His source? Mainly the writings of the Southern pro-slavery politician John C. Calhoun." http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/246eaokp.asp?pg=1

"This is not simply bad history; it is excruciatingly incompetent history. It’s also the best-selling general history text in the United States today, one that is in the top ten of the New York Times non-fiction bestseller list. The author has a doctorate in history from Columbia University, where his doctoral examination committee should be walking on campus with paper bags on their heads." http://bad.eserver.org/reviews/2005/lockardwoods.html


"But, one might object to this account, was not the American settlement conceived in sin? How can one say that Americans always sought to live freely when the earliest Puritan settlers began their "free" society by theft of Indian lands?

Woods meets this initial challenge head on. The Puritans did not steal from the Indians: they bought land from various tribes, in willing and beneficial exchange. "[W]hile the king had issued colonial land grants, the Puritan consensus ... was that the king's charter conferred political and not property rights to the land, which Puritan settlers sought by means of voluntary cession from the Indians. The colonial government actually punished individuals who made unauthorized acquisitions of Indian lands" (p. 8, emphasis in original)." http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1706

"Woods is a bad ally for libertarians, though his message may appeal to those who can’t distinguish the flaws of America from those of outright despotisms. " http://www.reason.com/0506/co.cy.behind.shtml

"Instead of wading in like a genuine iconoclast, Woods recycles Revolutionary propaganda that the colonists were merely defending their "ancient chartered rights" against the usurpations of Parliament–a view no historian has taken seriously for generations. (Not coincidentally, the Declaration of Independence is never even mentioned.) Politically-correct history is apparently fine if it’s of old enough vintage." http://hnn.us/articles/12157.html

Yeah. It's a, uh, good book.

No I don't. Not like Russia had enough food to feed everyone forever...
Almost sounds like it.

Hitler wanted the Ukraine for the wheat fields etc.
Feeding Germans was more important and building a food reserve too.

Almost sounds like it.

Hitler wanted the Ukraine for the wheat fields etc.
Feeding Germans was more important and building a food reserve too.Well, the Germans learned from WWI. Shortage of food was one of the things that cause the Red Uprisings that ended the Second Reich. So Hitler and his cronies decided to take the food that was needed to feed Eastern Europe and give it to the Germans. That helped keep the Germans from getting war weary, but it condemned the Russians, Byelorussians, Ukrainians, Poles, etc. to starvation.
The thing with the Russians is a pun on their pretty strategy on invading Hungary when it had civil unrest during Suez Canal Crisis. They used the trucks that would have hauled the grain from the Ukrainian fields to haul troops to Hungary. Needless to say, when grain rots in the fields, you can't really eat it anymore...

This is one issue i have always wanted to discuss here in the forums. Why do people find the Confederacy offensive? I mean when it existed 1861-1865 times and the way people thought were much different. Many people offended by the confederate flag don't know the first thing about it. and what really gets to me is that so many blacks find it offensive saying that the south faught to own blacks but there were many black confederate soldiers fighting side by side with whites in the Civil War. The confederate flag has been abused by the KKK and Neo Nazis but that shouldn't make people think the flag is bad. And if you can remember the American flag stood for slavery up until the Civil War and Union general Ullysses S Grant owned slaves through out the war while Virginian Robert E. Lee freed the he had inherited before the War started. I live in Culpeper Virginia about an hour away from Richmond Virginia the capital of the Confederacy. My family faught for the south and i am very proud of that but because being southern is better tan being from any where else!

You have every right as an individual to fly a symbol of racism, slavery, lynching, segregation, and treason -- if you so choose.

And I have every right to point out the offensiveness of such symbol.

Welcome to the United States of America and the First Amendment.

The Southern states seceded over the issue of slavery. There were other issues, but that was the main one.

They said so themselves: Declarations of Causes of Secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html)

My favorite bit is the second paragraph from Mississippi's (emphasis added):

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Slavery was the warp and woof of the Confederacy -- and therefore of the "heritage" of the flag(s) of the Confederacy.

Moreover, quibbling about the causes of the Civil War -- as wrong as they may be -- do little to rehabilitate the sordid history of the Confederate flag(s) since the Civil War.

The South seceded to defend a racist institution -- arguably one of the most racist institutions in history.

After the Civil War, the Confederate flag became a common symbol of white supremacy, lynching, the KKK, segregation, etc. NOT by just a few knuckle-draggers, but as a common symbol used as a rallying point against African-Americans.

Many, many honorable people died on both sides of the Civil War. I do not villify the South as such. America has lots of ugly incidents (and good ones) in its history -- some of which are centered primarily in other regions of the country. But revisionist history is just that revisionist.

By all means, be proud of your heritage. But recognize its warts as well.

(And, for the record, I have many anscestors that fought for the Confederacy -- in fact, that were leaders of the Confederacy. I also have ancestors from the same time period that were hunting Indians in the West. They all are human. They did some good things and some evil. I don't turn a blind eye to either.)

OK. This will be my last post until there is more discussion.

This is a much less coherent statement than I intended but I am too tired to fix it or to be comprehensive. I do wish to set some facts straight and eliminate some red herrings.

First, however, a quote (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4i3095.html) from William Scarborough, Professor of History
University of Southern Mississippi at Hattiesburg (emphasis added):

The election of Lincoln came at the end of a 25-year onslaught, increasing in crescendo against the South by outsiders, directed first against slavery, then against slaveholders, then against the South generally. And in every bit of correspondence that I have examined, there is resentment ... against the North because of what they perceive as an unfair attack upon their civilization.

The election of Lincoln certainly came as no surprise to many people. I mean, if you looked objectively at the lineup in 1860, it was fairly clear he was going to win. What it means, though, is that you have a sectional President, a person who did not receive a single popular vote in any slave state except Virginia, who is committed to blocking the expansion of slavery. And it is the general belief that he's committed to more than that -- erroneously, as we know. We know that Lincoln was not an abolitionist, at least not at first. But that was the general [view]. "The black Republican President", "the black Republican Party" -- that's the phraseology used in the correspondence and newspaper editorials and so on, of the time.

Southerners had compromised in 1850, when the first crisis occurred. And at that time they had said, "We're going to compromise this time, but this is it. We're not going to yield again if this onslaught against slavery continues." Well, it continued and culminated in the election of a sectional President in 1860. And that was the fact that brought on the Civil War. There's no doubt about that. Southerners don't like to admit today that slavery was the cause of secession, which led in turn to the Civil War. White southerners do not like to admit that. You go to Sons of Confederate Veterans meetings and so on, and they talk about states' rights and economic differences and all that. But that's nonsense. Every scintilla of evidence that can be adduced from the correspondence and the editorials, that's what the issue is: slavery. And that caused secession. That does not mean, however, that Confederate soldiers thought they were fighting for the defense of slavery. Only one white family in four in the South owned slaves; three-fourths of the white families owned no slaves. And the bulk of the Confederate Army is made up of these non-slaveholders. And they're fighting for home and family and country and honor and the same things that soldiers fought for from time immemorial and still fight for, not for slavery. But that's the cause of the war. That's what triggered secession. Secession triggered the war. No doubt about it.

1. The symbolism of the Confederate flag(s) does not end with the Civil War.

I've noted before that the Confederate flag has been a rallying point of racism and racist policies since the Civil War.

Although identified with the KKK and other racist organizations, the Confederate flag was primarily dormant as a symbol until the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s & 1960s. Georgia's state flag was altered in 1956 to include the "Stars & Bars" as a protest against the desegration ruling of Brown v. Board of Education. From 1865 to 1962, South Carolina did not fly the Confederate flag. It was resurrected admist the South's fight against desegregation. Granted this was an anniversary of the War -- sort of -- but that was not the primary motivation.

Many atrocities have been committed by those waving or wearing the Confederate flag(s). (The same is true of the US flag, but I'll come back to that.)

2. The primary ideal -- the central organizing principle -- of the Confederacy was racism and slavery.

It is not mere coincidence that all of the Confederate states were slave states and that only a handful of slave states failed to join the Confederacy.

A. The seceding states declared they were seceding to preseve slavery.

I have noted this before. It bears repeating. The Declarations of the Causes of Secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) identify the cause of the seceding states as slavery.

Not just the preservation of slavery or allowing slavery to die slowly. The primary complaints are the frustration of the desire to expand slavery into new territories and with the "failure" of free states to return and/or punish slaves.

Again, Mississippi's second paragraph is instructive (emphasis added):

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

B. The Constitution of the Confederate States of America (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=654) is essentially identical to the US Constitution from that time with the telling additions protections and requirements of slavery. (The Constitution of the CSA continues the 3/5ths compromise as well.)

Article I, Sec. 9:

"(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Article IV, Sec. 2:

(I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
...
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Article IV, Sec. 3 (emphasis added):

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

C. Confederate leaders identified the Confederacy with slavery and white supremacy.

Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia was the Vice-President of the Confederacy. The Constitution of the CSA was enacted on March 11, 1961. Ten days later Stephens gave a famous speech (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76) about the new Constitution and explaining "Conerstone" of the Confederacy.

Here are relevant and telling excerpts (emphasis added):

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo—it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner"—the real "corner-stone"—in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.

I was going to post more. I can if this proposition continues to be denied in the absence of evidence.

2. A simple syllogism:

A. The Confederate flag(s) symbolize the Confederacy.

B. The Confederacy was typified by and organized around racist slavery.

C. The Confederate flag(s) symbolize racist slavery.

The Confederate flag is the symbol of a failed and unworthy cause.

3. Red Herrings:

A. Lincoln was racist and was not a fire-breathing abolitionist. So?

B. Racism was ubiquitous in the United States at the time of the Civil War. North and South. Legal discrimination -- including segregation -- was the norm in the North. But slavery had been eliminated in the North by 1830. Hatred against blacks and white supremacy were common in both the North and the South at the time of the Civil War. But the racist institution of slavery is a whole category of evil separate and far worse than mere racism.

C. People like to insist the Confederate flag is not a symbol of racism, slavery, or segregation. OK .... what is it a symbol of? The Confederacy? That equals racism & slavery. Southern Heritage? Why? And what? What Southern heritage does the Confederate flag represent and how did it come to represent that and not its historic origins or uses.

D. Yes, other nations have done bad things. Other flags have stood over evils. Some people don't like those other flags either. But if you wish to make a coherent argument please identify what, how, and why the Stars & Stripes is equally identified with evil like slavery and segregation as the Confederate flag is.

I don't hate the South. I love it more than many other regions in the US. I have Southern ancestors and family. The bulk of my in-laws are from the South. I have Confederate ancestors -- including leaders of the Confederacy.

I do not begrudge anyone pride in their heritage. I do look on with dismay at those who would whitewash their history and not embrace critically their entire heritage.

I do not hate those that fly the flag. It some circumstances it is not only acceptable, but wholly appropriate -- such as at memorials to the Civil War dead.

Don't dishonor the over 600,000 Americans that died in the Civil War. Don't dishonor the tens of millions of African-Americans that died as a result of slavery. Don't dishonor those that were kiled during the battle for Civil Rights. Don't deliberate insult African-Americans and then blame them for reacting. Don't try to whitewash and distort a historic symbol simply to be a "rebel."

Attack away.

One Hungarian was held for 40+ years.

Dude!! I know that story!! He was in an asylum because everyone thought that he was talking crazy (Magyar and Russian being 0% similar), and his papers had been lost...

offensive. It might not have been rcist according to some people but now it has racist conotations./...don't believe me? check here:


www.kkk.bz

Dude!! I know that story!! He was in an asylum because everyone thought that he was talking crazy (Magyar and Russian being 0% similar), and his papers had been lost...The Finns were Russians for a while... :p

It doesn't offend me at all.

The south wanted to disassociate from the United States, and then made the Confederate Flag, slavery had nothing to do with it. Granted with the Emancipation the two ideas of disassociation and slavery fused, the Flag was created when the Civil war had nothing to do with slavery.

It doesn't offend me at all.

The south wanted to disassociate from the United States, and then made the Confederate Flag, slavery had nothing to do with it. Granted with the Emancipation the two ideas of disassociation and slavery fused, the Flag was created when the Civil war had nothing to do with slavery.
So why did the states say in their secession that they wanted to keep slavery? And why were all the states the seceded slave states?

So why did the states say in their secession that they wanted to keep slavery? And why were all the states the seceded slave states?

The confederate flag was made because of the secession, and was used in the Civil War. Also the beliefs of the citizens and governments have nothing to do with flags.

That makes as much sense as saying Iraq's flag offends me because Sadam Hussein was the President and his government was bad!

The confederate flag was made because of the secession, and was used in the Civil War. Also the beliefs of the citizens and governments have nothing to do with flags.

That makes as much sense as saying Iraq's flag offends me because Sadam Hussein was the President and his government was bad!
But the Confederacy only existed because of slavery. The secession itself was over slavery. So the flag represents a government that was created so that they could keep slavery. It's not that hard to get.

The confederate flag was made because of the secession, and was used in the Civil War. Also the beliefs of the citizens and governments have nothing to do with flags.

Flags are the symbols of the governments and the peoples that they represent. They always become associated with what they represent. The Nazi flag is forever tied to the Holocaust and WWII, the USSR flag is forever tied to communism, and the Confederate flag is forever tied to the secession of the South and the US Civil War.

The confederate flag was made because of the secession, and was used in the Civil War. Also the beliefs of the citizens and governments have nothing to do with flags.

That makes as much sense as saying Iraq's flag offends me because Sadam Hussein was the President and his government was bad!But saying Iraq's flag is offensive because it symbolizes the (non-existent) Greater Arab Repblic could be a viable reason... :D

It doesn't offend me at all.

The south wanted to disassociate from the United States, and then made the Confederate Flag, slavery had nothing to do with it. Granted with the Emancipation the two ideas of disassociation and slavery fused, the Flag was created when the Civil war had nothing to do with slavery.
by the way, if you really are trying to say that the secession had nothing to do with slavery, you should read these

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

It doesn't offend me at all.

The south wanted to disassociate from the United States, and then made the Confederate Flag, slavery had nothing to do with it. Granted with the Emancipation the two ideas of disassociation and slavery fused, the Flag was created when the Civil war had nothing to do with slavery.

You know what, I dont find the swastika offensive either, I mean all that Germany wanted to do was to free themselves from the oppression of the west. Hitler was simply leading Germany to independence and the swazi stands for that. Not the massacre of 11 million non-aryans. Thats just a side-issue

You know what, I dont find the swastika offensive either, I mean all that Germany wanted to do was to free themselves from the oppression of the west. Hitler was simply leading Germany to independence and the swazi stands for that. Not the massacre of 11 million non-aryans. Thats just a side-issuePlease tell me your being sarcastic.

"CONFEDERATE FLAG SYMBOL OF EVIL AND HATE

Kweisi Mfume, President & CEO, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, today said the Confederate flag today represents evil in much the same way as the German Swastika.

"The NAACP believes it is time for Mississippi to have a flag that all of its citizens can support. This means one without the symbol of the confederacy," Mfume said. "Confederate flag supporters who are proud of the heritage it represents should understand that this includes the support of slavery and the belief that African Americans are not entitled to all of the protections of the Constitution."

Mfume said Confederate vice president Alexander H. Stephens made this clear in his famous Cornerstone speech in 1861 in Savannah, Georgia. Stephens said: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [in the U.S. Constitution that all men are created equal]; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone 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."

Furthermore, Mfume, said defenders of the flag should closely read the Confederate constitution that says: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any state of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

The NAACP Board of Directors has passed three resolutions condemning the display of the Confederate flag "in or on any public site or space, building, or any emblem." In the resolution passed last year, the Board of Directors noted that the Confederate flag and emblem is often displayed to make a "statement of public policy that continues to be an affront to the sensibilities and dignity of a majority of Americans."

The resolution also noted that groups that advocate white supremacy and opposition to the federal government often use the Confederate symbols.

The NAACP resolutions make no mention of the use of Confederate symbols on private property or for private use.

Founded in 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its half-million adult and youth members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors." http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/0148.NAACP.Flag.htm

The Finns were Russians for a while... :p

Um... please illuminate me. I'm not clear what you're saying.

The Confederate flag itself does not offend me. It's a bunch of colors on cloth. What the Confederate flag stands for, apologists notwithstanding, is outright bigotry, and that does offend me. It also stands for the single most devastating act of treason ever perpetrated against the United States, and that does offend me. The Southern traitors were not prosecuted for their treason because President Lincoln felt it more important, having successfully hammered the South into the dirt, to reunify the nation than to dispense justice on the slaveholders who instigated the war in the first place - but lack of prosecution makes them no less guilty of it, "definition of 'is' is" simperings from apologists notwithstanding.

That said, the First Amendment grants the right to fly it to private citizens. Someone who openly displays that flag can be no more surprised to find people assuming that they espouse the anti-Americanism and racism that it symbolizes than they would be surprised to find people assuming them to be openly gay if they flew the rainbow flag. Just because you choose to deny the symbolism doesn't mean that others will.

Fly it in a re-enactment, and the context of the flag changes; place it in a historical exhibit and the context of the flag changes. In either of these cases, the past symbolism of the flag (as a rebel battle emblem) is being displayed, rather than the modern symbolism of hatred and provincialism. Put it on your mudflaps and, lacking any other context, it takes on the racist meaning once more.

To put it into context: Wearing your bright orange jumpsuit with numbers on the back makes for a good Halloween costume. Put it on a few weeks later and go strolling around outside a penitentiary, and don't be too surprised if people get the wrong idea. The cloth hasn't changed, you haven't changed, but without the special circumstances to change the context, the dominant meaning reasserts itself.

Um... please illuminate me. I'm not clear what you're saying.The Grand Duchy of Finland was part of the Russian Empire before it gained independence when the Soviets took over.

by the way, if you really are trying to say that the secession had nothing to do with slavery, you should read these

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

You obviously don't quite understand the history of the American Civil war. The sucession had nothing to do with slavery until Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Until that point Abraham Lincoln did not care about slavery, and neither did Yankee soldiers.

Even Northerners at the time did not care about slavery and had predjudices, it wasn't until they made a black batallion under General Robert Shaw that there was any respect in the US anywhere other then the abolitionists.

And in case you didn't know, Abolitionists were considered radicals...

The Grand Duchy of Finland was part of the Russian Empire before it gained independence when the Soviets took over.

I understand that, but what's that got to do with the Hungarian?

I understand that, but what's that got to do with the Hungarian?Considering that they're both Finno-Ugric... Don't blame be please, it's three in the morning and I'm a bit sick... :p

Considering that they're both Finno-Ugric... Don't blame be please, it's three in the morning and I'm a bit sick... :p

Ah, got it now. The place he was being treated was somewhere near the Urals, though. Odds of a Finn (and I don't know how well Finns and Magyars understand each other, if at all) being there would be kind of slim...

Fair enough. It's 21.15 here. I'm off to the pub...

Ah, got it now. The place he was being treated was somewhere near the Urals, though. Odds of a Finn (and I don't know how well Finns and Magyars understand each other, if at all) being there would be kind of slim...

Fair enough. It's 21.15 here. I'm off to the pub...Well, the only national language related to Finnish that I know of is Hungarian. As they say, when the Finns and the Magyars diverged, half of them departed for the cold and reindeer and the others for the black sea and wine :D

I've known more than one Hungarian who steadfastly maintains they're not related to any other nationality in Europe. How truthful that is, well... I certainly don't know.

I've known more than one Hungarian who steadfastly maintains they're not related to any other nationality in Europe. How truthful that is, well... I certainly don't know.
Their language is related to Finnish, I'll tell you that much.

You obviously don't quite understand the history of the American Civil war. The sucession had nothing to do with slavery until Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Until that point Abraham Lincoln did not care about slavery, and neither did Yankee soldiers.

Even Northerners at the time did not care about slavery and had predjudices, it wasn't until they made a black batallion under General Robert Shaw that there was any respect in the US anywhere other then the abolitionists.

And in case you didn't know, Abolitionists were considered radicals...

You are obviously very mistaken. i suggest you do some reading on the subject.

What I linked above was the statements made by the states when they seceded. Only four gave statements but all four them said they seceded because they believed they were going to lose slavery.

You are correct in that the north didn't fight to end slavery. They fought to stop the secession. But the South seceded (and started the war, actually firing the first shots) in order to keep slavery. There is no room for ambiguity on that issue. I suggest you do some reading on the secession movement of the 1800's, which was ALWAYS about slavery and required regular compromises on the slavery issue to prevent secession throughout that century.

What are they teaching in school these days anyway?

But the South seceded (and started the war, actually firing the first shots) in order to keep slavery. There is no room for ambiguity on that issue.
Okay, maybe I can find a middle ground between the 'Was the war over slavery or states' rights?' question.

How about this interpretation:
-The Southern states seceeded out of fear from losing slavery, because there was a divide in where the power to decide slavery lay: the states, or the feds?

Okay, maybe I can find a middle ground between the 'Was the war over slavery or states' rights?' question.

How about this interpretation:
-The Southern states seceeded out of fear from losing slavery, because there was a divide in where the power to decide slavery lay: the states, or the feds?
If you like. But really the divide was over whether or not the south would get to keep its slaves. They weren't states rights fans for no reason, they had a specific agenda. And that issue was preserving the institution of slavery

Please tell me your being sarcastic.
I was illustrating how the pro-confederate flag people but moving location

It's not the flag, it's the people under it. If somebody thinks a flag is offensive, they don't really find the flag offensive. They find the people who believe in what the flag stands for offensive (Mind you, I have nothing against the Confederates, but I don't agree with slavery of any kind). That's why the masses think, for example, that the swastika is a symbol of evil. The Nazis abused that. The Nazi party was composed of people, not flags. If the Nazis were good and made peace with other countries, the swastika today would be what it really is, a symbol of peace.

hey guys, I really don't feel like reading through about 12 pages of some of this stuff..

Im just wondering, do you all know how the flag came to be? At the beginning of the war the confederate flag was mostly white, and when the commanders and what not waved it the soldiers were confused and thought that they were issuing a retreat.

Now this is were my heritage comes in, my great great whatever help design the flag. He was... don't quote me, Lamar Monroe Curry. (He was also a Lt. Col. in the calvary, was a ambassador to spain, and helped modernize the southern school system)

I never looked to the confederate flag as a sign of slavery, slavery was NEVER the cause of the war. It might of been a factor, but not the driving cause. If you read past the high school history books you find that Lincoln didn't really want to abolish slavery. I mean the slaves werent free untill after! the civil war started! Thats kinda weird to think if that was the driving force behind the Civil war.

Hmmm, maybe I should take offence to people bashing the confederate flag when I'm related to a guy that helped make it?

EDIT: OMG CAN THIS BE TRUE?!
MAJORITY OF FARMERS WITHOUT SLAVES.

It is worthy of mention that nearly every person looked forward to the time when family work or cares would be lightened by the ownership of a slave. Still, I have known hundreds of lawyers, doctors, merchants, farmers, preachers, mechanics who did not in their own right possess slaves. The majority of farmers had no slaves, but sometimes hired them by the year. These farmers worked their own fields side by side with the negroes and their children. The widely prevalent notion that the cultivation of cotton and tobacco at the South is, or ever was, dependent upon negro labor is an error, unsupported by fact. Far more than half of the present ten million bales of cotton have been produced by white labor. The stigma of "poor whites," so often used in derision and contempt, is unwarranted and grossly unjust. Many non-slaveholders and persons of small means have, in peace and in war, signalized their lives by all the virtues which ennoble humanity and advance civilization.

EDIT: Sorry just another little bit to add here..

Piety, church membership, was not the social standard, but integrity and proper treatment of slaves were. I have known wealthy men, according to the estimate of wealth in those days, indicted and convicted for the cruel treatment of their negroes. The counts of the indictment were insufficient food and clothing, over work and harsh and unusual punishment. The marriage relationship was sacred. A person divorced for other cause than the awful sin of adultery was tabooed. Separation of husband and wife was tantamount to social proscription. The family was the unit and relationship of the worthy to a remote degree was recognized, and the bond of fellowship embraced all except those who offended the laws of decency and honesty.

slavery was NEVER the cause of the war. It might of been a factor, but not the driving cause. If you read past the high school history books you find that Lincoln didn't really want to abolish slavery. I mean the slaves werent free untill after! the civil war started!

Well, since you aren't going to read the dozens of posts that refute this line of reasoning, here you go

Read this: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html These are the statements of the four states that bothered to publish their reasons for seceding. All of them list their primary reason for secession as their fear that they would soon lose their right to hold slaves.

Lincoln said he wasn't going to abolish slavery. However, he was also committed to stopping the spread of slavery to new states. The slave states were already outnumbered in the House, and as the country was growing at the time they knew that eventually the free states would have the numbers to abolish slavery on a nationwide basis. So they seceded. Because of slavery. And started the war, firing the first shot. Because of slavery. The war was about slavery. The Confederacy was created because of slavery.

And as far as the average person not owning slaves: (a) the average person iisn't setting the agenda and (b) the average person in the south was very concerned about having to deal with large numbers of free blacks in a post-slavery south.

hey guys, I really don't feel like reading through about 12 pages of some of this stuff..

[snip}

I never looked to the confederate flag as a sign of slavery, slavery was NEVER the cause of the war. It might of been a factor, but not the driving cause. If you read past the high school history books you find that Lincoln didn't really want to abolish slavery. I mean the slaves werent free untill after! the civil war started! Thats kinda weird to think if that was the driving force behind the Civil war.

Hmmm, maybe I should take offence to people bashing the confederate flag when I'm related to a guy that helped make it?



This was already rebutted in, among other places, posts 204 & 205.

Can you be bothered to read those two posts?

The rest of your post is a nice homily to the South and apologetics for the slave system, nothing more.

This was already rebutted in, among other places, posts 204 & 205.

Can you be bothered to read those two posts?

The rest of your post is a nice homily to the South and apologetics for the slave system, nothing more.
The level of denial in the apologetics for the Confederacy are astonishing. As with the holocaust deniers, overwhelming evidence is sometimes not enough.

I find the Confederate flag offensive because it represents a time where America should be truly ashamed. People who wave that flag proudly are representing the terrible time and it's way of life.

Why should anyone be ashamed of it? All civilizations practiced slavery at one time or another, and all of us, if you go back far enough, have both slaves and slave owners amongst our ancestry. The past can't be changed, and none of us living now were around back then, so why get bent out of shape over it?

Why should anyone be ashamed of it? All civilizations practiced slavery at one time or another, and all of us, if you go back far enough, have both slaves and slave owners amongst our ancestry. The past can't be changed, and none of us living now were around back then, so why get bent out of shape over it?
I don't see the point of sitting around crying in our beers about it, but I also think it is pretty terrible to be proud of it.

I don't see the point of sitting around crying in our beers about it, but I also think it is pretty terrible to be proud of it.

Exactically! We can be prooud of the best of our history, without celebrating our atrocities.

I don't see the point of sitting around crying in our beers about it, but I also think it is pretty terrible to be proud of it.

You're right, of course, but before anyone wails about it too much, we might want to look at the situation in Africa today, with all of the poverty, starvation, corrupt governments and wars. If not for slavery, most African-Americans today would be living over there instead of here. Regardless of the injustice done to their slave ancestors, none of which they've ever met, I'm sure that most African-Americans would rather be living here than in Africa. Take away slavery, however, and they'd all be over there.

You're right, of course, but before anyone wails about it too much, we might want to look at the situation in Africa today, with all of the poverty, starvation, corrupt governments and wars. If not for slavery, most African-Americans today would be living over there instead of here. Regardless of the injustice done to their slave ancestors, none of which they've ever met, I'm sure that most African-Americans would rather be living here than in Africa. Take away slavery, however, and they'd all be over there.
And hey, go look at a cancer ward. There are people suffering really badly there. It would probably be better to be dead. So really, if I shoot you in the face right now you should really be grateful.

And hey, go look at a cancer ward. There are people suffering really badly there. It would probably be better to be dead. So really, if I shoot you in the face right now you should really be grateful.

If that's a threat, I intend to report you to the webmaster and ask that you be kicked off the site. I might also contact the FBI, so I suggest you either make your intentions clear or change your tone.

And hey, go look at a cancer ward. There are people suffering really badly there. It would probably be better to be dead. So really, if I shoot you in the face right now you should really be grateful.

Jah Bootie, my mother is a cancer survivor and fought and fought to beat it and she did. My mother suffered but still fought.

I find this statement of yours to be offensive and I don't offend easily.

Jah Bootie, my mother is a cancer survivor and fought and fought to beat it and she did. My mother suffered but still fought.

I find this statement of yours to be offensive and I don't offend easily.
I rarely apologize on the internet, but I will this time. I'm sorry and I really should have chosen a better metaphor.

I rarely apologize on the internet, but I will this time. I'm sorry and I really should have chosen a better metaphor.

Thank you. No hard feelings from me :)

If that's a threat, I intend to report you to the webmaster and ask that you be kicked off the site. I might also contact the FBI, so I suggest you either make your intentions clear or change your tone.
Don't be ridiculous. I'm using a metaphor because your argument about slavery makes as much sense as making a murder sound like pre-emptive euthanasia.

Go to Africa and ask the people there if they would rather be slaves in America than live the way they do. I don't think you would have a lot of takers.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm using a metaphor because your argument about slavery makes as much sense as making a murder sound like pre-emptive euthanasia.

Go to Africa and ask the people there if they would rather be slaves in America than live the way they do. I don't think you would have a lot of takers.

We're not talking about today. We all have slaves and slave owners in our ancestry, if you back far enough, yet, if not for these ancestors, none of us would be, well, none of us would be, period. Since we can't correct the past, we can at least be grateful that the past occurred in such a way that we are who we are today. I'm not going to get bent out of shape by whatever my ancestors did or had done to them, I'm just grateful that they existed, period, or I wouldn't be here. If everyone felt that way, we wouldn't be dwelling on past injustices that can't, in any event, ever be adequately corrected.

And OK, I accept that you weren't personally threatening to shoot me, but you have to watch that kind of language. I was similarly threatened on a Yahoo message board once, and I didn't rest easy until I learned that the culprit was arrested, as he had made many such threats and had many complaints lodged against him.

For the most part,what we're talking about here is people dwelling on past injustices and celebrating those injustices. People are going to deny it, but outside of isolated circumstances, most people who fly the Confederate flag are doing so as a statement of solidarity with racist ideals. That's why the flag was put onto public buildings in the south during the civil rights era.

I personally think that it is ridiculous for someone to be upset at seeing the flag in a museum or in a display with an objective historical bent. But I don't really think that is the main thrust of the discussion here.

The flag itself does not offend me, but i do think it's idiotic when used as a symbol for southern pride. It's also very hypocritical considering the south's emphasis on patriotism. Bush's bumper-sticker mentality of supporting the troops and being an all-American patriot seems to resonate quite well in the south. Yet these are the very same people who wave a flag symbolizing exclusionism, secession? how is that supporting the troops who btw run under the flag of the U.S.? That's offensive in a time when being united is paramount. It's typical conservative hypocrisy.