NationStates Jolt Archive

Nowadays, the Confederate flag is used as a symbol of racism; however, the insinuation that everyone who flew the flag and found pride in it held the same extreme views is ridiculous. Not every Nazi rounded up Jews, not every Confederate cared that much about the declaration of the end of Southern slavery.

The Swastika is not a Nazi symbol, Hitler jacked it from somewhere else, a myriad of religions had been using it for years as a symbol of luck and peace.

Why is it that the Confederate flag is so widely visible while a flag like the Swastika or the runic SS signs aren't? I know it is "just a piece of cloth", or whatever it is displayed on. But to me it seems like a flag standing for openly racist ideals.

To many white people in the US South it is a symbol of their heritage and pride in their ancestors who held out during years of war under terrible odds and sacrifice.

This may be true but to me this sounds like a whole bunch of crap. It shows stupidity and a retarded view on history. This is like Europeans waving the swastika for their brave grandfather who heroically rounded up Polish citizens to use them as slaves or kill them because they were getting too intelligent (nazis tried to destroy the Polish intelligentsia).

Of course, everyone could associate a flag with something different. US flag might be associated by Native Americans as the banner waved by the people who destroyed and invaded their lands. And the Dutch flag may be offensive to people of ex-colonies whom the Dutch treated inhumanely. But like the Swastika the Confederate flag (to me) really stands for certain ideals rather than a land or province.

I have never ever seen the Swastika as a flag or big image in public if it wasn't in a museum or an exhibition. But it can be seen in some (mostly a bit crappy) cafés and some trucks do have it painted on them. And some chauvinist males who spend their lives driving around in motorcycle group from pub to pub (hells angels and some other semi-criminal unwashed men organizations) wear them on the back of their motor jacket.

To them it (I heard) expresses a "free life". Then I think, what was so free about it? Being around heroes like Quantrill killing race defying little children in Kansas? Or is it defending your glorious State from people who want to give those "dumb blacks" more rights? I simply dont get it. Why don't people wave around the Swastika (at least not here or in Germany). Some SS soldiers were pretty free at killing "inferior" peoples, basically like Quantrill.

What I even get less is what Dutch people are doing with that [the Confederate] flag. If it isn't racism. I associate it with drunk men with low paying jobs who think they are all that (aka white trash).

Do I misunderstand American history here?

Uhm...

People who wave the swastika flag nowadays tend to be pretty extreme. Not every Nazi killed Jews. But people who were Nazi believed in the Nazist system. Which included the expulsion/extermination of "sub-humans".

Also, how did you manage to reply to my topic on top of my starting post?
The clocks are out of sync on the severs or something, the post time is incorrect for some posts, and the board sorts them chronologically.

People who wave the swastika flag nowadays tend to be pretty extreme. Not every Nazi killed Jews. But people who were Nazi believed in the Nazist system. Which included the expulsion/extermination of "sub-humans".

Also, how did you manage to reply to my topic on top of my starting post?

Do the time warp! :cool: EDIT: Me too!

Yes, most fly it as a heritage thing rather than whitey ruelz, but you cant fly it over the American flag or a government building.

Just ask South Carolina. :D

Nowadays, the Confederate flag is used as a symbol of racism; however, the insinuation that everyone who flew the flag and found pride in it held the same extreme views is ridiculous. Not every Nazi rounded up Jews, not every Confederate cared that much about the declaration of the end of Southern slavery.

The Swastika is not a Nazi symbol, Hitler jacked it from somewhere else, a myriad of religions had been using it for years as a symbol of luck and peace.

People who wave the swastika flag nowadays tend to be pretty extreme. Not every Nazi killed Jews. But people who were Nazi believed in the Nazist system. Which included the expulsion/extermination of "sub-humans".

Also, how did you manage to reply to my topic on top of my starting post?

Because the CSA wasn't evil. It wasn't some kind of two-dimensional boogie man that went around "fixin' to lynch up some niggers".

The South had genuine reasons for wanting to free itself from Washington's control, largely because the federal government chose to schtick it to them at every available turn, (providing federal money to maintain Northern ports, but leaving Southern ports to rot, over-representing the North, etc.). Yes, the Southern states wished to maintain slavery, but not based on any racist principle, but because their economy depended on it. Indeed, before the Civil War the Southern states were attempting to wein themselves off slavery (with no help from Washington, I might add).

The North did not abolish slavery for humanitarian reasons, they couldn't have cared less about the rights of black people. Abolition was a deliberate and malicious attempt to destroy the Southern economy, and thus send sworms of economic migrants to the North to man the factories and workshops of the pocket-lining Northern senators.

Racism in the south was caused by the Civil War, not vice versa. The KKK was originally founded as a resistance organisation against the Northern occupation following the Civil War, eventually they turned their attention to blacks as they were softer targets, but the tensions themselves were exacerbated by the interference of the North.

The American Civil War was an Imperialist war. The democratically elected representatives of the Southern states reflected the view of their constituents that the South, having a separate culture and facing persecution within the Union, properly constituted a separate independent nation. And the United States crushed this dissent, occupied the dissidents' homeland and subjected them to discrimination.

And indeed, some Southerners still feel discriminated against today. It is no coincidence that the ex-Dixie states are the poorest states in the Union, and after hearing the average Northern Americans' view of their compatriots to the South, you would be hard pressed to argue that there is not any ongoing discrimination. To these people the stars and bars represents their nation, a nation that is oppressed by a Washington government that does everything in its power to keep them suppressed. I do not blame them for flying the Confederate Flag.

Not every Nazi rounded up Jews, not every Confederate cared that much about the declaration of the end of Southern slavery.Big difference there. Not every Nazi rounded up Jews; some were too lazy to get their hands dirty. There are minisculy few exceptions to the rule that Nazis were guilty of promoting or practicing genocide.

No ties to the confederate flag here, my ancestors wore blue and marched under the banner of the Union.

For most of the North the Civil war was fought "somewhere else". For the South it was part of their ancestry. I never realized this until I moved from Nebraska (where it was ancient history) to Missouri (where it effects every state decision).

The stories and family histories are passed. And people of the South don't move around as much as people of the North, so the histories become a part of the psyche of the culture. The county I moved to was part of "General Order #11" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_%E2%84%96_11_(1863)

The county took generations to recover and even today the area south of Kansas City develops slower than the other three directions. The North made no effort to develop the economy of the South until after WW2. That development has helped, but the generational memories are still there.

The flag is part of this memory of total destruction.

I suppose the swastika would be a similar memory to Germans if economic recovery hadn't taken place. Or in the case of the East an even worse destructive force.

There are minisculy few exceptions to the rule that Nazis were guilty of promoting or practicing genocide.

...Like my downstairs neighbour who, along with several of his classmates, were pressed into military service guarding bombed-out pillboxes outside of Danzig, where he'd grown up.

...Like my downstairs neighbour who, along with several of his classmates, were pressed into military service guarding bombed-out pillboxes outside of Danzig, where he'd grown up.
Germans =/= Nazis.

*nods*

Do I misunderstand American history here?
Yes. Most men fighting for the confederacy were fighting for the right to secede. Sure the war would never have happened without slavery, but keep in mind, not every slave state seceded, and the Emancipation Proclamation did not extend to those states. These Union states had slaves until the thirteenth amendment.
Robert E. Lee, the head Confederate general was not a slave owner. Grant, the head Union general near the end of the war, was.

are you seriously asking why no one flies the flag of a defunct foreign regime in the united states?


1) its a foreign flag

2) there werent many nazis in the united states nor have we had a big influx of ex-nazis

3) those who were nazis or whose parents or grandparents were nazis would rather not advertise the fact.

4) not enough time has passed to make the murderous regime of hitler seem romantic

5) ITS A FOREIGN FLAG

are you seriously asking why no one flies the flag of a defunct foreign regime in the united states?


1) its a foreign flag

2) there werent many nazis in the united states nor have we had a big influx of ex-nazis

3) those who were nazis or whose parents or grandparents were nazis would rather not advertise the fact.

4) not enough time has passed to make the murderous regime of hitler seem romantic

5) ITS A FOREIGN FLAG

OK...but that begs the question: do modern Germans happily fly the Nazi flag outside their homes?

OK...but that begs the question: do modern Germans happily fly the Nazi flag outside their homes?

No, because it's illegal there, however, here the stars and bars aren't illegal, neither is the Nazi flag.

Do I misunderstand American history here?

Yes.

Some people, stupid people, DO use the confederate flag as a symbol of white supremacy and racism, but the majority of the people who use it simply use it as a symbol of southern identity (which is something I wouldnt brag about, myself) and of the rich history of the south. Its like a native american wearing moaccasins with his jeans and t-shirt, or a christian wearing a cross necklace.

But it's still true that SOME hicks and rednecks DO use the flag like you say.

Did you know the Civil War is called the "War of Northern Aggression" in the south? Even in school.

Did you know the Civil War is called the "War of Northern Aggression" in the south? Even in school.

Considering that the south was utterly destroyed during a war that they didn't want...

But to me it seems like a flag standing for openly racist ideals.

Of course, everyone could associate a flag with something different. US flag might be associated by Native Americans as the banner waved by the people who destroyed and invaded their lands.

Confederate flag (to me) really stands for certain ideals rather than a land or province.

Being around heroes like Quantrill killing race defying little children in Kansas?

Do I misunderstand American history here?

Some who see the Confederate flag may see it as racist, but generally those who fly it don't. Most see it as "thumbing their nose" at the US government through an act of free speech. It's more like, "You may have won the war but you didn't win out hearts and minds. We are still independent thinkers and believers." Sort of the same as those that fly a flag upside down or with a marijuana leaf on it or a defiant symbol where the stars should be.

I know some Native Americans that do fly a tribal flag rather than the US flag for the same reason.

The Confederate flag does stand for ideals. Things like a dislike of large government, independence, self-sufficient, love of the land, love of freedom without government rules, etc.

Quantrill and others did some bad things, but so did the North. See the link on Order Number 11 that I included above. Everyone was ordered to leave in 15 days. Every person who didn't was killed, every animal was killed, every crop was burned, every building was burned. After the war, they only found one small cabin in the whole county. It was hidden in the woods so the soldiers missed it. They still have it and have a celebration honoring it each year as the only survivor of Northern invasion. In many ways worse than the treatment of the Japanese during WW2.

No, because it's illegal there, however, here the stars and bars aren't illegal, neither is the Nazi flag.
And you think that if it wasn't illegal, Germans would happily fly the swastika?

Because America allows a degree of freedom of speech, but the Swastika would be too much, namely because there are too many Jews and they would complain, understandably so, but also because the political parties would struggle for money without all the jewish gold they are given as donations, by the rich jews.

The Confederate Flag isn't instantly a flag or symbol of hatred.

And you think that if it wasn't illegal, Germans would happily fly the swastika?

Most? No, some might.

OK...but that begs the question: do modern Germans happily fly the Nazi flag outside their homes?

im sorry but that wasnt one of the questions.

as someone already mentioned, its illegal in germany. if it werent, there would be some who would do so. i cant guess as to what their neighbors' reactions would be.

Because America allows a degree of freedom of speech, but the Swastika would be too much, namely because there are too many Jews and they would complain, understandably so, but also because the political parties would struggle for money without all the jewish gold they are given as donations, by the rich jews.

The Confederate Flag isn't instantly a flag or symbol of hatred.

Um, yeah. And they control the US Government with mind control. You can tell, because they protect themselves from the effects of the meshuganah ray by wearing their brainpan protective gear which they call yamulkahs or kepis.

:rolleyes:

OK...but that begs the question: do modern Germans happily fly the Nazi flag outside their homes?Nah. It's illegal.

The county I moved to was part of "General Order #11"

*blinks* Well, hello, fellow resident of the greater Kansas City area! :)

[/minor threadjack]

Um, yeah. And they control the US Government with mind control. You can tell, because they protect themselves from the effects of the meshuganah ray by wearing their brainpan protective gear which they call yamulkahs or kepis.

:rolleyes:

Oh dear. Looks like the J-O-O has got to you too.

;)

Germany was able to put its racist past behind it, the south has not been able to do the same.

The confederate flag is the flag of slavery and treason - make no mistake.

Considering that the south was utterly destroyed during a war that they didn't want...

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

Why'd they start it then?

Here's a good bit...

In response, the Confederate cabinet decided at a meeting in Montgomery, Alabama, to open fire on Fort Sumter in an attempt to force its surrender before the relief fleet arrived. Only Secretary of State Robert Toombs opposed this decision: he reportedly told Jefferson Davis the attack "will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest.... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."

Considering that the south was utterly destroyed during a war that they didn't want...

The south was punished for its treason and its attack against America.

Its threat was beaten back, the patriots won, the slaves were freed and the country was saved.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

Why'd they start it then?

Here's a good bit...

The South wanted to secede peacefully. It had no grudge against the United States. It just wanted to leave.

Oh, and the Confederates only opened fire after Lincoln attempted to resupply the garrison.

The south was punished for its treason and its attack against America.

Its threat was beaten back, the patriots won, the slaves were freed and the country was saved.

Do you expect the people of the southern states (the rank and file, not the slaveowning elite) to just be all happy after their lives were destroyed in a war that the North chose to persue? These people, who had absolutely nothing to do with the war, had their property destoryed and their posessions stolen by Federal troops. Even as a yankee, I can understand their anger.

The South wanted to secede peacefully. It had no grudge against the United States. It just wanted to leave.

Then why were they the first to use force as a means to accomplish their goals?

Oh, and the Confederates only opened fire after Lincoln attempted to resupply the garrison.

The fact remains that the Confederate Cabinet authorized the use of force at Ft. Sumter.

You cannot state that the Confederacy wanted a peaceful resolution to the issue when they were the first to resort to armed action.

They knew war could result, and they went ahead and did it anyways.

"War of Northern Agression" :rolleyes:

...sounds like the revisionist musings of people who are sorry their ancestors picked a fight they couldn't win.

I wonder what things today would be like if there was a CSA.

I think Spike Lee made a movie about that.

I wonder what things today would be like if there was a CSA.

Then why were they the first to use force as a means to accomplish their goals?



The fact remains that the Confederate Cabinet authorized the use of force at Ft. Sumter.

You cannot state that the Confederacy wanted a peaceful resolution to the issue when they were the first to resort to armed action.

They knew war could result, and they went ahead and did it anyways.

"War of Northern Agression" :rolleyes:

...sounds like the revisionist musings of people who are sorry their ancestors picked a fight they couldn't win.

The confederacy did want a peaceful resolution, but they knew they wouldn't get one from Lincoln or the Republican congress. After all, Lincoln was constantly spouting about the "Indivisible Union" and all that jazz. The South would have loved to just leave without any violence. That was their intention. But, because of the words and actions of President Lincoln and the Republican congress, they knew violence was inevitable. They wanted peace, but they wanted their Independence more. One could equate the situation to the American Revolutionary War.

Do you expect the people of the southern states (the rank and file, not the slaveowning elite) to just be all happy after their lives were destroyed in a war that the North chose to persue? These people, who had absolutely nothing to do with the war, had their property destoryed and their posessions stolen by Federal troops. Even as a yankee, I can understand their anger.

They took up arms in treason, they could have shot the "slaveowning elite" and been done with the whole thing.

The south may have "wanted peaceful secession," but "peaceful" and "secession" are a contradiction in terms.

I may want a 'peaceful' fifty million dollars and a 'peaceful' night with scarlet johanson, but if the federal reserve or the lovely scarlet were to protest or resist, I couldnt both be peaceful and have my way.

The confederacy did want a peaceful resolution, but they knew they wouldn't get one from Lincoln or the Republican congress. After all, Lincoln was constantly spouting about the "Indivisible Union" and all that jazz. The South would have loved to just leave without any violence. That was their intention. But, because of the words and actions of President Lincoln and the Republican congress, they knew violence was inevitable. They wanted peace, but they wanted their Independence more. One could equate the situation to the American Revolutionary War.

"They wanted peace...that's why they shot first."

I'll never understand why so many people idolize some of the greatest groups of losers in history.

The Confederacy lost. Even as they won battle after battle in the early years, they depleted their resources that thanks to the Union blockade, they had no hope of replenishing. They never stood a chance. Why they even began that conflict, I'll never understand. Negotiations may have continued for years if they hadn't attacked Fort Sumter. Long enough to establish diplomatic relations with other countries. They were arrogant dolts so confident in their military superiority they didn't bother to consider the cost to maintain it.

The Nazis lost. They self-destructed. Why? For the same reason they came into existence in the first place: The whims of lunatics. They were about as stable as a skyscraper built in quicksand.

So why is it that people idolize and pattern themselves after such complete imbeciles? Because they almost won? Obviously not. They didn't. They didn't even come close. Because they fought for honorable ideals? Obviously not. Their goals were entirely selfish. Why don't people pattern themselves more after interesting groups? Like Hell's Angels? Now they are interesting! They have such a colorful history too! It's time for some new biker gangs! I can appreciate those! :)

The Confederacy lost. Even as they won battle after battle in the early years, they depleted their resources that thanks to the Union blockade, they had no hope of replenishing. They never stood a chance. Why they even began that conflict, I'll never understand. Negotiations may have continued for years if they hadn't attacked Fort Sumter. Long enough to establish diplomatic relations with other countries. They were arrogant dolts so confident in their military superiority they didn't bother to consider the cost to maintain it.

QFT.

Like Hell's Angels? Now they are interesting! They have such a colorful history too! It's time for some new biker gangs! I can appreciate those! :)

Start your own?

"Muddy Tacos"?

"Iron Testicles"?

:p

"They wanted peace...that's why they shot first."

If you think that war is inevitable then starting it yourselfly is sometimes more practical solution then waiting until your enemy is fully ready for it. For example if UK and France would had attacked Germany after Hitler remilitarized Rhineland in 1936 then it could had prevented many problems that Hitler later caused.

They took up arms in treason...

Treason is disputable thing. They were more loyal to state then to federal government. From one point of view they can indeed be seen as traitors. But same can be said about Founding Fathers of the United States.

About banning different symbols I think its completely pointless. Banning swastika has resulted neo-nazis simply finding and spoiling another symbols.

Olmedreca;12238612']If you think that war is inevitable then starting it yourselfly is sometimes more practical solution then waiting until your enemy is fully ready for it. For example if UK and France would had attacked Germany after Hitler remilitarized Rhineland in 1936 then it could had prevented many problems that Hitler later caused.

Except Germany wanted a war.

Did the Union want to go to war? We'll never know, since the CSA initiated hostilities.

No historical records that I have seen, however, indicated any military build up directed towards the southern states until after Ft. Sumter had been surrendered.

I'm still not buying it...

What I don't understand is why it is an issue. In this politically correct world, those holding views (ex: appreciating the Confederate flag) that others might find offensive, are expected to change their views or to remain silent lest they upset another. Why is it that those opinions cannot be accepted? If I say I like the flag as it represents a time in history where my predecessors stood against what they veiwed as an oppersive government, I am seen as white trash. Why are my opinons deneegrated and ridiculed? Why am I not allowed to hold my views without fear of castigation? If you don't share the same view, that is fine. Why am I expected to change and the other is not?

This does not hold just with this flag. Look at conservative Christian views. Those holding to the view that abortion or homosexuality is wrong are ridiculed and considered narrow minded or parochial. Why is it that there dissenting views are not allowed to be held by those who claim to be open minded? If one is open minded, then another's views and opininons, even though they differ from yours, must be respected as much as yours. If not, you are displaying the same narrow minded tendencies declaimed in the others. Hypocracy runs rampant.

Except Germany wanted a war.

UK and France thought that war can be avoided for long time. They were wrong and had to pay the price then war actualy started.

CSA probably wouldn't had started war there they clearly were a weaker side if they would had thought that it can be avoided.

btw, didn't Lincoln promise southern states right to keep slavery if they stay in union?(i have heard it from somewhere but as im not american myselfly I am not sure about it)

as the quote form Gettysburg " we should of Abolished Slavery then fired on Fort Sumter"

. But to me it seems like a flag standing for openly racist ideals.


Look what Google brought home!

http://www.thesouthernamerican.org/files/black_confederates.jpg

Because they fought for honorable ideals? Obviously not. Their goals were entirely selfish

Why is it okay to support Chechen rebels who want their nation to be independent, but not Southern rebels?

Except Germany wanted a war.

Not really, they just wanted back the land that was stolen from them. But that is another debate.

I don't see the confederate flag as a racist's symbol.

I believe that the Civil War was fought for many of reasons and slavery was practically at the bottom of the list. Closer to the top was to seceed from the North due to the North's arragance, the North taking and wanting full control over the South. The North's attitude was "Do as I say, when I say" The Southern Politicians did try numerous of times to talk and negotiate in the North but the North wasn't budging. Slavery was and is wrong but it's far from the main reason why their was a Civil War. In fact, a lot of the southern slaves volunteered to have arms on the South's side. You don't here much how some slaves were taken very good care of and had very reasonable housing compared to the immigrants who lived in roach and bug infested shacks (housing that would be condemned in today's times) I suppose you don't want to hear about that though.

To the ones who stated the South didn't have a chance are dead wrong. The North in noway overwhelmingly destroyed the South. The Southern States gave the Northern ones the run for the money. Anyways. here's a list of the "Ten costliest Battles..."

http://www.civilwarhome.com/Battles.htm

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

A war with atleast 620,000 total casualties isn't a war to be bragging about. It was a very deadly war and both sides lost a tremendous amount of people.

As for the Confederate Flag, it is mostly flown as Heritage and Rememberance, yes I'm sure there are some who fly it as Hate but they are not the majority.

I find the confederate flag quite pretty.

Considering that the south was utterly destroyed during a war that they didn't want...

No, they just wanted to continue treating people as property and beating the bejesus out of them for their pure exploitive gain. Nothing wrong with that now is there? I mean, who the hell were the people of the North to stand up for human rights!?

The confederacy did want a peaceful resolution, but they knew they wouldn't get one from Lincoln or the Republican congress. After all, Lincoln was constantly spouting about the "Indivisible Union" and all that jazz. The South would have loved to just leave without any violence. That was their intention. But, because of the words and actions of President Lincoln and the Republican congress, they knew violence was inevitable. They wanted peace, but they wanted their Independence more. One could equate the situation to the American Revolutionary War.

So they fought to retain the right to enslave people. These "rank and file" as you call them, did most of them help to free the slaves? Or were they just as racist as the elite and chose to look the other way as humans were beaten, tortured, and killed for monetary gain?

No, they just wanted to continue treating people as property and beating the bejesus out of them for their pure exploitive gain. Nothing wrong with that now is there? I mean, who the hell were the people of the North to stand up for human rights!?

yeah, those nice, fair northerners wanting to help those poor slaves, only abolishing slavery in Confederate states. :rolleyes:

I believe that the Civil War was fought for many of reasons and slavery was practically at the bottom of the list.To be fair, they did take the time to enshrine slavery (and pretty much mandate it) in their Constitution...

yeah, those nice, fair northerners wanting to help those poor slaves, only abolishing slavery in Confederate states. :rolleyes:

Well, considering there were not slave states except for the confederate states...What would you have the government do against people who were committing acts of treason? Did the British look at the colonies and say "sure, go ahead and start a country of your own we'll be fine over here?" No, they went to war to retain their land and keep their empire in tact. Even Robert E Lee wished to remain on the side of the union but fought for the confederacy out of loyalty to his home state. Listen, the south receives far more tax revenue than they contribute to this union so I think th tables are pretty well leveled in their favor. eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/pw/The_New_Welfare_States.pdf
I'd be more than happy to take my tax money back and they can keep the flag all they want. Until they successfully leave this union they will continue to fly the stars and stripes of the United States of America. I believe the biggest problem came when the government of South Carolina was flying the confederate flag above the American Flag. I have no problem with "pride" with the exception that it is one of the deadly sins. Being from the "bible belt" most people there should understand the pratfalls of excessive pride.

Well, considering there were not slave states except for the confederate states

Erm...what of Delaware...and Maryland (where Lincoln arrested several members of the State government and suspended Habeus Corpus in the first few days)...and Kentucky...and Missouri.

Brush up on your Civil War history, son. Then we'll talk.

To be fair, they did take the time to enshrine slavery (and pretty much mandate it) in their Constitution...

Indeed, slavery was a direct cause of the Civil War. But to say that slavery was the only cause would be fundamentally deficient. It conveniently ignores the fundamental differences between North and South. Even if slavery was abolished in the original Constitution, I believe there still would have been a civil war.

Well, considering there were not slave states except for the confederate states...

What about the border states that stayed in the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_%28Civil_War%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_%28Civil_War%29)

edit: Damn you TSI, I was distracted!

No, they just wanted to continue treating people as property and beating the bejesus out of them for their pure exploitive gain. Nothing wrong with that now is there? I mean, who the hell were the people of the North to stand up for human rights!?

The people of the North didn't give a shit about slaves in the south.

The people of the North didn't give a shit about slaves in the south.

Now, that's just as much a sweeping generalization. And just as wrong.

Slavery was one of the causes of the war. So was States' Rights - and I should note that more than one Northern state supported that cause.

The North was, by and large, both better-educated and more cosmopolitan than the South of that time. It was also richer and more populous. One major result of this was that they had more people interested in and knowledgable of philosophy and social justice, and more people with an idea of how the US was perceived elsewhere. Many of those people saw slavery as the great blight on the US's reputation, others as a hypocritical violation of the Declaration of Independence. Many people did, indeed, care about the slavery issue in the North.

As for the war itself - I can only say that I believe the Confederacy brought it's fall upon itself. While Lincoln was clearly in favour of keeping the Union together at all costs, I do not believe Congress would have signed off on a war with the South - without Fort Sumter.

The confederate flag you are refering to is known as the Stars and Bars. It was not the confederate flag. The confederat flag consisted of wide red and white stripes, with a blue square containing 13 white stars. The problem was that during the smoke of the battle, troops could not easily identify which flag was which.

As a person that lives in the southern US, NC, I have seen the stars and bars used in many ways. Nothing pissed me off more than when I was a police officer, having to stand in front of a KKK march, having to protect them and their right to assembly and free speech. Especially when they are yelling about the lowliness of the blacks and the hispanics. Of course, when someone threw something at them, they would run to the first police officer, white-black-hispanic, and demand that we protect their rights.

I have also seen the stars and bars used in social functions, used only as a symbol of southern heritage and having all types of races attend; with no racial intonation.

Unfortunately, the stars and bars had been hijacked many years ago by the KKK, and has even been used by the neo-nazi movement in the US as a rallying cry. The neo-nazis usually won't publicly fly the swastika, since that is a blatant symbol of hatred and racial purity as used by the nazis. So, they are flying the confederate battle standard, since it is not seen as racist as the swastika is. Guess what I am trying to say is that the confederate battle flag is not as scary as the swastika, and that is in the southern US where it is mostly happening.

Little incident that ocurred many years ago, after the KKK rally I mentioned above. I was a volunteer medic with the local rescue squad, and the KKK rally was held at that town. The PD that I was working with was asked to help with mutual aid. So, about a week later, my partner and I are dispatched to a heart attack call. The address sounded very familiar, and I told my partner that is where all those KKK's lived at. A week ago, these yahoos were trashing blacks and hispanics, and now, they could not wait for my parnter which was black, and me being hispanic to get there fast enough. After some snyde remarks by the peanut gallery, I told them that if they were that offended, I can leave and they can request an all white crew, but that as busy as we were, it would take about an hour for the other ambulance to get there. All of the sudden, they had no problem whatsoever with having a hispanic and a black giving their buddy medical assistance.

Y'all just be careful out there.

Vic

Thanks everyone for these five pages of information. It has been helpful and informative.

I can see why some Southerners may use the flag as part of their heritage. But it sort of gives me the same feeling as seeing the NPD waving the German Imperial flag. Or really, see anyone wave that flag. Which they (NPD and their kind) do quite frequently.
That flag isn't overly racist, but it is a kind of happy smile for a very bad character.

snip jewish gold they are given as donations, by the rich jews.

The Confederate Flag isn't instantly a flag or symbol of hatred.

Who else would give "jewish" gold?

:p :rolleyes:

Who else would give "jewish" gold?

:p :rolleyes:


Harlesberg is usually a sane poster...I hope that was a joke...

. But it sort of gives me the same feeling as seeing the NPD waving the German Imperial flag. Or really, see anyone wave that flag. Which they (NPD and their kind) do quite frequently.
That flag isn't overly racist, but it is a kind of happy smile for a very bad character.

This is one of the reasons why banning swastika is pointless. Main result is that nazis use and defile other symbols. German Empire could be considered golden age of Germany but if nazis use its flag then anyone else who also uses it immediately associates itsself with nazis by that.

Harlesberg is usually a sane poster...I hope that was a joke...

Agreed

In 2005 authorities in Tajikistan called for the widespread adoption of the swastika as a national symbol. President Emomali Rahmonov declared the swastika an "Aryan" symbol and 2006 to be "the year of Aryan culture" a time to: “study and popularize Aryan contributions to the history of the world civilization; to raise a new generation (of Tajiks) with the spirit of national self-determination; and to develop deeper ties with other ethnicities and cultures.”[9]

weird

Nowadays, the Confederate flag is used as a symbol of racism; however, the insinuation that everyone who flew the flag and found pride in it held the same extreme views is ridiculous. Not every Nazi rounded up Jews, not every Confederate cared that much about the declaration of the end of Southern slavery.

The Swastika is not a Nazi symbol, Hitler jacked it from somewhere else, a myriad of religions had been using it for years as a symbol of luck and peace.


The Confederate Battle Flag is not now nor has it ever been used as a racist symbol. Maybe a few people use it as such but I do not believe that the vast majority of those who flew the stars and bars did so as an expression of racism.

I believe that the Confederate Battle Flag (which is probably one of the top ten best American and US state flags in terms of beauty) was flown primarily as an expression of Southern Pride and as an expression of being pro-States' Rights (particularly in the South). Of the two, I think Southern pride is primarily the main reason. I think racism is probably the third most common reason. I am only hypothesizing here.

I do not think that Southerners are any more or less racist than Northerners. I do not think that the civil war was fought between the forces of racism and anti-racism. Anybody who looks at the civil war from that perspective is definitely looking at this historical event from a perspective that no serious and accredited historian of the period would share. At best one could quite coherently argue that the later phase of the war abolitionism was a motivating factor for the North to continue to prosecute the war despite losses that would make a modern liberal media pundit wet his pants and call out for his Momma (I am talking about the folks that think losing 3,000 people in a several year long war is a high casualty rate).

However, on the subject of Nazi flags, I think this is a different symbol altogether. There is a big difference between this flag and the Confederate Battle Flag. The Nazi ideology was based in racial mysticism and the top number one priority of Nazi Germany was the execution of Jews and other "racial misfits" (their concept not mine I can assure you). Even as germany was losing the war, valuable railway resources were directed to take Jews to death camps instead of moving the military around. This is my main basis for believeing that racial purity was more important to them than anything else even defense.

It is true that many Nazi party members may have joined out of convenience as party members received benefits in the Reich economy that non-party members did not. However, this is not representative of the ideology of the regime that flew the flag.

The Confederate Flag was the battle flag of the Army. Confederate soldiers and officers are heroes and were the better soldiers of the two forces. Many of the greatest American officers of all time were Confederate. We as a nation can be proud of them.

Now I do not know if Nazi Germany's army had its own flag. If they did, I think that such a flag would not be a racist flag. The Wehrmacht was not a racist genocidal institution although Jews and other undesirables were not allowed to serve in it. They should not be confused with some of the SS units who were in charge of death camps and the death squads that killed many Russians.

Nazi Germany's navy (was it called the Kriegsmarine?) did have its own flag. I believe that it contains two or three swastikas. This is not a racist flag because the navy had no part in genocidal activities. If it is flown at all I would imagine that it could be flown proudly by veterans of that navy or upon any memorials to those veterans. When brave men serve their country and fight and die without engaging in war crimes, they should be honored regardless of whether their side lost or won of if the regime was good or bad. It is the courage and honor of the soldier that should be honored. Of course, no war criminal should ever be honored. Their names should be associated with their filthy actions and despised forever and ever.

No, they just wanted to continue treating people as property and beating the bejesus out of them for their pure exploitive gain. Nothing wrong with that now is there? I mean, who the hell were the people of the North to stand up for human rights!?

The situation of the proletariat in the North was not that different from the slave in the South. Yes there was a vibrant abolitionist movement in the North. However, I would not say that the war was about human rights as slaves probably had it better than the miners and factory workers in the North with the exception of the fact that a slave could have his family ripped apart by a slave trade deal. Yeah that was pretty bad, but the actual day to day treatment for slaves who never attempted to escape was probably about the same. Slaves were probably treated better on a day to day basis because they were a valuable commodity whereas a worker in the bad old laissez faire days was just another replaceable cog in the idustrial machine to be discarded when he wore out or was injured at the mine or mill. It is for this reason of laissez faire economic factors that the slave was probably on the way out with or without the war. Cheap immigrant labor was probably more economical than slaves as sad as that is

The situation of the proletariat in the North was not that different from the slave in the South. Yes there was a vibrant abolitionist movement in the North. However, I would not say that the war was about human rights as slaves probably had it better than the miners and factory workers in the North with the exception of the fact that a slave could have his family ripped apart by a slave trade deal. Yeah that was pretty bad, but the actual day to day treatment for slaves who never attempted to escape was probably about the same. Slaves were probably treated better on a day to day basis because they were a valuable commodity whereas a worker in the bad old laissez faire days was just another replaceable cog in the idustrial machine to be discarded when he wore out or was injured at the mine or mill. It is for this reason of laissez faire economic factors that the slave was probably on the way out with or without the war. Cheap immigrant labor was probably more economical than slaves as sad as that is

And cheap slave labor is still very economical for many. From California to Alabama to the Northeast, it is prevalent everywhere. Go into any kitchen in a restaurant and you'll find Mexicans doing the cooking. The problem is that the government will not give way to a fair wage bill that will make it illegal by penalty of law to continue this bill. We have laws on the books that make it illegal but we do not actively use them. Child labor was still allowed in the period we are speaking of as we have come a long way from where we have been.
The vibrant abolitionist movement you speak of is why the comment "The North didn't give a shit about the slave in the south" is total nonsense. You didn't make that comment so please do not think I am attributing it to you. If flying the flag is a symbol of southern pride for you then I am not against the flag being used in that way. I believe that many people see it as a symbol of a bygone era where oppression and hatred were the order of the day. This is why many colleges and the NCAA have boycotted giving major $ to these areas until they take the flag down. The states have the right to fly the flag and the NCAA has the right to spend their money elsewhere. That's free market capitalism for you.

Well, considering there were not slave states except for the confederate states...
Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and especially West Virginia.

This is why many colleges and the NCAA have boycotted giving major $ to these areas until they take the flag down. The states have the right to fly the flag and the NCAA has the right to spend their money elsewhere. That's free market capitalism for you.

Well said. I can't make you not fly a flag I dislike, but I don't have to spend my money there. Like you said, it is a free market.

Vic

And cheap slave labor is still very economical for many. From California to Alabama to the Northeast, it is prevalent everywhere. Go into any kitchen in a restaurant and you'll find Mexicans doing the cooking. The problem is that the government will not give way to a fair wage bill that will make it illegal by penalty of law to continue this bill. We have laws on the books that make it illegal but we do not actively use them. Child labor was still allowed in the period we are speaking of as we have come a long way from where we have been.
The vibrant abolitionist movement you speak of is why the comment "The North didn't give a shit about the slave in the south" is total nonsense. You didn't make that comment so please do not think I am attributing it to you. If flying the flag is a symbol of southern pride for you then I am not against the flag being used in that way. I believe that many people see it as a symbol of a bygone era where oppression and hatred were the order of the day. This is why many colleges and the NCAA have boycotted giving major $ to these areas until they take the flag down. The states have the right to fly the flag and the NCAA has the right to spend their money elsewhere. That's free market capitalism for you.

It was not my post that "The North did not give a shit for the Slave in the South." Some Northerners (ie the Abolitionists) gave a shit for the Slave in the South as well as in the North. They wanted slavery outlawed. Lincoln really had a mess to deal with the various Republican subgroups and pro-Union slaveowning states. I think that people do not give him enough credit. I do not fly the confederate battle flag because I am a Northerner. I do admire the accomplishments and sacrifices of the Southern soldier and citizen in their war efforts.

I also think that the Civil War is a complex and fascinating historical event. I think that it is important to try to understand this historical event in the context of its own time. I think that efforts by the KKK or NAACP to try to use a revisionist historical approach to this war to suit their own ends is disgusting and an insult to the memories of the men of both sides who fought and died in that war.

Of course it is a wonderful thing that the KKK and NAACP have the right to voice their revisionist "beliefs." I find them offensive though. I think that if we are to try to truly understand the Civil War we should do so through historical analysis rather than trying to give it the meaning that most serves our particular ideology. It reminds me of George Orwell's 1984 where the Ingsoc Party talked about he who controls the present controls the past. As a historian I find that loathsome because the present belongs to the generation that lived it and we as historians are merely trying to figure out the truth about what happened and why.

Well said. I can't make you not fly a flag I dislike, but I don't have to spend my money there. Like you said, it is a free market.

Vic

How much does this flag bother you? Are you bothered when you see little confederate flags flying over the graves of Confederate soldiers? This does not bother me at all. It is the flag that American soldiers served and died under.

I'm offended by fuschia pants. I say we ban all fuschia pants! :eek:

Nowadays, the Confederate flag is used as a symbol of racism; however, the insinuation that everyone who flew the flag and found pride in it held the same extreme views is ridiculous. Not every Nazi rounded up Jews, not every Confederate cared that much about the declaration of the end of Southern slavery.

The Swastika is not a Nazi symbol, Hitler jacked it from somewhere else, a myriad of religions had been using it for years as a symbol of luck and peace.#1 I agree with your freedom of Speech principles.

#2 even if I 100% agree with you in principle.. this is a privately owned forum.
Violet (in person) ruled on the complain against the svastika.

#3 I am not aware of any ruling on the Confederate flag.

Great thread. I had this discussion once with a Mexican teacher in High School, which I won by demanding she remove her Spanish and Mexican flags from the wall since 'we won the war, baby'.

I say fly the Confederate flag all you like. It stands for defiance and liberty, to me.

Slavery aside, to the folks that say secession was treason...


The US Declaration of Independance:

...

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their **duty**, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

...

Now. Read it again.

Sounds like the rebel CS was more true to American ideals than the US itself, seeing as how Lincoln ran the country like a despot and pretty much trampled all over the Constitution and Bill of Rights, all the while claiming to defend and uphold those things. Although slavery had a large impact on the times, larger factors would have been state's rights and the self determination of a culture that, for the time, was completely foreign to those in the North.

Regardless of its original intent, the Confederate flag is now seen by (probably, I'll admit I don't have the research but it seems reasonable) a substantial majority of Americans as a racist symbol. The Swastika was originally a Jain (?) religious symbol, but the perception is now overwhelmingly that it is a symbol of hatred. Given that this is the state of popular perception, if you fly a Confederate flag (or a Nazi one), you will be perceived as a racist. Anyone flying those flags is presumably well aware of that perception.
I'd conclude that, in the year 2007, the Stars and Bars are a symbol of racism and oppression.

And as for people saying that the Confederates weren't traitors? Come on, folks. The definition of treason, in the Constitution, reads:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
You'd be hard-pressed to say that the Confederates weren't levying War against the United States and its legitimately elected government. The Confederate soldiers took up arms against the military of the United States of America, and killed several hundred thousand American troops. They were traitors.

Slavery aside, to the folks that say secession was treason...


Sounds like the rebel CS was more true to American ideals than the US itself, seeing as how Lincoln ran the country like a despot and pretty much trampled all over the Constitution and Bill of Rights, all the while claiming to defend and uphold those things. Although slavery had a large impact on the times, larger factors would have been state's rights and the self determination of a culture that, for the time, was completely foreign to those in the North.

Doesn't matter how supposedly "true to American ideals" the CSA was. They took up arms against soldiers in the uniform of the United States. By Constitutional definition, they were traitors. And I would argue that slavery was the single biggest reason for the Civil War. Even with all the issues other than slavery involved, I doubt violence would've broken out.

Great thread. I had this discussion once with a Mexican teacher in High School, which I won by demanding she remove her Spanish and Mexican flags from the wall since 'we won the war, baby'.
how do you feel about people buying a Pizza with mexican Currency in texas.

Doesn't matter how supposedly "true to American ideals" the CSA was. They took up arms against soldiers in the uniform of the United States. By Constitutional definition, they were traitors. And I would argue that slavery was the single biggest reason for the Civil War. Even with all the issues other than slavery involved, I doubt violence would've broken out.

By constitutional definition they were throwing off the yoke of opression and establishing a 'new Guards for their future security'.

The people of the CSA were tired of Northern tyranny, so they rose up, just as was layed out in the constitution. So, as members of a new nation, they were no longer bound by the 'rules' of treasonous conduct. They were a seperate entity, pursuing their own destiny.

how do you feel about people buying a Pizza with mexican Currency in texas.

I couldn't care any less. Their pesos < my dollars.

By constitutional definition they were throwing off the yoke of opression and establishing a 'new Guards for their future security'.

The people of the CSA were tired of Northern tyranny, so they rose up, just as was layed out in the constitution. So, as members of a new nation, they were no longer bound by the 'rules' of treasonous conduct. They were a seperate entity, pursuing their own destiny.
For starters, you're quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration, while quite eloquent, is in no sense a legal document. It has no bearing on the actual governance and functioning of the nation, even if it does lay out the ideas. Also, the definition of the "yoke of oppression" is not specifically laid out anywhere...by your logic if an al Qaida cell somewhere in the United States attacked this country, they could defend themselves on the grounds that they were fighting the oppression of a secular government. Doesn't matter what your principles are, if you take up arms against the legitimate government of the nation, you are a traitor.

Again, by the definition of the United States Constitution, they were traitors. There's no exception in Article Three that says "Unless you really, really believe in what you're doing." And "Northern tyranny?" What, the tyrannical government that wasn't letting them expand slavery? The Southern States were actively engaged in what is probably the single most disgusting abuse of basic human rights since the Founding of the nation. Anyone who was either actively supporting the system or sitting idly by while fellow human beings were treated as property deserves little but contempt. No matter what the historical period, there is no justification for that kind of oppression.

Again, by the definition of the United States Constitution, they were traitors. There's no exception in Article Three that says "Unless you really, really believe in what you're doing." And "Northern tyranny?" What, the tyrannical government that wasn't letting them expand slavery? The Southern States were actively engaged in what is probably the single most disgusting abuse of basic human rights since the Founding of the nation. Anyone who was either actively supporting the system or sitting idly by while fellow human beings were treated as property deserves little but contempt. No matter what the historical period, there is no justification for that kind of oppression.

I'm not defending slavery at all. Do I think the CSA should have risen? No, but I wasn't involved in the heat of things back then. I'm not a middling to prosperous landowner who would have been absolutely ruined by emancipation. I'm not a resident of a southern town who relied on local plantations for -everything-. Still, I'm in agreement with you: Slaver = WRONG.

However, to deny that the North was quite ruthless with the south's interests back then is absurd. The southern states were getting shit on politically and economically. There is no justification for slavery, but justification for revolution against a government that trampled your rights at every available turn? Sounds exactly like what the Continentals did four-score and seven years before. Rising up against a government, rife with corruption, that refused to allow the south an -audible- voice in the in their governing.

How much does this flag bother you? Are you bothered when you see little confederate flags flying over the graves of Confederate soldiers? This does not bother me at all. It is the flag that American soldiers served and died under.

Ph, there is nothing that bothers me about the confederate battle flag. As a matter of fact, being hispanic, there are those that cannot understand why I support the confederate battle flag at confederate graves. I guess that some persons are under the impression that my being a "minority", that I must also be easily offended. :)

I was referring to the comment I was answering. The SC state government was flying the confederate battle standard over the state capitol. The NAACP was placing an economic boycott on South Carolina, urging members not to vacation in SC until they brought the flag down. Another of the NAACP's boycotts was against the state of Georgia, which has the confederate baltle flag on its state flag.

I was referring that the NAACP has the right to boycott SC and GA, its still a free country.

Take care.

Vic

There is no justification for slavery, but justification for revolution against a government that trampled your rights at every available turn? Sounds exactly like what the Continentals did four-score and seven years before. Rising up against a government, rife with corruption, that refused to allow the south an -audible- voice in the in their governing.

Well, the South was entitled to, and received, full representation in the United States Congress and Senate as per the Constitution. You could argue that slave states had a disproportionately large say in government operations due to the three-fifths clause. The South definitely had a voice, a loud one, in the governing of the nation. Saying that they were a poor oppressed minority is about as ridiculous as people who say that religious people are oppressed by the current government (it's very ridiculous: there aren't any professed atheists in the White House, Congress, or the Supreme Court, to my knowledge, and over 70% of the nation is Christian).

It's class time, so I won't be able to respond for a couple hours. Just FYI.

Well, the South was entitled to, and received, full representation in the United States Congress and Senate as per the Constitution. You could argue that slave states had a disproportionately large say in government operations due to the three-fifths clause. The South definitely had a voice, a loud one, in the governing of the nation. Saying that they were a poor oppressed minority is about as ridiculous as people who say that religious people are oppressed by the current government (it's very ridiculous: there aren't any professed atheists in the White House, Congress, or the Supreme Court, to my knowledge, and over 70% of the nation is Christian).

Audible voice. Audible. Seems to me that as loud as the southern voices were, they went unheard.

Poor and opressed? Not at the time, but they could see where the northern-dominated Federal government was going to take them. But maybe they were wrong... Oh. Wait...

The vast majority of southerners were in favor of secession and self-government. I'm sure that today we can all look back and say it was for the best that it didn't work out for them, regardless of the hardships that followed, but at the time? Slavery aside, once again, they were a people who sought freedom and liberty but were ground beneath the boots of a despot who pissed on the ideals he supposedly set out to defend.


It's class time, so I won't be able to respond for a couple hours. Just FYI.

No worries. If I wander away forget about this thread, thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it.

From a purely communications point of view a symbol is just a symbol. It only means what the sender and receiver want it to mean. All meaning is in the mind, not in the object used to send the message. For that reason outlawing a swastika is silly. It takes nothing from the mind of the sender or receiver.

As for the Stars and Bars, again thee meaning is in the mind. If a person wants to see racism they will see racism. If a person wants to see honor and tradition, they will see honor and tradition. What is in the mind of the sender and receiver is what is important, not the symbol used.

At worst people who fly the Confederate flag are redneck a-holes. At best they're just trying to show who they are, ethnically. The real douchebags are the politicians who get elected playing the flag on both sides, like the ones in Georgia who made their state flag a virtual copy of the first Confederate National Flag, the political flag that really represented secession and slavery, instead of the battle flag, the apolitical symbol of southern Soldiers. But then, leave it to a Republican to come up with an idea like that. :headbang:

Doesn't matter how supposedly "true to American ideals" the CSA was. They took up arms against soldiers in the uniform of the United States. By Constitutional definition, they were traitors. And I would argue that slavery was the single biggest reason for the Civil War. Even with all the issues other than slavery involved, I doubt violence would've broken out.

They were only guilty of treason if they were still in the United States. The US Constitution applied to the CSA after secession just as much as Acts of Parliament applied to the USA after July 4th, 1776. While I intensely dislike the antebellum South I still believe they should have been allowed to leave. They probably would have had the Davis administration not made the monumentally stupid mistake of attacking Fort Sumter. Still, since they had left the Union they were about as guilty of treason against the USA as Canadians were during the War of 1812.

At best they're just trying to show who they are, ethnically.

And who are they, ethnically?

I think that all of this talk of whether the Confederates were traitors is a little off topic. Nevertheless I am going to throw in my two cents. A lot of the discussion so far has centered on the language of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Although I honestly do not think that the South was truly oppressed, I think that the focus should really be shifted in a different direction to truly get to the heart of the matter.

Not all government power is explicitly laid out in the constitutions of a government. For example our US Constitution gives the government the duty to pay for any property it takes but nowhere explicitly grants the Federal government the authority to actually take the property in the first place. Some people claim that the power to take property is implicit by the requirement to pay for taken property. Interestingly, many legal scholars believe that the power to take private property is an inherent right of any government and therefore there is no need to have it created in a legal document. Although I disagree with the latter position (I believe that all power stems from the people and therefore there must be at least an implicit basis in a social contract for a government to wield a certain power given to it by the people) I think that it is illustrative of what was really going on in the seccession movement.

As we all know, the Constitution'a articles and any amendments thereto must be ratified by the various states. Once the requisite number of states ratified the Constitution it went into effect. This raises the question of whether a group of states can unratify the Constitution? I think that this is really what was going on. If a number of states sufficient to block an ratification actually decide that they have changed their minds, do they have a right to withdraw their support? In other words, the states decided to join the Union. Does it follow that they can change their minds and leave the Union?

The federal supremacy clause seems to say that states do not have that right but it is not explicit upon the point. The ratification process language seems to support secession but does not do so explicitly. This is where highly abstract arguments of basic government powers comes in to play and seems to tip the scales in favor of secession.

The various colonies allied themselves in their overthrow of the British. The Articles of Confederation provided for the independence of the former colonies but created something sort of like the modern day EU to coordinate
commerce and defense and supposedly foreign relations.

These sovereign but allied nations ratified the constitution and more states joined the union. Were these nations free to change their minds? The Civil War may have answered this legal question with blood. However, the Constitution did not subsequently answer the question and we are a nation of laws and not of men so a war does not decide the point as clearly as many believe it did. I think sadly enough that the question is still undecided. However, since the Civil War, the size and role of the federal government has skyrocketed whereas the increase of the role of the states authority has merely ballooned. It all may be a moot point. Sorry for drifting off topic.

If somebody is proud of the "heritage" of their state seceding from the Union because wealthy white males wanted to own other human beings, then I think they ought to fly a flag proudly so that the rest of us know exactly what sort of person we are dealing with.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/35101

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/35101I like this one (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28559) better.

They were only guilty of treason if they were still in the United States. The US Constitution applied to the CSA after secession just as much as Acts of Parliament applied to the USA after July 4th, 1776. While I intensely dislike the antebellum South I still believe they should have been allowed to leave. They probably would have had the Davis administration not made the monumentally stupid mistake of attacking Fort Sumter. Still, since they had left the Union they were about as guilty of treason against the USA as Canadians were during the War of 1812.



And who are they, ethnically?

Commonly known as Hillbillies.

Nowadays, the Confederate flag is used as a symbol of racism; however, the insinuation that everyone who flew the flag and found pride in it held the same extreme views is ridiculous. Not every Nazi rounded up Jews, not every Confederate cared that much about the declaration of the end of Southern slavery.

The Swastika is not a Nazi symbol, Hitler jacked it from somewhere else, a myriad of religions had been using it for years as a symbol of luck and peace.

Yeah, but the flag is ingrained as a racist symbol, like the swastika. In the West, these symbols shouldn't be used. In Japan or any other eastern place, use them all you want.

Seriously, wtfs.

The nazi swastika is actually a backwards swastika.